1943-03-19

[Stage Direction]
btatement as to operation of new procedure
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Pime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) asked a question respecting passport regulations. I should like to take this opportunity to reply.
The hon. member's question was whether intending visitors to the United States can choose between the new procedure of special border-crossing identification cards and the passport system. The answer is in the affirmative. The new simplified procedure does not supersede the old system but is offered as an additional facility. If an intending visitor should find it more convenient to get a passport than to get the non-immigrant border-crossing identification card, he may do so in the regular way. It is purely a matter of personal convenience, though I am sure that, for the great majority of intending visitors, the new system will prove much more convenient than the regular passport system. In this connection it must not be overlooked that under the passport system the passport alone does not suffice to secure entry into the United States. The holder must also secure a visa, for which a personal appearance before a United States consular officer is essential, or an ordinary bordercrossing card, which requires a personal appearance before a United States immigration officer.
It is understood, of course, that in speaking about the new procedure I am referring only to visits of less than thirty days by Canadians and other British subjects permanently resident in Canada. I understand these are the classes of persons the hon. member has in mind. The new system, as has repeatedly been stated, does not apply to visits of thirty days or longer, and its privileges do not extend to other classes of persons who must use the regular passport system.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee was appointed on February 15, and on March 8 the public accounts and the
report of the auditor general were referred to the committee. So far as I can learn, no steps have yet been taken to call that committee into session. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will have the necessary action taken to call the committee at the earliest possible day. My understanding is that the customary practice is for the chief government whip to give the necessary instructions to the committee branch.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on more than one occasion I have stated that it is open to any hon. member to ask that the committee be called. As a necessary first step, the person to be approached in the matter is the chief clerk of committees and private legislation of this house. If the clerk of committees is approached by an hon. member to bring the committee together, the clerk will be perfectly free, indeed it would be part of his duty, to send a notice to the members of the committee. However, where a committee has not been formally convened and a chairman selected, the clerk might, for the convenience of members generally, confer with the chief government whip as to the best time for calling the committee. Thereafter the committee would decide for itself at adjournment when it would reconvene, or leave the decision "to the call of the chair". If any hon. member will make the request to Mr. Dun, that the committee on public accounts be called together, and the latter should speak to the government whip, the government whip will see to it that Mr. Dun is instructed to call the committee at a date which will appear to be suitable.


Gordon Graydon: I thank the Prime Minister for clearing up that point, because there seems to be confusion as to the exact procedure necessary to call the public accounts committee together.



FOREIGN POLICY

[Stage Direction]
Canada's relations with the commonwealth

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I have drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister a newspaper dispatch from Washington in which serious allegations are made with respect to Canada's foreign policy. Will he make a statement, either now or at an early day, covering the points raised
Foreign Policy

in the dispatch and indicating the policy of the government, so that there may be no public misunderstanding of Canada's position?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has just said, he has drawn my attention to a newspaper dispatch from Washington. He mentioned he would ask the question which he has just put with regard to it.
Perhaps I should say in the first place that the particular newspaper dispatch is a communication from the Washington correspondent of the Toronto Telegram to that paper. My hon. friend says that it makes quite serious allegations with respect to Canada's foreign policy. I have read the article. I hardly think that "serious allegations" is the correct term to apply to what appears there; I would say that "mischievous conjectures" would be a better term. But that is, of course, a matter of opinion.
However, with respect to a matter as allimportant as that of foreign policy I hardly think that any statement from the government should be made on the basis of some press communication. There is no more important subject than that which relates to foreign relations and foreign policy. I should be prepared to answer my hon. friend and other hon. members at any time with respect to Canada's foreign policy, on questions which they themselves may address to the ministry. But I do not think I should be expected to deal with	communications	from press
correspondents to different papers, and make these either the basis or the occasion of a statement on the country's foreign policy.
In order, however, that it may not be said that I am in any way seeking to evade. an immediate	statement with	respect to
Canada's foreign policy, may I say that at different times I have given a statement to the house on the subject. I made one at considerable length as long ago as May 24, 1938, which is reported in Hansard, page 3178. I shall read one paragraph from that statement. It was given as a statement of Canada's foreign policy at that time. It remains a statement of Canada's policy to-day:
Our foreign and external policy is a policy of peace and friendliness, a policy of trying to look after our own interests and to understand the position of other governments with which we have dealings. It is a policy which takes account of our political connections and traditions, our geographical position, the limited numbers and the racial composition of our people, our stage in economic development, our own internal preoccupations and necessities-

m short, a policy based on the Canadian situation. It is not and cannot be under these circumstances a spectacular head-line policy; it is simply the sum of the countless daily dealings with other countries, the general resultant of an effort to act decently on every issue or incident that arises, and a hope of receiving the same treatment from others.
I believe it is advisable for me to go a step further on this matter of Canada's foreign policy at this time, because in this article and articles which are appearing in other public journals there appears to be an effort to make what is obviously a difficult situation not easier but more difficult; I mean the kind of situation which has arisen everywhere today between the different governments which are united in a common war effort, in their attempts to find a common solution of some of the difficulties with which they are faced. So far as the present government is concerned we intend, wherever and as often as opportunity offers, to do our utmost to make difficult situations less difficult, and to further as far as we can what is likely to prove most in the common interest. That is a broad statement, but being broad it perhaps covers the attitude of the government better than anything else could.
The article to which my hon. friend has drawn my attention raises by implication a question which is the old question of the status of Canada-whether Canada in her international relations from now on is to proceed as a country having rights of her own, sovereign rights of her own; whether she is going to proceed only as one part of the British empire; or whether she is going to proceed as a north American country having special relations with the United States. Questions of the kind are being asked to-day, not for the purpose of helping to win the war, but rather for the purpose-I will not say what the purpose is, but I will say what the effect is- rather having the effect of helping to give enemy countries and their sympathizers who wish to create divisions between different parts of the British empire and between Great Britain and the United States and between the empire, the United States, Canada and other of the united nations, something to go on in the matter of alleging that the united nations are not a completely united body in dealing with questions arising out of the war. It is important I think to emphasize that fact, because it is all-important, more important to-day than ever, that the enemy should know that the united nations are united in their determination not only to win this war but to carry out a policy with respect to peace upon which they all will be agreed. This is doubly necessary for the

Foreign Policy
reason that, the more public discussion is diverted to questions about what is going to be the attitude of this country and that country at the peace table and in the post-war period, the less the country will be impressed with the fact that this war itself is not yet won. Anyone who knows anything about the situation realizes that it is going to be a much longer time before the war is won than most of us recognize at the present time. I do not think that we in Canada have begun to appreciate the difficulties which lie ahead of us this year, with the situation confronting the countries which are associated under the name of the united nations what it is, in the winning of the war. The difficulties are far greater than any of us can begin to realize. I do again submit that our country cannot give too much attention to the fact that the winning of this war as soon as it can be won, is more important than anything else which can possibly be discussed at this time.
So that there will be no mistake, either in this country, the United States, Great Britain, or anywhere else in the world, as to what Canada's position is as a nation in dealing with other nations on these international matters, I am going to place on Hansard again a declaration, known as the Balfour declaration, which was made at the imperial conference of 1926 in London, and which has been agreed to by every nation of the British commonwealth, the United Kingdom and all the dominions, as setting forth the basis on which as between themselves and in their dealings with others, matters will be adjusted. I quote from the report of the imperial conference of 1926 summary of proceedings under the heading of "Status of Great Britain and the Dominions", page 12 of the report:
The committee are of opinion that nothing would be gained by attempting to lay down a constitution for the British empire. Its widely scattered parts have very different characteristics, very different histories, and are at very different stages of evolution; while, considered as a whole, it defies classification and bears no real resemblance to any other political organization which now exists or has ever yet been tried.
There is, however, one most important element in it which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development-we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
A foreigner endeavouring to understand the true character of the British empire by the
aid of this formula alone would be tempted to think that it was devised rather to make mutual interference impossible than to make mutual cooperation easy.
Such a criticism, however, completely ignores the historic situation. The rapid evolution of the oversea dominions during the last fifty years has involved many complicated adjustments of old political machinery to changing conditions. The tendency towards equality of status was both right and inevitable. Geographical and other conditions made this impossible of attainment by the way of federation. The only alternative was by the way of autonomy; and along this road it has been steadily sought. Every self-governing member of the empire is now the master of its destiny. In fact, if not always in form, it is subject to no compulsion whatever.
But no account, however accurate, of the negative relations in which Great Britain and the dominions stand to each other can do more than expi'ess a portion of the truth. The British empire is not founded upon negations. It depends essentially, if not formally, on positive ideals. Free institutions are its lifeblood. Free cooperation is its instrument. Peace, security, and progress are among its objects. Aspects of all these great themes have been discussed at the present conference; excellent results have been thereby obtained. . And though every dominion is now, and must always remain, the sole judge of the nature and extent of its cooperation, no common cause will, in our opinion, be thereby imperilled.
Equality of status, so far as Britain and the domiinons are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our inter-imperial relations. But the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function. Here we require something move than immutable dogmas. For example, to deal with questions of diplomacy and questions of defence, we require also flexible machinery-machinery which can, from time to time, be adapted to the changing circumstances of the world.
To-day more than at any time in the history of the British empire or the British commonwealth of nations, by whichever name you wish to call it, is there a need from time to time of adapting to the ever-changing circumstances of the world the existing machinery which we have as between the different parts of the empire. I do hope that it will be recognized that whatever will help to interpret, not to our own people only but to the people of the United States and of other countries, the true and exact nature of the relations between the different parts of the British empire and between the British empire and other parts of the world, the more it will assist in helping the cause which we all have in common.
When this country went into the war it did so as a result of the action of this parliament taken on its own account, a decision reached in accordance with what it believed to be, and certainly was, the will of the people
Labour Conditions

