1943-04-01

[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING TO WELCOME THE BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY
Mr. SPEAKER:: In accordance with arrangements which have been made for Mr. Eden's visit, it has been considered advisable not to enter upon routine proceedings, and with the consent of the house I would ask that the sitting be suspended until 8 o'clock this day.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 3.05 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended until 8 p.m.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of hon. members of both houses of this parliament of Canada, it is my privilege and pleasure to extend a very warm welcome to the Right Honourable Anthony Eden, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the United Kingdom, who has honoured us with his presence on the floor of this chamber this afternoon and very kindly consented to address the members here assembled a little later in the course of the afternoon.
May I say to Mr. Eden that I extend this welcome, not only on behalf of the members of the two houses of parliament, but on behalf of the Canadian people as a whole, whose representatives we are.
When we learned that Mr. Eden had accepted the invitation extended to him by the government of the United States to visit the United States to discuss with the President and his colleagues matters pertaining to the war, we were delighted to learn that he hoped to be able also to visit Canada before returning to the United Kingdom. I should like at once to thank Mr. Eden most *warmly for having accepted so promptly the invitation which upon his arrival in Washington was extended to him by the government of Canada-not only for his kindness in accepting the invitation, but also for agreeing in the course of his stay to address both houses of parliament and to speak to the Canadian people over our radio broadcasting system; and may I add, for his courtesy in sparing the time to spend two or three days with us in the capital.
I am not going to reflect upon the intelligence of members of the two houses of parliament by attempting to review even in briefest outline the outstanding attainments of Mr. Eden's very notable career. They are known not only in this country and in
Right Hon. Anthony Eden

all British countries but in all parts of the world. I would however say to Mr. Eden that we specially welcome him in our parliament to-day because of the important place which he has filled for some twenty years past in the parliament at Westminster, and for the	position he now holds	of
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the United Kingdom and as leader of the British House of Commons. In his twenty years in parliament Mr. Eden has been more intimately associated with the work of the Foreign Office than most of his distinguished predecessors in that high position. I believe it is true that the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has visited more countries in Europe and in other parts of the world, has visited more parts of the British commonwealth of nations, knows personally more of those who are directing the affairs of both the allied countries and the enemy nations, than any previous occupant of his high office. It is certainly true that no secretaiy of state for foreign affaire has held that all-important position at a time more critical in the affairs of the world. He has brought to his high office exceptional qualities-qualities, may I say to him, which have been reassuring to all who are members of free assemblies.
We welcome him not only for his position as Secretary of State and for all of high attainment that it signifies, not only for has position of leader of the House of Commons of Britain, which he holds at the present time, we welcome him as well because of the high and important mission on which he has come to this side of the Atlantic. Mr. Eden himself has told us that his mission was to undertake a general exchange of views with the President of the United States and his colleagues on all aspects of the war situation and to discuss the most effective method of preparing for meetings between the governments of all united nations to consider questions arising out of the war and questions which will continue to confront the united nations as they seek to work out the problems of peace and of the postwar world. It is not less gratifying to us than I am sure it has been to Mr. Eden himself and to the President, the Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull, and other members of the government of the United States, to know that he and they were in such complete agreement in respect of the many important subjects they discussed.
Mr. Eden has come to us to discuss similar problems. As hon. members are aware, since the time of his arrival on Tuesday afternoon he has been meeting, almost continuously,

members of the war cabinet and other of my colleagues. We have been discussing the same subjects and problems. May I say to him that I think we have found ourselves in measure of agreement with him equal to that in which he and the President found themselves in relation to matters they discussed.
In his memorable address at Annapolis, before leaving the United States, Mr. Eden spoke of the British commonwealth of nations as affording a pattern for the better organization of the united nations and for more effective means of consultation and conference between them in carrying out the great purposes they have in common. In making that statement I think I may say that he has spoken for Canada as well as for the United Kingdom. I am sure he has spoken for all the self-governing parts of the British commonwealth of nations.
We welcome Mr. Eden not only for his great accomplishments, for all that he has so successfully achieved in the twenty years of his public life, for his wide experience and his wisdom in public affairs and his knowledge of men, but also and most of all for what he is in himself. There is no doubt that the new order, which we all hope is going to follow the termination of this war and prevail in the period of peace, will take on the character of the men who are at the head of affairs and who will have to do with the shaping of that new order. It is fortunate indeed for the world that a man who holds the high standards of thought and purpose which Mr. Eden has so consistently upheld, one who has been so strong a champion of the rights of free men, and of justice as between nations, should be one who will be a foremost figure in the shaping of that new era. It is I say a fortunate thing for the well-being of mankind, for the relations between individuals and between nations, that one who possesses so eminently the high qualities of integrity and justice and love of freedom, the belief in the oneness of the human family, and so strong a sense of brotherhood, should be of those who will have a commanding voice in the shaping of the new order that is to come.
In conclusion, may I ask you, Mr. Eden, on your return to Britain if you will take with you the most loyal of greetings and expressions of devotion of His Majesty's Canadian subjects to the King and1 Queen. Will you also take with you the warmest and best wishes to the Prime Minister of Britain. Tell Mr. Churchill how relieved we all were at his speedy recovery after the unfortunate indisposition he suffered on his return from North Africa, and tell him we do hope and pray that

Right Hon. Anthony Eden
he will continue to the end to enjoy the vision, the wisdom and the endurance which he has manifested from the beginning in his conduct of the affairs of this war. And tell him and tell all the people of Britain that Canada is heart and soul with them in this struggle, and that we shall continue so to remain until the fight itself is ended and victory and peace have been achieved.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the members of the Progressive Conservative party may I add a word to what has been so eloquently said1 by the leader of the government of Canada, the Prime Minr ister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I should like to join in the welcome he has extended to our distinguished guest and to say that we in this chamber are honoured and privileged to have with us not ' only the voice of Britain itself, but a distinguished world figure.
Mr. Eden fought valiantly, courageously and heroically in the dark and trying days of the last war. He was decorated by His Majesty for those services; and throughout the period between the last war and the present one his years of contribution to the preservation of the peace for which he and so many others fought, shone as a beacon light in a confused and stormy international sea. At times he stood almost alone in that period. But may I say this, Mr. Speaker, that while he may have stood almost alone, he 'has seen, in the events of recent years, that stand fully justified.
To-day our distinguished guest continues the fight. As the Prime Minister has said, we welcome him not only for what he has done but for what he is doing. We welcome him for what he represents, and because of what he stands for. We welcome him, too, for what he is. What the Prime Minister has said I need not repeat; but it augurs well for Mr. Eden's position in the structure which will be developed in the world after the war that friendliness, humility, honour and devotion to duty are some of the outstanding but not all the fine characteristics which distinguish him.
Mr. Eden's loyalty to the cause of justice as between little nations and big nations, his loyalty to that cause so far as "little" men and "little" women throughout the world are concerned, have been characteristic of him ever since he became a spokesman for Great Britain in the field of international politics and international law. He has had many gifts at the hands of his government and1 his people. He was Secretary of State for War in Great Britain when the fateful decision had to be made whether or not Great Britain
itself would have to be denuded of its strength in order that the action taken should be a favourable one with respect to holding the Suez canal. He was also Secretary for War when our motherland and empire went to the aid of the heroic Greeks. And I say now that we shall always look back with a great deal of pride on the daring move that was made on that occasion.
As Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Mr. Eden is on a mission to arouse us and our fighting allies in this war to the realization of the need of fighting for common aims and formulating common plans both for victory and for peace. Our honoured guest has made a notable contribution to democracy through these last twenty years of service, but, thank God, he is still a young man as years of public life are counted. Having that youth, and having had such wide experience, two very important qualifications, we may, I think, in the days that lie ahead, look for a contribution by the Right Honourable Anthony Eden to world affairs that perhaps will eclipse even his prevous record of outstanding service. As the Prime Minister said a moment ago, Mr. Eden's attachment to the pattern of the British commonwealth of nations, in so far as the structure for world peace is concerned, is one of course to which all of us subscribe.
The Prime Minister has asked that Mr. Eden take back to Their Majesties, to the Prime Minister of Great Britain and its people our best wishes and good will. I reecho his sentiments. But I wish also to ask the right hon. gentleman if he wall carry back to the Canadian armed forces overseas an expression of our recognition of the part they are playing and the sacrifices and services they are making and are prepared to make and to give an order that we in Canada may have security and freedom. My only hope is that we in Canada, in our deliberations and our work, shall be worthy of their sacrifices and their services. To the people of Great Britain I would ask Mr. Eden to carry back this message from the Canadian people: We are prepared to fight to the last, with Great Britain and the united nations, until every vestige of terrorism and danger to freedom is crushed and dead.
And may I say in simple and heartfelt language to our distinguished guest, when he leaves our soil: bon voyage, good luck, and may God's richest blessings rest upon him and his giant undertaking in the interests of a better world, in which freedom and justice shall be the unassailable right of all.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, we of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are pleased to join in the welcome extended to the Right Honourable
Right Hon. Anthony Eden

