1943-05-10

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding further with the business of the house I should like to express a word with respect to the outstanding victory of the allied forces in Africa.
In the statement I issued on November 8 of last year, when the allied forces landed in Northwest Africa, I said: "The war of liberation to-day entered the stage of active offensive combat." On Friday last, almost six months to the day since the allied landings, Tunis and Bizerte, the last axis strongholds in the whole of Africa, were captured. The news since Friday indicates that the remnants of the axis forces still in Tunisia, which have sought refuge in the Cape Bon peninsula, will be pursued and hunted until all German and Italian resistance is ended. Offensive warfare from El Alamein to Tunis, and from Casablanca and Algiers to Bizerte, has now brought North Africa, 'from the Atlantic Coast to the Red sea, under the power of the united nations.
It should not be forgotten that these successes have come only after six months of sustained fighting in the western desert, and in the mountain of Tunisia; also that, behind this sustained fighting were months of planning and preparation which occupied the time from June to October of last year.
The advance by the Eighth Army of more than 1,200 miles in 80 days, from El Alamein to Tripoli, was a marvellous achievement. It was the counterpart of the other remarkable advance, from Casablanca to Bizerte, which led from the allied landings early in November. Both offensives were part of a planned single whole. The victory at Tunis and Bizerte is the crowning triumph of the battles that have been waged, see-saw fashion, back and forth across the desert for two and a half years. Victory has been the more impressive because of the extent to which it was shared by armed forces of so many of the united nations and all three services. War in North Africa from the outset has been war on land and sea and air combined.
The campaigns of the past six months have been the final stage in the struggle for the whole continent of Africa. This struggle really began when Italy entered the war nearly three years ago. It has been waged

Allied Victory in North Africa
actively since the first British invasion of Libya in December of 1940. The whole of Italian East Africa was captured and Ethiopia freed from the Italians in 1941. The destruction of the Italian empire, and the liberation of the French empire in Africa, both of which began in 1940, have now been completed. The whole continent of Africa, with the exception of the colonial possessions of Portugal and Spain is now united in the allied cause.
The liberation of the French empire in Africa brings closer the union under one authority and one battle flag of all Frenchmen fighting with the united nations.
When French North Africa, after brief resistance, passed to the allied side, in November, Admiral Darlan undertook the maintenance of French interests generally throughout North Africa. After Darlan was assassinated on Christmas eve, General Giraud took up this task as head of the.French forces.
A first meeting between General de Gaulle and General Giraud took place on January 22, during the Casablanca conference. Negotiations between representatives of these two leaders have since continued, both in North Africa and in London. Since the fall of Tunis, General Giraud has named an officer of the Fighting French to be Resident-General in Tunisia.
French forces in North Africa-at least eleven divisions strong, according to the latest announcement-have now been consolidated, and are being equipped with weapons supplied by the united nations. Not only will this new French army stand as guardian of a part of the united nations from which Hitler's forces have been driven out, but it will also stand ready to fight in the further offensives which even now are in prospect.
In relation to the war as a whole, it would be difficult to overestimate the victory of the united nations in Africa. It marks the end of the first stage of the offensive from the west against the European axis partners. It has assured the united nations control of the Suez canal, of Egypt, of the Atlantic ports of west Africa, and, now, of the whole southern shore of the Mediterranean. North Africa, in fact, becomes a base for much greater offensives, which will gain in striking force because of the concentration of sea and air power in conjunction with land forces now available in that area.
Speaking in Montreal on October 16, last, less than a month before the military occupation of French North Africa by the allied forces. I felt obliged to point out that after three
72537-159}	. . 'JI1
years of war, nowhere had the balance been turned decisively against the enemy. Here was the position as I then described it:
In 1940, Britain held; in 1941, Russia held; at the present stage of war, Britain is still holding; Russia is still holding; China, despite the years of her resistance, is still holding. A precarious balance is being maintained on the Atlantic, in the middle east, and in the Pacific. Very critical battles are at the moment in progress. Others loom upon the horizon. There is, however, no sign that, as yet, the tide of war has definitely turned.
. The victory of the united nations in North Africa is a decisive victory. It may well come to mark the definite turn of the tide of war in the whole struggle against Italy and Germany. How strongly the tide had set in the opposite direction will be realized when we recall that to-dav is the third anniversary of the nazi invasion of the low countries and of the real assault upon France; and when we reflect upon the successive acts of successful aggression which followed that day.
In paying a tribute to-day to the victors of Tunis and Bizerte, we remember the feats of arms of all ranks, also the skilled and patient generalship which inspired confidence and dared to wait until every detail had been perfected before a victorious offensive was launched. We may, I think, recall with pride the share Canadian airmen have taken, over the past two years, in all the campaigns in the western desert. We remember, too, that ships and men of Canada's navy were among those that, in November last, helped to escort the great armada which carried the British and American armies to North Africa. In the months since, many of our ships have given a good account of themselves. Two have been lost in action in the Mediterranean. Nor do we forget the officers and non-commissioned officers of Canada's army who have been gaining battle experience with the British first army.
It is also a matter of pride for Canadian workers and Canadian industry to remember that they provided a large part of the transport and armoured vehicles which carried the British eighth army from Egypt and Tunisia.
I have felt that hon. members would wish to have on the records of this house a formal expression of the feelings of the people of Canada upon the signal victory of the united nations in Africa. Accordingly, I have prepared a resolution which, with the permission of the house, I should now like to move. I

Allied Victory in North Africa
have shown the resolution to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition who has kindly agreed to second it.
We, the members of the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, desire to express our great satisfaction at the decisive victory which has attended the arms of the united nations and destroyed axis power on the continent of Africa.
We desire also to record our admiration of the courage and skill of the sea, land and air forces of the united nations so admirably combined into a single fighting unit.
We wish also to convey to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, to the President of the United States, to General Eisenhower, the Commandey-in-Chief, and to the other allied commanders, and to all ranks serving under them our congratulations on the telling results achieved by the careful planning and effective coordination of allied efforts in Africa.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to second the motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) I am sure all will agree with me when I say that it fills our hearts with joy as members of the House of Commons to realize that on such an auspicious occasion as this there can be unanimity on all sides. As the Prime Minister said, we have marked a definite turning point in the stage of our war effort as united nations. While he may not have put it in these words, nevertheless he said in effect that by virtue of the victory which has thus been achieved we have moved from the stage of actual preparation for war as united nations into the realm of actual offensive. The victory which has been achieved in North Africa will have a salutary and signal effect, not only in elevating the morale of the people throughout the united nations but also in reestablishing in the minds of many other peoples confidence in the strength of the armed forces of the united nations.
I think we ought to pay special attention to the part which has been played there by our own armed forces. The Prime Minister made reference to the navy and to the air force, and I want to reecho those sentiments on behalf of our party. One of the significant and inspiring circumstances of the North African victory is that there was a union between the Anglo-Saxon and French forces which augurs well for victories that are to come in the days that lie ahead. Without reflecting upon the sacrifices and the service and the splendid achievements of the other branches of the armed forces in Libya and in North Africa, I think most of us will want to pay just a little extra tribute to that

magnificent eighth army upon which for so long has rested so much of the onus and the burden of battle.
When we congratulate all ranks of the armed forces who took part in this notable victory, let us not forget that many homes have been bereaved because of the sacrifice and service which has been rendered. I should like to add to what the Prime Minister has said, not only words of congratulation to the armed forces who took such a valiant part in the struggle, but also words of sympathy and deep understanding for those who have been bereaved, for those whose homes have been hit so hard by the burden of the struggle in which loved ones have participated.
I should like also to offer a word of caution. Mr. Churchill said on a previous occasion with respect to the North African campaign that the people of the world must not regard it as the beginning of the end but rather as the end of the beginning. We have I think on too many occasions previously taken our victories as being the beginning of the end. I would caution this house and Canada generally that the days that lie ahead will be strenuous ones, in comparison with which the sacrifices of the past may seem small; there will be many darker days before the dawn and before world peace is actually ours. But on this occasion at least I think we may well pause to recall the sacrifices and the services that have been rendered in Africa. In comparison with them, how small do the services seem that we as civilians, whether in this parliament or outside, are rendering in our war effort; for in this campaign many have given their all in the cause of righteousness and freedom.
I take much pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in seconding the resolution proposed by the Prime Minister.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, it is right and proper that this resolution should be introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Gray-don). The Prime Minister has placed on the record an outline of the campaign which has ended so successfully in North Africa. We join with all others in the house in congratulations to the men who have fought this magnificent fight and also in an expression of our sympathy to those who have been bereaved by the supreme sacrifice that has been made by so many.
I agree with the leader of the opposition that in our rejoicing at the present stage of the campaign we should not lose our perspective. After all we have been at war now for over three and a half years and this is the first

Allied Victory in North Africa
time that our forces have driven back the enemy to any appreciable extent. We have watched with admiration the splendid fight that has been put up by our gallant allies. Equally we have watched with alarm the situation in the far east, and in our rejoicing we should not forget that while a victorious army is moving forward in North Africa, our troops are retreating in Burma. This I think illustrates the difficulties in which the united nations find themselves and makes it clear that the war will be long. The successful close of the present campaign in Africa is but the end of the beginning of one phase of this great conflict.
In the fight which has taken place our Canadian boys have borne some part. Ships bearing the names of two Canadian cities, the Charlottetown and the Weybum, were lost in the course of this campaign, and we express to the families of those who were casualties our deep sympathy.
I think there is another lesson to be learned from this campaign, a lesson of which I hope the leaders of the united nations will take heed. Mistakes were made at the beginning particularly in the field of political strategy. Many people viewed with misgivings the attempts that were made to appease quislings of the Vichy regime, and we hope that the outcry raised against that procedure will be borne in mind so that when the continent of Europe is invaded there will be no repetition of the mistakes which were then made.
With these thoughts in mind we join with others in rejoicing at the victorious issue of the campaign and express the hope that ere long we may see the enemy driven back from both sides of the European continent, when the opportunity will come to destroy the Japanese aggressor also.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Social Creditors rejoice in the splendid and heartening victories that have destroyed axis fighting power in North Africa. Fervently and reverently we accept these blessings and congratulate the noble men and women whose efforts, under God, have gained them for us. There is honour enough to go round, and we desire that honour to be distributed all round, equitably and impartially. We are mindful not only of those who marched through triumphantly but of those who fell and of those who in far-off and obscure places struck, weakening the foe.
We Social Crediters solemnly assure our forces that, to the utmost limit, such influence and power as may be given us, we shall exert to the end that this appalling struggle shall
not have been in vain, but that in the home lands freedom shall be defended, extended and safeguarded; that the active causes of commercial rivalry which provoke and precipitate war shall be eliminated from our way of life, and that never again shall peace-loving people be left inadequately protected.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad indeed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has brought forward this resolution and referred to the part that Canada has played in the North African campaign. But my purpose in rising is to tell the house and the country of an act of great valour on the part of a young Canadian from my own constituency who gave his life in that campaign. Earl Griffin, a student for the ministry, enlisted in the Royal Canadian Navy as a submarine detector on His Majesty's Canadian ship Louisburg. During the course of the past six months she was engaged in action in the Mediterranean, and one day in February was struck by a dive bomber. In three minutes she sank. At that moment the young man was below decks. The commanding officer gave the order to abandon ship, but instead of obeying the order this young man stayed behind to put the depth charges in a place of safety so that they would not explode when the ship sank. In so doing he lost his life when he might have saved it. He lost his life in order that the lives of others might be saved. This is but one illustration of the heroism of young Canadians, and I hope it will have public recognition at the hands of those who are charged with such matters.
Hon. LOUIS S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice (Translation):	Mr. Speaker,
may I add a few words in French to extol the victory which the allied forces have just won in North Africa? I remember with emotion that during the night of November 7 we heard in Quebec the request made by the President of the United States that a few French voices should join his own in transmitting to the French people a message of confidence and encouragement, to tell them that we, the allies, had just landed on their colonial territory, that we were coming as friends, that we would not claim one inch of their empire, but that we were coming for the sole purpose of initiating the liberation which they and we desired with equal fervour. For us French-speaking citizens of North America, it was indeed an occasion which enhanced our pride and gave us the assurance that the struggle waged by the allied nations was our fight just as it
Northwest Defence Projects

was the fight of all other free men in the world. I also rejoice this afternoon that within . six months to that day, the allied forces have succeeded in implementing the promise we made to the people of France on that night of November 7 last.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING - (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement with respect to the appointment of a special commissioner for defence projects in the northwest part of Canada.
The common approach of the governments of Canada and the United States to the problems of North American defence was formally recognized in the Ogdensburg agreement. The Permanent Joint Board on Defence, from its establishment in 1940, has been concerned with the defence of the west coast no less than the east coast of the continent.
As the war assumed global proportions, recommendations were made from time to time by the joint board for the development in northeastern Canada of projects of vital importance to the two nations for common defence and for the effective prosecution of the war. In northwestern Canada the Canadian government built a chain of air fields which stretches from northern Alberta to Alaska. The great Alaska highway project was undertaken. By joint arrangement between Canada and the United States, other transport and communication facilities are being constructed; in connection with these projects, natural resources of strategic significance are being developed.
The general plans of all these developments are, of course, based upon agreements between the competent authorities in Ottawa and Washington. But, in addition to these general arrangements, there is a growing volume of day-to-day business arising locally between Canadian and United States agencies and departmental officials to be considered and, in many cases, dealt with on the spot. There is, moreover, a need for a representative of high standing who can exercise a general supervision over all military developments in the area on behalf of the Canadian government as a whole.
To meet these needs the government has decided to appoint a special commissioner for defence pro'jects in northwest Canada to super-

vise and coordinate the activities of the several departments of government having responsibilities in connection with these developments, and to maintain close and continuous cooperation with all agencies of the United States government in the area.
The special commissioner will report to the war committee of the cabinet. He will be assisted in his work by such departmental representatives and other officers as may be necessary for the effective discharge of his responsibilities.
Brigadier W. W. Foster, D.S.O., has been appointed commissioner. Brigadier Foster at the time of his appointment was chairman in chief of the officers selection and appraisal board of the army. Before the last war Brigadier Foster was deputy minister of public works in British Columbia. He had a distinguished career in the army in the last war, and was decorated on several occasions for outstanding service at the front. After the war, Brigadier Foster spent a number of years in the practice of his profession as a construction engineer. In 1935 he was called upon to reorganize the police force of Vancouver and subsequently served as chief constable of the city.
Throughout the period between the wars Brigadier Foster was actively associated with the militia. He was also active in veterans' affairs and served as dominion president of the Canadian Legion. Since the outbreak of the present war, Brigadier Foster has held several responsible army commands. In these various capacities Brigadier Foster has added to his wide knowledge of western Canada, a variety of technical, military and administrative experience which will be invaluable in his new post.
In undertaking his duties the special commissioner will have the cooperation and assistance of experienced officials of the federal government. The Departments of Mines and Resources, Transport, National Defence for Air and Munitions and Supply are all closely concerned with war-time developments in the northwest. .
I should like to table copy of the order in council appointing Brigadier Foster special commissioner for defence projects in northwest Canada.
Gordon Graydon: Will the special commissioner's headquarters be in Ottawa, or somewhere in the district in which he will operate?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume it will be in Edmonton. Certainly it will be out in the western portion of the country.

Questions



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 77, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister if there is anything especially new in this bill, or is it the usual bill?


Mr. MICHAUD:: It is the usual bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MINERAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 78, respecting the British Columbia Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act.
Gordon Graydon: Will the minister give us a detailed explanation of this measure?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not detailed.


Mr. CRERAR:: I must ask to be
excused from giving a detailed explanation at the present time. The purpose of the bill is to overcome a difficulty in regard to mineral resources on Indian reserves in the province of British Columbia. The precious metals belong to the province even though located on Indian reserves; the base metals belong to *the Indians, and are administered by the federal government in trust for the Indians. Frequently, as hon. members are aware, base and precious metals are found in association in ores, and that presents a real practical difficulty in administration. That is sought to be overcome by this measure to ratify an agreement with the province of British Columbia-which agreement has been ratified by the British Columbia legislature-providing that the province shall generally have charge of the administration of the minerals and -that the proceeds from such minerals shall be equitably distributed between the province on the one hand and the federal government as trustee for the Indians on the other. When the measure is up for second reading I shall give the more detailed information which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) has asked for.


Gordon Graydon: Has the agreement between the province and the dominion been tabled?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It should be tabled in advance of the bill.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know that it has been tabled. It will be in the bill as a schedule.