of Canada. In all our relations with other parts of the empire and with other countries, so far as the present administration is concerned, we intend to stand on the ground of a status of our own equal to that of each and all of the self-governing British communities-the dominions and the United Kingdom included.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I think it would be of value if at an early day the Prime Minister would call an item in his estimates so that there might be a discussion of Canada's external affairs. It would enable us to arrive at a clearer understanding of some of the things which, as he suggests, may becloud the issue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am anxious that the house shall get on with its business as rapidly as possible. Before we take up any new subject for discussion we should conclude with the matters in hand.


Major James William Coldwell: I agree. I meant not to leave it until the dying days of the session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall undertake with pleasure to see that matters of foreign policy are discussed before that time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North-Centre) :: Will the Minister of Munitions and Supply make a statement concerning the layoff of 325 men from the Defence Industries Limited cordite plant at Transcona, of which I understand both he and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) have been notified by telegram? Does this lay-off apply in other explosives plants? What steps have been taken to place these men in alternative war industries? Will the minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -give a clear statement as to government policy in connection with this plant?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The first part of the question asked''by the hon. member is of such a nature that I think it could be answered by the minister, but the latter portion I think would come within the category of questions which I have ruled should be placed on the order paper. However, if the minister wishes to reply to the first part of the question, it would be in order for him to do so.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I received a telegram this morning from the secretary of the union which is the bargaining agency for the Winnipeg plant, saying that a lay-off of 325 men was anticipated. I tried to get direct information from the management but have been unable to do so up to the present time. I do not know whether the statement contained in the telegram is correct. However, there is a very considerable overproduction of cordite at the present moment, and corrections will have to be made in several explosives factories. This sharp curtailment is due to a sudden cutting off of export demand. If there is a lay-off, either at Winnipeg or at any other cordite plant, alternative employment will be offered immediately through national selective service to those laid off.



EMPLOYMENT OF CANADIANS ON PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN IN CANADA BY UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. C; GREEN (Vancouver South): I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has received an urgent recommendation from the Edmonton ex-service men's rehabilitation committee that the ban against Canadians taking work with United States contractors in that district should be lifted in so far as it may affect ex-service men. Apparently the rehabilitation of some of these men has been seriously hampered by that order in council.
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I have no knowledge of having received any information of the kind to which my hon. friend refers. As he said, he gave my office notice of his intention to ask this question, and I should like to make the following reply.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the minister not received a letter from me within the last few days? I wrote to him about it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I may have. In the twenty-four hours I try to read them all. I think I remember the letter.
It will be obvious to hon. members that fontrol of placements on the various projects being undertaken by the United States authorities is absolutely necessary. Accordingly no one is allowed to take work with United States contractors unless he has a permit from the national selective service office at Edmonton.
Before the work was started an undertaking was arrived at with the United States author-

Privilege-Mr. Coldwell
ities that Canadian labour could not be supplied in view of the tightness of the Canadian labour supply situation. Within the last few weeks we have found it necessary to enforce the regulation somewhat more rigidly because we found that the projects that the United States authorities have in hand were draining off the men needed in other industries, for example the lumbering and logging industry, and also from the city of Edmonton itself. I may say in passing that this sheds some light on some of the speeches we have heard from hon. members on both sides of the house.
This control will be carefully and sensibly exercised. We certainly will not allow a situation to develop where men are allowed to remain idle in Edmonton. The indications at present are that we shall be able to place promptly any men who find themselves out of work.
I think it will be agreed by all hon. members that you cannot have one policy in one place and another in another. We are trying as far as it is humanly possible to put into successful operation what I would call the selective service policy. Apparently it is working in Edmonton on all six cylinders so far as labour supply for what I might call vital war industry in that part of the dominion is concerned.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I should like to make a statement regarding one amendment that I propose to make to the budget resolutions. In the budget speech I outlined certain tax proposals designed to stimulate the search for oil. Since that time I have received representations urging that these proposed arrangements be extended to apply to the natural gas industry. When the house is in committee on budget resolutions I shall move an amendment to allow operators in the natural gas industry to accumulate expenditure on dry holes, the drilling on which was commenced between January 1, 1943 and March 31, 1945, and write it off against producing wells subsequently found. It is intended also to amend the regulations regarding drilling costs to allow labour costs to be written off as a current expense in the case of productive wells, the drilling of which was commenced in the period January 1, 1943 to March 31, 1945.



SHORTAGE OF BATTERIES FOR RECEIVING SETS IN RURAL DISTRICTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: On behalf of my deskmate (Mr. Lalonde) I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) whether the government has taken any steps to remedy the situation arising from the acute shortage of batteries for radio sets in the rural districts.


Thomas Vien: I think that question could be placed upon the order paper.



PRIVILEGE-MR. COLDWELL REFERENCE TO REMARKS OF MEMBER FOR DAUPHIN IN DEBATE ON MARCH 18

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I see that the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) is in his seat. Had he been in his seat when the session opened this afternoon I should have raised a question of privilege at that time. I was unavoidably absent last night, having an engagement at Rideau Hall, and therefore was not in my seat. During my absence the hon. gentleman made a speech. In that speech he quoted part of a sentence from a radio address given by me. The part he quoted was this:
What can these men think of a war effort that does not hesitate to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to assist private industry-
He placed a question mark at the end of that, whereas he should have continued-

but refuses to give 13,000 workers a couple of million dollars a year to improve their depressed and substandard condition?
He then ended with these words, and they are the words of which I complain:
He stops there.
I did not stop there, as I have shown. Then the hon. member proceeds:
The hon. member knew just as well as I do that a meaner form of misrepresentation than that statement could not possibly have been made.
He alleges that when I made that statement I knew it was a misrepresentation. That, Mr. Speaker, is entirely against the rules of the house. Had I been in my seat at the time I would have requested that you ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that aspersion, and I so ask now.


Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: If I am permitted to reply, I have not the press
Office Economies Control

clipping with me at the moment; it is in my office. But in the clipping there is a period after the word "industry". Why should the hon. member not have gone on and explained to his listeners over the air-


Mr. COLD WELL:: I am not discussing that phase of it. The hon. member could have obtained the original copy of my address from my office at any time. I ask that the accusation made be withdrawn. That is the point at issue.


Thomas Vien: Do I understand that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is complaining that what was said by the hon. member for Dauphin is a misrepresentation of what he said, in that he did not complete the statement quoted from the hon. member's speech?


Major James William Coldwell: No, Mr. Speaker, may I correct that? The hon. member said last night:
The hon. member knew-
That is, I knew-
-just as well as I do-
That is the hon. member for Dauphin. 

that a meaner form of misrepresentation than that statement could not possibly have been made.
That is, he said I knew I was making a mean misrepresentation. The hon. member's remarks are reported at page 1376 of Hansard.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had been in the house at the time that statement was made and if I had been in the chair and he had asked that the statement be withdrawn, I should have had to ask the hon. member to withdraw it. I think the hon. member should withdraw that statement as being an implication directed against the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


William John Ward: In the first place, of course, the speech was made outside of this house.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member's
speech was made in the house.


William John Ward: However, sir, I bow to your ruling that it was not a misrepresentation. But while I am on my feet I should like to say this, that I took it for granted that the hon. gentleman was an intelligent man, and as an intelligent man he must have known it was a misrepresentation.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for
Dauphin must realize that his last statement simply accentuates what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar complains of. The withdrawal should be unequivocal.


William John Ward: Then, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.