Anthony Eden. He represents to us a brave people who stood steadfastly together, and almost alone, when many thought that our cause was lost. We remember that throughout his public career he has stood consistently for the preservation of peace by means of collective security. Nor do we forget that because in 1938 he believed that the covenant of the League of Nations involved certain obligations he resigned the high office he held at that time.
We have noted with considerable satisfaction his timely assurances that we are not fighting to-day to preserve the status quo, but rather in order that there may be a possibility for future world progress. As a free nation in the British commonwealth [DOT] of nations our people, too, are prepared to go forward to ultimate success in the high hope that in association with our allies of the united nations, we together, when victory is won, may lay the foundations of a world in which there shall be freedom from fear, freedom from war and freedom from want.
That, sir, is the message that I would ask him to convey to the British people on behalf of the party for which I speak.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable Anthony Eden represents the people of a country, one of the great poets of which sang these noble words:
The old order changeth, yielding place to new;
And God fulfils himself in many ways,
Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.
It has fallen upon Mr. Eden's shoulders in these trying times to preside, as it were, while the prophecy which was voiced in those words is being fulfilled. We desire that he shall be inspired and guided in the performance of all he does, and that wisdom, vision and courage shall be his, as they have been in the past.
Members of the Social Credit group wish to join with members of other parties in expressions of loyalty and devotion to the great cause which is symbolized by the British commonwealth of nations. Whenever great changes are about to be brought into being there is always the danger that we shall go from bad to worse. It must be our constant endeavour to see that we shall go from good to better. We were greatly comforted when it was reported to us the Right Honourable Anthony Eden had said that the blueprint of the future was to be the British commonwealth of nations. We recall that in the memorable document known as the Balfour declaration it was set forth explicitly that members of the British commonwealth of nations are to be "autonomous communities [Mr. ColdweU.l	. . I
within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs". We believe that in the new world and the new order that principle should prevail. We desire that, with respect not only to members of the British commonwealth of nations but also to other nations which may join themselves together in an endeavour to improve matters, it will be possible for each nation to say truthfully in the words of another great English writer:
Daughter am I in my mother's house,
But mistress in my own.
We ask that the Right Honourable Anthony Eden shall take back to Great Britain our congratulations, our sympathy, our expression of devotion and our association with them-
Till danger's troubled night depart And the star of peace return.


Hon. THOMAS VIEN (Speaker of the Senate):: Mr. Eden, honourable members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, it is indeed a great honour and privilege to extend on behalf of the Senate of Canada to the Right Honourable Mr. Eden a most cordial welcome on the occasion of his visit to our houses of parliament.
You have come to us, sir, as a knight in shining armour. We know the important part you have taken and are still taking in the momentous struggle of the united nations to ensure the final victory of right over might, of justice over iniquity, of liberty over tyranny and oppression. We shall be forever thankful that, amidst your innumerable occupations, it has been possible for you to visit us. And we may tell you in advance that your stay in Ottawa will leave in our minds an imperishable memory, and that the speech you are about to deliver will be to us an inspiration and an incentive of the highest order.
May I add that the example of duty and devotion which you have set to the empire and the world in the present war is already engraved in our minds in a most ineradicable manner.
(Translation):	Mr. Eden, I take much
pride at being the spokesman of my French-Canadian compatriots to welcome you to our country and I feel gratified in acknowledging in my own tongue, on behalf of the French-Canadian members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, the inspiration and encouragement that will flow from the speech you are about to deliver and which will remain engraved in gold both in our public records and in our hearts.

Right Hon. Anthony Eden
Since 1S48, French has been one of the official languages of our country. I may therefore use it to state that .the French Canadians have done their full share in the prosecution of this war; that they are happy to be British citizens and to live under a form of government under which they enjoy the greatest freedom; that they always have remained faithful to the parliamentary and democratic institutions which they enjoy. Their sole desire, to the fulfilment of which they apply their best efforts, is to ensure the triumph of our armed forces and to bequeath to the coming generation an enlarged inheritance which can be assured only through an allied victory.
You appear to us as a fearless and faultless knight; and I wish to convey to you the gratitude we feel for the commendable part you have always played in promoting the triumph of right over might, of justice over evil and of freedom over tyranny and oppression.


Thomas Vien: Honourable members of the Senate and the House of Commons, we are met this afternoon to receive a very distinguished visitor, the Right Honourable Anthony Eden, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the House of Commons. Mr. Eden is no stranger to the forum of the House of Commons. He, like Mr. Churchill, is a House of Commons man; and it is therefore eminently fitting and proper that Mr. Eden should give his first public address in Canada from the floor of the Canadian House of Commons.
It would be a work of supererogation for me to recite the many virtues which have been expressed to-day by members of the house regarding Mr. Eden. His name is a familiar one in Canada. His career is known to many people throughout our dominion. And I believe that on this occasion-and none could be more appropriate than this gathering of members of both houses of parliament- Canada through its parliament would wish to express to Mr. Eden the deep-souled appreciation and unstinted admiration of the courage and fortitude of the British people during those tragic months of 1940 and since. We who understood the desperation of those times will ever be thankful that there was a noble band of leaders in the United Kingdom who, when it seemed that the last bastion of freedom in the European world was crumbling in ruins, stood steadfast and firm, never faltering; and that they and the British people gave an example of courage and determination greater and more heroic than that displayed at any other time in the long history of Britain. Mr. Eden was an outstanding leader among those leaders of whom I have spoken.
To us in Canada it is a most comforting thought that in that crisis Canada and the other nations comprising the British commonwealth never swerved from their stern and implacable purpose to support the United Kingdom and to resist with all their strength and resources the forces of evil ranged against democracy. The commonwealth, let it never be forgotten, stood alone in those days. We now have allies of the most powerful, nations in the world. And although the road may be long and dreary, and the end not yet in sight, there is no doubt now as to the issue.
Now, sir, I hand over to you the members of both houses of parliament. The listening world is eagerly awaiting your address. You are not bound by the rules of this house-you may even read your speech. And our rule limiting speeches to forty minutes is with unanimous consent, now given, suspended entirely.
Honourable members of the Senate and the House of Commons: I present to you the Right Honourable Anthony Eden, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the United Kingdom.