Gordon Graydon: I think we should have the agreement between the province and the dominion tabled as soon as possible, certainly before the bill is dealt with.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Very well. I will look into that matter. There is no reason why the agreement should not be tabled.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Who are the members of the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	What salary, honorarium, living or other allowance, and travelling expenses, have been paid to each member of the board since appointment?
3.	What are the names of all persons employed by or in connection with the work of the board?
4.	What salary, honorarium, living or other allowance, and travelling expenses, have been paid to each such person?
5.	What has been the total expenditure by, of, or in connection with, the wartime prices and trade board since its establishment for,
(a)	salaries, honoraria and living allowances;
(b)	travelling expenses; (c) printing; (d) advertising; (e) radio programmes; (f) rentals; (g) all other expenditures?


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I ask leave to withdraw this question.
Question dropped.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-SHIPMENTS FROM COUNTRY ELEVATORS

Mr. WINKLER:: On what basis is allotment made by the wheat board for railway cars for shipping out wheat from country elevators?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: For the shipment of damp and low grade and durum wheat cars are. allotted as requested by the elevator company; consequently there is free shipment of whatever stocks -the elevator wishes to ship. For the shipment of high grade wheat to the lakehead, cars are allotted in the proportions of the permanent storage capacity of the elevators at the point. For
Questions

the shipment of wheat to mills, cars are allotted between the elevator companies in accordance with the number of elevators operated.



CANADIAN ARMY-PAY OP CERTAIN RANKS

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	How	many	troopers,	gunners,	sappers,
privates, etc., in the Canadian army, with more than four months' but less than six months' service, are receiving $1.40 per diem?
2.	How	many	troopers,	gunners,	sappers,
privates, etc., in the Canadian army, with more than four months' but less than six months' service, are still receiving only $1.30 per diem?
3.	How	many	troopers,	gunners,	sappers,
privates, etc., in the Canadian army, with more than six months' service, are receiving $1.50 per diem?
4.	How	many	troopers,	gunners,	sappers,
privates, etc., in the Canadian army, with more than six months' service, are still receiving only $1.30 per diem?


Mr. RALSTON:: I would ask my hon.
friend to drop this question. I will state why. I suggest to him in the first place that it will require literally months to get the information he asks for, because we shall have to inquire overseas as well. I suggest in the second place that the information really will not do him any good when he gets it because the question whether or not a man gets $1.30 or $1.50 a day after he has served from four to six months does not indicate at all the conditions under which that increase of pay is granted: The increase is granted not only on account of length of service but on account of efficiency and good conduct, and all three conditions will have to be present before increased pay will be granted'. Therefore it would be useless to answer the question as to how many men received increase of pay who had served more than four months and less than six months, without knowing whether or not the men had achieved the proper degree of efficiency and also had the proper record of good conduct. The same applies to No. 2, which is the reverse, and which asks how many men who have served more than four months and less than six months are still being paid $1.30. The fact that they have served from four to six months and are still paid' $1.30 would not give my hon. friend any information, because the other two questions would still arise as to their efficiency and their good conduct as well. Exactly the same situation applies to Nos. 3 and 4. Perhaps my hon. friend will let me know what information he desires, if there is any individual case he wants taken 
up, or if he wishes a general percentage of those who have received increased pay. If so, I shall be glad to try to get it.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I will discuss the matter with the minister. I should like to get the percentages.


James Layton Ralston: I think I can give the
percentage for England almost immediately, and for Canada very soon.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 
James Layton Ralston: I must make a reservation in connection with this question. It should be made an order for return, but I am going to assume that Nos. 4 and 5, asking for the number of men who have enlisted in the leserve army and the number of men who have retired after enlistment, apply to the period of the war. I presume that the hon. member refers only to men enlisting since the beginning of the war.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to No. 6,
I wish to make this reservation. The information will be given if it is readily available.
I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to have us go over the records of 400,000 men who have enlisted in order to ascertain which *of them were in the reserve army before.


Percy Chapman Black: That will be satisfactory if the minister makes an explanation to that effect after he has had an

Sussex Military Camp
opportunity to have the question looked into, though I should like to have the complete information asked for.


James Layton Ralston: I wish to say now that I do not want it stated that an order of the house had been passed calling upon me to give this information without this reservation. I shall look into the question and see whether the information is readily available or not.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all accounts rendered by Dr. Aime Chartier, of Montreal, for medical services given by him under the Government Employees Compensation Act, and all letters and communications respecting the said accounts that have passed between him and the Departments of Transport and Finance.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Before this resolution is adopted may I say that I have spoken to the hon. member and I think it is agreed to limit the information to cases which have arisen in the last three years.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to facilitate its operation and to extend its provisions to employees in receipt of remuneration up to $2,400 a year, under one or more contracts of service, thereby raising the present ceiling of $2,000 to the amount above mentioned.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. According to to-day's press a serious situation has arisen at Sussex, New Brunswick, between two regiments there. The
Canadian Press reports that as a result of a serious disturbance one man has been killed and seventeen have been injured. Can the minister make any statement to the house regarding the matter, as to whether the report is true or exaggerated, or what the situation is?


James Layton Ralston: I intended to have a complete statement prepared but owing to the fact that a court of inquiry was convened on Friday and' is still sitting, and will be sitting probably for another two or three days, no complete statement can be made. At the same time, perhaps it is due the house and the country that I give what highlights I can with regard to this unfortunate incident.
Apparently on Thursday last a disturbance occurred quite late at night in the Sussex camp. It arose from an altercation between two comparatively small groups, one belonging to the Voltigeurs de Quebec and the other to the Dufferin and Haldimand. Apparently a Dufferin-Haldimand group had been visiting the canteen of the Voltigeurs, after they left the canteen hot words ensued between them and a group of the Voltigeurs, and an argument took place; one group apparently endeavoured to get into the huts of the other and some shots were exchanged in which Private Bennett, who later died, was hit, and Sergeant Bowman was hit as well. I think there were three who were in hospital as a result of minor injuries and cuts and bruises. The actual incident, I am informed, did not last more than perhaps ten or fifteen minutes. Apparently these men came to their senses when the shots were fired, but an unfortunate development was that on Saturday afternoon Private Bennett died.
In the meantime on Friday a court of inquiry had been convened, which - consists I think of two officers of a FrenclvCanadian regiment and two of an English-speaking regiment under the presidency of Colonel Toy, and that court of inquiry is now proceeding. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police came in soon after it was reported to them, as a matter of routine, and are conducting a separate investigation. At the court of inquiry a representative of the attorney general of New Brunswick is present and has opportunity to take part as he sees fit.
A report apparently got abroad-there was a report in the press this morning-that there was more trouble on Saturday night. I am advised that that is incorrect; that on Saturday night the troops were down town in Sussex, there was some evidence of a gathering
250S
Sussex Military Camp

together of various groups which perhaps might lead to trouble, and the officers had the men go back to camp.
That is all I can. say to the house at the moment, except this, that Brigadier Topp, with whom I was talking, advises me that he cam say positively that prior to this disturbance the most cordial relations had existed between these two units and that there was no evidence whatever of any racial or religious friction, neither was it a question of general service versus National Resources Mobilization Act personnel, because all the personnel involved were general service personnel. It seems to have been a sudden altercation which blazed up all at once. If it had not been for the unfortunate and regrettable fatality that occurred perhaps not a great deal would have been heard of it. I can only say that the most thorough investigation will take place and whatever disciplinary and remedial action is indicated will follow. I know the house will join with me, as I join with the officers and men of the defence department, in deep sympathy with the foster mother, Mrs. Miller, and the sister of Private Bennett and also his comrades and friends who were bereaved by this unfortunate and regrettable incident.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was there not evidence that some trouble was brewing prior to the incident in question? And will the report of the court of inquiry be made public?


James Layton Ralston: It is not usual to make
public the report of a court of inquiry. That will have to be considered at the time. It will be understood that this matter may involve a civil offence as well, and of course the civil proceedings will be made public. With regard to the first question, I am giving my hon. friend exactly what I got from Brigadier Topp. I have no evidence or suggestion that there has been any trouble of any kind brewing between these regiments.


Major James William Coldwell: One thing that puzzles
some people is where the bullet came from. Are the men permitted to carry live ammunition? I understood that that was against military regulations.


James Layton Ralston: No, as a matter of fact
they are not.


Mr. POULIOT:: The report was made public when the hon. member for Portneuf was involved.



PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. BOUCHER (Carleton):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance with respect to the answer given to a question asked by me concerning an official of the wartime prices and trade board. The answer is found at page 2428 of Hansard: .
7, 8, 9, 10 and 19. In giving answer to questions, it is not considered in the public interest to disclose information regarding the deferment from military service of particular individuals merely because they are government employees.
Will the minister explain what is meant by the expression "merely because they are government employees"? I do not quite comprehend the significance of the word "merely" there as part of the answer.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: If they were not government employees the question would not be asked in this house and of course would not be answered. I took the position as I saw these questions that we should not single out persons who are in the government service and just because they happen to be in the government service give answers regarding deferment asked for be granted. I do not think it is a matter that has anything to do with the discharge of their public duties, anything to do in a real sense with the public service of the country. That is on a different basis altogether from questions about salary or the manner in which they are discharging their duties. I do not think it is the kind of question that it is in the public interest to answer.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will endeavour some time this week to arrange for the setting up of the war expenditures committee. The session is getting on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should not like to enter into the reasons which have made it impossible to reach that particular item on the agenda before this, but certainly almost every time the government has moved to get on with some of its most important legislation there have been interruptions for one reason or

Farm Labour
another. Other matters or measures have been brought up which have taken up a considerable amount of time. I understand the resolution referred to by my hon. friend is one that it is expected -will take up some considerable time in discussion. In that event I think it should stand over until we have completed the measure which the Minister of Finance has introduced with respect to war supplies and also the war appropriation bill.



FARM LABOUR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I understand from news dispatches that the dominion government proposes to enter into agreements with the provinces to share organization and other expenses in connection with the agricultural labour programme. I gave the minister notice, I think on Friday, that I intended to ask this question, but the opportunity did not present itself then. I should be glad if the minister would indicate to the house the purpose and nature and extent of these proposed agreements.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: In reply to the leader of the opposition I would say that we are entering into farm labour agreements with all of the provinces, the purpose of which is to assist the provinces to organize more effectively the man-power already engaged in agriculture, and to recruit, transport and place on farms during 1943^4, labourers, whether male or female, suitable for farm work, to the end that agricultural production objectives may be attained.
As to the nature of the agreements, their main feature is a definition of the terms and conditions under which the dominion will provide financial and other assistance to the provinces in carrying out the programmes. Under these agreements the dominion and the provinces share the costs of these programmes, other than the costs of moving farm workers from one province to another, on a dollar for dollar basis.
A dominion-provincial committee has been set up in each province to determine the kind of programme to be followed. While the
details of the programmes will vary from province to province, the underlying principles are similar.
The expenditures involved will naturally differ among provinces depending upon the size and the nature of the problem. A large share of the responsibility for the detailed administration of the farm labour programmes which are developed, will rest with the provinces. The agreements provide however that the facilities of the employment and selective service offices will be used wherever possible to implement the programmes.
To ensure the efficient operation of our own offices in carrying out their responsibilities in this joint effort, we have appointed an agricultural employment adviser for each region across Canada. Because of the size of the agricultural area, an adviser has been appointed for each province in the prairie region. It will be the duty of these men to see that the farm labour 'activities of local offices in their respective areas are properly coordinated with those of the dominion-provincial programme in each province. This will assure a more effective united attack on the problem.
The extent of the agreements this year may be more fully appreciated by some comparison with what was done in 1942. Last year agreements were arranged with six provinces. This year there will be an agreement with every province. Last year the agreements provided for a total dominion government contribution of $164,000. This year the dominion's contribution on a dollar for dollar basis will exceed half a million dollars. In addition, the dominion is prepared to spend up to $300,000 to move harvest and other farm labourers from one province to another. Last year's appropriation on this account was $250,000. The 1942 agreements were designed to meet the extra demands for seasonal workers for fruit, vegetable and grain harvesting. This year the aim is not only to meet the labour needs for seasonal peaks but also to meet the more urgent and more difficult problem of supplying steady experienced help for the greatly expanded dairy and live stock production.
Since I announced the farm labour policy on February 26 officials of the Department of Labour have visited all the provinces to discuss the farm labour problem with provincial authorities. A joint farm labour programme is now under way in every province. The agreements are being made under P.C. 3620.
Farm Labour

I now table a copy of this order in council together with a form copy of the agreements between the dominion and provinces. If after consideration of the order in council and draft agreement there are other questions which hon. members wish to bring forward I suggest that they be put on the order paper.


Gordon Graydon: Through the service they operate, in conjunction with the provinces, has the minister or his department any idea of the amount of farm labour which will be required for the seeding, harvesting and fall operations on the farms of Canada? If so, is the programme the minister has outlined, together with the government's other collateral programmes, calculated to meet the need that agriculture now faces?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can probably supply my hon. friend with an approximate figure, but he will appreciate it can only be approximate. The answer to the second question is yes.


Gordon Graydon: In other words the minister feels that the labour which will be supplied under this arrangement will be sufficient to meet the needs of agriculture?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know; I cannot go so far as to give an unequivocal yes to that. We can say we hope it will.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: How does the farmer go about procuring the services of a conscientious objector to work on the farm? There is not complete harmony between the selective service officials and the board. It is now seeding time, and the farmers are having difficulty in obtaining the services of conscientious objectors.


Humphrey Mitchell: Recently we appointed alternative selective service officers in the different regions across Canada. If the hon. member will get in touch with the officer for Manitoba, who I believe is in Winnipeg, I think he will find the results satisfactory.


Mr. HOMUTH:: It is not working.


John Horne Blackmore: What official of the government has the final say with respect to any matter which may be in dispute between the selective service organization and any other organization having to do with decisions pertaining to the operation of this measure?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the minister
would have the final say.


John Horne Blackmore: The Minister of Labour?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Will the minister indicate who has the final authority for the establishment of Japanese labour in any particular community? .


Humphrey Mitchell: The Minister of Labour.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Of the federal department?


Humphrey Mitchell: May I add that that would be subject to the approval of the provincial authorities. That is understood, of course.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Who has the final disposition of moving them out after the war, if such is considered advisable?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not a good enough guesser to know who may be here after the war.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence for Air whether he is able to give any further information regarding the loss of some thirty-seven Royal Canadian Air Force personnel as a result of enemy action, as revealed by the Royal Canadian Air Force casualty list issued last week. If the minister cannot make a statement now, when may we expect one?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: I regret to say I am- unable to give any information with respect to the loss of these men at sea. If anywhere there is more -rigid censorship than anywhere else, it is in matters connected with the admiralty, shipping and transportation. It may be that later I shall be able to give some information to the house, but at the present time it would be absolutely impossible to do so.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 72, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
He said: There are many of these amendments, but nearly all are of a clerical nature, such as punctuation and the changing of the wording of marginal notes. Then, the session of 1941 is described as the session of 1941-42. In addition there are some corrections of errors, but there is no change in the sections, in principle, as explained to the house. In

Mutual Aid Bill
two or three instances the wording did not clearly indicate the intention of the government The measure was prepared hurriedly, and as a result there were some minor errors.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This appears to be a- monumental work on the part of the new senate finance committee. They have dotted every "i" and crossed every "t", but nothing of substance has been altered. It seems a pity that after such monumental effort they were not able to produce something better than this.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Had they produced anything of substance the chances are I would not have concurred.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



