1943-05-12

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is the mining of and distribution of coal and other forms of fuel considered or deemed to be a selective industry by the government?
2.	What federal aid or bonus, subvention or subsidy, is being given by the government to aid an increase of coal and fuel production in Canada?


MILITARY SERVICE-PRODUCTION OF COAL
Mr. CHURCH:: 1. How many have been called up for military active service who were engaged in coal distribution or delivery in Canada, during 1942, and to March 31, 1943?
Fourth Victory Loan

2.	How many applications by military districts were made for postponement or temporary leave to aid in coal distribution or delivery?
3.	How many of same were granted?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. KNOWLES:: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, memoranda, and orders in council, since the outbreak of the present war, relating to the establishment and/or construction of synthetic rubber plants in Canada.



FOURTH VICTORY LOAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) asked me yesterday if I would make a statement on the progress of the victory loan campaign.
The house will remember that a minimum objective of $1,100,000,000 was set for the fourth victory loan. This compares with an objective of $750 millions for the third victory loan, at which time $991 millions of victory bonds were sold. For the first time the minimum objective has been divided into two parts. The objective for special names, which consists chi'efly of corporations, was set at $600 millions, and an objective of $500 millions was set for individuals other than those included in the special names group. Figures received m Ottawa this morning as of the close of business last night show total purchases of S885 millions. Of this total there is $592 millions from the special names category, as against the objective of $600 millions. We expect that this part of our objective will be exceeded by a considerable amount. The objective of $500 millions for individuals must be obtained through the general canvass and through the payroll savings plan. The house will appreciate that there is considerable delay in reporting this class of purchase to headquarters in Ottawa, and it is impossible until some days after the loan to give an accurate figure in this classification. However, the recorded figures this morning show a total of $293 millions. Actual sales are known to be considerably in excess of this figure. I am informed by the national war finance committee that with four days to go in the fourth victory loan they estimate that a total of $400 millions is in sight -an amount already greater that the $375 millions obtained from this source in the third victory loan. The difference of $107 millions -that is, the difference betwen the $400 mil-
'Mr. Church.]
lions in sight and the $293 millions recorded is explained by an estimate of an additional $60 millions which it is expected will be obtained under the payroll savings plan and something under $50 millions of purchases in the general canvass resulting from the normal delay in receiving reports.
I would emphasize that the reconciliation between the actual recorded figures of $293 millions and where the canvass stands to-day is an estimate only. However, it is a rough measurement of what must be done during the next four days. The recorded figures without qualification would be misleading. It would appear, therefore, that we need at least $25 millions from the Canadian people, excluding the special names group, for each of the next four days if we are to attain our goal. There is a real task still before us, and I urge that in the next four days everyone who. has not already bought a bond consider his or her responsibility. I ask them to remember that every purchase is required if we are to meet the urgency of the present needs. Millions of Canadians have already bought bonds, but I ask these men and women to examine their budgets carefully in the hope that it may be possible for them to buy another bond, either by drawing more heavily upon their savings, or by taking advantage of the instalment plan. This will indicate that the Canadian people are responding with enthusiasm. I am confident that in the next few days Canadians will go forward with determination to complete the task which they have undertaken.



UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 11, consideration in committee of bill No. 76, for granting to his majesty aid for the purpose of making available Canadian war supplies to the united nations-Mr. Usley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 2-Definitions.
Mr. POULIOT:: The other day I mentioned shipments of Canadian wheat and Canadian meat to Russia in virtue of the legislation passed last year. The Minister of Munitions and Supply rose and said that this government had not sent any meat to Russia. He was playing with words, because the government had purchased meat from Canada Packers and sent it to Great Britain, and from there it was sent to Russia. I complained that Canada Packers had sold rotten meat to Russia. It

Mutual Aid Bill
was sent to Great Britain and thence to Russia. Was it rotten or not? What is just as bad as that meat-not for me, because I do not care about it, but for all hon. members -is an editorial which was published to-day in the Globe and Mail, of Toronto. It mentions-
-a venomous and quite baseless personal attack upon Mr. J. Stanley McLean, the president of Canada Packers Ltd.-
*-by the member for Temiscouata; and here is the language used by that daily:
. . . the monstrous insinuation . . .
Here was a member of the House of Commons abusing the immunity from prosecution conferred on him to east baseless aspersions upon the integrity of a leading Canadian industrialist who enjoys high prestige as a public-spirited citizen and a zealous supporter of economic and social reforms.
But neither Mr. Howe nor any other member of the government had the courage or sense of duty to castigate Mr. Pouliot as he ought to have been castigated for his charges. Six days have now elapsed since the charges were made, but beyond Mr. Howe's mild denial not a word of reproof for them has come from ministerial lips. Surely it was the bounden duty of the Prime Minister, the leader of the House of Commons and also the leader of the nation, to make the most vigorous protest in his power against this unfounded attack upon one of the most enlightened industrial leaders in Canada. Who, if not a Prime Minister who always poses as such an ardent champion of democracy and the traditions of parliament, can afford protection against the bandying of groundless defamations on the floor of the commons against a private citizen? If some effort is not made to provide such protection parliament will cease to be regarded as a dignified high court of the nation.
This article is shameful, and I defy any hon. member to make such praise of Stanley McLean in his own constituency, because he is public enemy No. 1 of the farmer, and it can be established on any rostrum in this country.
I have never been impressed by the slanders and insults of any newspaper. The dirtier the paper is the greater the compliment for the insults which are bestowed upon me by such sheets as that. I am a friend and a defender of the under-dog, and that is why such a sheet is so bitter against the member for Temiscouata. And, of course, what I said was true. What I said, that there were condemnations amounting to S7,000 against Canada Packers Limited in Quebec city, was true. But there was a judgment which was rendered by the King's Bench and which is not any more complimentary to Canada Packers than to the Department of Munitions and Supply. Here is the summary which was published in the Canadian Press:
Quebec. May 10.-Mr. Justice Lueien Cannon to-day upheld the appeal of Canada Packers Ltd. against their conviction on a charge of selling low-grade beef at high-grade prices.
The company had been fined $7,000 and court costs for the alleged offence several months ago.
Mr. Justice Cannon said in his judgment-
-delivered in the appeal court-
*-that at the time the offence was allegedly committed in June, 1941, the meat situation was so confused-
"So confused"-mark that!
-that if there was a lack of first-grade meat "lower-grade meat might have been sold at first-grade prices."
He added that "prices board regulations allowed the meat dealers at the time to set prices themselves and, at the time the offence was committed, it was difficult to set prices adequately."
Jean Paul Galipeault and Lionel Forsyth, the lamp-post of St. James street, as I have always described him, represented Canada Packers.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: 


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Don't bark at me. I rise to a point of order. I rather hesitate, Mr. Chairman, to ask you to give a ruling, but I think the hon. member is absolutely out of order. He is speaking about something local and this clause of the bill deals entirely with those things in which we deal with the allied nations. I rise to a point of order, because I think the hon. gentleman is out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the hon. gentleman cannot understand anything that is discussed in this house-[DOT]


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Not by you.


Jean-François Pouliot: -and I have the greatest compassion for him.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order.


The CHAIRMAN:: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the point of order?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I agree with the member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth). I have been listening carefully to try to determine some relevancy in the hon. gentleman's attack on Canada Packers and Mr. McLean, and I submit that what he says is not relevant. I am joining in this point of order because I think it is important that we should try to confine our remarks to the sections as they come before us. The rule is clear that discussion must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration. After all, the hon. member is making a severe attack on a concern and on an individual outside the House of Commons, and I submit that it is irrelevant.

Mutual Aid Bill


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I will show you the relation that exists between the question which is now before the committee and what I am saying. In the first place, I could have risen very well on a question of privilege at the opening of the house; I did not do so, and under the clause we are now discussing I have a perfect right to say what I have said. I will show the relation between what I am saying now, and what I have already said, and the clause we are discussing. In the first place, the other day I made some statements of fact which were not denied by any minister, and the Minister of Finance, who was here at the time, did not rise. I wonder if he does so now on account of the suggestion of the Globe and Mail that the Minister should rise in the house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wonder if I have not the right to call the Globe and Mail a dirty sheet?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: If the hon. gentleman will speak to the .point of order I will give my decision in a moment. Do other members wish to speak? If not, I would ask the hon. gentleman to confine himself to the point of order which is now before the Chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir; but I have to enter into a little detail for the benefit of the hon. member for Waterloo South. If it were other members my remarks would be shorter, but it takes longer to explain to him than to others.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Here is our so-called highlander making a little noise. It is a good thing for him. It is a pleasure to hear him in the house and I hope we shall hear more from him. I did not mention anybody. If the cap fits him let him wear it. The point we are now discussing is the shipment of meat to Russia and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I cannot say anything I will sit down.


An hon. MEMBER:: Good.


Jean-François Pouliot: But I have a right to speak, and when some members deny me that right they deny a right that belongs to every member. They do not know the day when they will have to exercise it themselves.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Speaking to the point of order-	.


Jean-François Pouliot: I object, sir. Please tell him to sit down.
rMr. Ilsley.]


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The point of order came first.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order arising out of the point of order, I submit to you that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is not discussing the point of order raised by the hon. member for Waterloo South. I submit that he is as irrelevant in his remarks touching the point of order as he was in the remarks he made which led to the protest from the hon. member for Waterloo South and from my colleague, the Minister of Finance. According to standing order 58, speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am discussing one point of order. The hon. gentleman cannot raise another point of order at this time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My point relates entirely to the consideration of the point of order raised by the hon. member for Waterloo South, and I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, with all respect, that my hon. friend is not discussing that point of order. That point of order must be disposed of after relevant discussion of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I object-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. The hon. member for Temiscouata yesterday or the day before commended me for the reason that I was in favour of free speech. I am still in favour of free speech, but I must point out that there is a certain decorum which we must observe, and I am bound to follow the rules. I am not master of the situation; I must be guided by the rules. I must therefore ask the hon. member to confine himself to the point of order. I will then give my ruling.