Right Hon. ANTHONY  EDEN@Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the United Kingdom: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply grateful to you and to the members of the parliament of Canada for the compliment which you have paid me in thus inviting me to speak to you here from the floor of the house. I understand, of course, that the compliment is not paid to me personally but to our own House of Commons at home, of which I happen to be, for the time being, the unworthy leader. I feel sure that my colleagues in the House of Commons at Westminster would wish me to express to you here and now their warmest thanks and gratitude for this truly thoughtful gesture. There is no compliment, as you, sir, have hinted, that could appeal more to the heart of any House of Commons man.
Sir, this procedure and these surroundings are familiar to me, though I confess that your house is at once more spacious and more generously fitted-and, let me add, less battered^-than our own. As you are perhaps aware, our own chamber at Westminster has [DOT]been destroyed, and as an act of gracious generosity we now meet in what was formerly known to us as "another place". None the less I can assure you with all conviction that the spirit of the House of Commons lives on, undismayed by enemy action or even by its present more august setting.
I would like to take this opportunity, sir, to express to my old friend the Prime Minister, to his colleagues and to other friends here in Canada my warm thanks for the kindness and
Right Hon. Anthony Eden

hospitality they have shown me since I have been in this great city. The Prime Minister referred just now to the work we have done together in a few crowded hours. I almost think that he and I have been keeping the kind of hours that are usually associated with my own Prime Minister. However that may be, I share with him the full satisfaction at the result of the work we have been able to do together.
Some very generous things have been said about me this afternoon. If I thought there was any danger of your believing any of them, I should be highly nervous, but I am comforted by the reflection that there was no risk of that.
I would preface what I say to-day by giving you this assurance, if I may. Those who have preceded me have given many generous messages to my country. I shall regard myself as privileged to take back to Their Majesties the King and Queen, to our great Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, and to the people of Britain, the encouraging, the heartening and cheering words which have been uttered1 in thi3 parliament to-day.
To think of Canada in these times is to think of her armed- forces by land, sea and air, and it is of these that I would speak to you first. It so happens, by the chance of events, that I have been lucky enough to see something of the Canadian forces since the earliest days of the war. As dominions secretary in the opening months of the war it was my privilege to travel to a certain port, there to welcome the first contingent of your army to reach the shores of the old country. Sir, I could never forget that scene. It was a beautiful winter morning, such as we do have in Britain sometimes, at a famous port which I suppose must still remain anonymous; such are the rules of censorship. I was the spectator of the scene from the flagship of the commander-in-chief of the home fleet. As the great armada of liners swung into sight under the escort of the Royal Navy, cheering Canadian troops lined the decks and the band of the flagship played "0 Canada." I suppose that seldom in human history have so many great transports and so many powerful ships of war been assembled together at one time. That was Canada making her contribution in the hour of need, and that was only the beginning. Many contingents of your army have followed the forerunners. When in April, 1940, a few brief weeks before the drama of Dunkerque, the Prime Minister, Mr. Winston Churchill, formed his government, he asked roe to take over the war office. There again I had the opportunity of meeting officers and men of the Canadian forces. Those were the dark days of 1940 to which you, sir, have just referred, when the presence of your troops

was at once a safeguard to our threatened citadel and an inspiration to our own efforts. Since those days the Canadian army in Britain has had to endure a long period of training and waiting. No experience can be more exacting for the morale of any army. Its officers and men have sustained this ordeal with a patience and a sense of discipline that has won the admiration of us all. Save for the attack at Dieppe, carried through with that brilliant dash and daring which the world has come to associate with Canadian arms, the lot of your fellow countrymen in Britain has been one of waiting for the hour that will come. This message I should like you to give to the people of Canada, in all sincerity: As the months and the years have passed, the affection of the British people for their Canadian guests and comrades has grown until we have come to regard1 them not as visiting kinfolk but as our very own, men whom we respect and admire. We know that one day their distinguished commander, General McNaughton, will lead them to victory.
Now, sir, let me speak for a moment of the undying achievements of the Royal Canadian Air Force, made possible by the well-planned execution of the commonwealth air training scheme. It so happens that as dominions secretary I also saw the first conception and early execution of that scheme. I do not think that any of us then quite realized-I freely admit that I did not-the extent to which its development might influence the whole course of the war, even though its potentialities did inspire us all to do what we could to ensure the success of its early beginnings. Well, sir, if Canada had done nothing else in this war, her predominant share in the commonwealth air training scheme would ensure for her an enduring place in the roll of fame.
I had a fortunate experience this morning, such as seldom falls to the lot of those of us who have to bear political burdens in this time. I took a couple of hours off, and I went not far from this city to see one of those training centres. It was a truly inspiring experience. Clearly the work that is being done there has much more than merely war-time importance. In one flight I saw young men from Canada, from Australia, from New Zealand, from the United States and from the old country working together in complete comradeship and understanding. It does not require much imagination to understand the significance that can have for the future. These young men are getting to know and respect each other. They are breaking down some of the old barriers. Some of the old prejudices are being removed by this greater comradeship of the air. All the instructors to whom I spoke gave me evidence of this. So, sir, I say that these

Right Hon. Anthony Eden
young pilots may be the best ambassadors of the future. If we can only capture and keep the spirit which they have learned in these schools there is no international problem which we cannot resolve.
I am going to ask hon. members of these two houses if for a moment now they will cast their minds back to the early days of the war, because I should like to tell them that there is in the minds of all my countrymen one recollection above all which stands out from those days. We can never forget that when we went to war to redeem our pledged word- a fact that I like to keep present in my mind-when we did that, you stood1 with us. Four self-governing dominions of the British empire took their stand in partnership with us. That event is part of recorded history. No man can change it. It is an event of which the British commonwealth will always be, I trust, supremely proud. This close association in the hour of danger was the outward expression of the inner meaning of the British commonwealth.
Let us for a moment consider its significance, because I am of the opinion that we do not talk about ourselves enough. What did it mean? It meant that a number of selfgoverning communities scattered all over the world realized as clearly as we did, who were very much closer to the scene, the peril that beset not only them but mankind. Understanding full well that the threat to one was a threat to all, they rallied unanimously in defence of the common cause. That event was all the more remarkable when we reflect that the citizens of this commonwealth are not all of one common stock. Here in Canada are millions of French descent, whilst in South Africa the majority is in fact of Dutch origin. Moreover, India and the colonial territories of the empire have from the first day taken their place at our side. When, therefore, all is measured, there has been no more striking, no more inspiring episode in human history than this free and spontaneous action by all the peoples of the British empire.
Since those days we have battled through some pretty stern times together. We have known dark days and, on occasion, brighter hopes. To-day, -when we survey the world scene, we are conscious of the support of many and powerful friends, so that if we hold together and persist until the end, the issue is not in doubt. In recent months encouraging reports have reached us from many theatres of war. We are entitled to rejoice at them, to take fresh heart from them, but there would be an element of danger if they were to cause us for one moment to relax our efforts.
The better news must not tempt us to underrate our enemies' strength; it must only nerve us to greater efforts. Our Turkish friends
have given many wise sayings to the world. There is one in particular which I would commend to you as being a suitable motto for the stern business of war-Though thine enemy be an ant, imagine that he is an elephant." So it is our duty to concentrate all our strength upon the first task in hand, which is the utter defeat of the enemy. It is well, very well that we should take thought and counsel together as to the future problems that may beset us.
It would be bad if we were to allow such necessary preparation to dim for one instant our vision of the work at hand and our determination to see it through.
Sir, even as I speak at this hour, the battle of the Atlantic is raging. It is yet undecided. In the struggle that has ebbed and flowed these months and years, the Royal Canadian Navy has played a glorious part. The epic of the convoys is never ending; it would require libraries to do justice to it; the words of the greatest poets that ever lived would not suffice. We must regard the U-boat as our greatest menace. It is the ceaseless task of our navies to protect our life-lines, and to fight a way through for our convoys. The enemy is clearly staking heavily upon his U-boat offensive. We must not only continue, but intensify our efforts against this desperate challenge. You may be confident that we shall do so.
Sir, having uttered this warning, perhaps I may yet speak to you for a little of the future. As the war progresses we see the conception of the united nations gradually taking shape. I believe it is better that this development should come about in this gradual way. Cooperation which is bom of stern necessity and forged by experience has the best chance to survive into the years of peace. It is better to build as we go along, to test our mutual understanding and to develop it rather than to devise all at once some elaborate structure into which we shall seek to fit the component parts as best we may. In this sphere of international endeavour the commonwealth has its specific contribution to make.
Sir, it has been our practice for many years to allow and encourage cooperation to grow. We have neither rigid rules nor precise formulae between us, but we have the spirit of understanding and we know the road that we would travel. Can we infuse something of this same spirit into the sphere of international relations? If we can, we shall have made an essential contribution to a peace that can endure.
(Translation) One thing I should like you to know about our British people is that, after three years of war, they show no sign of weakening. The British are united in a stubborn
174S
Right Hon. Anthony Eden