EXCESS PROFITS TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 69, to amend the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY moved the second reading of bill No. 76, for granting to his majesty aid for the purpose of making available Canadian war supplies to the united nations.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Tem-iscouata):	Mr. Speaker, if you have no
objection we will make a visit to the mysterious arcade of high finance. I should like to refer to what was said the other day by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldweii) and by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) with regard to money given to other nations that needed it.
There are English institutions that are much more prosperous than the Bank of England. For the year ended October 22, 1941, the total deposits in the Bank of England were £194,148,138 as compared to £181,166,295 for the twelve months ended October 23, 1940. During the same period in 1941 the deposits held by Barclays Bank were £710,077,244 as
compared with £583,218,268 in 1940. These included current, deposit and other accounts, including balance of profit and loss, in two institutions, Barclays Bank Limited and Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas). If we convert these sterling deposits into dollars on the basis of $4.44 to the pound we get $3,173,000,000 as the amount on deposit on October 22, 1941, which is just three and a half times the amount on deposit in the Bank of England.
Barclays Bank Limited has its head office at 54 Lombard street, London, E.C. 3. Barclay, Bevan, Tritton, Ransom, Bouverie and Company were established as a private bank prior to 1694. They were incorporated in 1896 with other private banks, including Gurney and Company of Norwich and elsewhere, as Barclay and' Company Limited. The name was changed to the above in February, 1917. As from January 1, 1916, they absorbed the United Counties Bank Limited; as from January 1, 1918, the London Provincial and Southwestern Bank Limited, and a number of smaller banks at various dates between 1897 and 1919. Late in 1919 they acquired over 99 per cent and subsequently the whole of the share capital of the Union Bank of Manchester, Limited, which has been amalgamated as from January 1, 1940. Also in 1919 they acquired almost the whole of the stock of the British Linen bank.
They own the share capital of Barclays Bank (France) Limited, which as Barclays Bank (Overseas) Limited was registered in May, 1922, to acquire the banking business of Cox and Company (France) Limited. The name was changed to Barclays Bank (France) Limited in 1926. In February, 1925, they established a new bank entitled Barclays Bank S.A.I. which was registered under Italian laws. They control Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas) which is an amalgamation of the Colonial Bank, Anglo-Egyptian Bank Limited and the National Bank of South Africa Limited, also Barclays Bank (Canada) and Barclays Trust Company of Canada.
Besides countless branches in the British isles, they have numerous branches, agencies and subagencies in all parts of Africa, such as the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Egypt, British West Africa, Cape Province, Natal, Orange Free State and the Transvaal, having 15 branches in Johannesburg; in all they have 302 branches, 74 agencies and 15 subagencies. They also have branches and agencies in Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, South West Africa, Portuguese East Africa, Uganda, Nyassaland, Tanganyika Territory, Kenya
Mutual Aid Bill
[Stage Direction]
Eritrea and Abyssinia. They also have branches in Cyprus, Gibraltar, Malta and Palestine, but apparently they do not operate in South America.
What is quite interesting is the intermingling of these various institutions. Mr. W. O. Stevenson, who is director of Barclays Bank Limited, is also director of Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas), Barclays Bank (France), Barclays Bank S.A.I. and Barclays Bank (Canada). Mr. W. M. Goodenough is deputy chairman of Barclays Bank as well as of Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas), Barclays Bank (France) and Barclays Bank S.A.I. Sir John Caulcutt is chairman of Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas) and director of Barclays Bank, Barclays Bank (France) and Barclays Bank (Canada). Mr. A. B. Gillett is vice chairman of Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas) and is director of Barclays Bank, Barclays Bank (France) and Barclays Bank S.A.I. Mr. L. G. Buxton is director of Barclays Bank, Barclays Bank (France) and Barclays Bank S.A.I. Mr. H. E. Seebohm is vice chairman of Barclays Bank and chairman of Barclays Bank (France) and Barclays Bank, S.A.I. Lord Essendon is director of Barclays Bank and of Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas) and Sir H. E. Snagge holds the same positions.
It is most interesting to notice how the directors of Barclays Bank, Limited, are also directors of other institutions. Many of the directors are also directors of British insurance companies. Mr. Edwin Fisher, the chairman, is also director of the Alliance Assurance Company Limited, the Century Insurance Company Limited and the Friends' Provident and Century Life Office. Lord Bethell is a director of Royal Exchange Assurance. Mr. David Martyn Evans Bevan, who is director of Barclays Bank Limited, is also a director of the Phoenix Assurance Company Limited. They are all bank directors. Lawrence Douglas Bevan, director of the bank, is also a director of the National Provident Institution. Lord Cornwallis, another director of Barclays Bank Limited, is also a director of the Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company Limited, of the Royal Insurance Company Limited and so on. Lord Rochdale, who is on the directorate of Barclays Bank, is also a director of the Phoenix Assurance Company Limited; Sir H. E. Snagge is also a director of the Atlas Assurance Company Limited, and Cecil Mercer Woodbridge, another director of the bank, is also a director of the Mercantile and General Insurance Company Limited. On the board of Barclays

Bank, Limited, there are some well-known people, especially Sir Follett Holt, who has. large South American interests, and Lord Melchett, of nickel fame, who succeeded his father. He has large interests in Canada, and there are other directors who are interested in -coal and various other commodities.
Coming now to the directors of the other London Barclays Bank, it is called Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas). The chairman is Sir John Caulcutt, who is also director of Barclays Bank (Canada) Limited; W. M. Goodenough, deputy chairman; A. B. Gillett; J. R. Leisk, A. C. Barnes, H. R. Bradfield, The Earl of Clarendon, Sir W. H. Clark, C. L. Dalziel, Lord Essendon, Lord 1 Lugard, Sir Ernest Oppenheimer, Sir H. E. Snagge, and W. 0. Stevenson. The members of the London committee are Sir Henry Chapman, Major-General Sir A. W. Money, E. C. Ruggles-Brise. The bank has a New York agency at 120 Broadway, and here, too, are some people with high standing in the world of finance; W. M. Goodenough, a banker; A. B. Gillett, also a banker; James R. Leisk, of Pretoria, South Africa, who has interests in the gold mines and other wealth in South Africa; A. C. Barnes, and the Earl of Clarendon. The fact that the Earl of Clarendon is on the board gives the bank great standing because he is the Lord Chamberlain of His Majesty's household and has been since 1938. He is also Chancellor of the Order of St. Michael and St. George and of the Royal Victorian Order. There is also our old friend Sir William Henry Clark, who was British High Commissioner in Canada from 1928 to 1934, and for Basutoland, Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland in South Africa from 1934 to 1939. Besides being a director of Barclays Bank he is also a director of the Southern Railway Company, Union Castle Mail Steamship Company and the Metropolitan Housing Corporation.
There is also Charles Lyall Dalziel, who is also on the London Board of the Bank of New South Wales, Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas), Investment Trust Corporation Limited, London and Clydesdale Trust Limited and of the London and Provincial Trust Limited, the Metropolitan Trust Company Limited, Realization and Debenture Corporation of Scotland, Limited, Royal Exchange Assurance, St. Andrew's Trust Limited and the Union Castle Mail Steamship Company Limited; also Lord Essendon, who is also chairman of Furness, Withy and Company Limited and of other shipping and insurance companies associated with Furness, Withy and Company Limited

Mutual Aid Bill
He is also a chairman of the Royal Mail Lines Limited, Director of Cunard, White-Star Limited, Chairman of Houlder Brothers and Company Limited, a director of Barclays Bank Limited and of the Sun Life and Sun Insurance companies. He is also a member of the committee 'of Lloyd's Register of Shipping; also Lord Lugard, former governor general of Nigeria, British member of the Permanent Mandates Commission, League of Nations, 1922-1936, and a director of Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas); also Sir Ernest Oppenheimer, chairman of the Anglo-American Corporation of South Africa since 1917 ancl chairman of De Beers Consolidated Mines, Limited, since 1929 and chairman also of the following companies- Consolidated Diamond Mines of South West Africa Limited, the Diamond Corporation Limited, Premier (Transvaal) Diamond Mining Company Limited; deputy chairman of Rhokana Corporation and a director of several other companies; also Sir Harold Edward Snagge, director of Barclays Bank Limited and of Barclays Bank Limited (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas), and of the Atlas Assurance Company Limited and other companies. He is also chairman of the D. Napier and Son Limited; Sir Henry Chapman, resident director and general manager of Rhodesian Railway Companies; Major-General Sir Arthur Wigram Money of the Bengal civil service, who served in the Zhob Valley expedition in 1890 and in the South African and Great Wars.
Some hon. members might perhaps say that this is just the ordinary course of business, that the directors of the London Barclays Bank are the directors of the bank here. But let me proceed a little further and then we shall reach a conclusion.
We have mentioned two Barclays banks. Here is another, Barclays Bank (France) Limited, with head office at 54 Lombard Street, London E.C. It has eight directors: H. E. Seebohm, chairman; Lieutenant-Colonel Miles Backhouse, L. G. Buxton, Sir John Caulcutt, F. Fischel, A. B. Gillett, W. M. Goodenough, and W. O. Stevenson. On one pound shares they paid five shillings per share. The bank has eleven branches in France and also one in Monte Carlo and branches in Algiers and Oran. As this is a private company it is said that its balance sheets are not published, but this information is official. Amongst the directors one is not very well known to this house. I refer to Lieutenant-Colonel Miles Backhouse, a director and a member of the managing committee of the Compagnie Internationale des Wagons Lits et des Grands Express Europeens (S.A.), a director of
Barclays Bank (France) Limited and of Cook's Bank Nominees Limited, International Sleeping Car Share Trust Limited, La Protectrice, Compagnie d'Assurance (Paris), Merchants and Manufacturers Insurance Company Limited, Thomas Cook and Son (Bankers) Limited, Thomas Cook and Son (Bankers) (France) Limited, Thomas Cook and Son Limited, Thomas Cook and Son Wagons Lits Incorporated. Another director of that bank is Frederick Fischel.
There is also an Italian company, Barclays Bank, S.A.I., of Rome, Italy, established in 1925, under Italian laws. The directors of that bank are H. E. Seebohm, chairman; Duncan Balfour, L. G. Buxton, W.' M. Goodenough, A. B. Gillett, and W. 0. Stevenson. The general manager is Duncan Balfour. Mr. L. Levi was general manager for a time but he was replaced by Mr. Balfour in 1938-39.
The story of Barclays Bank (Canada) is just as interesting as a novel. It starts a long time ago; and here is a list, not of the first officers, but of those who were on the board in 1931-32, when Mr. Bennett was in power. The president of the bank was the late Sir Robert Borden; the vice-president was the late Mr. A. B. Purvis; and there was Mr. L. A. Taschereau, a familiar figure; and Mr. A. A. Magee, of Magee, Nicholson and O'Donnell; Mr. W. 0. Stevenson, Mr. H. P. Alton, Mr. J. S. Crossley, and Mr. C. S. Macdonald. In 1934-35 Mr. Purvis was replaced by Mr. Charles Dunning, who was then out of politics before assuming again the role of minister of finance. In 1936-37 there were ten instead of eight directors. Sir Robert Borden, was president; Lieutenant Colonel A. A. Magee was vicepresident, and there were also Hon. L. A. Taschereau; Sir John Caulcutt, a new member of the board; Messrs. W. 0. Stevenson, J. S. Crossley, C. S. Macdonald, Hon. J. L. Ralston, Messrs. H. A. Stevenson, and Henry Borden. In this year Mr. Alton and Mr. Dunning were replaced by two new' members. Sir Robert Borden gave a chance to his nephew to get on the directorship of the bank-which cannot be blamed on the uncle or on the nephew.
I put these things on record. You may say, what is the connection between these gentlemen, and why do I object to that kind of finance? One who pays little "attention to these matters may say, "Well, this is exactly the same as goes on here. They have some prominent men as directors of the bank, and it is the same in England." It is not the same at all, because English interests look after themselves; but here in Canada we have a bank which is controlled by outsiders, tc
Mutual Aid Bill
[Stage Direction]
drain Canadian capital out of this country. Think of that. Is there a Canadian bank which has deposits of an amount comparable to those of these two London Barclays banks? There is no Canadian bank which has an amount of £710,000,000 deposits?-a formidable sum; about $3,500 million. And what is the board of Barclays Bank of Canada, that bank which is controlled by Barclays Bank Limited of London? It is one of those that are controlled : there is a French bank, there is an Italian bank, there is another Barclays bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas), and this Canadian bank.
Well now, the president, A. A. Magee, K.C., who is he? He is executive assistant to the Minister of National Defence-of Magee, Nicholson and O'Donnell, barristers, Montreal; president Barclays Bank (Canada) Limited and Barclay Trust Company of Canada; director, Dominion Rubber Company, Montreal Telegraph Company, Associated Screen News, Provincial Transport Company Limited, and McColl-Frontenac Oil Company Limited. He was a partner of Mr. Cook, K.C., who was the comet that shined on him.
Another director is Charles Strange Macdonald, a brother-in-law of president Magee; president of Confederation Life Association, Toronto General Trusts Corporation, ^ Consumers Gas Company; president Dominion Fire Insurance Company; chairman, Dominion Scottish Investments.
And now who are the other red-blooded Canadians who are on the board? Let us see. There is Sir John Caulcutt, chairman of Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas) since 1937; director of Barclays Bank Limited, director of Barclays Bank (France) Limited, director of Phoenix Assurance Company Limited, director of the Eastern Bank Limited; director of Agriculture Mortgage Company of Palestine Limited; chairman of Export Guarantees Advisory Council of the Board of Trade; chairman of Executive Committee of Export Credits Guarantee Department; member of Board of Tiade Central Committee of Export Groups; member of Palestine Currency Board; vice-pi evident of Institute of Bankers. This is one of the good Canadians who are on the directorate of B&relays Bank (Canada) Limited, a subsidiary of Barclays Bank of London, England.
Next, Mr. Walter Osborne Stevenson, director of Barclays Bank Limited director of Banque de Commerce Societe Anonyme (Antwerp), director of Barclays Bank (Canada) Limited and Barclays Bank (Dominion,

Colonial and Overseas). He is on the central board and a member of the London committee; he is a director of Barclays Bank (France) Limited and Barclays Bank S.A.I.,- another red-blooded Canadian.
Next let us take another red-blooded Canadian, Mr. Julien Stanley Crossley. He is one of the directors of our so-called Canadian bank and Barclays Trust Company of Canada; he is also a general manager of Barclays Bank (Dominion, Colonial and Overseas).
There is another Englishman, of whom I have no details, Mr. H. A. Stevenson. Probably he is the son of W. O. Stevenson, who is interested in five Barclays banks as a member of the board-the only one of the illustrious gentlemen I have mentioned who is interested in all five boards.
Here are other familiar figures. Hon. L. A. Taschereau is director of Barclays Bank (Canada) Limited1, Royal Trust Company, Caisse d'Economie, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, North American Life Assurance Company, and Liverpool, London and Globe Insurance Company-to mention some of his directorates. Mr. Henry Borden is director of Barclays Bank (Canada) Limited, and of Traders Finance Corporation Limited, Real Estate Loan Corporation of Canada, Limited, and chairman of financial committee for Canada of Norwich Union Life Society. Mr. R. J. Magor, another director of the bank, is chairman of the board1 and president, National Steel Car Corporation, Hamilton; chairman, Magor Car Corporation, New York, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; and director of Canadian Arena Company and the Ottawa Electric Company.
This bank does not give reports as other Canadian banks do. All we have is a mimeographed copy of the speech of the president. It is impossible to get any report from that bank such as we get from the other banks. I have always been interested to get these reports. I have written nearly every year, although I did not write this year, but I got these reports; and that bank is so utterly imperialist that in 1937 there was not a meeting of shareholders in Canada; it took place in London, probably because nearly all the shares are controlled by London.
To summarize: Why did I bring these facts to the attention of the house, and what is the conclusion to be drawn from them? It is very simple. In these circumstances I am not at all opposed to giving some help, as much as we can, to the British people in the form of munitions, in the form of food, in the form of arms, inasmuch as we can carry them overseas; and that is sufficient, proof that I am far from being an isolationist. But I am opposed, sir,