Jean-François Pouliot: I could rise at once on a question of privilege and drop the point of order, but I am not doing so. I am, however, discussing section 2 of Bill No. 76


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has no right to rise to a question of privilege when a point of order is before the Chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not; I did not.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Don't yell at me like that.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member is supposed to speak to the point of order and I must ask him again to confine himself to it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not rise to a question of privilege. I said I could have done so, but I did not rise to a question of privilege. Here is Bill No. 76 and under section 2 I am

Mutual Aid Bill
making certain remarks. We are not studying the section subparagraph by subparagraph, subsection by subsection. We are taking it as a whole. Now, in paragraph (d) subparagraph (iv) we are discussing "any agricultural product." Therefore any member is entitled to discuss now meat as well as wheat-any agricultural product. That is the point. With regard to the second question, I made a statement in the house on May 6 or 10-everyone knows when it was, although the date is immaterial and it can easily be ascertained- and for the satisfaction of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) I will not repeat what I stated then. I will refer only to the statement I made. This morning a Toronto newspaper which is connected with financial interests involved cast aspersions not only upon me but upon the leader of the government, upon the ministers and upon the whole house, because they did not protest when I made my first statement a few days ago. That is one point. The second point is the suggestion of that paper that ministers should rise in the house and condemn me for what I have said. The third point is the connection that exists between the statement of facts that I have made and the report of a judgment on sales of meat rendered by a Quebec court. Is it not all relevant to the question that is before the Chair now-any agricultural product or supplies?
Now, sir, I mentioned something in good faith the other day, and the only thing I missed was the middleman or the intermediary in regard to the shipments of meat from Canada to Russia. Because I missed it I was said to be wrong, although I was substantially correct; that meat instead of being sent direct to Russia passed through England to be sent there. There is a man there, the president of the company, and because I said that the president of that company was also the chairman of the aid to Russia fund-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must rise to a point of order. A point was raised by the hon. member for Waterloo South and supported by my colleague the Minister of Finance, and with all deference I submit that a ruling should be given by the Chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: A point of order cannot be raised on another point of order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have given the hon. member for Temiscouata some little time to state his own view on the point of order raised. The committee knows that we discussed the short title of this bill yesterday for several hours, and I took little exception to that discussion because I realized that on account of the wide scope of the bill some
latitude must be given. It is hard to draw the line, but the hon. member for Temiscouata is a parliamentarian of considerable experience; he knows the rules better than I do-


Jean-François Pouliot: I know them better than the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Pensions and National Health.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: -but I must say that bringing up a matter that was before a Montreal court can have little connection with this bill; therefore in all earnestness I ask the hon. member for Temiscouata to keep within the limits of the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have enough respect for you, Mr. Chairman, not to insist on my view, even when I do not agree with your ruling. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Pensions and National Health have risen often in their places to express views on parliamentary procedure that were far from orthodox. I do not discuss the present ruling; I abide by it, but I hope the Minister of Pensions and National Health will not play any more the role of jack-in-the-box in the Canadian House of Commons. If the Minister of Finance wants me to go ahead and speak about the matter that is before the committee I will do so. Once more I challenge the leader of the opposition, the ex-leader of the opposition and everybody to your left-


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Challenge your own side.


Jean-François Pouliot: -I will ask them why they have not complained of the fact that the Bank of Canada cannot reach a balance in the account-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: We are discussing lease-lend legislation. How is it that at page 5 of the statement tabled yesterday by the minister there is $17 million for which it is, impossible to render account by reason of the mix-up that exists at the Bank of Canada for the calendar year 1942, and S41 million for the year 1942-43? This is relevant to the bill. How is it that the ex-leader of the opposition with his magnifying glass did not say anything about it, although he rises so easily and is always so full of indignation? Why did they not support me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, we must either have the rule established or disregard it, that the discussion must be relevant to the item before the
Mutual Aid Bill

committee. The item under discussion is section 2 of the bill, which is an interpretative section defining certain terms. It is quite within the right of any hon. member to object to those definitions or ask questions about them, advocate other definitions or point out undesirable results that would follow from defining those terms in that way. But I submit it is not in order to deal with documents that were placed before the house, not under this item at all but as a matter of accounting for the disposition of last year's billion dollar gift.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I must call attention again to standing order 58, paragraph 2, which I read yesterday:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I have no other rule to guide me on that point. Again I appeal to the hon. member for Temiscouata, who is an old parliamentarian and who Should find it easy to keep within the rules of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sir, I hope you will have no objection to my resuming that discussion when the other clause comes up. Sometimes some hon. members are angry and prone to irascibility. What I do at times, when I have occasion to do so, is to defend the rights that we have here.
But coming to another question that is of great interest to all of us and also of great interest to the Canadian people at large, that, is the distribution of those goods-and I use the word "goods" in its widest possible acceptance, meaning arms, munitions, food and all that-if an order is sent by the British government to the Bank of Canada, where it has credit, it is to be presumed that any department of that government will make good use of the goods ordered. On the other hand, when dealing directly with any nation we should see that the goods so provided are properly distributed; that such goods, and particularly food and clothing, reach the people who need them. That is an important point. Recently I read an interesting article in a periodical entitled The National Review concerning the delivery and distribution of goods to the needy in time of war. Referring to China, for instance, it was stated that very often relief supplies sent to that country were halted on the way by Chinese capitalists who did not give the needy an opportunity to obtain that help. Is there any provision with regard to the distribution of food-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I must repeat that the hon. member is out of order. We are
rMr. Ilsley.]
dealing with section 2, which has to do with interpretations and definitions. The hon. member for Temiscouata should wait until we reach section 4, subsection (2), when it will be in order for him to make the statement he now desires to make.


Mr. HANSELL:: Before this section carries I want to say just one word with respect to a matter I brought up last night, having to do with section 2. In paragraph (d) there are several subparagraphs which define war supplies. It seems to me that just about everything under the sun can be included under this paragraph, and I am not objecting to that at all. My objection is to what seems to me to be the use of a great many words here that really are not needed. I say that not only because this complicates the bill but because it involves a vital principle, the principle of enumerating these various products coming under the classification of war supplies which really do not need to be enumerated at all in a bill of this kind. There is recorded in Hansard of yesterday a great list of supplies that were given to Britain under last year's billion dollar gift. I said last night that so far as I was concerned it did not matter one iota whether one type of commodity was included in this list or some other type of commodity was included, and I believe that contention stands in the light of what was said by the minister himself, as well as in the light of what the Minister of Munitions and Supply said last night in explaining what the discussion involved. n
I feel a little sensitive about this. Perhaps I might use the advertising in our victory loan campaign as an illustration. We might read an advertisement saying, "Buy a bond and buy a bomb." I am not going to discuss that; of course it does not come under this paragraph, but we are not particularly concerned with whether our bond buys a bomb or whether it buys an aeroplane, a ship or some food. We are not concerned with that; it is just good advertising to do it in that way. As a matter of fact a bond may not buy anything at all; it may be used to tuck away some money somewhere to avoid inflation. That is all right; I am not complaining about that. It is good salesmanship, and if I were head of the sales committee perhaps I would do the same thing. But, Mr. Chairman, to bring the same principle into the House of Commons here; to suggest that the billion dollar gift buys this thing, that thing and the other thing, I claim is an insult to the intelligence of this house, or the finance department are capitalizing on our ignorance, one or the other.

Mutual Aid Bill
The issue involved is not specifically the goods that are to be sent; the issue involved is that a credit of a billion dollars is to stand on our books to enable Britain to order what she wants. It is purely a financial arrangement. Therefore I am going to move an amendment, and if you will look at page 2 of the bill you will be able to follow me, since I have not had time to write it out. I move that paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and the word "other" in paragraph (v) of subsection (d) be deleted. Then the paragraph will simply read:	" 'war supplies' means such
commodities, articles or services as may from time to time be designated by the governor in council" and so on. Somebody asked what purpose is served by an amendment of this kind. My senses reacted and gave him this answer: "The purpose is that we may stop kidding the troops." Let us not fool ourselves in connection with some of these things.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The argument made for the amendment was remarkably meagre. It consisted of one statement, namely that if the section is left in its present form it will be "kidding the troops". I have not sufficient sublety to understand why. Perhaps my hon. friend could, if he wished, explain in what way we are kidding the troops when we draft the section in this way. While I am on my feet I shall state my objections to the amendment. It delegates to the governor in council powers of legislation which are undesirable, if such delegation can be avoided. It is desirable to be as specific as possible in legislation, and that we have tried to be.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I think this is just another example of the draftsmanship which characterizes the whole measure. This was copied, in part, from the lend-lease legislation, and an addition was made. Perhaps the minister would assist the committee by reading the interpretation of "war supplies" as it appears in the lend-lease measure; then he could explain why the additions have been made.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. Section 2 of the lend-lease measure is as follows:
As used in this act the term "defence article" means
(i)	any weapon, munition, aircraft, vessel or boat.
We used the word "ship" instead of the words "vessel or boat".
Mr. HANSON York-Sunbury): And that is better.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It continues:
(ii)	any machinery, facility, tool, material or supply necessary for the manufacture, production, processing, repair, servicing or operation of any article described in this subsection.
That is the same, it it not?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It continues.
(iii)	any component material or part of or equipment for any article described in this subsection.
That is the same. Then-
(iv)	any agricultural, industrial or other commodity or article for defence.
Such term, defence article, includes any article described in this subsection manufactured or procured by reason of section 3, or to which the United States or any foreign government has or hereafter acquires title, possession or control.
(b) The term defence information means any plan, specification, design, prototype or information pertaining to any defence article.
I do not think anything turns on paragraph (b). But instead of (iv) we have inserted paragraphs (iv) and (v), and we did so because we considered that the United States definition might be too restricted. It is:
Any agricultural, industrial or other commodity or article for defence.
' The argument might arise whether cigarettes, or something of the kind-certainly certain kinds of food-might be for defence. Therefor we thought we should empower the government to include in Mutual Aid-

such other commodities, articles or services as may from time to time be designated by the governor in council as essential to the conduct of the -war or to the relief and maintenance of any united nation.
That, in effect, means such other commodities, articles or services as are for defence, I should think, but not necessarily for the defence of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the rule of ejusdem generis apply?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not see its application. I do not think there is any kind of genus.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Probably not.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Paragraph (v) was designed to make it clear that there should be some latitude in selecting articles essential to the conduct of the war, or to the relief and maintenance of any united nation. Then, "services" is inserted although the word was not originally in the United States measure. An amendment has since been made to include that word. So that instead of leaving it to legal interpretation to decide whether a certain article is or is not for defence, we provide means of settling the matter by saying-
. . . such other commodities, articles or services as may from time to time be designated by the governor in council as essential,-
Mutual Aid BiU

And so on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was
built up on a different theory. This is for the conduct of the war.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. The United States act was passed when the United States was a neutral country. They were confining themselves to the defence, directly or indirectly, of the United States of America. That, in a sense, is true here; but I am sure that if we did not make it clear we could make contributions for the defence of other united nations, arguments would be raised.