determination to see the struggle through to a finish, for they are armed with strength, courage and fortitude.
The enemy's pre-war slander about the British being exhausted and done for has been disproved with a consummate vigour unparalleled in history. Above all, the British have a very youthful spirit and, both east and west, you may depend upon them until the end of the conflict and until triumphant peace.
Many a nation has painfully suffered in this war. France has known a particularly hard and bitter ordeal.
Throughout my life I have believed in the greatness of France and, to-day, my faith in her future remains unshakable.
For our part, we have but one wish: to witness a renewal of the bond which unites all Frenchmen who have sworn to fight our common enemy. We will always be ready to help them achieve that purpose for it marks the first step toward the regeneration of France and the opening of a new chapter in her glorious history.
(Text) Sir, when we consider the unhappy years, the distressful years between the two wars ,we should surely do so in the determination to learn the lessons of our failure. I have myself had some experience, as have your Prime Minister and others of your Canadian statesmen, of the attempts which have been made to keep the peace by international machinery. Well, sir, one lesson is predominant in my mind. The League of Nations suffered, no doubt, from a number of human failings and shortcomings. We all do. However, what above all it lacked was a sufficiently wide international authority to express its decisions with conviction and an adequate force to see them executed.
So it was that the gangster nations, Germany, Italy and Japan, could test their strength and work their will. Mr. Speaker, we must never be in that position again. It is essential that when this war is over the united nations should maintain sufficient force to ensure that neither Germany nor Italy nor Japan can ever plunge the world into war again. The experience through which I have lived is similar to the experience which many of you have known. I have taken part, as you have done, as a soldier in one war which we had hoped, as I have just been reminded, was a war to end war. I now watch my son prepare to take part in a second war. Mr. Speaker, it is our duty to see to it that this cruel and inhuman lot is not also the heritage of our children's children.
For my part I, therefore, say definitely that I am not prepared to take risks again with either Germany, Italy Japan. I have no

faith in the promises of their statesmen or in. the smooth assurances of their apologists. There is only one security for mankind in respect of all of them-to ensure that they shall be totally disarmed and in no position ever to try their strength again. And then indeed peace may have its chance. After the bitter lessons which we have learnt we must insist upon the fullest precautions. Sir, to say these things is not to show a lack of humanity, but to clarify our thought on issues upon which the future life of the world will depend.
It is no easy task to coordinate the action of the united nations in war, nor will it be simple in peace; but if the basis which I am propounding is accepted, as I am sure it will be by us all, then the task can be achieved.
I have myself been greatly encouraged by the conversations which I have had upon these matters a year ago in Moscow and more recently in Washington. They have been an inspiration to me. Admittedly there will be differences and divergencies amongst us. Five per cent I think the President allotted to them, and of course there always will be such. But they are not insurmountable, because at heart we want the same thing- international security, so that all of our peoples may live and develop their lives in freedom and at peace.
Let me then sum up my message to you. For this task we shall need not only a close understanding among the nations of the British commonwealth, the United States. Russia and China, but the full cooperation of all the united nations. Together we can win the war and win the peace, and nothing less shall content us. It is our duty to hand on to our children a world in which freedom can live and a man command his soul, free from that constant dread which shadows our own time. To that task we have set our hands and will dedicate our lives. Let us give this pledge this afternoon: We will neither falter nor fail until we have redeemed our word and opened to future generations a peace and promise that we have never known.


Thomas Vien: I do not propose to add anything to the address to which we have just listened. All I shall do is to express to you, sir, the profound thanks of Canada and of both houses of parliament here assembled, for a speech memorable in phrase and style, and moving in its appeal. And I would seek to express the prayer of multitudes of people in all parts of the world that you and your colleagues may be given strength and wisdom to complete the high task to which you have been called and that through victory, peace and happiness may return soon to this war-torn world.

Privilege-Mr. Pouliut



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the address of the Right Honourable Anthony Eden, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the House of Commons of Great Britain, delivered before the members of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada in the chamber of the House of Commons on Thursday, April 1, 1943, be included in the House of Commons Delates and form part of the permanent records of this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount) moved the first reading of Bill No. 53 (from the senate) to incorporate Montreal Shriners' Hospital Foundation.
Gordon Graydon: Will the hon. member give us some explanation?


Mr. ABBOTT:: This is a bill to incorporate a charitable foundation known as the Montreal Shriners' Hospital Foundation. The objects of the foundation are set out in section 4 of the bill. Briefly, they are to establish and maintain an endowment fund for the benefit of the Shriners' Hospital for Crippled Children. As some hon. members know, that hospital has been operated in Montreal for a considerable number of years. It receives as patients only children whose parents are unable to pay fees, and makes no charges for the hospital services which are rendered.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Stormont) moved the first reading of Bill No. 54 (from the senate) to incorporate Canadian Alliance Insurance Company.
Gordon Graydon: Explain.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: This bill, I understand, passed the senate last night, and I am instructed that it received second reading during last year's sittings of the house but through some mishap did not get third reading. I am not familiar at the moment with the circumstances surrounding it; I have not the bill before me, and I am not in a position at this moment to give any more details concerning the bill than I have done.


Mr. CHURCH:: Why was the bill introduced first in the senate?