OFFICE ECONOMIES CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): I should like, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement. I wish to announce that Colonel John Thompson, D.S.O., K.C., has resigned from the position of director of government office economies control, and that his resignation has been accepted by order in council P.C. 2198 of yesterday's date, copy of which I should like to lay on the table of the house.
When Colonel Thompson informed me that he wished to retire I asked him to carry on, but he said he could not do so. I replied that if he insisted I should have to recommend the acceptance of his resignation, which I should do with deep regret.
It would seem to me to be in the national interest that I acquaint this honourable house with certain facts. My purpose is to make it possible to achieve the economies desired by the government when it created the government office economies control, to the directorship of which Colonel Thompson was subsequently called. There has been a good deal said and written around the personality of that gallant gentleman and officer, Colonel Thompson, and his activities as director of the control office in question. It would not be fair to the nation or to Colonel Thompson to fail to place these further facts on the record.
It will be recalled that the incident began with a newspaper article. The article quite naturally created some considerable interest; I may say that it did so far as I was concerned, because I had not the slightest intimation of what was coming. Since then the matter has received further publicity, with some asserting and some denying but few continuing to think much of the very purpose of the control office, namely economy. Recalling that public officials cannot do justice to their duties and cannot successfully carry on the nation's business in an atmosphere such as has been created; and so that it may be possible to carry on the government office economies control, let me read into the record the contents of the following documents. Following the appearance of the article on March 4 I wrote a memorandum to Colonel Thompson as follows:
An article headed "Crazy Waste Stymies Economy Director Thompson; Charges work is Hampered; 'Evasion, Subterfuge and Trickery' are being used" which appeared in the Journal this afternoon has been brought to my attention.
[Stage Direction]
Office Economies Control
As I have told you several times, the task of director of economies is a difficult one. I also told you that one can best succeed in such a task by gaining the cooperation of all concerned.
You have explained on previous occasions that you do not give statements to the press. Therefore, I assume that whoever wrote the article in question did so without your authority.
I suggest to you that the Minister of National War Services is the person to whom you should report any evasion, subterfuge or trickery which you may encounter. It is very liable to arouse resentment on the part of departmental officials generally to read articles such as the one in question without having opportunities to explain to their superior departmental officers or minister. Without an opportunity of making known their side of the question, at the same time they are criticized publicly, can only create unrest and instill thoughts of unfair treatment. The article mentioned herein above is condemnation of officials without warning and, still more, without giving them any opportunity of bringing their explanations to attention. It is not permissible to compromise the reputation for loyalty and patriotism of officials.
I have already assured you of my support but I cannot make it effective without knowing your difficulties. In this connection let me repeat that I am convinced that the members of the public service are readily amenable to conviction. Indeed, in my opinion, they would be only too anxious to learn and to implement their desire to practise every possible economy. It must be realized that work cannot be done without the necessary tools; modern administrative practice demands certain facilities without which the costs of administration would be much greater than they would be otherwise. Our job is to see that the work is well done at a minimum cost.
I am sure that much can be done to make a success of the office of economies control and would like you to be guided by the principles herein set out. I think that together, you and I, we can bring to the attention of those concerned certain views regarding economy, which would be immediately accepted once known and appreciated. We can also arrange to relieve the departments of much of the pressure which is bound to make itself felt because of war time emergency, which is a very definite factor of many requirements.
The fact that you are serving without remuneration is much appreciated. Should the volume of the work you have undertaken be too great a burden upon you and your present staff, then I will be very glad to give you further assistance. Should this be the case, please let me have your remarks when I shall pass them on immediately to the Civil Service Commission.
On March 6 I had a memorandum from Colonel Thompson as follows:
Apropos of an item I saw in the press, either last night or the night before, I wish to say that at no time has there been any interference by the government, or yourself, or any member of parliament, with this office in the performance of the duties allotted to it by order in council.
Then we had an article appearing in the Montreal Standard on March 6.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Was there any answer to the letter to Colonel Thompson dated March 4, which the minister read?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	It is like travelling
through the countryside; as we move on we see other things. I shall come to that in a moment. This article in the Montreal Standard is headed:
Thompson Not Angry Before but Boy!
Listen to Him Now.
Ottawa, March 6.-"I wuz misquoted," growled Colonel John Thompson, or words to that effect, as he wiped his forehead and reached to answer the phone.
"No, that wasn't what I said!" he shouted into the mouthpiece. "Do you think I'd use those words! There's been no interference from the government." Indignantly he banged down the receiver.
"Eleven million people in Canada and ten million are reporters and they've all called this morning," he said bitterly as the phone rang again.
I read this because I think Colonel Thompson has a right to be heard in these matters.
"Reporters," he declared as an afterthought, "it's getting so that it's not safe to say good morning to them. If they can find any way to make it come out 'good night' they'll do it."
The phone stopped long enough for the fiery colonel to launch a denial of quotations attributed to him. These quotations said that he had suffered government interference in conducting his economy drive.
The fracas started Thursday when the Ottawa Journal accredited the colonel with saying "He found it increasingly impossible to cope with all the crazy waste and extravagance, and that evasion, subterfuge and outright trickery are being used to nullify his work."
That was a natural. Gordon Graydon, house leader of the Progressive Conservatives, licked his political chops and used some strong words in the commons yesterday. He declared that Colonel Thompson should be called before the public accounts committee to tell the worst.
Whereupon, Major-General L. R. LaFleche, Minister of National War Services and Thompson's boss, arose to say that he had never heard of any interference from departments, and besides, Thompson didn't make statements to the press.
"Subterfuge! Evasion!" said Colonel Thompson this morning with the look of a man who'd like to get his hands on a certain person. "Do you think I'd use words like that? Do you?"
To make his position very clear and definite, the colonel to-day dispatched by messenger a letter to his boss, General LaFleche, in which he declared: "There has been no interference by the government or members of parliament, or yourself, with respect to the duties allotted to this office."
Office Economies Control

Colonel's Statement
Then, calming down for a few minutes, he said:
1-Gordon Graydon went out on a long, long limb by using the Journal story as a basis for a tiff. "He got off on the wrong foot. He may look silly."
_ 2-If he felt the government interfered in his job to out down expenses he'd quit in five minutes. He's a dollar a year man, thus independent.
3-He wuz misquoted.
"I'm pretty sore about anything I say in confidence and then have that confidence violated and grossly exaggerated," he said. "What I said originally was that I wouldn't be a rubber stamp. That is, I wouldn't stand for anyone ordering something and then presenting me with the bill when my approval was needed before the order was made.
"That's happened in a couple of eases, but 'subterfuge' and 'evasion'-after all."
Besides he wuz misquoted.
The public will have the chance to determine for itself who said what.
It was announced this afternoon that T. C. Douglas, C.C.F. member for Weyburn, Sask., had made a notice of motion that the standing committee on public accounts "be empowered to investigate the statement of Colonel John Thompson charging evasion, subterfuge, and outright trickery."
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have to mention family names; but everyone will understand the reason.
I come now to a memorandum dated March 10-this month. This is the reply I received, and it is addressed to me by Colonel Thompson:
Reference your memorandum of the 4th March, I stated emphatically and distinctly to the reporter that there was no news of any sort or description to give him. It is unnecessary for me to say that I did not use the language which appeared in the Journal.
As I informed you yesterday, I did mention a couple of matters which had, a considerable time ago, been disposed of, to the effect that the Minister of Finance had saved a considerable sum of money with regard to the proposed printing of a booklet, in respect of which I had appealed to him.
I have not spoken to you about the various protests that come to me from different boards and departments, as I considered that this was a burden for the director to carry himself. If every protest which is made to this branch is to be carried to you, it would appear to me that a fourth grade clerk could easily do that.
With regard to the question of staff, it is quite correct that we require additional staff, but not the type that one could obtain through the Civil Service. I have asked Mr. Stapleton, who is the economist of the Canadian National Railways, to have an interview' with you with regard to the type of staff which we require and which, hitherto, we have been unable to induce the persons approached to give us as part time assistance.
On the 16th of this month the following memorandum was addressed to me by Colonel Thompson:
This is my resignation, to take effect on Saturday next, the 20th instant, or at an earlier date if convenient to you. My reasons for resigning are on entirely personal grounds.
I wish to add that at no time has there been any difference of opinion between us on office matters.
We come again to the newspapers, but I shall not take the time of the house to read them. Then follows a memorandum dated to-day, and handed to me late this morning. It is addressed to me by Colonel Thompson:
I enclose copy of a leter I wrote to The Honourable C. G. Power, with reference to an item in one of this morning's Ottawa papers.
I might add that I did not make any statement that I would be willing to appear before a parliamentary committee to give evidence of waste in the air force. I know nothing whatsoever about any waste in the air force.
Colonel Thompson kindly attached a copy of his memorandum of this date, which he had addressed to the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). Here it is:
There is an item in one of the morning papers to the effect that.I said there was waste in the air force, and that I would be willing to give evidence before a parliamentary committee to that effect.
I never made any such statement and, in a brief interview, I never mentioned the air force, either directly or indirectly.
I might add that the relations between the air force representative and this office, have always been most cordial, and any questions at issue have always been discussed in a frank and open manner.
I have already laid on the table of the house a copy of order in council P.C. 2198, but may I read into the record the letter I wrote Colonel Thompson this afternoon:
Dear Colonel Thompson:
I have just received the enclosed certified copy of order in council P.C. 2198 of yesterday's date from which you will see that your resignation from the position of director of the division of government office economies control has been accepted.
In forwarding this copy of the order in council mentioned hereinabove, may I again express regret at your resignation which has resulted in the termination of our official relations and express appreciation for the services you have rendered without remuneration.
It would be of assistance to me if you would kindly let me know just when you intend to leave as I must make necessary arrangements without losing any time to see that the work of your office is carried on without interruption.
Will you please accept my very best wishes for your happiness and success in whatever further occupation you may take up. I shall not fail to take advantage of your very kind offer to give me advice in the future for the furtherance of the very purpose for which the government office economies control was set up.