Ernest George Hansell: When I referred to "kidding the troops" I did not, of course, have reference to soldiers in the army, but was making use of a common expression. I could have said "kidding members of parliament", or other intelligent persons.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In what way does it "kid" members of parliament?


Ernest George Hansell: My contention is it is not a matter of how we categorize or summarize the goods given under the bill. It is not a matter of goods, but rather one of credit to the extent of a billion dollars, standing in the name of any of the united nations the government may see fit to assist. That is the principle of the measure. I know that psychologically it may be a good thing for us to say to the people of Canada, "You are supplying Great Britain" or some other of the united nations "with this commodity" or that commodity.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is what we will be doing.


Ernest George Hansell: Psychologically it is a good thing to say that. This is said, anyway, so that it makes no difference. What I am saying is that the essential thing in the bill is the financial credit extended, and not the commodities involved.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is where my hon. friend is entirely wrong. He seems to think that this is a continuation of the biliion-dollar gift. The principle he describes was a gift of money, out of which goods were bought. The principle of this bill is that it is a contribution of goods-specific goods-and one must define the goods one contributes. That is the difference. When my hon. friend talks about kidding the troops or kidding parliament, he is kidding himself.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not so averse to kidding myself if eventually I find out the truth. May I ask through what channels of trade this will go? That might clear up

the situation. Are we to say that the board set up under this bill is to be the agent through which certain commodities go, and that they will go to the government agent in some other country, and that there will be no particular financial bookkeeping of the transactions? Is that what I am to assume?


James Lorimer Ilsley: If my hon. friend will look at clause 4-this should really be discussed under clause 4, but perhaps it is not too much out of order to discuss it now-he will see that the board will procure these goods in Canada and will "contribute, exchange, deliver, transfer title to or possession of or otherwise make available war supplies to any of the united nations." They will do so either directly or through such agencies as they see fit to select.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I really do not think we are getting very far with this discussion. I certainly agree with the first part of the minister's objection to the proposed amendment, that in drafting the bill it was desirable that the bill should be restricted. That intent has been carried out in subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), but the minister then defeats his whole thesis by putting in an overriding subparagraph (v) which gives wide open authority to the governor in council to designate anything- "such other commodities, articles or services as may from time to time be designated by the governor in council." It seems to me that the two positions taken by the minister are incompatible. I agree that the bill should be definite and certainly it should be restrictive. I can imagine, for instance, the protest that would be made in some parts of Canada if this government were to send beer to Libya, which I presume they have no intern-tion of doing, but which in the minds of a good many people might be a very desirable thing to do. That could be done under subparagraph (v). Is it necessary that the governor in council be given authority to designate anything as essential to the conduct of the war or to the relief or maintenance of any united nation? I do not think we ought to leave it as wide open as that. Yet if the government on their responsibility say that they desire this power on the theory that the definitions of war supplies contained in (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) are not wide enough,
I would not question their decision very much. As a matter of fact do not (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) cover the widest possible area of supplies? They exclude services, and I think there ought to be something in there in the nature of services, because we could

Mutual Aid Bill
render services which would not perhaps be categorically war supplies. I offer these comments merely to try to clarify the situation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The governor in council does not have to bother with any designating at all if the goods come within (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv).	*


Richard Burpee Hanson: Eight.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But when they move into the realm of doubtful commodities or some commodity that is not in (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) they have to take the responsibility of passing an order in council designating that commodity as essential.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
would that be, for instance? Can the minister give an illustration?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I can think of some, but if I were to mention them it would be thought that we had considered them and had them in mind. There are manufactured products which are of a civilian character which it might very well be argued-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Boots and shoes, for instance, for a needy nation? That would be all right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: How does that come into (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv)? I do not think it does.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, it would not.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I have not been able to follow the hon. member for Macleod in his argument in presenting his amendment. The language of the bill should be self-explanatory. It has been argued that there has not been sufficient detail in other sections of the bill.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Macleod has just sent me a note advising me that he wishes to withdraw his amendment.


Ernest George Hansell: I sent you that note, Mr. Chairman, to tell you that I would withdraw my amendment. I may not have been able to make clear to every member what was in my mind, but I am perfectly sure of my ground anyway, and regardless of whether others are able to see it or not, I may have provoked some thought. Perhaps we shall be enlightened upon the matter at some future time. I do not know that my amendment serves any particular purpose otherwise. But I cannot see why any commodity cannot be considered as bding in the category of war supplies. I cannot think of one that might not be included in that category. However, let that go. I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


James Arthur Ross: In the list of commodities inserted in Hansard yesterday by the minister appears "canned meats" to the amount of some five and a half million pounds. Would the minister give us some detail as to what "canned meats" covers? Is beef included under canned meats?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am sorry I cannot say. These are trade figures.


James Arthur Ross: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Agriculture answer?


Mr. GRAYDON:: The Minister of Agriculture is on the board.


James Arthur Ross: May I not have an answer from one of the ministers? Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot have an answer to my question?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have given a ruling on clause 2, which deals only with definitions. I do not think it would be in order to answer the question.


James Arthur Ross: That does not seem fair to me.


Mr. SLAGHT:: It seems to me that the usefulness of subparagraph (v) is apparent when we look to subparagraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). As I read them, none of them applies to drugs, chloroform, ether, surgical dressings or anything of the kind, and if we were here long enough we might think of a dozen other things that are not included in the specific terms of (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). I suggest that if we have confidence in the board to be set up we should leave in this general mopping up subclause (v).


Mr. GREEN:: Is the Minister of Munitions and Supply in a position to give the committee a statement concerning Canada's shipping policy? He heard what I said last night. It is important that we should have a statement on that policy as soon as possible.


Mr. HOWE:: Canada's shipping policy has, I think, been perfectly consistent from the beginning of the war. At the beginning we had no shipbuilding industry in Canada. We had certain shipyards doing repair work. When war came, the first necessity was to obtain escort vessels and vessels for the defence of Canadian ports. We immediately started a programme of building corvettes and minesweepers. This seemed to be within the capacity of the yards. It took time to build up the personnel of the yards, to train workers, and to produce that type of escort vessel. That work was carried on for some eighteen months at full capacity. By that time, we had met the requirements of the Canadian navy to an
Mutual Aid Bill

extent that permitted us to divert certain yards to other types of shipbuilding. In the meantime, in the period I mention, there was no lack of merchant ships. All the navies of the neutral powers had been pooled and put into the war service, and the shipping situation was fairly easy. It was, I think, late in 1941 that the first heavy sinkings by U-boats occurred.


Howard Charles Green: Was it not late in 1940?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It may have been, yes.


Howard Charles Green: That was when the minister himself was nearly sunk.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I was one of the first sinkings, I may say. Late in 1940 it began, and as 1941 developed it did change the shipping position from a relatively easy to a rather tight position. It was about the middle of 1941 that the need-not the Canadian need but that of the allied nations-for merchant ships arose, and at that time certain of our shipyards were converted to merchant shipbuilding. We undertook to build two types of merchant ships in that year. At the end of 1941 we had turned out four or five of our first merchant ships; and in the year 1942 we turned out over a million tons of merchant ships. Our policy, I think, was consistent; it was to build every Ship which our shipyards were capable of building. What we built was planned to meet the needs of the moment. In the early stages the need was for ships for our Canadian navy. There is still a continuing need for such ships, but our shipyards have been expanded to the point where certain of the yards can meet that need and other yards can be devoted to merchant shipbuilding.
When our merchant ships began to come out from the yards we had a very acute shortage of United States dollars and by the Hyde Park agreement it was agreed that the United States would purchase ships from Canada to provide Canada with United States dollars. We have consistently kept all the ships for Canada that we could man. My hon. friend mentioned the training schools. These schools were organized and have been very active and successful. But unfortunately it is impossible to train deck officers in a short time. By deck officers I mean captains and chief engineers and officers in the higher categories. It takes at least four years, under the most intensive training, to train a captain or a chief engineer. Fortunately we had prior to the war a few captains and chief engineers in the Canadian merchant service. These men have been utilized and to-day are captains and chief engineers of Canadian merchant ships. We borrowed a few officers from the British mercantile marine; but that, 
of course, is difficult, because Britain has the greatest possible need of officers of that type in her own merchant marine. As I say, we have manned every ship of our own manufacture that we were able to man. At the present time we have, I believe, sixteen or seventeen new ships in the Canadian mercan-. tile marine.


Howard Charles Green: They are all operated by Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are all operated by
Canadians under the Canadian flag. By the end of the season we hope to add quite a number to that fleet, and the number will be just as great as we can possibly man. We have sold a considerable tonnage to the United States for United States dollars to make up our dollar deficit with that country.
At the present time we are chartering boats to Britain on a bare boat basis. The title to such ships does not pass from Canada to Britain under the billion dollar gift, nor will it pass under the Mutual Aid bill. The cost of the ships may be charged to the Mutual Aid appropriation, but the ownership of the ships will remain in Canada and the ships will be chartered on a bare boat basis to the government of the United Kingdom. That is and will continue to be the policy. The Mutual Aid bill does not envisage the permanent transfer to an allied country of articles which have a post-war value. It is the policy of the lend-lease bill, and will be the policy of the Mutual Aid bill, that the post-war value of any article delivered to another country will be reserved to the country which supplies that article. Therefore ships are chartered rather than transferred through ownership.


Howard Charles Green: Is that true of the United States too?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: We are chartering ships to the United States?	[DOT]


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, the ships transferred to the United States were sold for dollars, and of course we are prepared to sell ships for dollars at any time; but if ships are transferred through Mutual Aid they are chartered rather than sold, and that is the policy of the United States in that regard as well.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I have allowed this discussion so far, although I believe it is out of order. Yesterday, under section 1,
" short title," the hon. member for Vancouver South was allowed, and rightly so, to make a statement. But we are now dealing with

Mutual Aid Bill
section 2, which relates only to definitions- that is, the definitions of certain words. There is nothing specifically before the committee at the present time, and I must rule that even the statement of the minister is not in order at this stage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, before giving your ruling will you not be good enough to give us some statement of your reasons-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I have given my ruling.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I rise to a question of privilege. Before the Chair rules, anyone is entitled to speak to a point of order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
entitled to be heard. I am making a point of order. Surely a member has a right to speak to a point of order before the Chair rules.