Gordon Graydon: Will my hon. friend give us some explanation to-morrow with reference to this bill?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT PAGES MISSING FROM CERTAIN COPIES OF OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF MARCH 18

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I hold in my hand two copies of Hansard of March 18, and I have received observations from some of my colleagues about the fact that pages are missing from 1383 to 1398 inclusive. This means that the copy of Hansard which I hold in my hand, and which I will leave with the Clerk, contains only the exordium of the excellent speech made by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) and the peroration of the speech made by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden); that the whole of the speech made by the hon. member for Cbarveloix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) is also missing; and, what is the worst, that there is also omitted the most interesting and most human speech delivered since the beginning of this session, namely, the speech of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Turner) on beer. I wonder whether instructions have not been given by the censor to the king's printer to remove that speech from Hansard, at the request of the Rev. Arthur Irwin, or of the Rev. Mr. Cameron, or of the Rev. Mr. Coburn, or anyone else, and I protest, because those who received similar copies of Hansard did not receive a complete Hansard, and missed reading the excellent, interesting and human speech made by the hon. member for Springfield and the other very good speeches which I have mentioned.

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	What Canadian or non-Canadian governments, companies, firms, corporations, trusts, associations, and others, (a) in Canada, (b) outside of Canada, own Canadian bonds, debentures, obligations, stocks, certificates, currency or any other form of Canadian obligations, and what is the amount owned by each?
2.	Is there any agreement existing or contemplated regarding the return of such assets in exchange for our help, either on the lease-lend system or for our military help or any other way, during or after the war?
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	This information is not available. It is not possible to state what amount of Canadian bonds, debentures, obligations, stocks, certificates, currency or other forms of Canadian obligations are owned by any particular group of persons in Canada or outside Canada. Many of these securities are in bearer form and pass by delivery from person to person.
Securities issued by the Dominion of Canada are issued in fully registered form or bearer form. It is obviously not possible to state
Questions

by what agencies or individuals bearer securities are owned. It is also not considered desirable to disclose the names of registered holders of dominion securities. This information has always been regarded as confidential. Its disclosure would tend to make Dominion of Canada issues less attractive to investors and thus harm Canada's credit both at home and abroad.
In the case of securities and other investments in Canada owned by non-residents, the only information in the possession of the dominion government is in respect of those held by residents of the United Kingdom. The value of these holdings of securities fluctuates from day to day. From an estimate recently made it would appear that the market value of these securities is slightly in excess of $1,000,000,000.
2.	There is no existing agreement regarding the return of such assets in exchange for our
help, although under the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942, the government of the United1 Kingdom gave us its obligation to pay S700,000,000 in accordance with subsection 2 of section 4 of that act. As to whether any agreement may be contemplated it is not the practice to answer questions related to future policy.


MOBILIZATION ACT-ALIENS CALLED UP FOR MILITARY TRAINING
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Have any aliens been called up for military training under the National Resources Mobilization Act?
2.	If so, how many, and what is the number of each nationality?
3.	How many of the men so called are now in the armed forces?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Administrative Divisions
A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	M	N	Total40	-	214	-	-	1	-	12	2	475	-	-	7	7512.	Albania 	-	-	1	1Argentina 	-	-	2	2Armenia 	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1Austria 	2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	21	1Czechoslovakia ...	3	52	55Denmark 	2	-	21	-	-	-	-	2	2	71	-	-	1	99Eire 	-	-	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	3Finland 	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	1France 	-	-	6	8	-	-	-	14Germany 	5	5Greece 	-	-	24	5	-	-	-	29Holland 	1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1Hungary 	8	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	82	2Lithuania 	7	-	1	1	9Luxembourg 	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	1Macedonia 	-	-	1	1Netherlands 	-	-	10	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	10Norway 	-	-	12	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	12Poland 	i	-	34	1	36Rumania 	3	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	-	-	5Russia 	-	-	13	199	-	-	1	213Sweden 	-	-	8	62	-	-	1	71Switzerland 	2	-	15	-	-	1	-	1	-	-	-	-	2	21Syria 	-	-	3	1	-	4United States	6	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	-	-	-	-	-	9Yugoslavia 	5	-	5Others 	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	130	-	-	-	1303.	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	2	-	-	-	-	3
In submitting the above figures, it is to be taken into consideration that in many administrative divisions no aliens have been ordered for military training although "orders -medical examination" have been issued to them.

Questions
The attached statement gives information as to the legal liability of aliens for compulsory mobilization under national selective service mobilization regulations.
Re: Ordering out of aliens for compulsory mobilization under national selective service mobilization regulations.
(1)	Compulsory mobilization of man-power is being effected in Canada for the army pursuant to national selective service mobilization regulations. Subject to the excepted classes of men mentioned in subsection 2 of section 3 of national selective service mobilization regulations, there are liable for compulsory mobilization in Canada all those men who come within the designated age classes mentioned in subsection 1 of section 3.
(2)	Under subsection 1 of section 3, the required age classes are designated by proclamation of the governor in council and there are attached such proclamations defining the present age classes dated respectively September 30, 1942, December 15, 1942, and February 4, 1943.
(3)	In accordance with subsection 2 of section 3 an alien is excepted from: compulsory mobilization as follows:
(h)	a non-declarant enemy alien.
(i)	a non-declarant alien who is a national of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland1, the United States of America, Yugoslavia or any other country which is a foreign power under the foreign forces order, 1941, if he has filed with the registrar satisfactory evidence that he has become a member of the armed forces of the state of which he is a national, or
(j)	a non-declarant alien who is a national of any country not specified or described in paragraph (.i) of this subsection if he has completed a statutory declaration in the form set out in schedule "A," and has filed the same with the registrar.
(4)	It has been the policy in connection with compulsory mobilization, to give every opportunity to nationals of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United States of America, Yugoslavia, whereby they may be mobilized by the respective foreign missions of their countries effecting mobilization of their respective foreign forces in Canada. Therefore, since the beginning of compulsory mobilization in Canada, there has been delayed enforcement of compulsory mobilization as against such aliens liable thereto. In the interim many aliens have been voluntarily mobilized1 as members of the foreign forces of their respective countries mobilizing in Canada. Some weeks ago
negotiations were completed with the foreign forces of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United States of America and Yugoslavia, whereby compulsory mobilization is to be enforced under national selective service mobilization regulations against nationals of these countries. But in accordance with established policy full opportunity will be given to such aliens to complete enlistment in the foreign forces of their respective countries prior to voluntary enlistment or compulsory mobilization in the Canadian army. Registrars are now proceeding administratively to effect the foregoing.


OIL CONTROL
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Have enforcement officers been engaged to look after the enforcement of the oil control regulations?
2.	If so, how many, by provinces?
3.	Are they authorized to endeavour to induce the commission of offences in their investigations of infractions of the regulations?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Quebec, 3; Ontario, 8; Manitoba, 3; Saskatchewan, 1; British Columbia, 2. A part of the duties ordinarily performed by 174 other investigators and other enforcement officers of the wartime prices and trade board includes assistance from time to time in the enforcement of regulations of the oil controller.
3.	No.


ISSUE OP RATION BOOKS AT ONTARIO POINTS
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: How many ration books have been issued to date in the city of Toronto, Ontario; the village of Forest Hill, Ontario; the town of Leaside, Ontario; the town of Weston, Ontario, Mt. Dennis and Swansea?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The number of No. 2 ration books issued as at March 29, 1943 for the following places: Toronto, 595,000; Forest Hill, 10,992; Leaside, 6,048; Weston, 6,779; Swansea, 6,034. Details for the town of Mount Dennis are not available as this is part of York township.