Office Economies Control


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By whom is
that signed?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	By me.


Gordon Graydon: Has Colonel Thompson
received it yet?
Mr. LaFLECHE: He should have; I know the leader of the opposition understands.


Gordon Graydon: As a matter of fact I
do not.	i
Mr. LaFLECHE:	Then I regret that the
hon. member does not. Recalling that public officials cannot carry on with the nation's business in an atmosphere such as has been created, and that I cannot make it possible to carry on the office of economy control without clearing the atmosphere, let me say that I entirely fail to see any charges or accusations of crazy waste, extravagance, subterfuge or trickery. On the contrary my impression is that turmoil has been created, perhaps thoughtlessly andi more likely amusingly-


Gordon Graydon: Is the minister quoting
from something now?
Mr. LaFLECHE:	No.


Gordon Graydon: I understood those words were used before.
Mr. LaFLECHE:	I am quite certain the
Prime Minister would tolerate no extravagance, subterfuge, trickery or evasion, and I know equally well that in view of the absolute necessity of helping to win the war by making a success of his fourth victory loan the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) would not be a party for one second to such things as have been mentioned. I have done my best to find out what there was at the bottom of all this. I have certainly not wanted in any way to injure the reputation of one of Canada's gallant officers of the last war, and a gentleman who is known for his honesty and sincerity. On the other hand I do not want to be a party in any way to permitting anything to be done which would hinder the possibility of practising economies, wherever they can be made.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I wonder if the minister would allow a couple of questions? Was there any reference whatsoever to waste in the air force in the first article which appeared in the Ottawa Jouma.il My recollection is that the one matter denied by Colonel Thompson, namely waste in the air force, was not referred to either directly or indirectly in the article which started this discussion.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The minister did not say it was.
Mr. LaFLECHE: Because of my hoarse voice it is possible that the hon. member did not understand me when I read. Colonel Thompson makes it very clear that he refers to the papers of this morning.


John George Diefenbaker: That was not mentioned at the opening interview which allegedly was given by Colonel Thompson.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may be permitted to ask a couple of questions, I am sure the minister will not object. Is there any denial from Colonel Thompson of the other allegations of waste allegedly made in the first interview reported in the Journal? And, my second question: Did the minister receive a memorandum in writing from Colonel Thompson or through the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) in reference to the question of economy, prior to the alleged interview in the Journal?
Mr. LaFLECHE: My hon. friend's first question resembles very much that which he put to me more than two weeks ago, as I recall it. I have asked my secretary several times to make absolutely certain whether or not I have received any such documents as mentioned by the hon. gentleman and the answer was no. That must be my answer.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the other matter?


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Did the Department of Public Works in any way come under the jurisdiction of the government economy director, Colonel John Thompson? If not, why was that department not brought under his jurisdiction?
Mr. LaFLECHE: By the provisions of the order in council all the departments were brought under his jurisdiction.


James Arthur Ross: Following up the question which my colleague put, will copies of the files or letters which were turned in to the minister by Colonel Thompson on his resignation be available to members of the committee on public accounts when it convenes?
Mr. LaFLECHE: That is a question that will be answered in due time. I am very sorry that certain gentlemen seem to take the information I have given in bad grace, or hesitatingly, shall I say.
The Budget-Mr. Castleden



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Blackmore, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, when the budget debate was adjourned last night we were discussing the term "free enterprise". The sooner that free enterprise becomes the line of real demarcation between the members of this house, the better. Then we shall have this house divided into two proper groups, those who are in favour of free enterprise as it is practised to-day, the coupon clippers, on the one side, and1 those working for humanity on the other.
Last night I was proceeding to give an example of the type of thing which we in this group oppose. I refer to an agreement, dated August 19, 1941, which was tabled in this house between His Majesty the King in right of Canada and the International Nickel Company of Canada. Reading from this agreement I find:
Whereas part III of the War Exchange Conservation Act, 1940, provides that, the governor in council, in order to increase or conserve Canada's supply of foreign exchange, may enter into agreements with persons to grant assistance by way of special tax credits. . . .
And further:
WThereas the company is the principal world producer of nickel and is actively engaged in serving the war and defence requirements of the British empire and the United States. . . .
I -believe it was also actively engaged in serving someone else before the war. Then, after several more "whereases" I find this:
Whereas the company represents that from the standpoint of commercial considerations such an increase in capacity is in its opinion unwarranted, principally for the following reasons, viz., (i) to provide for a substantially greater output of nickel in 1943 would interfere with and adversely affect the company's long-range mining programme designed to preserve the life of the mines and stabilize costs for a long period of time; and (ii) the increase in capacity, with the attendant special capital expenditures, would be provided at a time when the outlook is most uncertain. . . .
In view of the various considerations thus set forth:
. . . the government under the provisions of part III of the War Exchange Conservation Act, 1940, hereby grants assistance to the company as follows:
In computing the amount of the profits of the company for the purposes of the Income War Tax Act and the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, to determine the liability of the company to pay tax under the said statutes in each of the five calendar years, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945, a deduction by way of special depreciation allowance against the cost of depreciable assets included in the said project shall be permitted. . . .
Then on page 5 of the agreement these amounts are set out.
Up to December 31, 1945, not to exceed in the aggregate $25,000,000.
That is $5,000,000 a year. Then on the last page of the agreement I find the various expansion projects set out which are to be undertaken by the company at a total cost of $34,000,000, as follows:
Mining
Mine surface plants, shafts, permanent underground development, open pit development and permanent mine equipment.
Concentrating
Permanent plant building, extensions and crushing, grinding and flotation equipment.
Smelting
Reverberatory building extension, together with one additional nickel reverberatory complete with a superimposed bank of 6 roaster furnaces and one additional nickel converter. Miscellaneous
Plant extensions and equipment for miscellaneous auxiliary services, such as transportation, power, et cetera.
Nickel Refinery
Plant extensions and equipment for additional electrolytic nickel capacity together with additional facilities for leaching, reducing and calcining department.
The total estimated capital expenditure is $34,000,000, against which the government is compensating the company by a reduction of their taxes to the tune of $25,000,000,


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not correct. It is not a reduction from their taxes. It is a write-off of their investment.


George Hugh Castleden: I read the exact
wording.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Read it again.


George Hugh Castleden: It reads:
In computing the amount of the profits of the company for the purposes of the Income War Tax Act and the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, to determine the liability of the company to pay tax under the said statutes in each of the five calendar years, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945, a deduction by way of special depreciation allowance against the cost of depreciable assets included in the said project shall be permitted. ...


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not from their taxes, though,


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.

The Budget-Mr. Castleden


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. From their profits for purposes of taxation.


George Hugh Castleden: For purposes of
taxation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Right,


George Hugh Castleden: The excess profits tax is now 100 per cent.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is really 80 per cent.


George Hugh Castleden: One hundred per cent with 20 per cent returnable.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know, and the hon. member does not know either whether the company is in that class. It may be in the 40 per cent class, in which event his argument goes entirely.


George Hugh Castleden: They are allowed in their returns an amount of $5,000,000.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Exactly, $5,000,000 a year, to be deducted from their gross income for tax purposes. I would ask the hon. gentleman not to twist that into a statement that this means $5,000,000 off their taxes each year because it does not.


George Hugh Castleden: I am just giving the words of the agreement as it stands. This is the company which in 1941 declared a net profit of over $34,000,000, and according to the press of March 16 last, its net profit for 1942 was $33,301,829. It seems to me that in view of the very favourable position in which this company finds itself it could have been expected to carry on this expansion programme on its own. But the government is really granting it for taxation purposes the amounts set out in the agreement. It would almost seem good business for the government to build a plant, rent it to the company for the duration of the war, and then perhaps sell it to the company. This company has the right to Canada's ore; it uses Canadian workers in its mines, declares immense profits, and then is allowed these large deductions from its profits in making its taxation returns for the excess profits tax, which now amounts to 80 per cent, the other 20 per cent being returnable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My colleague drew attention to the fact that this company is not in the 80 per cent class. I feel quite certain that that is the case. I think the hon. member should use the figure "40" instead of "80".