Mr. GARDINER:: The Chairman was on his feet.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have the floor. I ruled that the statement of the minister, although it was a good statement, was out of order. Further, let me express the hope that if , at all possible the committee remain within the limits of the clause we are discussing. I do not want to be dictatorial, as everybody knows.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out that the definition of "war supplies" is cited as meaning "any weapon, munition, aircraft or ship." I am trying to find out just what is meant by that word "ship"-whether that covers these ships which the government is making, or just what it does cover. I submit that my statement last night was in order, and also the minister's reply to-day, and furthermore it is a matter which is of vital interest to the Canadian people, because the whole question of Canada's shipping policy is involved.
I have two or three questions which I should like to ask the minister, having to do with his statement, and I ask that I be allowed to put them to him. I should like to ask him if he is free to give us the number, or the approximate number, of ships that have been turned over to the United States, and also the approximate number of the 300 which are to be built that will eventually belong to the Canadian merchant navy. I think it would be of great interest also if he would tell the committee why Canada is not represented on
the shipping board. I may be wrong, but I understand that we have no representative on that board. In view of the fact that we are building so many ships it does seem that we have a right to representation on the shipping board. Then he might explain how we go about getting shipping from the shipping board-what steps we have to take to obtain shipping facilities; also whether there is any plan to operate the Canadian merchant navy by the government in post-war days or whether it will be operated by private companies. It may be that no definite plans have yet been made in that regard, but I would ask the minister to explain the situation to the committee. My final question is whether it is not possible for Canada to build, as has been urged, a faster type of merchant ship so that there would be less risk of its being sunk.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When the war appropriation bill is before the house I shall be glad to give the exact figures of ships built, ships. transferred to the United States and ships retained in Canada. At the moment I have not the figures, but it is in the order of seventy or seventy-five ships sold for cash to the United States. The situation in regard to exchange is more satisfactory at the moment, and it is not expected that any further ships will be sold to the United States for cash in the near future. In other words, Canada will retain ownership of the balance of the ships built, unless an acute situation arises from a shortage of United States exchange and it is necessary for us to sell further ships and desirable for the United States to buy those ships.


Howard Charles Green: That would mean that we would have over two hundred ships less sinkings.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Those ships are being chartered to the United Kingdom and will be reclaimed at the end of the war. We hope to have at that time sailors and officers from among the men presently in the Canadian Navy. We expect that the Canadian merchant marine will be a substantial source of employment in the post-war years and that it will be of real benefit to Canadian post-war commerce. That is the policy. In the meantime we are following the same procedure as is followed in Britain. Canada is not operating her ships directly. They are turned over to an operating company known as the Park Steamship Company. The Park Steamship Company allocates ships to existing shipping lines which have over the years operated certain routes from Canada. These lines have their agents in the ports of call to be visited by the ships. The ships are chartered for one voyage only.
Mutual Aid Bill

They may be transferred from one operating company to another, depending on the service in which they are placed for a particular voyage. For example, if a ship is required to go from Canada to Australia it will be placed in the hands of one company. If that voyage is completed and it is desired to send the ship to England it will be transferred to another operating company. Similarly if it goes to South Africa it may be transferred again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under
charter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not under charter. The ships are operated for the Canadian government on a small fee. The earnings of the ship are for the account of the Canadian government. Those earnings are being placed in a special fund to write off the cost of the ships, so that at the end of the year a substantial part of the construction cost will have been paid off through earnings in the war years. That is the procedure with ships that are operated for Canadian account. It is impossible of course to say what the post-war policy will be. I may not have the privilege of helping to form that policy in the post-war years; I presume that is the hope of my hon. friend. I will hot therefore attempt to suggest what the post-war policy will be, but the policy that is now being followed by Canada in operating Canadian flag ships is exactly the same policy that is being followed by Britain and exactly the same policy that is being followed by the United States in operating ships in the war period.


Howard Charles Green: What about the shipping board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The shipping board is composed of two men, one representing Britain and the other representing the United States. Canada is not a large operator of ships compared with other countries such as Norway and some of the Mediterranean countries who are our allies. We have no difficulty whatever in dealing with the shipping board. The board has a representative in Canada, who is close to our controller of transport. The Canadian shipping board has a representative stationed in Washington, who is close to the combined shipping board. The government has felt that we are not sufficiently a factor in shipping to-day to ask for a place on the board. Perhaps we shall be in time, and if that time comes we may ask to be represented; all the combined boards are kept small in order to make them workable and effective administrative bodies. Our relations with the shipping board have been most pleasant. We are depending almost wholly on the shipping board

for our tanker allocations to bring petroleum products to Canada, and they have been fair with Canada, having in mind present needs from a number of countries for petroleum movements. It has been the same with space for overseas shipments to all theatres of war. From all the combined boards with whom we have had to deal we have had just, effective and quick decisions.


Howard Charles Green: What about building faster cargo vessels?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difficulty about building faster cargo ships is that to double the speed of the ship you must put in four times the engine capacity, and not only that, but with four times the engine capacity, to conserve space, it must be a very different type of motive power from that which is required for smaller ships. The Victory type ship being built by the Americans and the North Sands type which we built earlier in the war-we are converting the majority of our yards to the Victory type-are ships capable of making from twelve to thirteen knots. They are adequate for a ten-knot convoy, which is the fastest convoy operated to-day. They are ships designed by the world's most expert shipbuilders as the best value for carrying merchandise under present conditions. They are a splendid ship. Every practical ship operator to whom I have spoken has commented to that effect. They are well designed, well built, simple of construction and capable of mass production, which is most important. The engines can be built in an ordinary machine shop, and do not involve turbines requiring a very high type of workmanship. They have reciprocating engines and can be either coal-fired or oil-fired. The Victory ships are oil-fired and the North Sands are coal-fired. To-day ships of the "North Sands" or "Victory" types are the most practical method of obtaining tonnage to meet the present situation. So far as Canada is concerned, Tve are studying designs for a faster ship that will be suitable for certain trades after the war. We hope to have plans ready and to be able to convert for the production of a certain number of fast ships as soon as the war is over, but to attempt to convert today would mean the loss of a great deal of tonnage which cannot be spared at this time. Even to convert two or three ships to the fast type would disrupt any shipyard and cause considerable loss of production. Therefore I think that during the war years the United States and Britain and Canada will concentrate on ships of the present type and leave the faster ships for the post-war period.

Mutual Aid Bill


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister made what was to me an interesting statement. I am glad to think that substantial progress has been made with the shipbuilding programme. There are two or three points on which I should like to have further information. The minister said that as a general policy it was not the intention of the government to transfer these ships to another register; rather they were disposed to charter them on the basis he indicated. But there is one substantial exception to the principle, namely, the sale of cargo ships to the United States. I gathered from the minister's statement that that was done on the basis of necessity, in order to assist in obtaining United States exchange. I hope it would be the aim of the government to build up a substantial mercantile marine in Canada and that we should if possible arrange to retain all the bottoms that we l}uild. Operations after the war will of course depend on many considerations. I do not suppose we can ever hope to compete with certain European countries in low cost of operation for freight vessels. That is one of the reasons why the United States never became before this war the operators of a great merchant marine, because, for instance, they could not stand the competition of the low cost operation attained by certain of the nordic countries.
The minister indicated that there was a slowing up of the sale of merchant ships to the United States. I hope some other means may be found to balance our exchange situation than the sale of merchant ships, although I understand that the component parts of those ships comprise substantial imports from the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: None? Are we making in Canada all the steel that goes into the merchant ships?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our capacity fluctuates, depending on the need for steel for other things. We could make in Canada all the steel that goes into the merchant ships if there were not other requirements for our steel. We make all the engines, fittings, et cetera, here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to hear that, because it shows substantial progress in the production of this country. The people have every right to believe that this country will once more become a great merchant marine country as she was in the days of long ago. I am delighted to think that after considerable persuasion the government embarked upon this scheme of building merchant ships. I have no doubt we have made
a distinct contribution, and I hope that the policy will be continued, I do not think we ought to try to rival Britain or the United States in the matter of ships of great speed and magnificence, but should concentrate on commerce-carrying ships. I believe that is really what the government intends. I hope that as few as possible of these bottoms will be transferred to foreign register. The minister has given no other reason for transfer, and I hope the situation which would cause the transfer will be taken care of in some other way.
On the question of construction of naval vessels, is it true that experience has shown that the type of ship, corvettes, minesweepers and the like, with which we first started out was really too small for the services which they have since been called upon to perform, and that we are now building ships of a larger type but which might be described as in the same class? I understand we are building ships of a type called frigates, larger than corvettes. '
What has become of that large number of palatial yachts that were bought in a panic, shall I say, in the early stages of the war? I never could see that they were of a very useful type. I know they did not cost much, and the intent was probably good; we did assemble a substantial number of these ships from New York and elsewhere on the Atlantic coast, purchased in the name of private individuals for reasons of international law or comity at the time. What has become of them? Are they still in commission? I am afraid they do not serve a very useful purpose. I have even heard-I do not know whether it is true-that the fittings of many of those yachts have been brought to Ottawa and are now found in the offices of our naval department. I am glad to know that they are being put to some use. But the country ought to know how much we spent on those yachts, how many of them are still in service, and whether they are performing any useful service. If the minister cannot answer the question, I shall ask the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services to answer.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I submit that the question is not in order now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right;
I will get it under another section,


Mr. REID:: I should like to ask a question of the minister, following his remarks this .afternoon. I understand that- ships required for the government service are ordered through the Department of Munitions and
Mutual Aid Bill

Supply,, but I am curious to know who decides regarding orders for merchant ships. Who decides the number required?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The policy as regards merchant ships is settled by the governor in council on my own recommendation. I advise council what capacity we can devote to merchant ships after we have taken care of the needs of the navy; the policy is decided in council and the order is placed in the usual way by the Department of Munitions and Supply.