SELECTIVE SERVICE-ADVISORY COUNCIL
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the total membership of the advisory council of the national selective service?
2.	What members of the advisory council are farmers and what experience have they had as such?
3.	What members of such council have had railway experience and of what nature?
Questions


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	24.
2.	Dr. G. S. H. Barton, deputy minister of agriculture, was born and raised on a farm; after graduation from Macdonald college was appointed a lecturer on animal husbandry and then dean of the faculty. P. D. MacArthur, Esq. No specific information but presumably life-time experience. Chairman was bom and raised on a farm. Wm. Dunn, Esq., since 1935 has been general supervisor, community gardens' association, Toronto.
3.	George Hodge, Esq., executive; J. A. Bell, Esq., telegrapher and union official; A. R. Mosher, Esq., freight checker and union official.


COMMODITY PRICES STABILIZATION CORPORATION- IMPORTED FOOD PRODUCTS
Mr. SENN:: 1.	Was any portion of the vote of $80,000,000 for Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation -administration and subsidies-War Appropriation Acts 1942-43, applied to imported food products ?
2.	If so, to what products?
3.	In what amount to each?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Order for return.


COMMODITY PRICES STABILIZATION CORPORATION- CANADIAN FARM PRODUCTS
Mr. SENN:: 1.	Was any portion of the vote of $80,000,000 for Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation -administration and subsidies-War Appropriation Acts 1942-43, applied to Canadian farm products?
2.	If so, to what products?
3.	In what amount to each?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Order for return.


Mr. SENN:: These two questions which
stand in my name have to do with the commodity prices stabilization corporation payments. I separated them purposely so that, as I thought, the}- would not apply to more than one department. Does the minister say that they do?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think they apply to only one department. The first will require a good deal of paper in answering. And I think the second will also. The fact that a question relates to more than one department is not the only reason for making it an order for return.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: That is the
usual reason.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, but if the answer is to be long, a question is often made an order for return.


Gordon Graydon: It is very difficult to
understand the rule that is adopted from time to time outside of the one the minister has just mentioned, where a question relates to more than one department. Some answers coming through on Hansard are very lengthy, and some passed as orders for returns are very short. I would ask the Secretary of State whether in these two instances he might reconsider the matter and, if they are not too long, put them on Hansard as answered.


Mr. McLARTY:: I did not ask that they be made orders for returns. The only thing I would say is, I think it is the common practice that if the answer is to be too long to burden Hansard with it, it is made an order for return. I know nothing about these particular questions. My colleague the Minister of Finance asked that they be made orders for returns.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am sure that the answer to the first question will be a long, bulky one. There are a great many imports; it will take a lot of work to find just what are food products and what are not, and how much was paid on each. I think it should be an order for return. The other I will let stand if the hon. gentleman wishes.


Mark Cecil Senn: I had the idea that there were only a very few' imported food products on which subsidies had been paid.
Mr. ILSLEY': Let them both stand then.
Questions stand.


TRADE BALANCE
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Has Canada a favourable trade balance?
2.	If so, for how many years without interruption?
3.	In what years was the balance unfavourable?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Yes.
2.	1932 to 1942.
3.	1929, 1930, 1931.


MOBILIZATION ACT-REGISTRARS
Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	What are the names of the registrars under the N.R.M.A.?
2.	What are their salaries?
3.	What has each registrar received in expenses during each month since January, 1942, to date?
Mr. Pouliot.]


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1, 2 and 3:
NAMES OF DIVISIONAL REGISTRARS AND ANNUAL SALARY Expenses paid to Divisional Registrars by months since January, 1942
Division-Name	Salary	Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	April	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.	Jan..	Feb.	Mar.	Total Expenses$	$ cts.	S cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	8 cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	S cts.	$ cts3,600	3 600	44 70	44 70'C" L. McDonell	3,600	43 27	51 60	30 45	19 65	144 973,600	116 05	116 05from Staff April 18, 1943).	
4 200			18 45	43 40					15 45			41 55	22 75	15 37		156 97
															31 50		31 50
	3 600			108 41		109 71											218 12
							76 50										76 50
3 60	62 30	65 9071 45	54 95	145 10	15 30	12 50	9 30	6 65	350 303 600	177 95	27 60	5 50	211 053,600	21 55	211 90	233 45
Questions
Questions


MACARONI MANUFACTURING PLANTS
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	How many macaroni manufacturing plants are there in Canada?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	What is the annual capacity of production of each?
4.	What quantity of durum wheat is used annually in this production?
5.	What other commodities are used in the production of macaroni?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	There were twenty firms manufacturing macaroni in 1941.
2.	The following is a list of the firms reporting the manufacture of macaroni, spaghetti, vermicelli, noodles, etc., in 1941.
Quebec.-Barbieri, Mafaldo, 6758 St. Lawrence blvd., Montreal; Sorrento Macaroni, Limited, 14051 Notre Dame street E., Pointe-aux-Trembles (Montreal); Catelli Food Products, Limited, 6890 Notre Dame street east, Montreal (Longue Pointe).
Ontario.-Cabot Macaroni Manufacturing Company, 325 James street north, Hamilton; Canada Food Products, 225 Sterling road, Toronto; Muratori Macaroni Manufacturing Co., Thorold; The Ontario Macaroni Co., Ltd., rear 272 Laughton avenue, Toronto; Toronto Macaroni and Imported Foods, Ltd., rear 60 Hock avenue, Toronto.
Manitoba.-Catelli Food Products, Limited, 425 Henry avenue, Winnipeg; Constant Marcaroni Products, 254 rue Dumoulin street, St. Boniface; The Creamette Co. of Canada, Ltd., 287 Stanley street, Winnipeg; .Marious and Company, 471 De Lamourenie street, St. Boniface.
Alberta.-Catelli Food Products Limited, Lethbridge.
British Columbia.-Far Kay Noodle Factory, 433 Georgia street east, Vancouver; Famous Foods, Limited, 1315 Hastings street east, Vancouver; Catelli Food Products, Limited, 573-575 Beatty street, Vancouver;
K.	Natsuliara, 545 Powell street, Vancouver;
Charbonneau, Ltee., 1800 Nicolet street, Montreal, Quebec; H. J. Heinz Co. Ltd., Leamington, Ontario; Quaker Oats Co. Ltd., Peterborough, Ontario.
3.	Information is given to the statistics branch in confidence and it is not lawful to disclose such information if it would be of use to competitors.
4.	No information. The total quantity of flour used annually is 46,000,000 pounds.
5.	No information.


EMPLOYMENT OF CANAOIAN LABOUR IN CANADA BY UNITED STATES CONTRACTORS
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Has the government issued an order to prevent American contractors employing Canadian labour on projects in and around the city of Edmonton, in northern Alberta and northern British Columbia?
2.	If so, what was the date of such order?
3.	Was the order based on a report made by Mr. F. J. White, regional superintendent of the unemployment insurance commission?
4.	Was there an agreement entered into between Canada and the United States whereby United States contractors would not be allowed to employ Canadian labour on work projects in Canada?
5.	If so, what is the date of such agreement and what are its terms?
.Mr. MITCHELL:
1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.
4.	No.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
In explanation of the foregoing answers and for the information of hon. gentlemen it is reported that conferences were conducted through diplomatic channels prior to United States projects being undertaken and as a result of these negotiations conferences at which representatives of the various federal departments interested participated were proceeded with. As a result of these conferences, it was agreed
(a)	in general that American labour would be employed by American contractors at American rates
(b)	that Canadian contractors would employ Canadians at Canadian rates
(c)	arrangements were made that emergency or special conditions would be met as far as possible by permitting American contractors or American organizations to employ Canadians at Canadian rates when the situation in regard to Canada's man-power would permit. When the employment of Canadian workmen was agreed to they would be paid at Canadian rates.
It might be further reported that the cost of the projects is being financed entirely by the United States authorities; that it was the desire of the United States authorities to use American man-power; that the situation in Canada would not permit of undertaking the work in its entirety by Canadian manpower, and, because of the requirements of the Canadian wage stabilization policy, it was necessary to provide that Canadians if employed would be paid in accordance with Canadian law.