George Hugh Castleden: Well, its profits over a period of years before the war were some of the best in the history of the company.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That would put them in the 40 per cent class.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: I should be glad if the minister would make a statement as to where this company actually stands. This is the type of "free enterprise" to which we object. Apparently this company is granted certain privileges, although under free enterprise it is supposed to stand on its own feet.
Yesterday this group was attacked because of our stand last year on Bill No. 80, to amend the Natural Resources Mobilization Act. Our stand was this: We were quite willing to support the conscription of our man-power in the winning of this war if the government would spread that conscription and nationalization to include the industry and finance of this country. We believe that it is not right to ask men to give their lives while companies are permitted to continue to make profits.
I wish to compare the treatment handed out to this company with the treatment accorded to agriculture. There are 700,000 farmers in Canada; they represent about one-third of the population. In 1942 fewer than 1,500 earned sufficient to come into the income tax group-and our income tax for married persons is applied to earnings as low as $1.200. Any Canadian industrial concern whose industry was depressed in the period prior to the war is granted certain concessions, and any loss it may have sustained in the period 1936-39 is taken into consideration in computing excess profits and corporation taxation in time of war. I do not find in the present budget any such provision for the farmers. I believe that the statement was made that if any loss occurred in 1942 the farmer would be permitted to spread it over 1943 and 1944; but how about his losses in the past ten years?
Agriculture in this country, and I speak particularly for the province of Saskatchewan, in which I reside, as well as the west generally, went through almost ten years of mercilqgs depression. I have lived among the western farmers all my life. I know their condition; I have shared their troubles; I have worked in their fields; I have taught their children. I have seen these people come through smiling after ten years of fruitless toil, disappointment and hopelessness. I have the honour to represent in this house a constituency one-third of whose population is of Ukrainian birth. These people are making a noble contribution to Canada in every field of national life; they are fine Canadians. Along with men of other nationalities they shed their blood at Dieppe and Hong Kong, and they are willingly mak-
The Budget-Mr. Castleden

ing sacrifices. Those engaged in agriculture want to help with everything they can to win the war; and1 they know how to grow food. That is the farmer's business. The government has neglected to take into consideration the welfare of the people who are providing the life-line of Canada's war effort. The government has let them down seriously and badly. During the periods of depression most of the farmers were unable to get any return on their labour, and their debt piled up, interest being compounded on interest, until now that debt is almost unpayable. I should like people to realize what kind of job it is for farmers to work on day after day, year after year, with that load of unpayable debt, a debt which this government seems to be doing very little to remove. Preparation for last year's harvest, the largest in Canada's history, was extremely difficult. The farmer finds himself unable to plan his production this year, for many reasons. One of them is that he has no idea whether the boy who is still on his farm-if one yet remains-is to be allowed to stay there. The government should issue an order that any farmer who maintains a certain production, be it of dairy produce, beef, cattle, wheat or other necessary articles, will be guaranteed his labour. In that regard there has been no direct policy upon which the farmer can rely.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) :: I do not rise for the purpose of stating that I will not support the amendment or the subamendment to the motion, or that I will support the budget as presented by my colleague. My purpose in taking a few moments of the time of the house this afternoon is to set forth some facts which on their face may appear to have more of local than of national interest. But I believe that they are due to the people of this country, and particularly to the electorate of New Brunswick.
The first matter to which I wish to refer is the statement made yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) with regard to the disposal of potatoes from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I believe that, in view of the good reputation which the potatoes from the island and New Brunswick enjoy, not only on the Canadian market but on the United States market, and to relieve the minds of growers in both provinces, it is only fair that the explanation which was asked for yesterday should be immediately placed on record and brought to the attention of the public.
As reported in Hansard, at page 1355, the hon. member for York-Sunbury said:
Prices for seed stock have always been higher than prices for table stock, but I understand that now the wartime prices and trade board have either imposed an embargo on the export of seed potatoes to the United States, or have made such export subject to licence. I suggest to the minister under whose control the matter would come that this is a mistake from every point of view. A determined effort should be made to change that position, and I would ask the member of the government responsible to direct that the whole matter be reviewed. Not only shall we lose the export market in the United States, and the greatly enhanced price of the product; we will lose what I consider to be of at least equal value, the good-will of our customers across the line.
I have communicated with the department responsible for this situation and have received this statement, which I wish to place on the records of the house.
There is no embargo on the export of certified seed potatoes to the United States. For some time it has been felt that certified seed potatoes have been exported from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to the United States to be used as table stock, thus depleting the supply of seed potatoes required in Canada and the United States for seeding purposes this spring. The Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the provinces, has undertaken to encourage potato growers across Canada to use certified seed this year in order to increase their production of potatoes. To prevent seed potatoes from being exported for use as table stock and to ensure sufficient seed to meet our own requirements, the export of these potatoes has been placed under permit. The export permits branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture, to whom requests will be submitted, may examine the bona tides of each shipment and decide whether or not a permit should be granted. Regard will always be had to the seed requirements of the Canadian growers. It will be seen that this regulation is not intended to prevent the growers of potatoes in the island or New Brunswick from exporting seed potatoes; its purpose is to ensure sufficient seed potatoes for the coming season, not only for Canadian growers but for those in the United States. People in the state of Maine have been buying our best potatoes as table stock. I am sure that the minds of the potato growers of Canada will be relieved and that they will feel satisfied that this regimentation has been adopted in their best interests.
There is another matter which I wish to bring before the house. For the last two weeks the opposition in the legislature of New Brunswick has seemed to give more attention to the discussion of federal problems and the

The Budget-Mr. Michaud
federal government and federal ministers than to a discussion of their own provincial affairs. This was started on March 4 by the leader of the opposition in the legislature when he criticized the federal government for having failed to utilize the resources of New Brunswick in the prosecution of the war and when he charged the federal government with discrimination against New Brunswick in the expenditure of public moneys for war purposes. He stated that all that had been given to New Brunswick was " chicken-feed." This criticism was taken up and repeated by some of his followers in the legislature and, as was to be expected, it was echoed in this chamber on the night of March 15 by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen).
No objection can be taken to anyone in New Brunswick or anywhere else criticizing the action of this government and the manner in which public moneys are expended. We are fighting to preserve that right. If the matter had remained a purely local one, I would not take up the time of this house in discussing it. Until this morning I was at a loss to understand the reason for this sudden change of attitude on the part of the opposition in the New Brunswick legislature. If I recall aright, last year they took exactly the opposite attitude. They refused to the government the privilege of discussing federal matters and complimenting the federal government upon what it had done for the province. They based their argument upon the ground that this was not a matter that pertained to the provincial government.
We read in this morning's press a report of a news item from Montreal to the effect that the hon. member for York-Sunbury is to resign and Mr. Bracken is to run in his place. This may partly explain the sudden change in the attitude of the opposition in New Brunswick and their interest in federal matters. This report has been denied by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, and I am afraid that this will act as a frustration of the enthusiasm of his hyphenated friends in the legislature. If it were only a matter of political expediency or tactics or warfare, I would not have mentioned it, but I am afraid that this criticism which has received headlines in the New Brunswick newspapers and recognition in the national press will lead to the belief that the resources of New Brunswick are not being utilized to the fullest extent. The natural deduction will be that New Brunswick is not contributing to the war effort to the extent of its capacity, and nothing could be further from the truth than such an assumption.	.
The resources of New Brunswick are being used 100 per cent in the war effort. The province has a recorded population of 457,401, of whom thirty-five per cent are of French extraction. The province has supported the war effort 100 per cent with its man-power, an achievement which has not been excelled by any other part of the country. The material resources of the province have been used 100 per cent in the war effort as have the financial resources. Quotas for all victory loans have been oversubscribed. The principal industries of New Brunswick are agriculture, lumber manufacturing and fishing. I defy anyone to say that the men engaged in those three basic industries are not serving their country in the best manner possible. They are working to 100 per cent of their capacity in their respective callings. The industrial and manufacturing facilities of the province are being used in the war effort 100 per cent. With a population of barely over 450,000 people distributed over a relatively large territory, it stands to reason that there are no large centres of population in that province. Moreover there is no large industrial centre in the sense that this term is understood in central Canada. Unfortunately we have no large electric power developments, no large manufacturing plants in the sense that this term is generally accepted. But we have a number of smaller plants distributed all over that province, and they have been used to their full capacity.
It is possible that those who have made criticisms are under the impression or labour under the delusion that war industries and war plants are being planted by the dominion government in different parts of the country to gratify local pride or political friends or special interests. I must say that the government's attitude toward using industry in Canada for the war effort has not been to create and develop industry in competition with plants and industries already existing. On the contrary, the efforts of the government have been to use fully for war purposes all industrial capacity which existed before the war. And no different treatment was meted out to that province than to any other section.
Unfortunately, on account of local conditions-lack of power, manufacturing facilities, and technical labour-it was impossible to establish large industrial war plants in New Brunswick. But if there had been such facilities, why is it that those who are interested and who are now criticizing did not offer their services, their capital, their management talent, their manufacturing facilities? All the