Mr. CHURCH:: I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply one or two questions. In 1938 he was Minister of Transport. I raised the question then in this house of opening up all over the great lakes and on the two seaboards the shipbuilding plants which had been closed up very largely all over the country. At that time I introduced a debate here calling the attention of the minister to the shipbuilding industry. The imperial conference had taken place the year before and among the various dominions there was discussion of the shipbuilding industry. That was six months before Munich. At that time New Zealand and Australia and many other dominions, seeing the war coming, wanted Canada to embark on a large empire shipbuilding policy. After this war is over we shall- have an extension of the lease-lend bill, to which I referred last night; that is the only way to rebuild the countries devastated by the axis powers. There will be a heavier demand for shipping space than there was even during the war.
During the last war, I think it was in 1916, when I was mayor of the city of Toronto and chairman of the harbour board, I came down here to see the then minister of marine and fisheries, who was the father of the present hon. member for St. John-Albert. We had spent over $30,000,000 of the money of the citizens on harbour improvements in Toronto. The government of that day opened up the Dominion Shipbuilding plant, which built the wooden ocean-going cargo ships which now are being built once more in many parts of the world. Having in mind the great lakes and the inland waterways of Canada I do not see why the government has not started to build these wooden ships again, not only for ocean service but to carry freight within Canada. We see trainloads of munitions all along the right of way, much of it no doubt held up for lack of shipping space as well as for other reasons. There are many shipbuilding plants in the province of Ontario, in the Georgian bay ports, along lake Ontario, lake Erie and

the St. Clair river right up to the head of the lakes in the constituency of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, which could be used for this purpose. I have raised this question in this house for the last eighteen years, and I ask the minister again to consider whether something cannot be done in connection with the construction of these wooden cargo ships. One of the ships built was called after me. It was sunk the third day of the war, along with the Athenia and all the rest of them; it went to the bottom of the sea with all on -board. I do not blame the enemy for that particularly, but I think we are getting very little for the money we spend in shipbuilding. Of course we had to start from scratch, and the government has done a great deal of good work, but we started too late. Why, three or four months after the war broke out the government had agents down in the United States trying to get shipping space. Six months before Munich I called the attention of this house to the fact that ships could be bought, some of them ocean liners, for as little as $50,000, the amount of the taxes and other assessments against them. I showed hon. members pages from the New York Times and London newspapers in which these ships were advertised for sale for almost nothing.
The United States was a little ahead of us in this regard; they started out to get their share of the world trade. We were said to be the fifth trading nation in the world, but we did not have the ships to carry our goods. The United States opened some of their shipbuilding plants; I saw them along the right of way of the Baltimore and Ohio, the Pennsylvania and other railways along the eastern seaboard. We were slow; we got far behind and never caught up. As I said in 1938, this country has spent a large sum of money on its canal system. We built the St. Lawrence waterway; many of the municipalities along the great lakes spent a good deal of money in developing their harbour facilities. We need ships for the grain trade, and there is not an hour to be wasted. In my opinion this bill is only the start; wait till you see the lease-lend bills that will be brought in after the war. We must pursue a different policy with regard to shipbuilding, an empire policy. What did Canada's delegates say at the shipping conference in London in 1937? They were asked to take part in the empire shipbuilding policy and their reply was, "We can make no commitments; parliament will decide." Parliament never heard of it.
I can tell you this, Mr. Chairman, that with the development of this country after the war

Mutual Aid Bill
we are going to have a great scarcity of shipping. Any remarks I made on the other side of the picture, with regard to our navy, were made because the situation was urgent at the time, and I still stand by them. I will admit that we have made a good start, but I ask the minister to consider once more the many good features of the wooden ships, such as those which were built by the Dominion Shipbuilding concern at the foot of Bathurst and Fleet streets in Toronto. At that time, toward the end of the last war, there was serious unemployment in Toronto, in Hamilton and in other cities right up to the head of the lakes, and the opening up of these plants did a great deal to provide work, along with the housing and reconstruction work that was carried on. I was told that some sixteen or seventeen classes of skilled mechanics were employed in the industries to which I have referred. I believe that under the lease-lend bill the government can borrow money at a fraction of one per cent, and I think we should embark immediately upon a vast shipbuilding policy to take care of the trade of the prairies and of the industrial provinces after the war.
This matter has been discussed in the house many times but nothing has been done. I have had some correspondence with people on the Pacific coast, and I believe they are also asking for the construction of wooden ships. Look at what ships of this type have done in the maritime provinces in connection with the fishing industry. Many of these vessels on the great lakes are convertible, of the whale-back type. They can go down the great lakes and the St. Lawrence to the Atlantic and all along the eastern seaboard to the great cities and towns of the United States. I do not believe we are going to have nearly enough ships when the war is over, and we should develop this industry to the utmost. Six months before Munich I asked that a survey be made of all our shipbuilding plants, because anyone who had his eyes open could see that war was coming, but we did nothing about it. What will be the result when the war is over, when we will be in a bad way for employment? These matters have been discussed by harbour boards and municipalities throughout Canada; they have been discussed at imperial conferences, and this government is going to be away behind the times unless it announces an empire policy in regard to shipbuilding. At the imperial conference of 1937 it was known that Britain, with five million more people than she had when war broke out in 1914, had less shipping than she had in August of that year. Again I ask the minister to look
into the possibility of making a start in the construction of wooden ships at Toronto and other cities along the great lakes.


Mr. JACKMAN:: In view of the fact that certain members of this house are more willing to spend money for our own war needs than they are to spend money for Mutual Aid, might I ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply why it is necessary that the cost of constructing these ships must be charged to the Mutual Aid bill rather than to our own war expenditures account? Of course I heard him say that after the ships were constructed they were chartered to one or other of the nations that had dire need of them, but it seems to me that it does not make very much difference whether we charge the cost of these ships, which perhaps will run into several hundred'million dollars, to our own war expenditures account and credit the rentals to our consolidated revenue fund, or charge it to the Mutual Aid account and thus offset depreciation and possible loss by sinking. It seems to me it might be better psychology on the part of the government, however, if they were charged to our own account.
There is another small matter in connection with what the minister said. He told us the earnings are to be put into a separate fund to offset depreciation and, I suppose, loss by sinking. Are these earnings actually put in the form of government bonds, and carried in a separate specific fund one could lay one s hands on, or is it simply a bookkeeping entry?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We charter ships to Great Britain at a dollar a year, or at a nominal sum. To charge their cost to the Mutual Aid vote is entirely consistent with the practice here and in the United States. The ships are built for the war use of another government, and as aid to another government. And even though ownership is retained here, I think it is perfectly consistent to charge the capital cost of the ships to the Mutual Aid account. Ships built to be manned by Canadians, and operated under the Canadian flag, are: not charged to Mutual Aid, They are charged to a direct government appropriation.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am not objecting. I do not care where the charge is made; but there is a certain feeling on the part of some that Canada is very generous-I think it is quite the opposite-in her financial treatment of her allies. From the government's point of view it might be better to charge these ships to ordinary war expenditures account, inasmuch as theoretically they are lasting assets. As to where the rentals go, whether to the con-
Mutual Aid Bill

solidated revenue fund, or the Mutual Aid account, is of no importance. If the fee received amounts to only a dollar a year, and if that applies to all cases, then the other question I asked, in which I pointed out that the earnings ought to be put into a special fund, falls by the wayside. Are there any other earnings besides the dollar a year? Or when the minister refers to all the earnings does he mean a dollar a year multiplied by 60 or 100, whatever the case may be?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our own ships, of course, are operated at a profit. I was speaking about Canadian flag boats. Earnings from ships operated as Canadian government ships are returned to the consolidated revenue fund, and the cost of the ship is written down proportionately. Where the ship is built and turned over to another government, under the Mutual Aid bill, there is no chance of write-down.


Thomas Langton Church: Would the minister reply to the questions I asked?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every shipyard on the great lakes, on the St. Lawrence river and in the maritime provinces capable of building wooden ships is building them at the present time. In fact I think several new yards have been opened for that purpose. The building of wooden ships is going on at a maximum rate consistent with the supply of man-power and materials available.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Those are not cargo ships; they are admiralty boats.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand the Park Steamship Company Limited is primarily a holding or a crown company. It is not an operating company in the ordinary sense, but does charter boats to the operating companies, including the Canadian Pacific. In that way it shows substantial revenues. Is that the considered and settled policy of the government in connection with the operation of the Canadian government merchant marine at this time, or is it only temporary?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Temporary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not intended as a permanent measure. Does the minister mean to convey the idea that later a settled policy of operation will be put into effect by the government? Will that be a government-owned and operated company, or does he propose to continue the present arrangement? Is it proposed to sell these ships to Canadian companies which will operfMr. Jackman. 1
ate them? If possible these ships should continue to be on Canadian register and operated for the benefit of Canadian commerce.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The present policy is the only one I can discuss. We have made no plans beyond that. Our policy is consistent with the policy of Great Britain and the United States in operating ships to meet war-time emergencies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not criticizing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are not looking beyond that at the present time.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: I
wish to say a word in answer to two questions put by the hon. member for York-Sunbury.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister said I was out of order.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: My hon. friend made a statement which I think was out of order, and perhaps I am out of order in replying. As I understand it, his first question was whether corvettes, minesweepers and other similar craft built in the early days of the war were too small and consequently had to be replaced by larger ships.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I did not say that. Do not put words in my mouth.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: What did the hon. member say?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has it not been found, from experience, that corvettes and other small war vessels, built by the Canadian government, as the result of the extended usage-and I shall add the word "extended"-to which they have been put by the Royal Canadian Navy, have been too small for those extended services; and as a result have we not had to build larger boats?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In war nothing is static. There is constant change, and things are always being improved'. Guns and tanks useful to-day may not be so useful next year. But as to the corvettes being too small, in view of the larger sphere of operation in which the Canadian Navy now moves, all I can say to my hon. friend is that in the early months of this year, within the space of five weeks, three Canadian corvettes sank three submarines in the Mediterranean. This would seem to indicate that, first, they are able to cross the Atlantic, and, second, they can fight when they get there. Even in to-day's paper I observe a headline indicating that in a great battle between a a convoy and a pack of U-boats four of

Mutual Aid Bill
the U-boats were sunk. From the names of the attacking British, vessels, I gather that two of them were corvettes of the same type as we use. I would not say that under present conditions corvettes are too small. They are being put to good use, and I think they can be put to good use for the rest of the war. That does not mean to say however that we will not try to get a better type of ship-in the shape say, of the frigate and destroyers. They are faster and larger. But that by no means indicates that the corvette has passed its usefulness.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not an answer to my question. What I asked was this: In the light of experience is it not true that the government is now building larger vessels of the same type?.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: We are building larger vessels, yes. As I understood him my hon. friend asked at first- and of course I have not the Hansard notes before me-whether these corvettes and minesweepers were not now found to be too small, whether in consequence the government had not turned to bigger ships. I will say that the frigates we are building now are larger than the original corvettes. That by no means indicates however that the original corvette did not fulfil a very useful purpose in the past, and that they are not doing so to-day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are we building any more of the same type?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes. Some of these are still being built, and the British are still building them. As I understood it, the hon. member's second question had reference to certain yachts secured by the Canadian government in the early days of the war. I believe he asked whether they were in use, or what had become of them, and also inquired as to certain fittings.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many were bought?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: I believe thirteen were bought, and that matter was made the subject of a return to an order of this house some two years ago. Of the thirteen, two have been lost at sea; one has been broken up; ten of them are still in use. As to the fittings of the yachts, I cannot say at the moment whether the fittings were brought to Ottawa, but I can get information on the point for my hon. friend. I know of no such transfer, but it might well be that
certain fittings which were of no use to these yachts, as war vessels, were brought to Ottawa.