Mutual Aid Bill
to the granting of one cent to a country that is much richer than we are. How can anyone speak of British investments if we consider the investments of Barclays bank as Canadian investments? Barclays Bank (Canada) Limited was incorporated in this country just to drain Canadian money outside, especially the money paid by good Canadians for their premiums to British insurance companies. It is the same as Lloyd's. Lloyd's has never been taxed- why? When our insurance companies are taxed why not tax Lloyd's? It is not an insurance company and the act does not cover it. Why not make the act fit the case to allow of taxation of Lloyd's? Lloyd's is the greatest insurance society-it is not a company-in the world, and it makes lots of money. It insures ships and takes all sorts of risks, and yet it is impossible to have Lloyd's made subject to the law that governs all other people in the country.
I am opposed to granting one cent to England, because England is much richer than we are. There is no loss of money. There may be loss of food or of munitions or arms and ships, but there is no loss of money. You know very well, sir, that no money is lost in crossing the Atlantic; money can be wired. I say, they do not need money.- It is a group of sharks that want the legislation to be enacted. These sharks I have named-people who have no foresight, people who do not realize that by imposing undue and useless sacrifices on the Canadian people with regard to money they are doing much more to destroy the British status of this country and to bring this country nearer to annexation than anybody has ever done.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has spoken of a few people in Great Britain who are interested in financial schemes of the kind to control the whole of the money world. He said there were just a few people. There are just a few, but they are just as dangerous, not only to Canada but to the British empire as well, as the two hundred famiiles were in France. It is exactly the same thing.
Let me observe one thing. Without making any comments I will bring the facts together. The late Mr. Purvis was a director of that bank. He was not in politics, although some very influential and strategic positions were given to him at times. He was replaced on the board by Mr. Dunning. When Mr. Dunning became minister of finance he was replaced on the board by the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who got in there at the same time as Mr. Henry Borden and was there under Colonel Magee, who became president of Barclays Bank. Afterwards, when the present Minister of National Defence came
back to politics, the number of directors, which had been increased to ten, was and remains nine. There is still a vacancy on the board of Barclays Bank (Canada) Limited. I will not say that it is reserved for the present Minister of National Defence when he decides to leave politics, but what I will say, sir, is that Barclays Bank (Canada) Limited is just an agency of that powerful English financial institution, and the financial adviser to the Minister of National Defence, undoubtedly in his capacity as permanent acting Minister of Finance, is the president of that very Barclays Bank (Canada) Limited. He is the adviser to the minister in his capacity as perpetual acting Minister of Finance, 'and another of his codirectors, Henry Borden, is at the head of the controls and priorities in the Department of Munitions and Supply. If it is not patronage I do not know what it is.
Let me say two things in conclusion. The first is that I have no time to waste in cherishing any grudge against the present Minister of National Defence. I never had any against Mr. Bennett or against the present member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) or against Mr. Dunning and Mr. Taschereau. I have always put them in the same bag. When I was fighting one I was not fighting that man individually; I was fighting the system he represented- procrastination and the reactionary spirit of all of them. They are all alike.
I am strongly opposed to that kind of finance. I find that the advice given by these people cannot be in the interest either of this country or of the British people. It is in the interest of a few, the very few who are bossing such an organization. My last word is this. I want the Minister of Finance to be free from the tutelage of the perpetual acting Minister of Finance and of the interests that he has represented for such a long time, while he was outside this house, and which are represented now in his own Department of National Defence by the president of the so-called bank which is just an agency, and in the Department of Munitions and Supply by the nephew of Sir Robert Borden, who is now at the head of controls and priorities. I will ask the hon. member for York-Sunbury to listen to that because he will hear that in the valley of Jehoshaphat when both pages of the book are read. Why was it that it was himself and not another member of the cabinet who defended the Minister of National Defence on February 21, 1941, when I denounced him bitterly on account of his vicious theories and practice? He was the only one who rose. Was it on account of the friendship he had for Mr. Dunning because
Mutual Aid Bill
[Stage Direction]
they were both sitting on the same board? Dees he approve the practices that I have denounced? Does he no.t realize that these practices can endanger national unity even more than the partisan speeches he delivers so often? Let him put his glasses on and read some information that will help him in the future-now that he has time enough, or would have time enough if he were not rising all the time. It is not his business to rise and take the place of his present leader.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I do not think I have to take this abuse.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will you tell the hon. member to sit down, Mr. Speaker?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am rising to a question of privilege. I do not have to sit here and be abused by the hon. member for Temiscouata. Apparently it is done to attract attention to an otherwise aimless speech, but I am not going to sit here and be abused by the hon. member or anybody else.


Jean-François Pouliot: There was no abuse.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think there were one or two statements made by the hon. member which he should not have made.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not say the hon.
gentleman had been fired; I said he was a gentleman of leisure but was not taking advantage of his leisure to read nice novels or useful information. He takes it very badly. But now his smile has come back. He does not realize how much better he looks when he smiles than when he frowns. My time having now expired I shall have other opportunities to give more information for the benefit of the hon. gentleman if he is kind enough to listen to me.


Mr. J. SASSEVILRE ROY (Gaspe):: Before moving' an amendment to this motion for second reading of this bill I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), upon the light he has been giving the house on Barclays bank and on that scheme of finance which operates in England, France and Italy, if I understood him aright, and in Canada as well. It helps us to understand some of the explanations given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) on this scheme of ours for the granting of $1,000,000,000 worth of goods to England and to the united nations. I could give the house some extracts from one debate which occurred in the parliament at Westminster last October, chiefly from the speeches of Sir Kingsley Wood and Mr. Strauss on the bank for international

settlement at Basle, Switzerland. I think it would help the house to understand what has not been explained by the Minister of Finance with regard to his scheme for this gift of $1,000,000,000 which he has modified and changed to a certain extent since last year, although the principle remains the same.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Temiscouata and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) upon the speeches they made last Thursday in this house. I am perfectly in accord with what has been said by these two hon. gentlemen, and if I am permitted to make a resume or to summarize what has been said I will do so in this way.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres said that our policy in this war seems to be inspired) by the colonial spirit, and thoroughly lacking in Canadian patriotism, and1 that the thing w'e were doing was done with a view to please England. I think this is quite true. The only explanation as to our policy and attitude in the last few years is that it is a certain sentimental affair rather than a business one inspired by a truly Canadian patriotism. Let me point out a few absurd features of our policy. We are told every day by the government's propaganda that this war is our war. Even last Thursday I think, in the discussion between the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) this was said, that it was not England's war, that it was our war. To a certain extent that may be true, but may I recall what the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres said last Thursday. He said that Canada was not responsible for what led up to the war before it commenced. We were not responsible for anything, but it seems we have the obligation to-day more than other countries of winning the war, as if England and the United States were not as closely concerned with it as we are. I cannot imagine a country which is fighting this war as a sovereign country, a country which has declared war by itself in its own name, a country which according to a statement made by a certain minister on a particular occasion a few weeks ago should walk with its head high after the war, and yet has no national citizenship, because we still continue to call ourselves British subjects. It is said it is Canada's war, although there are no Canadian citizens. We are obliged to make oath to testimony' or in casting our votes on election day that we are British subjects; we are not Canadian subjects. Yet Canada is at war as a sovereign country. That is nonsense. That sovereign country has not yet denied the right of His Majesty the King

Mutual Aid Bill
of disallowance of our laws for two years, and we still have appeals to the privy council. I cannot understand-and that is the worst of all those nonsenses-how we are to walk among the nations after the war with our head high, without having a flag. As I say, we have no flag. Other countries are laughing at us because these conditions remain, despite the fact that we are supposed to be a sovereign country, and despite the passage of the statute of Westminster.
A Canadian Press report appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of Friday, May 7, under a Washington date line is headed, "World may decide old question of flag for Canada", and contains these words:
The first thing Canada knows she will have a flag of her own, despite the inability of parliament to make up its mind whether the dominion wants one. In most public buildings in Washington, in store windows, canteens and recreation centres the flags of the united nations are draped together. Canada, the only united nation without a distinctive flag, is represented by the red ensign bearing the Canadian coat of arms, which, of course, is not an official Canadian flag at all. If this goes on long enough, the rest of the world may decide Canada's flag question for her.
That is the way it is in a country, the people of which devote so much of their time to the war, believing that they are working in Canada's interests, but who forget about straightening out matters which belong yet to the colonial statute.
We are glad, apparently, to be praised for everything we do as long as it is done for England! This is nonsense, and it is proof that I am right in what I say. It is all right to say that this is Canada's war, and that Canada declared war freely, on her own behalf. It is all right to say that she had her king sign the declaration of war independently of England. But when we look at the whole story we find that our patriotism is not moving for Canada, at all. All we have done has been done to be agreeable to England. We have not been caring for our own interests.
I believe it is true that the form of the gift this year will be slightly different from that of last year. From the minister's explanation it would seem that Canada cannot provide for any help to the united nations, unless it is given free. We know the United States has given some help to England and to other united nations, including Russia and China, but these have not been gifts. These aids are given through the lend-lease measure. England is adopting the same procedure with respect to China and Russia. If these countries can operate on a basis
which looks a little more businesslike, why cannot Canada do the same thing? Oh, no, it would not be good enough for good imperialists to do it in that way! It must be done by way of gift, to show ourselves more generous, and more imperialistic! I do not believe these are sound business, principles.
Last year we lent England about $750,000,000 without interest. At a later date we read in the newspapers that England had lent about the same amount to China, but with interest. England is still doing business. A survey of what was said in the British House of Commons last October with respect to the international settlement bank would show that England is still doing business, and would throw a great deal of light on the financial situation as it exists not only among the united nations, but among all nations on earth. This is the most extraordinary scandal ever seen in the world before. There is no name for it.
One tries fo make us believe we cannot help the united nations unless we do so by way of gift. We try to make people believe that England has no currency, and that a too heavy debt by England to Canada might hurt our trade after the war. All this is nonsense. What we are doing can be explained only in one way, namely, that we want to show ourselves as being generous. We compete in trying to see which one is to be more imperialistic. That is all there is to it. If we look into the situation we must see that England is still doing business, and I do not blame her for it. She has more sense in her policy than we have in ours. Any country so proud of itself that it considers the whole war is its responsibility should act first for itself, instead of devoting all its love and ambitions toward any other country, and should1 be proud and serious enough to do business on principles we were taught by England herself.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion):
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that this parliament has received no mandate permitting it to enact a measure which involves the principle of making gifts of goods or money to other countries and that, therefore, such action on its behalf would be contrary to the sound principles of democracy.
With respect to the first gift made last year, I said I could not refrain from objecting to such a measure, because I had not received a mandate from my constituents to make a gift amounting to about $4,500,000 for each county. Despite my stand in the matter, the gift was granted by the House of Commons.

Mutual Aid Bill
I asked that the principle I set out be safeguarded, but I was not listened to. However, at a later time we heard the criticism from Australia that our gift had benefited England. This year the minister has changed1 his measure slightly, but the principle is the same, and for tha same reason I oppose it.


Mr. LIONEL BERTRAND (Terrebonne) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, we are now
discussing a hill recommending an expenditure of $1,000,000,000 so that war supplies may be made available to the united nations. My speech will be very brief. I am opposed to this measure. I will vote against it, for the following reasons: Last year, Canada made a gift of $1,000,000,000 to Great Britain. Furthermore, she granted to Great Britain an interest-free loan of $750,000,000 without any maturity date being set. Considering the small population of Canada and the inadequacy of her protection, the action taken in both cases was against the interest of this country and if was detrimental to national security.
In February last, parliament voted $858,000,000 to enable the government to meet expenditures up to April 1. That was nearly $1,000,000,000. This included a sum of $200,000,000 for the purchase of interests held by Great Britain in some war industries of Canada. I may say in passing, that I fail to understand why Great Britain, in return for the gift of $1,000,000,000, should not have seen fit to give those interests to this country, thereby showing at least some gratitude.
At the beginning of the war.-that is in September, 1939-Canada's debt amounted to $3,152,000,000. Let us- face the facts. That debt had resulted from seventy-two years of confederation and it included1 the cost of the last war. On April 1, 1943, the debt amounts to $7,861,000,000. After less than four years of war,, that is after exactly 43 months of war, our debt has increased by $4,709,000,000.
Our expenditures for the fiscal year 1943-44 will reach $5,500,000,000, of which a sum, $4,890,000,000 is directly connected with the war. A deficit of nearly $3,000,000,000 is expected, so that on April 1, 1944, Canada's debt will amount to $10,000,000,000, or about $900 per capita.
Who will pay that debt? Certainly not the other nations. Before the war, in 1939 for instance, our yearly expenditures amounted to $550,000,000. Our people thought that this was a staggering sum. After the war, that debt will have to be paid. Is it realized that a sum of $200,000,000 will have ,to be paid out every year for interest, if the war comes to an end during this fiscal year. But if it

should last one or two years longer, and if our expenditures should continue at the same rate, what staggering sums shall we have to pay for the interest on our debt? Taxation will not end with the close of hostilities. Taxes are now weighing heavily upon the shoulders of the Canadian ratepayers. Our income tax, heavier than in Great Britain and in the United States, has now become not only the taxation of income but also a levy on capital and savings. The middle classes find it impossible to save anything. The taxes now being levied are cutting into the capital of those people who have a fixed income; they are cutting into the capital of manufacturers, especially those in the lower and middle brackets, who must meet obligations incurred before the war. One of our best economists, who is, besides, a prominent banker, recently said:
Many industrial companies, whose equipment is depreciating all the more rapidly because it is being used at an accelerated rate, find themselves, after they have paid their taxes, without funds for keeping their plants up to date. When peace returns, how can the normal economic activity that is so essential to social order be resumed if the great or small industrial ventures in this country are not on a sound financial basis?
The $1,000,000,000 of 1942 and the same amount to be provided in 1943 increase by that much the debt of our country. We are told that this is war. War has become an easy pretext for everything. From 1930 to 1939, the governments were refusing to provide a few million dollars for the relief of unemployment. Instead of creating something- anything-which would1 have been an asset for this country, they were handing out unemployment doles. Nothing was done during the depression with a view to alleviating the distress and raising the morale of the workers who wanted work, not charity. In 1939 war came. Immediately it was possible to find millions and even billions of dollars, and for the last four years the orgy of expenditure has been going on, unchecked and dismaying.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill gives unlimited powers to the government. A sum of $1,000,000,000 is being askedi for the purpose of making war supplies available to the united nations. What are those nations? The United States? I do not think so. Is it Great Britain? Well, what are those nations? We are not told. What nation will have the major part of those supplies? What procedure will be followed? Will the supplies be given or loaned? No explanation is given in this connection. As the governor in council may determine conditions and terms as he sees fit, he may loan them but he may also give them if he deems it proper to do so.

Mutual Aid Bill
In other words, the government asks the members to empower them to spend $1,000,000,000 but they do not tell them to whom or how that money will be allotted. Once the sum of $1,000,000,000 is voted, the governor in council becomes the sole administrator, he has every right and every privilege. Once again, the members are being called1 upon to act as rubber stamps.
This measure also recommends the establishment of a commission to be known as the Canadian Mutual Air board on which five members of the cabinet are to sit. I have no reason to gainsay these gentlemen's qualifications, but did not the Prime Minister state here on February first that ministers were so busy that they were forced to seek the assistance of boards and commissions? Now I don't know that they have any less work to do at the present time. Besides, the bill provides for the appointment of officials who will assume direction of the undertaking. Will these officials be held accountable to the nation? History marches on.
In proportion to its population, Canada is more heavily engaged in this war than any other nation. This may be a world war but all countries are not involved to the same extent. It is a conflict in which Canada has less at stake than the United States and certainly far less than Great Britain. Canada has no colonies to defend, no trade to promote over the whole wide world, no prestige to uphold over the seven seas. And yet, its population of only eleven million has consented to every sacrifice for the sake of the common cause. Eight- hundred thousand of her sons arc now under arms, serving in her volunteer forces in the three arms and on all fronts. We are being subjected to restrictions of all sorts. The country is producing to its maximum capacity. We are drawing heavily and recklessly upon our natural resources, and without regard for our future needs. Our war effort has become so exaggerated as to border on hysteria. Can a country such as this conceivably be considered at one and the same time a granary, an arsenal and a manpower reserve without this triple obligation shaking its financial structure and jeopardizing its political economy? The consequences of such a policy are even now being felt. Our overstrained war effort is daily creating new problems which, because they cannot be solved, will soon take the form of genuine calamities for the whole nation. War effort, indeed, but let the needs of the nation be taken into account; before spending money for the benefit of other countries, it is imperative for the government to see that our needs are provided for. Are they being actually provided
for? It would take too long to mention them all; one should talk about the labour shortage, caused by a mobilization act which does not sufficiently take into account the most legitimate needs of agriculture, lumbering operations and industries of eveiy description. The question of firewood has not as yet been settled; it may develop to-morrow into a national calamity, despite the fact that our country is abounding in forests. Total war effort, they exclaim! Is Canada still perchance within the empire a colony from which any demand may be made and which must give everything without a murmur?
It is all very well to make gifts. I can understand why English language newspapers both from Great Britain and other parts of the empire spoke so highly of the government's intention to contribute another billion dollars. All the countries of the empire claim their share of it: such a booty! In a double column editorial published about the middle of February, the Sydney Telegraph, an Australian newspaper, commented on the Canadian Mutual Aid plan, under the caption: "Canada serious about war debts". Here is the announcement as reported by the Canadian Press:
Both economically and morally, Canada has set an example for the rest of the world in virtually cancelling war debts before they are entered in the books of the debtor countries.
Since Canada understands that the second world war is as much her business as that of any one else and in view of the fact that she realizes the economic stupidity of claiming the refunding of war debts, Canada makes her second war gift of one billion dollars to the united nations.	_
Nearly a year has elapsed since the first gift was made to Great Britain. Economists stated at the time that it was not only a fine contribution to the winning of the war but also that it was Canada's first contribution to win the peace.
We have spared nothing to help our allies win this war. But we must also think of the post-war period. Canada will have to maintain her activities-her industries, her trade, her agriculture, her mines, her forests, and all the spheres which constitute the activities of a nation. Will Canada win the peace if, as a result of excessive spending. overreaching the limits of common sense and the very principle of self-preservation, she is to find herself in a deplorable financial situation, and possibly at the mercy of other nations which, having taken advantage of her generosity, will not even acknowledge the services rendered?