Supply-Finance



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS- PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH-COMPETITION FOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS


Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the production of gold from Canadian mines between the years 1911 and 1931, both inclusive?
2.	What quantity of gold was produced by Canadian mines between 1931 and 1942, both inclusive?
3.	What is the par value of the Canadian dollar, and its actual value?
4.	What is the par value of the pound sterling, and its actual value?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. FREDERICK DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the government what is the reason why a member representing the French-Canadian element in this house has not been invited to welcome the Right Hon. Anthony Eden this afternoon.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Minister of Fisheries) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the
answer is that all the speakers this afternoon were English except the Speaker of the Senate, who spoke in French.


Frédéric Dorion: With the exception of Hon. Anthony Eden.

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



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
416. Royal Canadian Mint, including the Dominion of Canada assay office-further amount required, $16,630.
Mr. GILLIS:: The matter I am going to
raise comes under item 417. I realize that these estimates are supplementary and have to do with last year. My reason for bringing this matter to the attention of the minister again is because it is unfinished business. On two occasions in the house, and by correspondence on several occasions, I have brought to the minister's attention and to the attention of other departments the question of the cost-of-living bonus as affecting the special constable guards employed with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
This force was set up in 1939. It numbers some 1,500 men. Most of the men employed in that capacity are veterans of the last war. The remuneration they receive is small. A married man with dependents receives no allowance for those dependents but works for the sum of $3.20 a day, while a single man is paid SI.60 a day. I understand that last year the remuneration of the regular constables of this force was increased by fifty cents a day. At that time these special guards made application for either that statutory increase or the cost-of-living bonus. They were informed that because they were not employed as regular constables they were not eligible for the statutory increase, and they were also refused the cost-of-living bonus. My information is that the commissioner of the mounted police recommended that they should be paid either the one or the other, and I am informed that the Department of Justice made a similar recommendation. These recommendations were considered by the treasury board, however, and were rejected.
I am raising this question again, to-night. I do not wish to elaborate upon it because I know the minister is well informed on the matter, since it has been discussed with him both in the house and by correspondence. I make a special appeal to him now on behalf of this particular group of men. Their numbers are fairly considerable; they are doing an essential war service, and in addition they are mainly veterans of the last war. If anyone in this country is entitled to that cost-of-living bonus, I think this particular group should receive consideration, and that consideration should have been given long ago.
Supply-Finance

I am anything but satisfied as to the application of the cost-of-living bonus generally. There is a large percentage of the workers of Canada, particularly in the low income groups, for whose benefit this cost-of-living bonus was designed, who are not receiving it. Its application is anything but uniform, and there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with it. I believe this legislation requires a thorough overhauling. One feature that I should like to emphasize in particular is that any time anyone brings up the question of giving people what is justly theirs, immediately someone raises the question of inflation. I think that word has been greatly abused. I do not think it would have anything to do with inflation if a man who is maintaining a family were granted a sufficient amount of money to feed and clothe that family.
I noticed even last night that when the question of the cost-of-living bonus was raised, immediately someone raised the question of inflation. The people who are getting that cost-of-living bonus, the people on whose behalf I am speaking particularly now, are not receiving enough to meet their legitimate obligations. I have some correspondence here from men in that category living right in Ottawa, and they give me their budget, so much for rent, so much for fuel, and so on, only the absolutely essential things. That budget runs up to $113 a month, which they must pay in order barely to get by, with no luxuries; and what they are receiving now is far from that figure. If this cost-of-living bonus were designed to take up the slack in the cost of living because basic wages cannot be increased, then I think every worker in this country is entitled to it. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction, and justly so, when it is found that in one plant the employees are receiving the full cost-of-living bonus of S4.25 a week, while in the next plant doing similar work the employees are receiving sixty cents a week, and in another plant perhaps in another section of the city the employees are receiving nothing.


Humphrey Mitchell: Where would they be receiving nothing?


Clarence Gillis: In the aircraft industry in the city of Montreal.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would differ with my hon. friend. I know better.


Clarence Gillis: Since the opening of this
session I met and discussed this question with representatives of seventeen different plants in the city of Montreal, and we were informed by that delegation that fifty per cent of the employees of those aircraft plants were not receiving any cost-of-living bonus. If that situation has been remedied, the adjustment
(Mr. Gfflis.)
has been made since the opening of this session, and I have no information on it. Not only that; the cost-of-living bonus was being used for propaganda purposes. In the plants that were organized they were not getting it, while in the plants that were not organized they were getting it.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows that is not a statement of fact; no one knows that better than he does. I do not think it is in the best interests of the working people of this country to make statements of the kind my hon. friend has made.


Clarence Gillis: I do not know any such thing.


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course the hon. member does.


Clarence Gillis: I do not know that is not a statement of fact. That statement was made not only to me but to several other members of this group by representatives of the seventeen aircraft plants in the city of Montreal, representative heads of functioning organizations in that industry, and I am stating what they told me. It is a fact as far as I am concerned.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say this to my hon. friend, because I was raised in the same sort of school as he was. Such statements are all right for the soap-box, but they do not go in this House of Commons.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Mr. Chairman, the
minister has made two statements which I think he should withdraw.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Miller Bell: Just a moment; I am raising a point, of order. The first statement which I think should be withdrawn, was that the hon. member for Cape Breton South was making statements which he knew were not founded on fact. The second statement was that the hon. member was making statements which were all right for the soap-box but not for this house. I suggest to the minister that those statements are not in conformity with the rules of this house and that they should he withdrawn.


The CHAIRMAN:: The first statement of the Minister of Labour would be out of order, but I do not believe the second statement would. I think the first statement, to the effect that the hon. member for Cape Breton South was making statements which he knew were false, should be withdrawn.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say they are not in accordance with the facts.

Supply-Finance


Major James William Coldwell: Has the minister
withdrawn?


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, if it satisfies my hon. friend I will withdraw. That is all in the game; we understand that.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, that is not a good reason for withdrawing. It is either according to the rules, or it is not.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I understood that the minister had withdrawn the first statement.


Major James William Coldwell: He qualified it by
saying, "if it satisfies my hon. friend."


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It must be withdrawn without qualification.


Humphrey Mitchell: I just want to say that many loose statements are being made, and I am not referring to my hon. friend in particular. As an individual, to put it in that way, I resent anyone saying that the cost-of-living bonus is used for propaganda purposes. Many loose things are being said up and down this country at the present time, and I think it is the duty of you and me who know better, or who should know better, to give the working people of this country the right kind of advice. I think I know something about the aeroplane industry in Montreal. I know something about the background of the granting of the bonus to the aeroplane industry in Montreal. I would say to the hon. member for Cape Breton South that sometimes when one meets a delegation dealing with the very much involved question of the cost-of-living bonus and wages, it is difficult to get the real, basic import of what the delegation brings before the minister or before my hon. friend. If I remember correctly, the cost-of-living bonus in the aeroplane industry in Montreal is SI.50 a week.
If the hon. member wishes to go into the mechanics of the application of the cost-of-living bonus, I am quite prepared to do so. My hon. friend has just said I should withdraw something. But when an hon. member brings before the bar of the House of Commons the argument he has brought forward he should have evidence. When a statement is made it should be based on facts, and the hon. member should have the evidence. I do not believe the argument that the government is just using the cost-of-living bonus as propaganda is the kind of argument which should be permitted to go abroad.