The Budget-Mr. Michaud

industrialists of the province-and there were many-who volunteered their services, who wanted to contribute something to war industry, who had something to contribute, have not only been encouraged to do so but have been helped financially to place their facilities at the command of the government.
What did take place? When the war started I took it upon myself to see that New Brunswick should be given an opportunity to contribute to its maximum capacity toward1 the war effort in the industrial and manufacturing line. For that purpose gentlemen in whom I had full confidence, who I knew could, because of their past activities and success, well advise the government and the several war departments, establish relations with industrialists in the province and look after the interests of the province, were invited to Ottawa. They were placed in the Department of Munitions and Supply and were given positions in which they could in the discharge of their duties look after the interests of the industrialists of the province. I shall name them, because they are men of outstanding reputation, and the mention of their names will not detract at all from their good reputation.
We have Lieutenant-Colonel W. A. Harrison, who is executive assistant to the minister, Department of Munitions and Supply. Colonel Harrison was a retired gentleman who could well afford to spend his days in leisure. In the month of January he was summoned by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) from Florida. In four days he was in Ottawa and since then has been here working without remuneration. Doctor J. R. Petrie, director, displaced industries division, Department of Munitions and Supply, was a professor in the university of New Brunswick, a New Brunswick boy who has been brought here to look after the interests of that province. Mr. W. F.. Knoll, in charge of wires and nails, office of the steel controller, was, I understand, manager of an industrial plant in Saint John and has been invited to serve in the office of the steel controller in the capacity in which he could best exercise his talents. I would also mention Mr. B. W. Kelley, chief engineer, maritknes subcontract division, Department of Munitions and Supply, and Mr. Frank M. Ross, director general, naval armament and equipment, Department of Munitions and Supply.
What has happened? Let us take a Cook's tour round the province of New Brunswick and see what industries we have which were invited to contribute and have contributed to the war effort. Travelling eastward from Ottawa we enter the province at the gateway at Campbellton. There we have the McLennan Foundry and Machine Works Limited, and
iMr. Michaud.]
J. and D. A. Harquail Company Limited; at Dalhousie there is the New Brunswick International Paper Company; at Bathurst, the Northern Machine Works and Canada Iron Foundries; at Buctouche there is J. D. Irving Limited; at Moncton, Clark Ruse Aircraft Limited and Humphrey Woollen Mills; at Port Elgin, the Copp Woollen Mills; at Sackville, Enamel and Heating Products, Limited and Enterprise Foundry Company, Limited; at Petitcodiac, the Lawson Machine Works; at Sussex, the Wallace Manufacturing Company; and at Saint John, T. S. Simms and Company Limited, Murray and Gregory, Provincial Wood Products Company Limited, Saint John Iron Works, E. S. Stephenson and Company, J. Fred Williamson, Courtenay Iron and Brass Foundry, Saint John Machine Shop Company, Wilson Boxes, Toronto Shipbuilding Company and Saint John Dry Docks and Shipbuilding Company. At Fredericton, there are Horsnell Machine and Iron Works, Hartt Boot and Shoe Company, John Palmer Company and Palmer-McLellan Shoepack Company. At Devon there is Creighton and Smith Limited. At Upper Gagetown, McMul'kin and Sons; at St. Andrews, the Vaughan Shipbuilding Company, and at Bristol, John Mead and Sons; at Hartland, the New Brunswick Potato Products Limited, potato dehydrating plant, and at Grand Falls, Pirie Potato Products Limited, potato dehydrating plant.
That makes thirty-four industrial plants in New Brunswick which have received war contracts directly from the Department of Munitions and Supply, and some of which have received capital assistance when it was needed. Not all have received capital assistance, because all did not need it.
We have eleven other industrial firms which have neither received capital assistance nor demanded any and which have not received war contracts directly from the government but whose industrial plants have been working efficiently and continuously to their maximum capacity for the war effort. These companies are: at Campbellton, W. H. Miller Company and Restigouche Company Limited; at Bathurst, the Bathurst Pulp and Paper Company Limited; at Nelson, Geo. Burchill and Sons; South Nelson Lumber Company Limited; L. J. O'Brien; at Moncton, LeBlane and Lockhart, woodworking factories; at Fredericton, Fraser Companies Limited; at Edmundston, Fraser Companies Limited; L. H. Morneault woodworking plant. Naturally there are more woodworking plants and lumber mills than tank and gun factories, because New Brunswick is a lumbering province; lumber is the main industry. These eleven firms never received

The Budget-Mr. Michaud
government advances of any kind, nor have they received direct government contracts, as far as I know. They are, however, using the natural resources of the provinces to their maximum capacity, in the war effort.
Let me now give the miltiary establishments. New Brunswick has not been overlooked, disregarded or discriminated against in this particular. For a small province we have quite a number of establishments, as follows:
Army
Saint John, military district headquarters.
Sussex, training centx-e.
Tracadie, rifle range.
Utopia, advanced training centre.
Fredericton, training centre No. 70.
Edmundston, training centre No. 71.
Air
Chatham, Salisbury, Moncton, Saint John, Seoudoue, Pennfield.
Navy
Saint John.
Now what about the amount of actual money expended in that province since the beginning of the war? The total is $78,712,178.12, made up as follows:
Department of Munitions and Supply
Dollar value of contracts	 $37,832,903 00
Capital expenditures	 21,463,065 58
Department of National Defence
(army)	
Department of National Defence
(navy)	
Department of Transport
Airpoi'ts	
Seamen's branch	
National Hax-bours Board	
Canadian National Railways.. Department of Public Works....
7,674,531 53
2,127,489 31
2,577,190 23 75,000 00 857.302 31 4,646,375 00 1.458,321 16
Grand total	 $78,712,178 12
I could give the details for each of these departments, to indicate where the money has been spent. It has been claimed by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen) that the city of Saint John did not receive its share. Well, some may claim that the war expenditures of the government should have been distributed according to population, but to me that is a ridiculous claim, because expenditures are governed by the exigencies of war, by the requirements in connection with our defences, by the nature of the places where it is expedient that something along this line be done in the best interests of the defence of Canada.


Mr. HAZEN:: Like Deep Brook.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes, Deep Brook is a place where it was found necessaxy and expedient to make some expenditures. Just to show how difficult it is to make a distribution according to population, even in the little province of New Brunswick, despite all our efforts it has
been impossible to spread the "chicken-feed" evenly across the province, though we have tried not to allow two or three old hens to get it all. We have not always been successful, notwithstanding all the efforts we made, to apportion the money as between Saint John and the rest of the province. Saint John constitutes about 11 per cent of the population of New Brunswick, but the war expenditures in Saint John constitute about 14 per cent of the grand total spent in that province. These expenditures were made up as follows:
War Expenditures in Saint John (capital)
Department of National Defence
(Army)	 $ 2,448,274 82
Department of National Defence
(Navy)	 500,000	00
Department of Transport
Seamen's branch	
75,000	00:National harbours board	857,302	31Department of Public Works...	1,458,321	16
Department of Munitions and Supply
Capital expenditures	 5,999,600	ST
Grand total	 $11,338,498 66
Therefore I think neither the city of Saint John nor the province of New Brunswick has reason to complain of discrimination or that, to use the expression used the other day by someone from that city, the federal government has not pumped enough money into Saint John. I do not think that statement can be justified. If large war industries, or more war industries, have not been located in New Brunswick, whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the government, or is it the fault of the capitalists, the industrialists and the* swivel-chair critics who had an opportunity tc* offer their services, their capital, their manufacturing and managerial talents, and their skilled labour? Not one of those who could guarantee production and delivery was turned down, ii-respective of politics or creed; all were given a chance to produce and deliver. I defy anyone to contradict that statement.
If we had established some large industrial plants in New Brunswick, we would have had to build mushroom towns for them; we would have had to impose very difficult problems upon local municipal authorities. The first problem would have been that of housing p the second would have been that of municipal-services. That would have necessitated, on the part of municipal governments, the incurring of large capital expenditures, and the consequent development of large capital debts. Had we followed the policy of establishing three or four large plants in the province, we would have developed local jealousies-and would have hurt local pride. Instead of.
The Budget-Mr. Michaud