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on the second reading of the bill will be brief. I have listened to several addresses this afternoon in opposition
Mutual Aid Bill

to the bill, but I am rising to support the bill. I cannot understand the attitude of certain members, and yet they have a perfect right to take any position they like with respect to this bill. What I keep before me all the time is, first, that Canada declared war. It is Canada's war. If Canada lost the war it would not be a question of putting up one billion dollars, because the Germans would either take the whole of Canada or ask us to put up one hundred billion dollars, more likely, than one billion dollars. Therefore I am going to support the bill, knowing that in doing so I am supporting a more vigorous prosecution of the war. I cannot help saying to myself, however, that Canada, in voting as it did one year ago one billion dollars to support the motherland, did materially assist in the winning of the victories in North Africa which have just taken place. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said this afternoon in a good statement, which I was very glad to hear, that Canadian equipment-I presume he meant the whole line of our Canadian equipment, including guns, tanks, motor vehicles of all kinds, as well as the heroic work of Canadian aviators-had a large place in helping to win these victories. While I cannot understand the attitude of certain members of this house, they have a right to take what attitude they like. But whether we like it or not, tve are in this war and have to fight it, and we have to put up the money to win it. There is no doubt where Canada stands. I am one of those who are willing to put up the money that is required, and if I were a younger man I would gladly fight if the government would send me over there. I am all out to support this bill.
Having said that, I hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), if he speaks again on the second reading, will try to clear my thoughts in one connection. I am wondering why the government did not adopt the same procedure as was followed last year. I quite appreciate that for any contribution which Canada makes to any other country we should get the credit, if that is what we wish, and personally I see no reason why we should not get the credit. But I cannot help feeling that if this bill had called for a direct contribution to Britain as the bill last year did, we should still be given the credit, and it would be more in line with my thoughts to make this contribution direct. However, the minister advanced some reason for not making a direct contribution as was done last year, but I would ask him to explain that a little further because I keep saying to myself: Is this method being taken this year to please certain men in the house and others outside who talk as if they 
were in favour of separatism instead of united support of Britain in this war? I certainly am not a separatist. I am in favour of closer connection, if there could be any, with the rest of the British empire. I am opposed to any attempt to take Canada out of the empire.
In the preamble there are a few words which I should like to have seen left out of the bill. I believe the bill would be stronger if they were left out. In the fourth last line of the preamble appear these words: "or lead to the imposition of trade restrictions". I cannot see why these words were inserted. Certainly no one knows better than the minister himself that there will have to be some trade restrictions after the war, for no country can exist without certain trade restrictions. When the war ends there will be many, many thousands of men laid off work immediately. I was talking on Saturday last to a man who is in charge of a plant employing 4,500 men and women, and he said, "Mr. MacNieol, the day after the war ends, unless the government will take over the direction of these 4,500 men and women or provide work for them in some other line than our present production, I shall be compelled to lay them off". The government may determine to provide other lines of industry to keep the plant in operation, and if it does, certain trade restrictions will be required. Therefore I cannot understand just why these words,, "or lead to the imposition of trade restrictions", are necessary in this bill. The bill is for the purpose of contributing one billion dollars to Great Britain and to our allies, and I do not see that trade really enters into the bill at all.
As one who has long been associated with working men, I am proud of what the Canadian working men in industry have done in this war, and they have done it under provocation by those who would like to see them go out on strike. But the vast number of our Canadian working men, after listening to those who would provoke a strike, have stayed on at work, and even in those plants where there have been strikes the men have gladly returned to work at the first opportunity. Canadian men and Canadian women working in our industrial war plants ever since the war broke out have through their efforts played a large part in the splendid victories in North Africa within the last few days, and also, we hope, in the victories which are in the offing. Their work has, in my judgment, materially assisted, to end the war more speedily, and end it victoriously.

Mutual Aid Bill
I reiterate in conclusion that Canada declared war; she is in the war, and if we lose it Canada will be one of the greatest sufferers. Therefore I should like this house to show unanimity for the successful prosecution of the war and, in assisting that end, through the voting of this thousand million dollars. I am sorry to see that the motion for the second reading of this bill is not to be adopted unanimously. I am wholly against the amendment and I am for the bill.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: My remarks on the second reading of this bill will be very brief. As the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has just said, I regret very much that this measure has not the unanimous approval of the house. There is only one assumption on which I can conclude that any hon. member opposes the bill, namely that he is opposed to the war in its entirety. To suppose that we can support the war, that we can stand up as we did to-day and congratulate the nations, the leaders and the men who were concerned in the victory in North Africa, while opposing a measure of this kind to help Canada to contribute her share in supporting the common war effort, is completely beyond my comprehension.
It was stated in the house the other day, when the bill was in the resolution stage, that Canada had nothing to gain materially from this war. Well, I did not know that this war was being fought for material gain. I thought we were fighting it for more than material ends. I had supposed that Hitler was fighting the war for material gains, but that the united nations were not. I thought that what Canada had to gain from this war was freedom; and I want to say something now which possibly I have never said before in this chamber, that I argued and urged that our party favour participation in this war from the very beginning. I did so because, first of all, I was opposed to nazism and fascism from their very inception. I deplore the attitude our country took in regard to Spain, where there was a rehearsal going on for this war, which anybody could see coming. It amazed me at the time that men like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and other members of the cabinet in those years should have stood for such a policy.
While I favoured Canada going into this war, I realized that it could not be fought without young Canadians losing their lives. I realized at the same time that I was beyond military age and that I would not be asked to give my life in this war, and you could not look in' a young man's face and say that you were prepared to sacrifice him except for some great and compelling reason. The reason, with
me, why I could support a war wherein young men would have to give their lives was that even the sacrifice of their lives would be less terrible than what Hitler had done to the minds and the souls of the youth of Germany. That must have been the motive force actuating anyone who favored participation in this war. We are not in it for material advantage, we are in it for freedom, and we must be most careful to see to it that when the military victory is won, the freedom for which our young men fought and died will be attained. The only thing which worries me is that we are not yet convinced of the economic, social and ideological reasons behind this war, and we may not be prepared to make sure that economic and social conditions in the countries concerned will be such that there will be no more war.
I was amazed the other day to hear an hon. member, I believe the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), say that we did not get anything out of the last war as other countries did, and that for our contribution to the present war we should receive Newfoundland and Jamaica and Nassau and Bermuda. Let me tell the hon. member for Temiscouata that the people whom I represent in this house, the workers of Vancouver East, are not asking for any rewards of that kind out of the war. They are asking for freedom, for the right of access to the means of life and for the abundance which they believe can be achieved once the restrictions placed upon production by the greed of private interests have been removed. Those are the things we are asking for, and that is what we hope we shall get.
To make the contradiction still less understandable, the hon. member for Temiscouata remarked that he wanted Canada to remain in the British empire. Well, if Canada remains in the empire, and Newfoundland, Bermuda, Jamaica, the Bahamas and the rest are also part of the empire, what difference does it make whether they belong to Canada or to some other section of the empire? Personally I am not particularly fond of empires; I would much rather remain in the British commonwealth, and I hope that some day we shall be able completely to displace "empire" by "commonwealth", that we shall all be in that commonwealth on equal terms, and that no nation will exploit another or hold it as a colony for purposes of exploitation. These are the things for which we are fighting the war, and we should be quite clear about them.
The nazi powers went into this war for world conquest. Canada could not avoid participating in it any more than the United States could. It was folly to suppose that
Mutual Aid Bill

Germany could not cross the Atlantic ocean. I remember when I was returning to Vancouver after the 1939 war session a friend asked me, "Angus, how can you believe that Germany can invade this country?" "Well," I said, " I cannot explain it; I have no understanding of military strategy; but I believe I have some understanding of the mentality behind nazism, and I have noticed during the years from 1933 to 1939, when Hitler was making one aggression after another, every time he had a success the enthusiasm of nazi-minded people everywhere was raised, and if that went on much longer Germany would not have to invade the North American continent in order to impose nazism on us; there would ' be enough nazis here to do the job." I realized the same thing on a short visit to Europe in 1936. For goodness sake, let us realize what is at stake. We either win this war or we lose freedom, and that does not mean freedom for the countries now occupied by Germany; it means freedom for every human being on earth. Therefore, either we have to win freedom, freedom for all, or all will lose freedom.
Mr. EMMANUEL d'ANJOU (Rimouski) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, the government request hon. members of the house to vote a one-billiion-doUar gift to the united nations, that is, Great Britain, China and Soviet Russia. During the last session, the government obtained the consent of the majority of members to the billion-dollar gift to Great Britain. I have fought this inconceivable measure at the time and I have voted against it. At the present session, my vote against the budget submitted to parliament by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) was a condemnation of the gift which is presently being discussed, since the huge sum hon. members are now requested to vote formed an integral part of the proposition presented by our great financial expert.
However, I shall not stop at that, Mr. Speaker, and I shall further emphasize my stand by fighting this measure with the utmost energy and by voting against it with eagerness being sincerely convinced that I thereby discharge my trust in its entirety.
While, last year, the Canadian parliament was paying tribute to England to the tune of one billion dollars, Great Britain was lending fabulous sums to China at a remunerative rate of interest. It was simply carrying coal to Newcastle. The greater part of the Canadian people strongly condemn the scandalous gift the government request the members of this house to approve.
How is it. Mr. Speaker, that the government can find money to present gifts to
FMr. Maclnnis.]
Great Britain, while they could1 not make any sums available to our people during the long depression that preceded the present war? While unemployment was at its highest level in Canada, while numerous cases of dire want were to be found in all parts of the country, the government claimed they were unable to control these conditions for lack of the necessary money. In my constituency, there are many settlements in great need of necessities, where settlers and their families suffer from hunger and lack of clothing. Instead of sending gifts to Great Britain, the government should assist those who, in Canada, do not enjoy the bare necessities of life.
I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) and, Mr. Speaker, I shall support his amendment. Whatever views may have been uttered by certain members of this house who are stauncher imperialists than the king himself, I shall stand by the opinions I expressed last year when I protested against the billion-dollar gift to England. I shall further state, Mr. Speaker, that the government has no mandate to ask the house to vote this million-dollar gift to Great Britain. In the course of the 1940 election campaign, have the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), or the Right Hon. Minister of Justice, the late Mr. Lapointe, ever stated in public that, provided they were returned to power, they would not only per-< severe in their immoderate participation in the world conflict, but would also make to England, on two successive years, a gift of one billion dollars each, while the latter, as I said before, is lending money at a good rate of interest.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Gaspe, because I consider it both reasonable and opportune. I hope all the members on this side of the house entertain the same views and will also vote for this amendment.
Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I
have listened caref-ully to the speech in which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said, a few minutes ago, that we have seen a spectacular repetition of the events which led to the Spanish war. In an efficient statement which the hon. member has made with much vigour and eloquence and with a breeziness which I take pleasure in acknowledging, he has told us that we had then witnessed premonitory signs of what was to happen when Hitler should decide to open the hostilities.

Mutual Aid Bill
Well, Mr. Speaker, who are those responsible, what government is responsible for the establishment of nazism in Europe, who are the people responsible for the establishment of the ideology against which we are now fighting and to which we are opposed? The responsibility lies on those who prevented France from keeping her troops on the Rhine, at a time when war could still be staved off. Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, who were the people who kept aloof from the war in Spain, a conflict which was the forerunner of the war in Europe. Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, who were the people who said to Russia at the time, of the Munich agreement: "We do not want you to become embroiled in this quarrel". Who were the people who prevented Russia from helping Czechoslovakia when the government of that country requested the aid of Russia in order to fight German aggression?
We are all opposed to nazism and fascism, Mr. Speaker. But let me say that in the case of a country like Canada, which has done so well since the beginning of the war, it should not be forgotten that Canada could at the very beginning have taken the same stand as Ireland, and remain neutral as she could have done by right. We had our independence and the statute of Westminster to protect our neutrality. I only repeat now what I said at the beginning of hostilities.
I understand that since war has been declared, we must win it. That is my belief. We must win the war but we have no right to lose the peace for Canada later on.
You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that last year the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) included in the budget of 1943 the sum of $1,000,000,000 which we gave away without the slightest restriction. That is what brought the taxes on wage-earners to their present high level. The further sum of $1,000,000,000 which we are giving this year will be reflected in the budget of 1944 and we shall then witness a constant increase of the taxes on wage-earners, on the people in the lower and middle income brackets. Where will such a system lead us? You have heard honourable members of this house state that taxes are higher here than in England or in the United States. Is it right that we should do more than England and the United States? Remember, Mr. Speaker, that our country has a population of only 11,000,000 with an area as large as Europe. Can we rightly lay on the shoulders of Canadian ratepayers a load from
which they will never be able to free themselves after the war? We have no right to do that. Of course, I fully admit that we must win the war, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) on that point. But we have no right to plunge this country, after the war, into a depression from which recovery will be utterly impossible. We have fought in 1914-18. What advantage or benefit has Canada derived therefrom? None at all. We must avoid throwing Canada into a rut as will happen after this war if we continue to follow our present policy. From the standpoint of Canadian interests, the policy which we are now following verges on madness. We are bent on doing more and better than anyone else. We have the testimony of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill. We have the testimony of Mr. Eden, who stated that we had done more than any other country in the world. Well, is it not for us the height of folly to do more than any other country in the world when our population is only 11,000,000 and when our possibilities are distinctly limited.
Of course, we must win the war, but our effort should remain within the bounds of common sense, instead of verging on madness as it now does. Otherwise, what will happen after the war, Mr. Speaker? I wish I were mistaken, but I am afraid that we shall witness the depreciation of our securities, although I may say, in passing, that the hon. the Minister of Finance is now making a tremendous effort to prevent that, but will the situation remain within his control? We will be confronted with a problem that will put this country in a situation where we shall lack the necessary funds and where our possibilities will not be sufficient to enable us to meet the post-war problems. Our capacity to solve those post-war problems will determine whether we have truly won the peace. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is why I shall vote against this appropriation of $1,000,000,000. I have many other reasons for voting against it. Has not the government of Great Britain, last year, sold to Australia goods that were included in the $1,000,000,000 we had given, and this without consulting us? Great Britain used that money for trade purposes. She was at liberty to do it, because it was a gift from us. No one could blame her for having done so, but I say that we cannot but oppose in this house such a measure, which verges on the squandering of public funds.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Mutual Aid Bill

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. HARRY R. JACKMAN (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Mutual Aid bill, as far as it goes; but I cannot support it as wholeheartedly as I could if it, and the previous measure of which it is the 1943 edition, measured up to the conduct which befits a great country. It is quite true that the point of view to which I shall give expression has not found the support I might have expected among those who usually think as I do. Nevertheless I believe the opinions I shall express do represent the true view, although perhaps they may be ahead of public opinion. On reflection, I hope I shall have the support of many hon. members in the house, as well as many of the public at large.
If I read correctly what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) said when introducing the resolution upon which the bill is based, he stated, much more forcibly than I can hope to state them, many of the reasons I shall advance. I differ, however, from the minister in his approach to the Mutual Aid bill. I see no reason whatsoever for being in the least apologetic in an explanation of it. Perhaps it was not the minister's intention to be in the slightest degree apologetic when he made his observations, but when he first mentioned the bill in February he also adopted'-maybe unconsciously-the manner of an apologist. If there is any apology to make for Canada, it is that Canada is to-day and has been in a position to charge for part of the aid she has contributed to the common cause.
The Mutual Aid bill, following the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942, has met with not only the high approval but with the thanks and the gratitude of the British government, and the thanks of private members of the British House of Commons. Endorsing Sir Kingsley Wood's tribute to Canada during the budget debate, Sir Arthur Gridly, the Conservative member from Stockport, made the statement:
We cannot overstress the great help given by Canada and the United States. It is most important that the good feeling betwen us, gathering momentum, should be carried forward so that we can cooperate more wholeheartedly on the problems which have to be faced after the war.
Then the Right Hon. Pethwick-Lawrence, the Labour member from Edinburgh, also paid tribute to Canada for its action in giving a billion dollars worth of goods to the united nations, and also to the United States for its

Iease-lend assistance. He said he hoped' these far-sighted decisions formed a precedent for the post-war behaviour among the nations.
But let us consider, Mr. Speaker,' what Canada has done, and in this I am not considering our general contribution to the war, although our troops have seen less action than those of any other member of the British commonwealth of nations. At the moment I am concerned only with our financial relations vis-a-vis Great Britain. To finance the shipments of war materials and foodstuffs from Canada to Great Britain we took all the Canadian assets, or the pledge of those assets, which Great Britain had obtained in the days prior to the war. To quote the Minister of Finance, the fruits of their useful and constructive business investments in this country, and its various subdivisions, made during the period of our development, were taken by us in payment for goods which we sent to Great Britain. In addition, we took 8250,000,000 in gold. To list the other securities we took, we received from Great Britain Canadian government and government-guaranteed securities to the value of $695,000,000. We took securities which were privately owned and which represent the interests in private concerns in this country, held by people in Great Britain, to the extent of $126,000,000. Then we took a pledge of virtually all the securities held by Britishers in Canadian enterprises, and gave a loan of $700,000,000, which loan was interest-free for the duration.
There was a total, therefore, of $1,071,000,000 in gold and securities taken by our government from Great Britain in exchange, or as an offset against a part of our material contribution to the common war effort. There was nothing left, by way of Canadian securities of any size, in the hands of Britishers. And I ask the minister this question: If there had been more Canadian securities held by Great Britain, would we have taken them also? Why did we stop just where we did? We took practically all Great Britain had by way of investments in this country. And when we took credit to ourselves last year for the billion dollar gift to Great Britain we did not mention that Great Britain had paid for our boys in the Royal Canadian Air Force, with the exception of a very few squadrons which were maintained directly by Canada. The extent of that contribution by Great Britain to the war effort, and the extent of the payments to our Canadian boys of the Royal Canadian Air Force, including those assigned to the Royal Air Force, as well as what it cost to service those men in machines and bombs for their trips to Germany, one does not know. I put the ques-

Mutual Aid Bill
tion to the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), and his only reply was that it would take a generation of accountants to figure it out. All he felt assured of was that with regard to the billion dollar gift there was no question that Canada was on the right side, financially. Even under the new agreement with Great Britain covering the payment of R.C.A.F. personnel overseas, there is still no undertaking on our part that we shall pay for the pensions of men who have met with disaster or of the relatives of those who may lose their lives. If there is any undertaking at all, it has to do only with that part of the pension which is in excess of the British rate, because we pay a higher pension than they do in the old country.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Would my hon. friend mind repeating what he said about pensions, because I did not catch what he said.