Howard Charles Green: Are any plans under way at the moment for extending the Canadian programme for building steel merchant ships? The statement made by the department has been that the programme calls for 300 ships. I was wondering whether in view of the increased menace of the U-boat that programme is to be extended. I would also ask if it is intended to continue building these merchant ships in Canada after the war, or is the plan to shut down the yards at the conclusion of the war?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can only speak for the present. At the moment the policy is to build all the merchant ships we can possibly build. The position after the war will be reviewed at that very indefinite time. It may be ten years, two years, one year from now; I do not think anyone can tell. I would hesitate to say what we shall do after the war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister give us the cost per ton of building these ships under present conditions and under peace-time conditions? That would give us some idea whether it would be commercially feasible to go on building them after the war.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not care to give the costs. I know the present-day cost. It is lower than in the United States and compares favourably with the cost in Britain.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is fair enough.


Mr. SHAW:: Mr. Chairman, I have deliberately refrained from registering my strenuous protest against the continuation of this prolonged debate on ships and shipbuilding. Am I to conclude that this debate is permitted to continue as a special privilege extended to certain members of the house who are particularly interested in that matter, or am I to conclude that it is your ruling? There are many members of the house who could utilize the same period of time, and perhaps profitably, in dealing with machinery and other tools of war. In fact I am anxious to devote forty minutes now to a discussion of agricultural produce, if I am in order. I think we should have a definite ruling. We recall what happened to the hon. member for Temiscouata this afternoon when he took a bit of latitude, and I dare say that if I were to attempt to speak for forty minutes on agricultural produce I would be ruled out of order. I think we should have this point cleared up immediately
Mutual Aid Bill


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It was cleared up nearly an hour ago when I ruled that most of the discussion pertaining to ships was absolutely out of order. However, it is absolutely impossible for the Chairman, after he has given his ruling, to be dictatorial. But certainly the discussion is out of order, and I express the hope, as I did yesterday, that hon. members will keep within the limits of the clause before the Chair.


Mr. GILLIS:: I take the same stand, Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Red Deer. I am at a loss sometimes to understand exactly where things fit in. The roaming around this afternoon-


Mr. COLDWELL:: With the buffalo.


Clarence Gillis: We have roamed around and got completely outside the confines of the bill. Hon. members should stick to the clause under discussion. I, too, would like to discuss shipbuilding if it were in order. The ex-leader of the opposition laughs, but I notice that there are certain members here who monopolize the time of the house, get everything they want to say off their chest, and then vanish from the house for the next two or three days.
Let us stick to the clause under discussion, which is clear and specific. It has to do with the slight difference in the procedure this year from that of last year. Last year we extended certain credits upon which the British government called. This year, under this clause, it is specifically set out that instead of granting credits we are making available certain supplies essential for the prosecution of the war. I cannot see where the discussion that has been carried on this afternoon has any connection with this clause. We are sitting here spending time, and if we continue to discuss shipbuilding and agriculture and everything else that one could bring in, we shall never get finished. I should like to know from the Chairman if it is the intention to stick to the specific clause under consideration, or if we are all free to roam around and take in all kinds of territory. If so, I intend to enter this debate. I am particularly interested in the question of shipbuilding, but I would feel kind of foolish were I to rise and discuss shipbuilding or shipping on this clause. I think the point of order of the hon. member for Red Deer is well taken.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I think the kind of discussion that has taken place this afternoon should have taken place under the war appropriation. I think hon. members themselves must take individual responsibility for respecting the rules of the house, instead of making speeches that the public is interested

in, or as one hon. member said, dealing with a matter of great public interest, thereby implying that it is in order to discuss a matter *of great public interest at any time under any clause. There are things in this world that deserve respect. One of them is parliament and the rules of parliament. I have every respect for you, Mr. Chairman. You are in a similar position to myself. I cannot be jumping up all the time and raising points of order, because I would be losing as much time in that way. But if we launch into this war appropriation and wander over the whole earth on every single item simply because some member wants to make a speech on a matter of public interest, we shall not get through the session until the middle of the summer. One member rises in his place and makes a statement which in justice has to be contradicted by some minister or somebody else. I do hope that members will not leave it to the Chairman or to the minister who is piloting the bill to keep them in order all the time, but ask themselves: Is this within the rules? Out of respect to this institution of parliament I ask that hon. members try to make this institution function as it should.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I appreciate what the hon. member for Red Deer, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the Minister of Finance have said. I have given rulings time after time and cited the standing order requiring discussion in committee to be relevant to the item before the Chair. The Chairman cannot go any further. This is not a court of law and is far from being a school of rules. As has been so well said by the Minister of Finance, individual members must show their respect for the rules of the house. I have tried to confine the discussion this afternoon and yesterday, to the clause under discussion. I do not wish to be dogmatic or dictatorial in any shape or form, because I fully realize that every individual member carries a heavy responsibility for maintaining decorum and assisting in the proper working of the committees of this house.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Canadian Mutual Aid Board.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: The board to be set up under this section consists of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice. Last night the hon. member for Yale asked about apples, a commodity which is in the list we have before us, and to-day the hon. member for Souris asked about canned meats, but no reply was given although

Mutual Aid Bill
the Minister of Agriculture was in the house at the time and is a member of this board. Somebody must know about apples; somebody must know about canned meats, and there is no reason why we should not have been given that information.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The board is not in existence yet. It certainly was not in existence when the apples and canned meats were shipped to Great Britain. I assume they were shipped by private exporters. I am quite sure that that would foe the case with the apples. I think what happened with regard to the apples was that in the fall of 1941 arrangements were made for the shipping of a limited quantity of fresh apples, some in barrels and perhaps some in boxes, to Great Britain, and that some of the shipments went over in the early months of 1942. I believe that is the explanation of that item, and I do not know that it requires any more explanation. The trade figures show that apples to that value were shipped in 1942; they show that some meat was shipped, and to that value, not by this board. The hon. members for Souris and Peterborough West-seem to think that these were operations conducted by the board; but the board was not in existence.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The reason why I mentioned what I did was that the Minister of Agriculture was in the house when these questions were asked, and he is the one who should have answered them. If the Minister of Finance had given last evening the answer he has given now, it would perhaps have been satisfactory to the hon. member for Yale. If the members of this board which is now being set up do not, when we come here next year, give us the answers, they should not be on the board at all.


Howard Charles Green: The section mentions five ministers who will constitute this Canadian Mutual Aid board, but no mention is made of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In the preamble to the bill we find that one of the reasons for bringing in the bill is that there shall be no burdens on post-war commerce and nothing to lead to the imposition of trade restrictions or otherwise prejudice a just and enduring peace. It does seem that the Department of Trade and Commerce is vitally concerned with this bill, and yet the minister is not a member of the board. On the other hand we find that the Minister of Justice is a member of the board. I have no objection to that; I think he would be an excellent member; but I do not quite see why, if the board is to be limited to five, it should include the Minister of Justice but not the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are many other ministers who have a valid claim to appointment to this board-for instance, the Minister of Fisheries; also, the Minister of National Revenue, who is interested in the post-war movement of goods in that he collects duties on them; and so on. But it was thought advisable to keep the board as small as possible, and that this selection of ministers was about as appropriate a one as could be made. The Minister of Finance is much interested in trade agreements with other countries, if that is what the hon. gentleman is thinking about, and I do not know what else he has in mind in this connection.


Howard Charles Green: The whole bill has to do
with trade and commerce and the selling and transfer of goods. Surely that is the concern of the Minister of Trade and Commerce if it is the concern of any minister, and I am quite serious in making the suggestion thaj; he should1 have a place on this board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The contribution of these
goods is not within the duties of the Minister of Trade and Commerce or within the purview of his department; that is, generally speaking. There may be some duties related to it, but the main function or one of the main functions, of the Department of Trade and Commerce is the exploration and opening up of foreign markets, the finding of markets for Canadian exporters. That is not the object of this board at all. This is not a search for markets or an extension of profitable dealings with other countries. This is a contribution of war supplies.


Howard Charles Green: Take the case of China.
China should get all the help we can give her under this bill. In addition to that, China should be one of our finest markets after the war. That is very much the business of the Minister of Trade and Commerce; and steps might be taken under this bill which would make it very much easier for Canada to develop trade with China after the war. I suggest that the same is true of other nations, for example the nations of South America. We sent the Minister of Trade and Commerce there a year or so ago to try to promote Canada's trade. Surely it would be good business to have the minister who is most vitally concerned with the trade of Canada sitting in on this board, and I would ask the Minister of Finance to give that further consideration before the section is passed. I think that it is a very serious matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think this board
can function with one eye on post-war advantage and-
Mutual Aid Bill


Howard Charles Green: Why not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: -and) the other eye on
winning the war. Because both eyes must be on winning the war: that is why.