throwing the "chicken-feed" to a few old hens, we distributed the feed throughout the province, with the result that there is not one local plant which has not had a chance to contribute its full 100 per cent capacity to the war effort. I am satisfied this was the best policy which could have been followed in that province. In that respect I took the trouble to consult many public-spirited citizens, men of long experience in municipal and provincial public affairs, men experienced in financial and industrial ventures, and they all agreed that we must avoid a post-war problem. After the war, at least in some centres, in respect of some industries, there will be industrial demobilization; this is bound to happen. Had 'we encouraged a mushroom overgrowth in some municipalities in the province, we would have developed a condition which would be bound to have its reactions, and we would be left holding the bag.
Whatever may happen, I am sure the government will not have to assume responsibility for having caused annoyances in respect of special local problems. I am sure the people of New Brunswick will be able to revert to normal, without any commotion, without disturbance, and without having to labour under heavy municipal debts incurred -*during the war for the purpose of carrying on services and helping war industries which .could not be maintained to 100 per cent producing capacity after the war.
Those who are not satisfied, those who criticize the government are the ones who have not lifted a finger to try to promote, foster or encourage any special industry in New Brunswick. There are those who sit back in these years and clip their coupons. They will criticize, but they will not risk their dollars in war industries, or ventures of that kind. Now that there is no possible chance, according to the hon. member for York-Sunbury, for Mr. Bracken to try to seek election in New Brunswick, I hope the provincial opposition will revert to its duty of minding its provincial affairs and attending to its own business, without devoting its time in the legislature to federal matters.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray) who spoke in the house on Friday last evidently realized that the most important subject before the country to-day is that of man-power. I wish to congratulate him upon his able and courageous speech, in which he IMr. Michaud.]
appealed for unrestricted conscription, coupled with scientific allotment of civilian workers to essential occupations. He gently chided the members of the Progressive Conservative party for having "now become a bit cloudy on the man-power issue". I intended to deal with this suggestion, but it is not now necessary for me to do so, because the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) pointed out that compulsory selective service was one of the important planks in the platform adopted at Winnipeg.
May I recall the fact that on June 13, 1941, I called upon the government to introduce unrestricted compulsory national selective service. Hon. members will therefore realize how delighted I was when, about a year later, on June 16 last, the hon. member for Lambton West gave such logical and convincing reasons why this was the only way to bring about equality of sacrifice-and incidentally preserve national unity-in an all-out war effort, and urged the immediate introduction of unrestricted compulsory selective service. I admire the courage he showed in taking that position in opposition to the leader of his party. But he had the satisfaction of knowing that he had the support of a vast majority of his constituents.
My advocacy of unrestricted compulsory selective service two years ago was not popular in many parts of the house, and in particular with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who warned me of the danger of fomenting national disunity. However, he eluded the fact that those seeds of disunity had already been sown in Quebec since the last war, by the Prime Minister and the supporters of the present government. Surely within the last few months we have had abundant evidence of the truth of this assertion from the government's own followers in the house.
In February last I stated unequivocally that the man-power muddle was due to the government's failure to put compulsory selective service into effect-and when I use this term I mean not only compulsory service for our armed services anywhere, but also compulsion in putting men into the jobs for which they are best fitted, in the factories, on the farms, or in the mines. Surely this is what is meant by selective service-a service which must be compulsory when the nation's life is at stake. This is something which cannot be left to the caprice or voluntary choice of the individual. In no other way can we have equality of service and sacrifice.

The Budget-Mr. Bruce
It is unnecessary for me to repeat the arguments in favour of compulsory selective service made so effectively by the hon. member for Lamb ton West, which should be put into effect even at this late day, because that is the only way to solve our present manpower crisis. This crisis has been brought about by encouraging voluntary enlistments from the farms until they are now largely depleted of men, and in many instances there is not enough labour to carry on. Many farmers have had to sell their stock and abandon their farms, and discontinue their operations, thus interfering materially with the production of foodstuffs. Because we are [DOT] calling for men to go on the farms does not mean that we were wrong in asking for compulsory selective service for our armed forces; for if there had been no restrictions placed in the National Resources Mobilization Act in 1940 we would not be in our present unhappy position in respect of labour, and the present man-power crisis would have been averted. A sufficient number of men would have been left on the farms to ensure the -maximum production of food for both ourselves and our allies.
It was because of the acute situation on the farm that I asked a couple of weeks ago for the return to the farms of Canada's home defenders, soldiers who have not been ordered to go overseas and who at present are mostly fulfilling no useful purpose. I am glad to learn that some action has already been taken in this regard. May I just add, Mr. Speaker, that this home defence army is a luxury which Canada could very well do without.


Mr. RALSTON:: Will my hon. friend
permit me? Does he not know that it was demanded last year that there be more defence for our coasts? Is my hon. friend's memory so short as that?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I will concede that those
who are serving on the two coasts are needed. But those who are serving within the other provinces are not needed, I think, at the present time.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend will find
that what he calls the home defence army are mostly serving on the two coasts, except those who are in training centres, and they are relieving service personnel who are going overseas.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I have been under the impression that a very large number of the men in our home defence army are serving in other than coastal provinces. If that is not correct, I accept the minister's word, of course.
I understand that this home defence army costs in the neighbourhood of $32,000,000 a year in pay alone. I am sure that this amount could be better used by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) for some other purpose at the present time.
I again urge upon the government, even at this, the eleventh hour, that they put through immediately the necessary order in council to make effective the amendment to the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940 passed at the last session; for in no other way will this man-power crisis be solved. Have we not the testimony of the government's own appointee, Mr. Elliott Little, a man of great executive ability, who after many months of futile effort to solve the problem of getting men to work where they are most needed, threw up th'e sponge and resigned because he was hamstrung by the government's policy and could get nowhere?
To what extremities have the government been driven when it is now suggested in some quarters that natives from Jamaica be brought here and that we use prisoners of war, as well as Japanese internees, to augment our manpower. Apparently the government are willing to adopt any subterfuge if they can only thereby escape their obvious duty of bringing in compulsory selective service.
It was interesting to hear the reaction of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) to the six-hour debate on the motion Introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) on Tuesday evening. The disclosures made of the critical fuel shortage and the hardships suffered- by Canadians as a consequence gave further evidence-of the government's muddling of the manpower policy. The minister dismissed it lightly by saying that it had been a worth-while debate if it succeeded in bringing to the attention of the people of this country the seriousness of the present fuel shortage. I wonder if it would not more likely bring to the attention of the people the fact that their suffering had been needlessly caused by the evasive policy of the government in. respect to man-power.
I want to refer for a moment to another-subject, that of establishing an industrial court. We are witnessing to-day so many industrial disputes which are seriously interfering with our war-time effort that it seems desirable to' find some solution of this ever-recurring problem. I believe a solution would be found in the establishment of an industrial court whose jurisdiction would be entirely confined to industrial and labour disputes and relations. The court should consist of three judges whose
The Budget-Mr. Bruce

appointment and term of office would be identical with that of judges of the Ontario supreme court; the court's decision to be final and enforceable with the exception that on points of law there would be the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. If this procedure were followed it would permanently take industrial disputes out of politics and they would be promptly and equitably disposed of by such a court. There is a precedent in the United States in the Sherman Act and in Canada in the Combines Investigation Act. This industrial court would not make law. It would administer law. The laws would go through the regular sources of legislation. The court would have the advantage of handling only one class of cases, namely, matters pertaining to industry and labour. It would be in a position to give speedy decisions after the employers or employees had presented their cases in the same manner as cases are presented to other courts. The industrial court would have authority to see that its judgments were executed. If such a court were functioning, it would, in the opinion of many people, put an end to strikes.
There are one or two matters I should like to take up before discussing the budget as a whole. First, I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance the unfairness of the discrimination he has created in imposing taxes upon officers of the armed forces serving in Canada, whereas those serving overseas are exempt. I will illustrate my point by referring to the case of a medical officer who served for four years in the last war and who returned to find that his practice had disappeared and he had to begin all over again, with impaired health, although not sufficient to warrant a [DOT]pension. Since the last war this officer helped by hard work to keep the militia alive during the misguided days when pacifist elements were forcing reduction of militia grants and abolishing the cadet corps. The men in the different regiments were so poor that many of them had to be provided with carfare, otherwise they would not have been able to attend parades. The officers supplied this money, usually out of their own pockets. Thanks to all this sacrifice, these officers maintained a nucleus of trained men to form skeleton regiments which were available to train raw recruits at the outbreak of the present war. The officer to whom I am referring enlisted again in 1939 and is doing essential work in the army in Canada. He finds himself, however, in this position: he is paying off the principal of a mortgage on his home, for which he receives some consideration by way of income tax ruling, but he is also paying off a bank loan

obtained for the initial payment on his home, which he undertook to repay in monthly instalments but for which he receives no consideration from the income tax officers. I wish also to direct the minister's attention to a further injustice he is doing in treating as income, as is done in this case, the money that this officer is paying on a debt to the bank. He now finds himself in the position of being unable to pay off the loan to the bank if, at the same time, he has to make income tax payments. It seems to me very unfair to tax a man on money which is earmarked even before he gets it.
Another apparent unfairness is that of taxing officers of the armed forces on subsistence allowance. If they are living in barracks they do not receive subsistence allowance, but they are taxed on what it would be if they did receive it. These older officers should be given more consideration, particularly the ones who have served in both wars; for they have now almost eight years of war service to their credit. Surely it would seem only right and equitable that they be relieved of this tax, so that they may have the privilege of putting aside something for their old age or to enable them to meet commitments that they made before entering this war. I again ask the minister to give thoughtful and sympathetic consideration to these suggestions.
I should like to draw the attention of the minister to another anomaly in his tax which should be speedily corrected. Officers and crews of tankers carrying oil from Canada to the United States and south American ports have to pay income tax. Although doing valuable service to Canada, they are not exempt because they are "employed by private business."