Mr. JACKMAN:: I understand that under the new arrangement with Great Britain with regard to the R.C.A.F, this country has not obligated itself to pay the pensions of relatives of men who are killed overseas.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In every case the rates of pension are augmented to the Canadian rates.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If the Canadian government is undertaking any obligation, it is only with respect to the difference between the British level and the higher Canadian level. We are still not assuming our just burden in connection with the R.C.A.F. overseas. Great Britain has assumed this, and it is properly an offset against any financial contribution in any form which we may make to Great Britain. I should like to quote the Minister of Finance, as he is reported on page 2440 of Hansard, as follows:
A fourth advantage of this plan, and I should say the most important in many respects, is that it enables us to treat our allies fairly and reasonably rather than harshly and in a shortsighted manner. The transfer of war supplies to those who are fighting beside us is not charity. It is part of the war effort of this country and in providing these supplies we are doing no more than is rightfully our share in the war. If we did not have some means of assuming these proper burdens ourselves, we would be forced into treating our allies in a way which would inevitably and reasonably be considered as harsh. It would be harsh, for example, to force Britain to liquidate all the remaining Canadian assets owned by British residents. As it is, they have sold back to us or-
I insert the word "we".

have redeemed all British holdings of Canadian government securities and Canadian
National Railway securities. They have sold to us all their wartime investments in war plants in Canada which were made on behalf of the British by the Department of Munitions and Supply. In addition, the British have sold their holdings of a number of Canadian securities which were most readily marketable in Canada. The total value of these securities officially repatriated or privately sold back to Canadian investors is approximately $800 millions. The $700 million obligation of Britain to Canada now counterbalances and offsets the bulk of the remaining British holdings of Canadian securities.
Just where the Minister of Finance or the present government can draw the line of fair dealing is questionable. Why do they draw it where they do when the remaining assets are almost negligible? Why did they not draw the line of fair dealing at the beginning before we took over any of these pre-war securities? Having exhausted that source, we now have taken over these war factories representing an investment of about $200 million. Certainly if it is fair to leave Great Britain wuth the small investments she still has, it would have been fair to leave her with the bulk of the investments she previously had in this country.
Possibly we shall again have the need in Canada of importing capital for the development of our great natural resources and the providing of employment for our people, particularly in the post-war period. Let me suggest to the minister a possible corollary of this type of what I consider to be unethical dealing. Canada has a virtual monopoly of nickel, and our ally the United States has great need of this particular metal. Why should we not raise the price of nickel and receive from the United States, by reason of their extreme necessity, sufficient money to discharge the debt which this country owes to our friendly neighbour to the south?
May I suggest to the house that if the fighting had not been in Great Britain and over the air of Europe; if on the other hand it had been in Canada against the Japanese, we should have had here, by virtue of the Royal Navy, great forces of British soldiers. The flow of goods and munitions would not 'have been from the east to the west. It would have been from the west to the east; would we have expected that whatever small or large investments Canadians had in Great Britain would be taken from us, or that after the fighting was over and victory was assured we would be presented with a bill for the contribution which Great Britain had made in preserving our soil from foreign aggression? The present situation where the flow of men and goods is from the west to the east has been possible only because of the Royal Navy. As
Mutual Aid Bill

the Minister of Finance has said, we have been able to do these things on account of our relative safety from attack.
What then is the situation, and what is the true picture? I understand that two-thirds of our industrial war production is not used by our own sailors, soldiers and airmen but is sent to our allies in the various united nations. Here I would say to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), who represents a point of view in regard to our war contribution which fortunately is not held by many Canadians, what I would term a "less than our share" point of view, that if I were a member of his group or espoused the same cause I should say, "make this gift to the united nations, not one billion' but five billion dollars."
What does it mean? As the Minister of Finance has so well said, monej' is merely the counterpart of the goods, materials, and foodstuffs which are sent to the other united nations. It is the measure of our man-power effort in this country. If we sent five billion dollars worth instead of one billion dollars worth, it would mean that we would have to keep at home many times the man-power that is required to-day. That, of course, would be a situation most dishonourable to this country. Nevertheless it must be apparent to those who oppose this bill that this is the type of thing which they should advocate if they are trying to keep men at home to make a war contribution rather than have them make a war conn tribution through fighting. As the Minister of Finance said when he introduced the resolution, we would not dream of charging for the contribution which our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen are making. That would be unthinkable to every right-minded person in this house and in this country. Nevertheless, by reason of the fact that we are protected by the Royal Navy and by our own troops overseas, but to a greater extent, particularly in the early days of the war, by the troops of Great Britain and the other united nations, we in Canada are left free to manufacture the goods and to raise the foodstuffs required in this war, and now in place of giving these to the united nations as we have done in the past, we are presenting them with a bill which is paid by our redeeming the securities which they owned and which were debts owed by this country. If we did not manufacture the goods and produce the foodstuffs for our allies, we would be producing only sufficient to service our own military requirements. That would be from the industrial point of view only one-third of the production to-day, and many of our men would have had to be released from production. If we are waging a full-out

war, as every member of this house advocates and as certainly the government has advocated from time to time, we should have those men either in khaki or in navy blue or in air force blue and, as the minister said, we should not dream of charging for their services.
Nor do I blame the small group of my countrymen who suggest that perhaps we should not make such a large contribution to the war. They are not entirely to blame, because they were told when we entered the war, and at various times subsequently to that, that we were going to wage a free, moderate and voluntary war. That was told to them by supporters of the Liberal administration.


Mr. MAYBANK:: Who said that?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am very glad that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has asked that question. That was said when the national resources mobilization bill was introduced into the house.


Mr. CRUICICSHANK:: It was said by the committee of two hundred.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: That is not the correct answer. A free, moderate and voluntary effort was the phrase used by a number of members in this house belonging to the government side, and there has never been any refutation of that whatsoever.


Ralph Maybank: My question was, who said it, not when or where?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: If the hon. member will Tefer to Hansard of July, 1941, to the debate on the first or second reading of the national resources mobilization bill, he will find for himself who among his own party used the words I quoted.


Ralph Maybank: The hon. member is making the allegation.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I have answered the allegation as specifically as I care to answer it, and if the hon. member will trouble himself to look where I said he will find those words.
We have heard, Mr. Speaker, and everyone has received the statement with acclaim, that no one should profit by reason of the war. That philosophy has pervaded our own legislation in regard to our own people in this country. I have heard my hon. friends to my left as well as other members of the house advocate, in the words of Mr. Nash of New Zealand, that no one should profit by reason of the war.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Does the hon. member not agree with that?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I most certainly do agree with that statement, and I agree with it not

Mutual Aid Bill
only as an individual but as a citizen of this country. I hope that the -hon. member who interjected the remark a moment ago along with many others will find reason to agree with that statement when it is applied to a nation as well as to an individual.
If we serviced only our own man-power requirements, what a dislocation of industry and of agriculture would result! What an increase in the enlistments in our armed forces would result!
We have also heard alleged by some that Great Britain sold some of the goods which we sent to her, and it has even been alleged that she did so at a profit. That charge, sir, is too fantastic to be worthy of a denial, but because the belief is sincerely held I think the administration cannot go to too great pains to explain to those who are happy when they can allege fault on the part of Great Britain, how these complicated international transactions come about. If it would add any light on the subject I should like to quote from the Economist of February 20, 1943. This paragraph has reference to a certain policy which is being changed by the present bill, but nevertheless it does carry out some of the informational matter which I wish to bring before certain members of the house. It states:
It should be made clear that no fault is found in Canada with these arrangements, by which Canadian surplus munitions find their way into pools of war supplies under the allocationary control of London and Washington. It is recognized that, in practice, the authority to assign supplies must be centralized and so far no machinery has existed outside the London and Washington assignment boards. Nor is there much demand that Canada should assume a more direct responsibility over the final disposition of its surplus. The sale by the United Kingdom of Canadian funds to other united nations serves to secure wider distribution of Canadian munitions to fronts that need them. The distribution by American lend-lease of supplies purchased in Canada by the United States government serves the same purpose.
Therefore we see that whatever criticism, fantastic as it may be, that can be leveled at Great Britain, can equally be leveled against the United States, and of course once that is done, it is seen how utterly impossible and how utterly baseless such charges are. Is not the real test not only the immeasur-' able sacrifice of life but also the sacrifice measured in dollars? Are we with our much higher per capita wealth in Canada contributing as much as Great Britain? Surely that is the test as to whether one nation or another is making a greater contribution to this war. Of course there may be small matters which require explanation, such as Canadian goods which eventually found their wav to the front in Australia or in the South
Sea islands. Nevertheless the real test smely is, how much per capita is our country spending on the war and how much per capita are other countries spending on the war? Great Britain is spending for war at the rate of $23,000 millions a year. We are spending at the rate of $4,890 millions a year. Reducing that to terms which are more understandable, namely, the per capita expenditure on war, in Great Britain the figure is $500 per capita; in Canada it is $435 per capita; and this is the first time that the Canadian contribution has risen to anywhere near striking distance of the contribution which Great Britain has been making.	.
Then, we must not only look at the per capita figures but take into account what the Minister of Finance said earlier this session in regard to how much further a dollar went in Great Britain in connection with the war than it goes in this country. There the rates of pay for the soldiers, sailors and airmen are very small in comparison with that which we pay our boys; and the financial situation in Britain is so hard pressed that, when their soldiers, sailors and airmen are fighting abroad in other countries, they are nevertheless taxed, something which we in this country fortunately have not had to do.
Then again, I should like to point out that the billion dollar gift does not mean more taxes or more expenditure on the part of this country. The minister has well set forth why this is so; but I should like to go even further than he did, and say that the gift of a billion dollars to Britain and the present Mutual Aid bill, instead of costing Canada more, actually cost Canada less; for, as I have said, if we were not producing the war materials and the food supplies in the safety of this great country, in the shadow of the Royal Navy and the protecting powers fighting abroad, we should have more men in the fighting services, and we know that to keep a man in the fighting services is much more expensive than to keep him at home. Not only is there the expense, but there is the loss of life and the sorrow occasioned to our people, and there is the pension bill which goes on for an indefinite number of years. So that these gifts of material things which we are privileged to make, actually, in a whole out war effort, cost this country less than if we were not in a position to give them, but on the other hand had as many men in the services as we could supply with munitions ourselves.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what should be done? Possibly the -book accounts should be kept open. If, on the other hand, there
Mutual Aid Bill

should be no interallied debts, the slate should be kept clean; and in view of the trouble and world dislocation caused- by war debts after the last war I am inclined to agree with the latter alternative. But why should we, even with the consent of Great Britain, take all and everything we can from that country? What about Russia and China? They have no financial offsets to the contributions which we may make by way of materials and foodstuffs, but certainly their blood- and bravery have kept this country free from invasion, and we are privileged to give them of our production.
May I quote .an article which appeared in the Spectator early this year; I refer to the issue of January 22. The final paragraph is as follows:
On top of the Indian and South African loan call-ups

That is the redemption of them.
-the requisitioning and , redemption operation covering India's railway stocks gives a fresh fillip to markets. It also completes a process by which India has paid off the whole of her obligations in London.
I do hope that some United States critics of British administration in India will realize that India has now been able to pay off all the debts in sterling which were contracted with Great Britain for the railways, the great irrigation developments and other benefits which -were derived through the expenditure of that money.
So far as one can judge, India is still accumulating sterling credits as a result of the war. What will she do now that there are no more loans to redeem?
And this is the important part, Mr. Speaker:
Surely the time has come to review the interempire war financing arrangements as a whole. As they stand they bear little relation to the principle of equality of sacrifice.
As reported in Hansard, at page 2448, the minister said to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell):
Does not the hon. gentleman think his position is a little too much like this, that England's extremity is Canada's opportunity?
What I suggest is that the Minister of Finance has thought of the invidious situation in which this country is placed, but has thought of it a little too late. As Sir Kingsley Wood, Chancellor of the British Exchequer, said:
It rests upon the principle that in a common war all shall give all that they can to the common task.
We had some discussion in the house this afternoon about whether there had ever been any thought of material gain in entering this war. We did not enter this war for material
[Mr. Jackman.1
gain, not even gain from the enemy. This war was forced upon us. I hope that no country among the allies will be better off at the expense of one of the common partners, particularly the partner who has kept open at her own sacrifice the opportunity for us as well as herself to maintain our own way of living, an opportunity which is happily now on the way to realization. We of the united nations are common partners in the cause of freedom and liberty.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to say a few words in support of this bill for the appropriation of a billion dollars for the production and transferring of war supplies to the united nations' mutual aid, and against the amendment proposed this afternoon by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy). It was advanced by the hon. member for Gaspe in bringing forward his amendment that it is a wrong thing for Canada to have to maintain her present status among the nations of the world. He wished to see Canada an independent nation. It is not so much that I quarrel with that particular idea; it is that I wholeheartedly disagree with that idea -being propounded at the present time. It seems to me quite true that we should stand on our own feet as a nation, particularly in the years to come, more than we have done. But for anyone to use that argument now, causing national disunity as well as strife between ourselves and Britain on the colonial question, and to use it to deny help to the united nations, is to jeopardize our chance of survival at all except as a colony of Germany and a part of their great slave empire. Is it not better to survive as we are at present than to survive, as a colony of Germany?
It is perfectly evident that at this very time Hitler would use anything that might come to his hand as a monkey-wrench to throw into the war machinery of the united nations, anything that he could use to upset the gear of the mighty war machine which he knows will soon be rolling against his armies, any single thing that he could make use of anywhere to delay or impede or hold back the great new offensive of the allies. He tried a trick quite recently, thinking he was going to pull an ace from his sleeve, when he tried to use the quisling elements among the Polish government in exile, together with such of the old Munich pro-nazi forces as he could find in Britain, to create strife between the united nations and to isolate the Soviet Union from them. It was only by reason of the realistic attitude taken by the Soviet Union; it was only because they exposed the filthy intrigue which was being