Thomas Langton Church: While we were on this
point last night I raised a question to which the minister did not reply, regarding the constitution and set-up by the governor in council of a board of privy councillors for this work. The minister did not give me any explanation about it last night. At Washington they have as administrator one man; none of the members of the cabinet is on their board. As has been said, the governor in council is a political board. I believe the Minister of Justice should be a member of the Mutual Aid board, because questions of international law and the legality of certain aspects of lease-lend are involved.
I cannot understand why this government since the start of the war has been appointing committees and controls and subcontrols and all that kind of thing. How does it come about that the government appoints a private commission to administer the affairs of a great public utility, the Canadian National Railways? And this work of lease-lend, during and after the war, will be a great public utility; yet a subcommittee of the cabinet is set up here. I do not see for the life of me how the government can face the country with its record of expenditure under this legislation by government bodies in this country. Why should we have a board for the Canadian National Railways, or for radio, and none for lease-lend? Why do we need Mr. Donald Gordon, who is a board in himself, spending millions of dollars just like water? Why do we not transfer that work to a subcommittee of the cabinet? With all due respect to the principle of this bill, ministers have enough to do in looking after their departments in peace time, with the war work added, without having to deal with lease-lend policy. The country does not believe in the set-up or the principle of this bill. As we know, the post office is a public utility, and a very important one, but there is a policy for that department. I contend that the whole set-up is wrong in principle, it is contrary to public policy. It is contrary to all grounds of public policy to have this lease-lend operation brought into politics. That is what will happen: Lease-lend aid in. munitions and food and timber and that kind of thing will be brought into politics, and the whole war effort will become a matter of controversy on party platforms all over the country and will add to our divisions. We talk a good deal about unity. Personally I have not been able to find much
I Mr. Tlslev.l
evidence of it in many quarters since the plebiscite bill. Is expenditure in all directions to go ahead by leaps and bounds?
We remember how the public works department was run; what went on around the great lakes, what was expended on railways, canals, branch lines, upon the financing of the Canadian National Railways, and all that kind of thing, under the political leaders away back in the twenties and thirties, when everybody had big eyes, waiting to see the estimates for the next year. The country does not believe in that sort of thing. If that is the way in which the money for lease-lend is to be spent in an effort to rebuild Europe, then I suggest that Europe will never be rebuilt. All that will be accomplished will be something that is intended to have its effect in the ballot-box.
As I said yesterday, the whole policy of the government, so far as I have been able to see it, since the war started has been to set up a great publicity bureau and to carry on political propaganda. The members from the Toronto district have never had a single invitation since the start of the war to attend any meeting in connection with the three armed forces or the victory loan or anything else. This whole lease-lend policy will be dragged into party politics. They have forgotten politics in Great Britain and they have tried to do so at Washington. The lease-lend programme is the only principle that can be applied if we hope to rebuild the countries that have been destroyed by the axis, but we have been here now for sixty-five days and we have had nothing but politics. Every day that we meet here we have presented to us some bill or another, and, from the first section to the last, it is nothing but a political measure. The governor in council can make rules and regulations so as to make this lease-lend policy applicable to countries which have been sitting on the fence waiting to see how the war would go. The lease-lend principle may be extended by order in council over the head of parliament. What is parliament for? If we persist in legislating in this way, we are simply giving to rules and regulations passed by order in council the force of statutes. That is what is being done by those who are in favour of the bill as it stands in the committee stage. The moment bill No. 76 passes, the regulations drawn up by the governor in council automatically receive the force of a statute which will bind this house for the period of the war and.bind parliament after the war on a new lease-lend to rebuild Europe. Look at the way in which the lease-lend fund

Mutual Aid Bill
is to be administered. All the causes of trouble will be found in the distribution of the fund, because that is where politics comes in. The whole principle of the thing is wrong; it is wrong on all grounds of public policy. It is badi enough in times of peace to have extravagance, but it is more fatal during a war when countries are crying for help. Do not forget that he that hath pity upon the poor lendeth to the Lord1. Instead of lending supplies, food and clothing to the countries of Europe, the government is going to mix this whole thing with politics from first to last.


Major James William Coldwell: I support the point made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. The point he expressed is valid and ought to be considered by the minister. If there is one minister, apart from the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who should be on the Mutual Aid board, it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is all very well to say that we have to win the war and therefore must keep our eye on the main objective. That is true; none the less we have to bear in mind that what we do now will largely determine what will happen when the war ends. We have to try to facilitate the passage of this bill, I admit, and we have apportioned the work among the members of our party so as to enable us adequately to express our point of view without continually repeating what has already been said. However, at the risk of doing that, I wish to support the hon. member for Vancouver South. I recollect that when some of us were in England we found that they were very much alive over there to the possibilities of post-war relationships in the realm of trade and commerce. I recall one particularly interesting evening we had. They are not neglecting to consider what will happen in the realm of trade and commerce after the war. They are hard-boiled business people and we should remember that when discussing measures of this description. I certainly think that while we are making this transfer of goods, and all of us are anxious to do so, we should remember that the Department of Trade and Commerce after the war may have to face different trading conditions, and the very agreements we make now, and the very goods we transfer, may give that department an opening when the war is over to continue along lines of sound exchange. I support the hon. member for Vancouver South, who in my opinion has raised an important point in connection with this particular clause.


Jean-François Pouliot: The section proposes the
formation of a board to be composed of a certain number of ministers to be called the Mutual Aid board. Mutual Aid suggests mutuality, but this will be unilateral mutuality, something never heard of before. The board is supposed to be composed of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice, acting as a committee of the King's Privy Council for Canada, to be charged with the administration of the legislation. It will be a small economic council within the cabinet. There is another committee known as the treasury board, but the treasury board decides absolutely nothing. All the work is done by some officials of the department. The deputy minister is supposed to be manager of the whole thing, or secretary-treasurer, I do not know which; everything is done underneath in the cellar, and when it comes up they show it to the ministers, but the ministers do not really know what it is all about. We have boards for everything, a board for this and a board for that, all aboard. Everything passes before the ministers' eyes just as the film of a moving picture passes before the eyes of spectators. They have not the time to see much of the picture, but they get an impression of the whole thing. The reel is turned very quickly, and they have no time to see each individual picture making up the whole scene, each decision. It passes just like that. They have a composite view of the whole thing. This is not only an interimperial kind of legislation; it is international. It relates not only to British countries but to the united nations. In my opinion, therefore, the first minister who should be on that board is the Prime Minister, who is Secretary of State for Externa! Affairs. He should be the first. The second one who should be there is the Minister of Trade and Commerce, so that he could see that our trade is not destroyed. I have high regard for the present Minister , of Trade and Commerce, and I approve the statement he made recently in the west that we shall look after our own trade. I stand behind him 100 per cent on that. So long as the name of this bill remains "Mutual Aid" and it deals with commercial matters, it is impossible to leave out the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
There are other ministers who should be on this board. Why select the Minister of National Defence but leave out the Minister of National Defence for Air? He should be there; there is no reason to exclude him. As soon as both ministers of national defence that I have already named are on the board,
Mutual Aid Bill

why leave out the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services? If the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services is on the board, is it possible to leave out the Minister of National War Services, a gentleman who has had a glorious military career, as has the Minister of National Defence for Air? And if wre take in those two gentlemen, can we forget the Minister of National [DOT] Revenue? He is most interested in all these matters, because the taxes to pay for them come under his department, and he also has a glorious military record. Then, of course, there will be a great many communications with other countries about the matter; therefore, how is it possible to leave out the genial Postmaster General, who is also a veteran of the army? The Minister of National Defence for Air says there will be shipments of fish to the united nations, and who is the man who is supposed to look after fish if not the Minister of Fisheries? Then there is the lumber to be sent out, and the expert on lumber is the Minister of Public Works, so that he also should be there. He has an intimate knowledge of Great Britain. Then there is the Minister of Transport who will look after getting ships to transport all that material. In case differences should arise between ministers, they would need a conciliation board appointed by the Minister of Labour, so that the Minister of Labour has his place there for that reason and also because he is a veteran of the great war. And the Minister of Pensions and National Health should be there to explain the rules of the house, so that they can go on with as little difficulty as possible.
Now, sir, you may think I have said this in a jocular way. Not at all. My contention is that these matters should be decided by the cabinet council. There is no reason to create a board like this. Every minister may on occasion be interested in dealings with other nations; why select only a few when they are so overburdened? I would not say that of the Minister of National Defence if he were not so perpetually acting minister of finance, but since he holds those two jobs at the same time I do not see how he would have any time to spare to sit on a board like this. I should have said that the Minister of Justice also has his place there. All the ministers have an interest in the subjects to be dealt with. The idea of creating these boards is to convey the impression to the public that the ministers consider each case carefully. But it is physically impossible for them to do so. Therefore, why not continue the old tradition and let the
government decide? Why create a board like this under a name like this, especially when no benefit is obtained?
Then "the Minister of Munitions and Supply shall be the chairman of the board." I object to that. It should be the Prime Minister as Minister of External Affairs, and the acting chairman should be the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is a man of great experience and who has the same ideas of trade.
(3) Tfie board, with the approval of the governor in council, may appoint and fix the remuneration of such officers, clerks and other employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of its business and for that purpose may require the services of any department or agency, or of any officer or employee of any department or agency, of the government of Canada.
I understand ministers need secretaries; that is in order. It will be physically impossible for this board consisting of five ministers to handle the tremendous task imposed on them. So that we shall have still another external government composed of selected men of whom it will be impossible to make any criticism in this house. We shall have to worship them, just as the Jews of old worshipped the golden calf. That we will never do. But that is what will happen; I tell the committee that in advance, and I am sure I shall have the support of my friend the hon. member for Lake Centre. I protest that this is bad legislation. Although I bitterly opposed union government during the last war, the union government never had recourse to practices like this.
What information shall we have regarding what is done by the board? Will it be any better than what we have about the accomplishments of last year in that respect? I do not think so. Therefore, on this 12th day of May, I register my protest against this proposal to set up such a board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If we are to continue this burlesque on the composition of this board, may I suggest that the Minister of Mines and Resources should not be left out of the picture. He is an old and experienced member of this house; he has been a member of the administration for a long time, and I do not know anybody who has less to do in the cabinet than he has. He has had extensive business experience, and I have no doubt he could bring to bear on the discussions of this board a great deal of business acumen that would be of advantage to the board.
Speaking seriously, I found that five of the busiest ministers are to be on this board. I quite agree that the Minister of Munitions and Supply should be chairman, because this board

Mutual Aid Bill
will be charged with procuring the material under this lease-lend system. The Minister of Finance is charged with the responsibility of obtaining the money that the board will disburse, and certainly there will have to be substantial treasury control. For the life of me I cannot understand why a busy man like the Minister of National Defence, whose mind must be riveted on the preparation for the great struggle presently before us, should be on this board. One of the theories on which parliamentary secretaries were appointed was that the ministers were so busy that they required assistance, and an under-secretary has been appointed to assist the Minister of National Defence. I think there is something in the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should be a member of this board, having regard to the observation made yesterday by the hon. member for Lake Centre that one of the terms and conditions that may be attached in connection with giving Iend-lease will affect post-war commerce. Speaking seriously, I think these considerations should be taken into account by the minister.
While I am on my feet let me say that I object to subsection 3. Why in the world should we have more government patronage in the selection of officials, clerks and employees of that kind, for this board? Where i3 the Civil Service Act; is it thrown into the discard? With every special case now, the general principle of the law, to which some people give sincere and devoted adherence and to which other people give lip-service, is being ignored. If this is proper, it is an admission on the part of the administration that the civil service commission is not functioning satisfactorily. It may be that it is swamped with work; but there is a principle at stake here, and I am going to ask the Minister of Finance to defend the suggestion that these appointments shall be made by the governor in council. We know what is happening to-day. Any job that is outside the civil service commission and that is worth anything at all is given to a government favourite. Any job in this country that does not carry with it any emolument but does require a great deal of public service, I notice they ask a Conservative to do. That is true all over the country. Who is carrying the weight in connection with this great national loan, in my town and my county, or for that matter in any town or any county? It is the patriotic members, of the Conservative party, who do not get one cent out of it and do not ask for one cent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think the hon. gentleman should say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is right, and I know it is right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You have no monopoly on patriotism.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not say that; but whenever there is a job to be done for nothing, invariably they choose a Conservative to do it. When there is a salary attached to it, then some partisan of the Liberal party is given the job.