Mr. MARTIN:: Nor are members of the merchant marine generally.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: manner that it falls more heavily on some groups than on others, there would be even more reason for congratulations.
I have referred to the immense sums of money which the finance minister gets for spending in the departments. We are all behind him and them, so far as value and winning the war is concerned. But there is another service he should render, a service only second to the great one of collecting the taxes on as fair a basis as possible. He should see that the spending of the money is not wasteful. It is not fair for the government to ask sacrifices from the people without giving them the best possible example by reorganizing every department which can be run more efficiently for less money. I am informed by men familiar with the civil service that there is not a department which would not be better for a double process of reorganization and the pruning knife. Men thus made available would be paid for working for the national war effort with the money saved in such reorganization. I am aware that the finance minister has told his colleagues to cut down and that some changes have been made, but I am informed also, and I think the ministers know it themselves, that the changes made are small compared with what could be done if the job were courageously and intelligently tackled.
That part of the contemplated war expenditure which covers the sending of munitions to Britain, to Russia and to China is welcomed' by us all. Brave fighters against the common enemy give full value by their fighting for all that we send. Canadians feel that it is a privilege to help them. We have a very special interest in our own fighting forces and we want to see them adequately equipped and supported. I am sure that these huge amounts which the minister collects will do far more damage to the enemy when we have a balanced and effective man-power policy and when the burdens are more evenly placed. Until that happens, we do not know how far we can go.
In conclusion, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to remedy those parts of the income tax which tax capital as though it were income. The fact that a man can take his savings and buy a pension for his wife with them is taken advantage of by the income tax branch, which says that by that act he has changed the capital into income. If he had left it in the bank for her, she could have taken it out in the same yearly proportion without a tax. It is ridiculous and unjust to apply a tax in such a way as to stop such a praiseworthy provision for dependents, a type of provision which is very much in the interest of the nation.


Mr. T. V. GRANT (Kings):: The Budget-Mr. Grant

or the United States during the winter when markets would be at their highest. I believe that last year the loss to the farmers of Prince Edward Island through potatoes being frozen as a result of poor storage have been more than enough to meet the cost of such a frostproof potato shed.
Within my memory there have been five ice-breakers built b}7 the dominion government to maintain winter service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. The average cost of these ice-breakers has been about $1,000,000. The Charlottetown, which was lost, cost the government over $2,000,000, and now we are to have another one built at a cost of $3,000,000. If we add the $3,000,000 to what it cost to build the other five, we get the figure of $8,000,000. Then, according to the figures given in this house the other day by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Michaud), in the last ten years the deficits from the operation of that car ferry have totalled $4,000,000. The deficits by years were as follows:
1933		$ 288.144 18
1934	
383,942	001935	
360.334	361936	
303.439	891937	
333,287	341938	
387.643	581939	
426,854	051940	
460,773	481941	
423,650	751942	
591,095	36
Total

If we add this $4,000,000 to the figure I have already mentioned, we have a total of $12,000,000, and all that money is gone. Undoubtedly the repairs to these ferry boats for the last fifty years would bring that total to at least $20,000,000. The point I wish to make is that for the last fifty years or more our people have advocated the construction of a tunnel between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. If this tunnel had been built fifty years ago it would not have cost over $20,000,000, which is the amount vce have spent since that time in providing service by car ferries, and now we have nothing to show for it except one car ferry which is thirty years old. We are now building a new car ferry at a cost of $3,000,000, but in another year we shall still have only one boat, because the old Prince Edward Island will probably be obsolete by that time. Then we shall have to spend another $3,000,000 for another car ferry, because we cannot get along with one boat.
The public recognize that a tunnel would be the best solution from a practical point of

view, because the cost of a tunnel has been spent since the government began to make an honest attempt to give us daily winter communication with the mainland. It would be the right solution from an economic point of view. It would also be the right solution from an employment point of view, in the interest of our returned soldiers. We can talk as much as we like about what we intend to do for the returned soldiers. It seems that we are to create a utopia to offer them when they come back, but we might as well stop talking about that. The social security plan being prepared by the Department of Pensions and National Health and the plan for the rehabilitation of returned soldiers are all to the good, and I am glad they are under way, but the first thing we must do when the soldiers come back is to see to it that they have employment until they are settled on the land or established in their respective callings, and I think the construction of a tunnel between Prince Edward Island and the mainland would provide an immense amount of employment. I believe this tunnel should be commenced as soon as this war is over. This is the only means of fulfilling the terms of confederation, which were that we would have daily communication between the island and the mainland. The Prime Minister and his grandfather, William Lyon Mackenzie, before him have been exponents of responsible government. It would be a grand climax in his life if he were to be the man to fulfil the terms of confederation by having this tunnel constructed between Prince Edward Island and the mainland and I hope this work will be started during the premiership of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.


Gordon Graydon: If I may ask my hon. friend a question, what have been the interruptions in the ferry service during the last year? I know there have been several, and I was wondering if my hon. friend could tell the house about them.


Thomas Vincent Grant: In one case the propeller
broke, and we were lucky to get it repaired and replaced: in less than a week, because they were able to have it repaired in Charlottetown. Then there was another interruption, but at the moment I cannot remember the reason. There were two interruptions this winter, and in addition, as most people know7, we came close to losing the car ferry not so long ago.


Gordon Graydon: Once in a while the island becomes almost isolated, I understand.

The Budget-Mr. Grant


Thomas Vincent Grant: Yes. I wish to thank the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) because he has reminded me of something we are advocating at the present time. We should have on Prince Edward Island a slip of sufficient capacity to take this car ferry when it needs repairs, instead of having to send it to Saint John, in dangerous waters, or up the St. Lawrence river. I believe the government are considering the construction of such a slip in Prince Edward Island, which is not considered to be in dangerous waters.


Gordon Graydon: You certainly need some help in regard to transportation between the mainland and the island.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Yes. The hon. gentleman has been so kind that I should like to congratulate him upon his appointment as house leader of his party. As hon. members know, at the Winnipeg convention is was rather amusing when the Conservative party again changed its name. People across Canada were smiling, but I wish to congratulate the Progressive Conservative party, because they could not have chosen a better man to laugh it off.
I am sorry that the ex-leader of the exit Conservative party is not in his seat at- the moment, because he has been in the habit of flying over to my province and trying to deposit poisonous spawn, if not on the leaves of our potatoes, then in the minds of our people. He has been telling them that they have no representatives in the house who will rise in their places and speak, although at the same time he knew very well that the same would apply to every province, because we overflow our benches. Not only do we fill the Liberal side of the house, but we require at least a third of the space on the opposition side. That is why hon. members on this side of the house who wish to get down to business, and get home some time within twelve months, do not speak so often. When we do speak we perhaps show a lack of practice.
The ex-leader of the exit Conservative party has said that New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have the best potatoes in the world. I wish to correct that statement. Prince Edward Island has the best potatoes in the world; Ireland has the next best, and perhaps New Brunswick would come third.
It is my honest opinion that we have too many political parties. The constitution should be changed so that there would be only two parties, the government and the opposition and if men like the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation wish to enter politics, let them enter one or other party, and try to
improve it. That is democracy. When I referred to entering one or other party I was not referring to every hon. member who sits opposite, but had particular reference to the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.
For some time the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) has been a great exponent of the Japanese cause.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The hon. member should clarify what he means when he says I have been an exponent of the Japanese cause. He should state of what particular Japanese cause I have been the exponent.


Thomas Vincent Grant: I did not have reference to
the war. T am referring to before the war
-and since the war, too.


Angus MacInnis: The Japanese I have
been concerned about are not Japanese; they are Canadians. Possibly my hon. friend does not know that?


Thomas Vincent Grant: Some have said that the
hon. member for Vancouver East must be part Japanese himself, but, Mr. Speaker, I assure you that is not so. He was born in my constituency in Prince Edward Island, of good, honest and decent parents. They were old Scotch people right from Scotland, and there were certainly no Japanese in that part of the country. There were a few Chinese around there-but no Japs.
We have heard too much talk about national security, post-war problems and social security. Let us take the advice of Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt and our own Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and leave most of these matters for the consideration of the younger generation, after the war is over. It would be too sudden a change altogether if after the war we had everything we would like to have. We must go into these things gradually. What we have done is all very well; but we cannot have it all arranged before the war is over. In this connection I believe I could not do better than quote Pope's famous couplet:
Be not the first by whom the new are tried,
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside.
On motion of Mr. Ilsley the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at six p.m.
72537-90a
Questions

Monday, March 22, 1943