Mutual Aid Bill
carried on; it was only because they had the courage to shoot the spies who would have destroyed them if those spies themselves had not been destroyed, that Hitler's plans were set at naught. He was prevented in his scheme of setting up a federation of the smaller nations in Europe as he would have designed and would like to have accomplished. It was a fortunate thing that the Soviet Union upheld the Atlantic charter, one clause of which has guaranteed that the free peoples of the world shall have the right to choose their own governments.
I would say, therefore, that if there are in Canada any who have designs or wishes that Canada shall have a different status after the war is over, we can wait until at the peace table we have an opportunity for the discussion of these matters, and then we can vote for what our status shall be.
I must confess that I have been surprised that no one has yet replied to the speech made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) on Thursday of last week when the bill was in the resolution stage. Here we are nearing the completion of a war loan in which the slogan of the whole country has been "Back the Attack." As we agreed this afternoon by resolution wholeheartedly, we have come very happily to the successful conclusion of the African campaign, and now we await the opening of a greater and vaster allied offensive. At such a time, in my opinion, the speech made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres was the most destructive speech that could ever have come from a member of this house. It was a speech destructive to the morale of our boys not only here but overseas. It was a speech destructive to our national unity. In fact, Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, I must say that in my opinion it was a subversive speech of the first order.
It was a startling thing to think that any hon. member, any person in Canada to-day, could say that we have not the same interest or the same advantages as the other nations in this war. If ever a speech gave comfort to the enemy, that speech most assuredly must have done so. The hon. member complained about the load of taxes, as if we were not already aware of this load. There is hardly a person in the country whom the tax structure has not hit and hit very hard. Is it not better for us to bear a load of that kind than to bear the load of blood and destruction which others of the allied nations have had to bear? Is it not to our advantage, whoever we are, whatever our views may be in this country, to destroy the enemy before he can invade us? Is it not to our advantage to save our civilians
from the horror, the tortures and the merciless terrors of the blitz? Is it not to our advantage to save our people from the starvation and brutality which are being suffered by the peoples of the conquered nations?
Hitler wants world domination, not just the domination of Europe. Let us never forget that. The united nations have all the same interest, and the primary interest of each is to save itself. So far, we have been luckier than the rest on account of our geographic position, but it would be foolish to think that this may always save us.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres also complained that other nations were more responsible than we are for the war itself. Perhaps in a discussion of war guilt it would be wiser for every person to say, "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone." I doubt if many of us would be in that position. At the present time, however, what purpose can be served by discussing war guilt? The thing to be discussed is how the war is to be won and how speedily this can be accomplished. It does not help the position of the hon. member to remind us that he supported the war in the beginning. He admits that he supported it in the beginning when we were following the policy of collaboration with Germany as instigated by Chamberlain, until Chamberlain was put out of power by democratic opinion in Britain; and now when we are really fighting wholeheartedly against Germany the same hon. member says he does not want Canadian boys to lead the attack. At least we can say the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres is consistent in what he says and what he supports. Indeed, it must warm the heart of Hitler to listen to statements of this kind. He knows at least that some of those who befriended and helped him in the beginning are still of the same mind as they used to be and are not afraid to say so.
It is true that many of the French-speaking members of this house have mentioned their love of this country and their right to speak of their ancestors. I for one admire them and congratulate them upon that sentiment. Love of their own country is a thing greatly to be commended. But perhaps it would be just as well if we remembered that the Frenchspeaking people here are not the native people of this country. The American Indians were the native people. They have suffered from two main invasions, one of the French people and one of the English people. If we are not obsessed with our own sense of guilt when we think of the Indian's place in our national life to-day we should be. I would say that the American Indian on this continent, particularly in this country, is a living
Mutual Aid Bill

testimony to our own. ruthlessness, our own barbarity, our own ignorance, our own racial discrimination, and the guilt must be shared equally between the French-speaking and the English-speaking peoples.
What I would remind French-speaking people of is this. Were we ever to suffer a third invasion of this country, an invasion from the east by Germans and from1 the west by Japanese, dividing the loot of the spoils of this nation between the two great spheres of their influence, we would be lucky if we were to survive as long as the Indians have survived since the French and English took over this country. I wonder whether these things have occurred to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, that such a life would be the common lot of all Canadians under the heel of the herrenvolk unless it would be personally possible for him to collaborate with the new rulers of Canada and so escape the common lot of those forced to submit to the new rulers.
The hon. member is not anxious to see the spearhead made by Canadian boys on the continent of Europe; he says that if it were delayed it would be better. Three cheers from Goebbels and Company. These are the very things they themselves will advocate and try to gain if at all possible. I say to my hon. friends very honestly that it would be too good to be true that we in Canada should have no_ quislings. Seldom have I heard anyone voice anything more in favour of the axis than the opinions that have been declared by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres in that most infamous speech.
Canada's armies overseas are now prepared for a great offensive. Nothing we can do to back that attack is too much. Thousands of our brave lads over there speak the same tongue as the hon. member, but they do not hold the same views as that hon. member holds. They are prepared, even if it means their death, to preserve the Canadian people from death and from a living death that would be worse. These boys overseas I dare say are better representatives of the Frenchspeaking people of this country than the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres.
These boys if they return will expect a chance to live with full rights and privileges, and it is up to you and me and all who share in making the legislation of this country to see to it that there is equality of opportunity for all our people and that there is no discrimination in the province of Quebec or any other part of this dominion. The hon. member who now makes so much fuss about those who are going to have to give their lives I do not think

has been noticeable through the years gone by as one of those who led the campaign for better standards of living or higher wages, shorter hours or better health conditions for the people of his province. Perhaps, if he had a record like that, some of these boys might think more of what he says to-day. These boys are going to fight, and they will be right over the top because they know that unless they take the offensive it is impossible to hope to win the war. They will give their lives if they have to in order to save the old men and old women of Canada who are filled with the ripeness of age, even as the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. They will give their lives to save the aged people of this country from having a spade put into their hands and being made to measure their length on the cold, hard earth before digging their own graves, being shot and falling into them. These boys will give their lives, if needs be, to save their wives and sisters and children from being raped and burnt and murdered and buried alive. These things they will do to save the wholesale slaughter of Canadians and the destruction of our country, and to save us from the living death which many of us would have to endure if the axis should succeed. The cry of our brave boys overseas at this very time is that we back them, and with their deeds and their lives they will refute the words of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres.
Mr. Speaker, I am against the amendment, and I am in complete agreement with the principles of this bill.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: Mutual Aid Bill

report proposals for setting up the economic basis of a new Europe after the war. That, I think is very serious. It suggests to the German people that there is some form of collaboration between the nazis and the allies whom they are supposed to be fighting.
Thjs is enough to show that before passing the bill we should keep cool enough to analyse the situation especially when, as I explained the other day, we are charging each worker in the country with a debt which will prevent him from living a decent life for the rest of his days.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Vien: If the Minister of Finance speaks now, he will close the debate.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I had not anticipated that the debate would close as quickly as this, but there are some observations I should like to make before proceeding to the next stage. In the first place an amendment has been moved by the bon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy), in the following words:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that this parliament has received no mandate permitting it to enact a measure which involves the principle of making gifts of goods or money to other countries and that, therefore, such action on its behalf would be contrary to the sound principles of democracy.
My recollection of the types of amendments moved on second reading is that they challenge the principles of bills, but ordinarily suggest some other method of dealing with a problem. The amendment before us does not do that, but simply states that parliament has no mandate permitting it to enact a measure at this time.
I say, Mr. Speaker, this parliament has the clearest mandate to do everything necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion at the earliest possible moment, and it has the clearest possible mandate to take such steps as are found necessary for that purpose. Surely this measure comes within the terms of that mandate. As certain hon. member^ have so well pointed out, without the measure our war effort would be very seriously retarded; the whole character of our effort would- have to be changed. If we did not make provision for the largest possible production of munitions and supplies, and for the sending of those munitions and supplies to those of our allies who require them for war purposes, our war effort would slow down, and we would be false to the mandate which we received from the electors in 1940, and which to-day we have, by virtue of the undoubted public opinion of this country. If we did not take all necessary steps to see to it that we produced to the 
greatest extent of which we are capable, and made the best possible use of our production, we would be false to our trust.


Mr. SLAGHT:: The amendment means that we should welsh.


James Lorimer Ilsley: private securities by British investors. This is confirmed in the case of India by a statement made by the Hon. Mr. Amery, Secretary of State for India, on March 30 last, when he said:
It is not known to what extent, if at all, non-governmental concerns operating in India may have repatriated their sterling indebtedness, but the amount is not likely to be significant.
This process of private sale has gone on, not only in the case of India and South Africa but also in the case of Canada. As I intimated to the house on Thursday last, we estimate the total of such sales to Canada at about $100,000,000. In addition, of course, we should not forget that the $700,000,000 loan really offsets and counterbalances about two-thirds of the remaining private Canadian securities held in Britain.
With regard to the repatriation of securities, I simply repeat what I said on the resolution. I said it then more by way of interruption than in the speech with which I introduced the resolution. In view of our relations with the great neighbour beside whom we live, and having regard to the extreme importance of those relations, and that the United States long ago went off the cash-on-the-barrel-head basis, it would be unthinkable for this country at this stage of the war, in this year 1943, to revert to the cash-on-the-barrel-head basis. It would be unthinkable that a nation like Canada, the oldest dominion, the most important dominion, a country rapidly rising in the councils of the nations of the world and in the respect of the peoples of the world, should revert to that method of making a contribution to the carrying on of a common war, a war which is our own as well as that of the mother country.
Those who oppose this bill would be the first to protest against the throwing of people out of employment which would take place unless we made proper provision along the lines of this bill. They would be the first to protest at the disappearance of markets for our farm products, our lumber, our metals and our munitions. We have to make it possible for the United Kingdom and Russia and China to buy our munitions, our foodstuffs and our raw materials.
But, Mr. Speaker, I do not put this measure on that basis. I put it on the simple basis that we are in this war and that we ought to do our part in it, that we should contribute to this war everything that we can throw into it, and ' that wTe should not go looking around and making sure that we get a little pay from it from one of our partners as a condition of putting what we have into it. I do not think

I can add to what I have said. I believe the bill has the support of the house and the support of the country.


Thomas Vien: When I stated that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) would close the debate I overlooked that he was speaking to the amendment. The debate is still open, and any hon. member who wishes to speak now has the opportunity.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the word "now" be left out, and the words "this day six months" added at the end of the question.
My chief intention is to discuss thoroughly the first paragraph of this resolution. Does the economic and financial position of our country justify such generosity? I do not think so. The most elementary principles of political economy indicate that we cannot afford another squandering of public funds. Can the state print paper money indefinitely when our gold reserves in 1935 amounted to less than $108,000,000? That was the time when the Bank of Canada was beginning, its operations after hoarding all the gold reserves of the chartered banks and the reserves of the dominion. The figures I have just quoted are official, since the government gave them to me on April 5 last in answer to questions on the orders of the day.
Mr. Speaker, these successive gifts of $1,000,000,000 to powerful countries who are a hundred times wealthier than we, will inevitably lead us to inflation and bankruptcy. What is the par value of money if not its gold content? As a matter of fact, when the gold reserves decrease, the value of paper money also goes down, and I do not hesitate to assert that a country like Canada, which, has a gold reserve of only $108,000,000, to face an actual debt of over $15,000,000,000 including the debt of the country, the provinces and the municipalities, cannot afford thus to sacrifice its whole economy by granting blamable liberalities and gifts such as this new billion dollars
to a nation that owns the wealth and the resources of more than half the world.
After all, the Bank of Canada is nothing other than a branch of the Bank of England. And who is this British financier, with the title of Lord, who went to Brazil in 1923 in order to found a national bank? If I am not mistaken, he is Sir Josiah Stamp. The Bank of Brazil was founded, and the par value of Brazilian money, which was 0-56 cents in 1923, is now a little more than five cents. I know that certain men who know about finance may from time to time raise the par value of money. In many instances this occasions an excellent but false impression. To illustrate,
I will compare this action with that of a merchant or a manufacturer who puts a false label on his merchandise or product. Instead of the government giving away this billion dollars, I should like it to bring back into Canada all the gold which was produced by our mines during the last thirty-five years only. I request it to fulfil this duty before it gives away gifts which can be afforded only by those who pay their debts. For many years Canada has been recognized as a country with a favourable commercial balance. During the last thirty-five or forty years our mines have produced billions of dollars in gold, but we now have a reserve of only $108,000,000. Where did the difference go? I fear that it was spent in gifts and presents, and this situation has existed for so many years that the preceding generations were shamefully exploited, while we are being scorched alive.
I said a little while ago that only those who pay their debts can afford gifts and presents. Are we paying our debts? Are we loyal toward the population who lent their savings to the state from 1914 to ,1918 and who are still lending them now? What have we paid in this country on the capital of the debt incurred during the last war? We have impoverished the country by paying hundreds of millions in interest alone.
Our economic and financial position makes it imperative that we should reject this new billion dollar gift proposal, which I condemn just as I condemned this policy of prodigalities, gifts and wasting. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are heading toward complete inflation. From the economic point of view the importance of a country is proportionate to the value of its money. It may be answered that inflation is prevented by the ceiling on all prices; everything has been foreseen. But that remains to be seen. We are not deriving any benefit from this price ceiling. It is not profitable to the farmer, the labourer,
Mutual Aid Bill

the merchant or the manufacturer. It is profitable to foreign countries. The best proof thereof is the tremendous increase in the cost of various foods here in Canada, which is a producing country, an agricultural country, in which the rationing of the first necessities of life is spreading continually.
A population of eleven and a half million people cannot afford each year gifts of one billion and more. When will this war end? Nobody knows yet. This should be a very good reason to act with great caution. The public treasury is so badly depleted that our economic position is becoming dangerous. That is the opinion of the best economists. Unlimited participation is gravely impoverishing the country. The mobilization of our human, industrial and- economic resources and of our munitions and supply is intended for foreign adventures more than for the defence of Canada. We are constantly asking that the government withdraw from the army all the farmers who have joined up, and definitely send them back to their farms. The government persistently refuses this request. However, everybody is aware that agriculture is our first line of defence. Instead of giving billions to one of the united nations, let us organize the defence of Canada, our country, before all.
Where are all the guns, the planes, the tanks which we have manufactured? Some twenty of our ships have been sunk, and this near the shores of the St. Lawrence. This does not seem to affect the government. More than ever we need our munitions, our money and our revenues. This is why, with all the means in my power, I am opposing this resolution which provides for a gift of $1,000,000,000 to the detriment of our own national defence.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, Canada's war effort is out of all proportion to its means.
There is a limit to the borrowing power of our country. However, paragraph 4 of this resolution states that the government will obtain this additional billion dollars through loans. Of necessity, loans mean more taxes. Of all united nations, Canada is the most heavily taxed. Is it reasonable to add this new burden to the sacrifices we have already willingly accepted? No, Mr. Speaker. I therefore oppose with all my strength both the principle of this resolution and the method contemplated for carrying it out. It is not the act of a sovereign power, of a country which flatters itself with the thought that it is administering its own affairs. This measure is steeped in colonialism, as the hon. 
member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) justly stated in this house a few days ago. It is a calamitous measure as it bears the virus of shameless waste which is a dishonour to our country. It constitutes another direct blow to our own defence. This resolution tends to deprive us once more of the valuable munitions that are so urgently needed for the protection of our shores.
My right-hand colleague, the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen), criticized, a few moments ago, the speech made last week, in this house, by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. She claimed that it contained nothing of a constructive nature, but that, on the contrary, it was rather subversive in its tenor. With all due respect for the hon. member for North Battleford, I must state that, for us, the word "country" has mot the meaning it has for her. The only country that we consider it is our duty to defend is Canada.
With the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, we do not wish to endanger our own defence by depriving ourselves of ships, aircraft, tanks, guns and even of our last citizens for the sake of promoting undertakings which lead us directly to bankruptcy.
We have never been and shall never be satisfied colonials in spite of what my right-hand colleague might say or think. The glorious and heroic past of my province, its attachment to the Canadian soil, its oft-tested patriotism can very well do without the lessons in colonialism given by our newer citizens who, most of the time, are Canadians in name only.
Mr. Speaker, when the smoke of battle has disappeared, when peace has returned to the world, the unprejudiced historian who judiciously allots responsibilities will be in a position to separate the wheat from the tares. The Canadian people will assume the allimportant task of once for all eradicating the weed of colonialism which threatens us more than ever in order to grow the wholesome crop of patriotism and Canadianism.


Thomas Vien: The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: On division.