James Lorimer Ilsley: A most earnest effort has been made in connection with the victory loan to keep it on a completely non-partisan basis.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not suggesting anything else; I went down to raise some money for it myself.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Members of both parties and for that matter of all parties have cooperated in the financial campaign, and it is most unwise and I certainly think most unwarranted to say that the Conservative party is carrying the burden of these loans.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is in my community, anyway.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then speak for your community. It certainly is not true generally, nor is the reverse true generally.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked some questions yesterday that as yet the minister has not answered, and under this section perhaps I have an opportunity to have those questions answered. Under this legislation, do war supplies include not only munitions but agricultural products and the like?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They may.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I should hope they would include agricultural products to a very considerable extent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Agricultural products may be sold, very largely. You see, this is not going to cover all the supplies that may be furnished to other countries; they will not be all financed under the Mutual Aid bill. Unless that part of our war effort is very considerably reduced, a substantial portion of those supplies will be financed by sale, as they have been in the past. I can conceive of a situation in which all the exports of agricultural products would be sold.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with lend-lease legislation, whether in the United States or elsewhere, I believe the foundation
Mutual Aid Bill

is the integration of production. Is that not correct? In other words, one of the important features is the integration of production of things where they can be produced most advantageously and utilized for the common defence.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The integration of production is not so far as I know, the foundation of lend-lease.


John George Diefenbaker: The point I am making is this. The minister has stated that this legislation is founded on the lend-lease system, and I think I have read all the reports in connection with lend-lease. In the explanation of lend-lease since the United States came into the war, the integration of production has been a major consideration, coupled, of course, with the common defence. Is Canada to set . out on her owrn path, or is there to be an allocation of foodstuffs, munitions and supplies by a central directorate?
The plea I make to the minister is this. If we are to collaborate with the other united nations, there must be some unity in the allocation of products. In the United States, so far as production is concerned, there are the combined raw materials board, the combined production and resources board and the combined food board, and I think we should have an assurance from the minister that Canada is to have representation on all these boards, not only on the combined production and resources board, which she now has, and which is concerned particularly with the matter of munitions and the like. Since Canada is assuming wider responsibilities than she has ever assumed before, in dealing directly with these various nations instead of working through Great Britain, in carrying out the scheme now being inaugurated I believe Canada should ask for representation on all the central boards that control the allocation of these products, in the interests of the community of effort and in the interests of certainty that each nation will receive a fair allocation. I think we are entitled to an assurance that Canada, which now has assumed additional responsibility and undertaken a larger share of the war effort than ever before, is entitled to representation on the combined boards in Washington, on which she is not now represented.
What will be the position? Canada's Mutual Aid board will meet in Ottawa. The chairman has a liaison relationship with the combined production board in Washington, but so far as foodstuffs and other agricultural products are concerned Canada will have no representation on the central board. I think we have a right now to some assurance from the minister that we shall have this collaboration with the other

united nations; that Canada will be assured of a fair share of the distribution of food among the united nations under this legislation. I should like to hear from the minister on this question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I certainly cannot give any assurance that Canada will have representation on these two boards.


John George Diefenbaker: Has she applied?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is a matter I should like someone else to deal with. The matter of representation on boards is one of high policy concerning which I should not like to make any statement.
The hon. member is right when he says that we are represented on the combined production and resources board, and not on the food board or on the munitions assignments board.


John George Diefenbaker: Or on the combined raw materials board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We are on that one.


John George Diefenbaker: We were not on it in February.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There are arrangements,
which I cannot describe, which give Canada a voice in the deliberations or decisions of either boards or subcommittees of boards dealing with matters affecting Canadian interests. I cannot give details of the arrangements, but they have been carefully worked out. The matter of representation on boards is not as simple as one might think.


John George Diefenbaker: What are the
difficulties?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The main difficulty-and I am speaking a little out of my province in making this statement-in deciding whether a country is entitled to representation on one of these boards is a matter of degree. There are now, I believe, thirty-two united nations. The question arises as to how many of those nations are entitled to representation on boards and, in the event of a nation becoming a member of a board, what is entailed in connection with the entitlement of other nations That is one of the main considerations.


John George Diefenbaker: Have representations been made urging that Canada be represented on the food board, so as to ensure that Canada's agricultural products will receive fair consideration in respect of allotment and distribution among the united nations.

Mutual Aid Bill


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should prefer someone other than myself to make a statement. That is a matter for external affairs, rather than finance, and one concerning which I should not like to make a statement.


Howard Charles Green: Coming back to the
suggestion that the Minister of Trade and Commerce be added to the board, I move in amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Eraser):
That section 3 of the bill be amended by adding after the words "Minister of Agriculture" the words "Minister of Trade and Commerce".
I would urge upon members of the government the acceptance of this amendment, because in my opinion it will strengthen the board and will be of great help to Canada, particularly in post-war years.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I would support the
amendment.
There is another point I should like the minister to consider. In respect of lend-lease furnished by the United States undoubtedly an eye is kept on post-war trade. Great Britain receives dried eggs from both Canada and the United States. The United States, while keeping both eyes on the war, still has a weather-eye out for post-war business. The packages of dried eggs from the United States are stamped with the blue eagle of lend-lease, while from Canada the dried eggs-or at least until some time ago-were not even ' packaged, and were used only by pastry cooks, and the like. The identity of our eggs was not known. We must consider our post-war trade. It is indispensable that we do so, and if there is one minister more than another, with the possible exception of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, who should find a place on the board, then surely it would be the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: In my judgment the committee is large enough. I believe five members is an ideal size. We want it large enough to take care of all the responsibilities which will devolve upon its members, and small enough to be effective.
While I am on my feet may I say a word regarding the board? In my opinion the government has been wise in selecting all members of the board from among cabinet ministers. All members will be directly responsible not only to the cabinet but to parliament, and that is entirely as it should be. Our experience with commissions has not been sufficently happy to justify our looking forward to the appointment of many more of them. At best
they carry on the business of the country in a fashion semi-independent of parliament. I like to see parliament in a position to keep a finger in the pie in respect of everything going on in this country.
Another feature which appeals to me in connection with the appointment of this board is that adequate power is given. We are having considerable difficulty in Canada to-day, because responsibility in certain places is too greatly divided. The result is that in certain of our activities no one seems to know who is responsible for anything. Confusion is widespread throughout the country, and this is a condition which certainly ought not to exist.
Let the decisions of this board be definite and certain. Let everyone know what they are to do, and let no one be on the board to override its decisions. I believe the hon. member for Broadview has shown vision with respect to the possible functions of the board.
Perhaps one day this board will be the most important in Canada, because it affects our lives. Even now it carries very heavy responsibilities, and it is entering upon the performance of duties vital not only to our war effort but to the reconstruction effort and our peace effort in years far beyond the peace treaty.
Some day there will come into the Department of Finance in Canada someone who will have realistic views. From that time forward I trust there will be a realistic conception of financial matters. Someone, some day, will find out, in the Department of Finance, how we can make financially possible what is physically possible, rather than merely talk about it. When that day comes we shall find wonderful things being performed in this country and throughout the world, and they will be performed largely through the activities of this board. We shall then proceed confidently to develop in Canada a standard of living which will conform to the ability of Canadians to produce goods and services.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



RIGHT HON. WINSTON CHURCHILL PARTICIPATION OP CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER IN WASHINGTON CONFERENCE-INABILITY OF MR. CHURCHILL TO VISIT CANADA

Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, before adjournment I should like to revert to a question I had intended asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) before proceeding to orders
Mutual Aid Bill

of the day. However, on account of his absence on official business I was unable to do so at that time. If I may have the consent of the house I should like to do so how on account of the urgency of the matter.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Consent.


Gordon Graydon: In view of the fact that the Right Hon. Winston Churchill has arrived in Washington, would the Prime Minister care to indicate to the house whether or not arrangements have been made for Mr. Churchill to visit Canada while he is on this continent, and also whether the Prime Minister of Canada will be participating in the Washington conversations?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I regret I was not in the house when the orders of the day were reached to-day. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) had sent me a copy of the question which he has just asked. I was on the point of rising to reply to it when he rose just now and asked his question.
May I say that as soon as I learned that Mr. Churchill and his party had safely arrived in Washington I sent a telegram to Mr. Churchill to say how great our satisfaction was to learn of his arrival safely in America, and would he please accept my warmest personal greetings and a welcome equally warm on behalf of my colleagues in the government and indeed on behalf of the parliament and people of Canada. I added:
I certainly shall be asked in the House of Commons to-morrow if it is possible that you will be able to visit Ottawa before your return to Britain. If that can be arranged at all I need not tell you how delighted we all would be to see you again.
I concluded with best wishes. I have received from Mr. Churchill this morning a wire in reply to my message. I shall quote the part which relates directly to the possibility of a visit to Canada:
I thank you for your most kind and cordial welcome. I feel that my work here will preclude another visit to Canada on this occasion, much though I would enjoy it.
The rest of the telegram refers to. other matters relating to the conference and touches in part on the question asked by the leader of the opposition, whether the Prime Minister of Canada will be participating in the Washington conversations. The answer to my hon. friend's question is yes. I expect to be in Washington in the early part of next week.


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

Thursday, May 13, 1943