Mr. CARDIN:: On the same division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Gordon Graydon: I recall that an inquiry was made of the Minister of Finance with respect to the disposition of the vote made last year for the United Kingdom. When we were discussing this matter in the resolution stage the Minister of Finance intimated that he might give some information, subject of course to the censorship regulations. There was considerable discussion in committee in connection with this particular point, the lend-lease act in the United States being referred to, and the operations of that act were brought to the attention of the minister and the government. I think the minister should give the committee a statement of the disposition of the vote made last year for the United Kingdom. I suggest that when he is giving that statement, he should also give us some idea of what disposition will be made of the present vote. I think we should have a statement on both points before the committee .commences work on the details of the bill.


James Lorimer Ilsley: With regard to the disposition of the money voted last year, I must say that I am not yet in a position to know just how much I should tell the committee. This matter has been taken up with the censorship authorities and with the intelligence officers of the defence department. I shall know just what I can give by to-morrow afternoon. The committee will understand1 that we must not go too far with this thing.


Gordon Graydon: The minister has not gone any distance at all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes, I have.


Gordon Graydon: He has not given us any particulars.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If the hon. member will refer to the speech I made on the resolution, he will find that I broke it down into main categories, but the objection was that those classes were too broad. I took fairly seriously the request to make them as broad as possible, but I do not know just how far I can go.


Mr. STIRLING:: Is the minister able to say anything as to the recipients?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It went to the United
Kingdom.


Grote Stirling: To be redispersed.
Mutual Aid Bill


James Lorimer Ilsley: At page 2438 of Hansard, the first column, I am reported as follows:
During the fiscal year 1942-43 the total payments by Britain and the rest of the sterling area to Canada amounted to about $1,890 million. Of this an amount of $740 million was paid for from the current receipts of the sterling area, receipts arising from export to Canada and other payments which Canada made to Britain or to other countries in the sterling area. The deficit remaining to be covered by one means or another, therefore, amounted to $1,150 million. Of this $924 million was financed from the billion dollar gift, the balance of which was used, as I have said, to take care of transactions during March of 1942.
Mr. Gray don:	So that the whole of the
balance is used up now?
Mr. Ilsley:	Yes; it was exhausted at the
end of last December.
The balance of the deficit was met by temporary arrangements which I shall describe in a moment and which applied to the later months of the year. During the nine month period of the billion dollar contribution to Britain, that contribution and the other means of financing the sterling area payments to Canada enabled us to transfer to the sterling -area munitions, war equipment and defence services to a total value of $740 million; foodstuffs $242 million; and raw materials and other commodities amounting to $288 million.
That, of course, is pretty broad, but it does cover the field in a general way. It is just a question of how far we can go. Some more work would1 have to be done on this, but if we are still on it to-morrow afternoon I shall be in a position then to give some information.


Major James William Coldwell: How does the British government accept delivery of these goods? Are they handed over to representatives of the British purchasing commission in the factory, or do we deliver them to Britain? Just how is delivery made?


James Lorimer Ilsley: As a common thing they are taken delivery of at seaboard. We do not pay ocean freight on them.


Major James William Coldwell: What I had in mind was this. Many of us have been in the factories and have seen representatives of the British purchasing commission taking delivery, it seemed1, in the factory itself. I was wondering whether delivery had been taken, in many instances, in the factory, and whether much of this billion dollars' worth of goods had gone overseas, or whether some of it was still lying along the railway track, in railway yards and on the wharves. That was the purpose of my question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot give a definite answer to that question. The Minister of Munitions and Supply would be able to answer it. It may be that Britain did take

delivery of some of it in the factories and that it became their property there.


Major James William Coldwell: Perhaps we had better ask the Minister of Munitions and1 Supply regarding the freight. I was going to ask the minister if he could give us any idea in the break-down of the amount of food that we have sent to various countries. I do not think there would be the same objection to giving information about food as there might be with respect to certain classes of munitions. It would be interesting to know just where the food went.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will have that information to-morrow.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, one thing that I cannot understand is that questions should be put by members who sit to your left, except those who voted against the proposal of last year. I will tell you why. Last year the billion dollars was voted by this house as a gift. Whoever asks questions about a gift? Whoever asks, what have you done with that gift? That is bad manners. As most of the members voted that billion dollars as a gift they have no right to ask the minister what was done with that gift last year. I challenge the hon, member for Rosetown-Biggar, the present leader of the opposition and the leader of the Social Credit group, to show any logic in their asking any questions about what happened to that billion dollar gift last year. It was a gift of one thousand million dollars. It is the privilege of those who voted against that gift last year to ask for a rendering of accounts with respect to it. That is our privilege, the privilege of the very few who voted against that gift last year. I believe that the members who voted for that gift last year were sincere, and the nature of the thing has not changed because time has marched on. It is still a gift, and they have no right to ask any questions about it. It would simplify the work of the Minister of Finance if they would ask no questions about what is to be done this year. It would be very hard for them to ask any questions about it, because the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar says that what we are doing this year is exactly what we did last year. Therefore, how can he ask any questions about how this money is to be expended? These hon. gentlemen have put themselves in a very embarrassing position.
I tell my good friend the hon. member for Vancouver East that he could speak for a very long time, for eight hours a day until the day of the election, but there is not a single one of his electors who will forget that he voted

Mutual Aid Bill
against the amendment [DOT] moved by the hon. member for Gaspe, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, calling for the payment of all the lend-lease goods under this measure by those who were fortunate enough to have assets amounting to more than half a million dollars. These hon. gentlemen have cut their wings; they have committed hara-kari, and then they try to give a lesson in logic! They should think before, not after. If I voted for that amendment, it was just because it gave an opportunity to sound business men in this country to stop and think of the responsibility they are assuming. And now we hear some people murmuring because they do not dare to stand up and say that we were unpatriotic because we proposed that gift.
What is being done with all the munitions that have been produced and are dumped along the railway tracks everywhere in this country, that are not moved out to China, Russia, Britain or anywhere else? These goods are piled up in chaos, in disorder; I have seen them myself. They have been exposed on the sidings for years and years to rust and the weather, so that nobody now can recognize one case from another. And now we are making more, when we have not delivered those we have already produced. Is it not more important to make deliveries than to continue production? Let us deliver what we have to Russia, China, Britain and our other allies, deliver them wherever they are needed against the common foe. Why keep these munitions piled up here, exposed to destruction by time and the natural elements? Why are they not delivered? There is no explanation. It is no good to invoke the censorship again.
This afternoon I heard the Minister of National War Services take the same stand that he frequently takes, and call "stand" again. Three or four weeks ago I rose to sponsor a motion by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, and I was told by the Minister of National Defence that he wanted to say something to the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay. Well, he has had plenty of opportunity to speak to him and apparently has not done so, and now his colleague who is responsible for the censorship, when the motion was called again this afternoon, says "stand" again. It seems impossible to get the facts. Is it Mr. Oliver Mowat Biggar who was deciding that? Was it decided by the British government, and is this government afraid to take a stand about it? How is it that we get news about things which happen in this country from the United States newspapers in the first place, while our papers are forbidden to publish
them? I have established clearly to the Minister of National War Services that one of his censors in Montreal is just a jackass and that it would put the minister in a very false position if he approved him. I have sent a copy of that correspondence to every member of parliament. It was in French; perhaps it has reached the wraste-paper basket because it was not written in the language of the majority. It shows that that man in Montreal is just as stupid as any man could be; but I am sure he is still holding his job, censoring the writings and sayings of people who have much more intelligence than he ever had.
But that is the way it goes. It is decided by censorship. How is it that members of parliament are not informed of matters which are sent to the press? We should be the first to be informed; yet we have no news. It is not printed in the blue books; it is not printed in the orders; it is sent only to the newspapers. Members of parliament are never informed. Whence comes this censorship? I should like the minister to tell us who does the censoring. Is it the government who censors? If so, they cannot say that they are bound by it. Otherwise we should have a repetition of Gulliver, binding himself with thread when he visited the dwarfs of Lilliput. These things are not done.
We must have a little more freedom of speech, although freedom of speech was not mentioned, any more than was freedom of religion, in the speech from the throne. It mentioned two other freedoms, but not that one. But I believe in freedom of speech. I try to exercise it as much as I can, and with much more liberty this year, sir, thanks to your spirit of justice and your knowledge of the rules, than happened before. Before that, it was impossible to carry on any successful discussion while the house was sitting in committee. This year, thanks to your spirit of justice and the respect you have for the parliamentary practice of this country, matters have improved. WThen you, sir, are in the chair I feel safe. I try to abide by the procedure and the practice of the house as much as I can, so far as it is possible for a human being to do so; it is understood that human beings err at times.
But now, sir, I want some information. What is this famous censorship which binds everybody? Ministers are bound by it. Journalists are bound by it. What is it? I hope that ministers will give a decent answer and let us know at least what the censorship is. If it is themselves they have no reason to invoke it, because they can change it at any time, and
Mutual Aid Bill

if it is Mr. Oliver Mowat Biggar, he is one of their subalterns, and the minister. has only to say a word to him to ensure that he does not exceed his very limited jurisdiction.
Are we bound by the censorship of the British government? The best man who exercises censorship in England is a fellow member with Viscount Bennett of the privy council and the House of Lords, and he used to say- I mentioned his words some time ago-that the idea of censorship was not to protect the government but to prevent the enemy from knowing anything which might be useful to him in this war. That is the purpose of censorship; and the Minister of National War Services, who is responsible for censorship, will agree with me that what Lord Macmillan then said is absolutely true and should be concurred in. On this principle, what advantage could it be to the enemy to know what we gave to Great Britain or to other countries last year, for it is impossible for the enemy to know at what times and on what ships those foodstuffs or munitions or arms were transferred across? What advantage could it be to the enemy to know that we have sent shipments of grain amounting last year to, say, ten million bushels, or one hundred million bushels? What does it change as regards the information they already have? Does it increase the information of the enemy? Can it do so? Suppose we sent flour instead of grain; what is the difference? Supposing we have sent some cartridges, or some shells, without mentioning the sizes of the shells we sent; what difference does it make to the enemy to know that they were sent; and if that cannot be stated, because perhaps a lot of material, whether food, munitions or arms, is still here, dumped somewhere, unchecked by anybody, although intended as a gift to Britain, we could know at least how much has been spent to buy those things, whether flour, meat, munitions, arms, garments, shoes, or what-not. It would be more satisfactory. It could be done if the Minister of Finance has in his department officials who are worthy of him. If we cannot get that information, we might as well put a padlock on this place, close the whole thing up, and say, "Good-bye, we are going home; we have had enough of it." If we are here merely to listen to "censor" and "censorship" repeated ad infinitum, we had better say, in our most gracious way, "Goodnight; we are not afraid to go home in the dark." We cannot go on like this. I make a plea to have some information. I do not see anything wrong in that. Who sees anything wrong in it? Everybody is asking for information, even those who are not entitled to it. I ask it on behalf of those who regret their votes last year and 
regret their vote of to-night, if any do; if not, I do it on behalf of those who have been logical with themselves and who have acted according to British principles from the start.
And now, sir, because we do not repeat what is said in certain quarters, some people find that we are unpatriotic. Is any hon. gentleman present certain that the great majority of English-speaking Canadians are not thinking exactly the same as the majority of good French-speaking Canadians? I tell my hon. friends that they would be greatly surprised if they knew the impression many people have of this lavishness in dispensing the produce of the taxes which come from the pockets of Canadian citizens. Everything is to be given outside this country. But I remember very well, as the leader of the opposition pointed out, quite rightly, in his first speech, I believe, on the address, that the general complaint in this country is, how is it that so much money is found for war when people were starving before and it was impossible to get anything for them? I remember that time; but now it is all right. We are ready to do something; we are ready to do all we can, but in the first place let us put our house in order. We have had enough secrets. Everything that is done in the dark is subject to caution. Crimes are not perpetrated in the full light of day at noon; they are committed at night. Night is the occasion for crimes. Fortunately there is some light here; otherwise I do not know what would happen. Outside in the dark, I am not so sure of what could happen in connection with anything like this.
If we want information it is not only with regard to what has been done in the past; it is for the purpose of having a guarantee for the future. It is the only check we have, now that responsibility is taken out of our hands. This house has no more responsibility. A thing is brought to us and that is all. I was scandalized by what the Minister of Finance said. He said the Canadian people want to do this. Let him wait until the house has voted for the third reading. He cannot make that statement, that it is the will of the people, until after the representatives of the people have voted for it. It may be done; it probably will be done, but it has not yet been done. It will be done only after the third reading, and' the minister will have the right to make that statement only after the third reading. What I am stating now is for the benefit of the Minister of Finance and his colleagues and for the benefit of the whole house and country, and I say that we should make a check on what has been produced by this country for war purposes and what is left to us, before starting again to beat the drum and

Mutual Aid Bill
saying that we shall spend more. Who is to guarantee that what we shall produce with the money that we are asked to vote will be used more successfully than what has been produced with the money that was voted last year? And what is left on the sidings anywhere from Toronto to Montreal, at Point St. Charles, St. Lambert and other places? Everyone sees it, and I have thought it my duty to report upon it to the house. That having been said, sir, I hope that the Minister of National War Services will be good enough to give the information asked for in a motion which has been standing since April 14 in the name of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay. It is an important matter, and we are here to help the government as much as we can. I quote:
Order of the house

For a copy of censorship regulations preventing the government from giving figures showing Canadian export trade by countries.
The date of that is April 14, and this is May 10. It is an easy matter for the minister to give the information in that regard. If he cannot give the regulations, let him at least state why he cannot do so. Is it at the request of Great Britain or of the United States, or is it at the suggestion of Mr. Oliver Mowat Biggar or that man in Montreal who is so crazy? I should like to know who is the obstacle in the way of the minister giving a decent answer to a very sensible question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that the first thing to-morrow afternoon I shall be able to give pretty full information about the shipments under this legislation last year, but I am not at the moment able to say just how far I can go and I do not want to lay it entirely on the censorship, because there is much to be said for the position that the government is not necessarily bound by the censorship. However, I wish to respect the spirit of the censorship regulations, and I should like to consult the intelligence officers of the various departments. That will be completed to-morrow morning, and I shall have a fairly full statement to-morrow afternoon.


Angus MacInnis: I am sure the committee will be glad to know that the purpose of the hon. member for Temiscouata was to help the government instead of obstructing because, if he ever starts obstructing, seeing what he can do when he wishes to help, he will make a real job of it. Strangely enough, I agree with a great deal of what the hon. member has said in regard to the Minister of Finance making this information available to the house; but when the hon. member says that we are in an illogical position in asking for
information after having voted for the gift, not only is he being illogical himself but he is talking nonsense. In asking for information we want to know whether the gift authorized by this house served the purpose for which it was made. Does the hon. member on the other hand wish to know how little served the purpose for which the gift was made? That is the difference between us. We wish to know whether the gift served its purpose and reached the people for whom it was intended. I see no reason in the world why we should not be told how much of various commodities went over. There may be certain things which we should not be told, but as regards the number of tanks and aeroplanes and the quantity of wheat, it seems to me that the enemy knows more about these things than the members of the House of Commons, and it will not hurt anyone to make that information known now, nor. will it hurt anyone to say how much we are going to do. Indeed, I think the effect would be the other way. Not only would it help our allies, but if the enemy knew that we were supplying so much to our allies it would be harmful to the enemy's morale. I hope the minister will be able to give this information to the house. It may be that it has been done in two bites, so to speak, and possibly time could be saved if all the information were given at the same time, indicating how much was done under this head and how much under the other. I fully agree with the hon. member for Temiscouata that there is very little of this that could not be made clear to members of the house.


James Arthur Ross: The minister says that he will make a statement to-morrow. I agree that there might be some hesitancy from the point of view of censorship so far as munitions are concerned, but with respect to foodstuffs and raw materials I wish he would obtain from his colleagues the information relating to these matters. An official, the food controller, was reported in the press last summer as having said that the Canadian people could not eat their beef and ship it to Britain at the same time. It is evident now how much beef has been shipped to Britain during the past year. During the past two weeks I have been at home going among the farmers, and despite the fact that requests were made to them on good authority they still have doubts as to what they should produce in the form of agricultural foodstuffs so as to be able to come out at the profitable end of it next fall. These .people to-day are doing some reasoning and arguing; they are not just taking the requests of the minister
Soviet Union

and the government as to what they should produce. Therefore, if the minister can tell us the amounts of the various kinds of foodstuffs, as pointed out by a recent speaker, he will be rendering further service to the producers of this country. I trust he will have that information in detail for us tomorrow, and I cannot see why there should be any interference with that by the censorship.


Gordon Graydon: The minister will have that to-morrow afternoon?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Bradette in the chair.



PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH

[Stage Direction]
193. Departmental administration, $139,321.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
240. Departmental administration, $730,858.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Crerar, the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, May 11, 1943