Clarence Gillis: I did not say any such thing. It appears to me that a large percentage of hon. members on the minister's side of the house either have guilty consciences, or are very touchy on that subject. I did not say
the government was using the cost-of-living bonus for propaganda purposes. I did say it was being used by employers in the aircraft industry in Montreal for propaganda purposes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, yes, I did; and if it does not register with some hon. members, that is not my fault.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us be fair about this.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is all right for someone to say "sit down"; that is the easiest thing he could say. It does not take much courage to say that. But when my hon. friend speaks about the aeroplane industry may I say that both employees and employers applied to the national war labour board for an increase in the cost-of-living bonus to employees engaged in the aeroplane industry in Montreal. Those are the facts. There is no propaganda about that.


Clarence Gillis: I also said if the situation was cured, then it was cured since this session opened. Since the opening of the session representatives have been here from Canadian electrical trade unions in Montreal, and those representatives spoke for seventeen plants. The basis of their dispute, and their reason for being in Ottawa was that they were quarreling with the application of the regulations in Montreal, as applied to the aircraft industry.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I might say to my hon. friend-


Clarence Gillis: The minister may make his speech after I have finished. I have been patient.


Mr. MacNICOL:: More than patient.


Clarence Gillis: Their reason for visiting Ottawa was that they had a grievance in respect of the cost-of-living bonus. The heads of the organizations who came to visit us stated they had made application to the war labour board, and that their application had not received the consideration they thought it should have received. As a result of delayed action on the part of the board, they were compelled to send a delegation to Ottawa, and that delegation discussed the matter with us for about two hours, before they went to meet- the board.
They stated, in effect, that the cost-of-living bonus was being used by employers in unorganized plants for the purpose of keeping unionism out of those plants. It was pointed out that they were receiving the cost-of-living
Supply-Finance

bonus, whereas in the organized plants it was not being received. It was stated further that if they persisted in the formation of unions they would lose their cost-of-living bonus. The cost-of-living bonus was definitely being used by employers for propaganda purposes. If the minister is now prepared to tell the house that the cost-of-living bonus is being paid in the entire aircraft industry of Montreal, I shall be pleased to hear it.


Humphrey Mitchell: The two trade unions about which the hon. member has spoken have not even an agreement with the aeroplane industry in Montreal.


Clarence Gillis: They are trying to get one.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, they are not even trying to get one. The hon. member is getting his unions mixed up.


Clarence Gillis: They have sections of it in there.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, they have not.


Clarence Gillis: They are endeavouring to get in on these plants.


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Clarence Gillis: The cost-of-living bonus either means something, or it does not. The government froze basic rates, by order in council.


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, yes, you did. You can call it stabilization if you like; but I know you froze them. And there are times when the house is led to believe that in New Zealand, United States and other countries, where similar regulations are being put into effect, they are following the lead given by Canada. That is absolutely untrue, because in the United States, New Zealand and Australia, where similar regulations are being put into effect they levelled their rates up to a decent standard before those rates were stabilized. They stabilized their rates at a certain point. We froze our wages at pre-war levels. We froze a peace-time wage structure on a war economy; and that is an entirely different matter.


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The highest wages of any time.


Clarence Gillis: You need not tell me anything about that. I know that question thoroughly. Wages are being paid in Ontario to a point as low as 14 cents an hour, and in Montreal from 16 to 25 cents an hour. In the basic steel industry in Montreal wages are as low as 30 cents an hour, and they were jacked up to 35 cents later on. If any hon. member

can say that is a reasonable and decent standard of wages, then we have from him some conception of the kind of standard of living he is prepared to give the working people of this country.
When these wage rates were frozen at that level the cost-of-living bonus was introduced to compensate for the increased cost of living. Whether you be a fisherman, a farmer, a miner, a steelworker or a textile worker you are affected in some way by that increased cost of living. If you are entitled to a bonus in one industry, then you are entitled to it in another, if there has not been a move in your base rate.
I want to see the thing work. If the government wishes to eliminate friction, then it cannot pay 60 cents in this industry, something altogether different in the next one, and permit those differences to exist right across the country. That condition cannot remain, if the government expects to get anywhere in this matter. It is only making for turmoil. There should be some uniformity. And until there is such uniformity the government must expect trouble from that direction.
My purpose in rising this evening was to bring this matter again to the attention of the minister, and to repeat what I have been saying consistently for the last two and a half years. In this instance 1,500 men, most of them ex-service men from the last war, are engaged in an essential war job. They are working for $3.20 a day if married, and $1.60 if unmarried, and to some extent they supply their own clothing. The cost of living has gone up for them-, too; and these certainly are not decent wages.
On behalf of that group I am asking the minister to have the treasury board give further consideration to the matter by extending to them, the cost-of-living bonus. I am informed that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of Justice have already decided that the request is fair and reasonable, and that the stumbling block is the treasury board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member says
that he has written to me about this matter. I do not deny it, but I am sorry to say I have no recollection of the correspondence. Perhaps I handed it to someone else, and I might have forgotten about it.
The hon. member says that recommendations have been made by the Department of Justice and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that those recommendations have not been accepted by the treasury board. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement. I do not know, I shall have to look into that.

Supply-Finance


Clarence Gillis: I have documentary evidence which I can show to the minister.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister has written to me regarding the matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish to ask for a little
information myself. The hon. gentleman says that the rate of pay is SI .60 a day.


Clarence Gillis: If single.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If single. Is $160 the total
wage?


Clarence Gillis: That is the total.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There must be sustenance
allowance in addition, or something of that kind.


Clarence Gillis: No; $3.20 if married, and
part of the uniform.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is there any allowance for
board and lodging with the $1.60.


Clarence Gillis: No.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman must
be wrong about that. As I say, I know very little about the matter, but I think there has been an attempt to make the pay of these guards about the same as the pay of the soldier. The men in the army do not get any cost-of-living bonus, nor do the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A member of the army now gets $1.50 a day, but that is only the beginning, and I feel sure that the hon. gentleman must be wrong when he says that we are asking men to live on $1.60 a day and nothing more.


Clarence Gillis: No, I am not wrong on that point. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police constables have received an increase of fifty cents a day since the outbreak of the war, and that is when this issue was raised. The special constable guards expected to get that statutory increase or a cost-of-living bonus. I have a letter from one man in the city of Ottawa who is married and receiving S3.20 a day. His obligations consist of house rent, $30 a month; groceries, $30; milk, $12; bread, $5; fuel, $16; clothing, $15, and miscellaneous, $5. This totals $113 a month. The special guard who is single receives only $1.60 a day and must pay for his own upkeep. He does not live in barracks; he must rent a room or live at home. I have about fifty letters from different parts in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia which I can send across to the minister. I have received three letters from the minister on this matter during the past two years. They were signed by him, or perhaps someone may have used his stamp. I have documentary evidence from these people to the effect that the matter was
in the hands of the treasury board and that they believed the request was fair and reasonable.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I should like to ask the minister a question in regard to the cost-of-living bonus. Section 34, subsection 2 of order in council, P.C. 5963, reads:
The amount of the increase or decrease, or the amount of the cost-of-living bonus to be paid, shall be calculated by the national board for the purpose of such general order in the matter hereinafter set out in respect of the rise in the cost of living index number for the month prior to such order above the cost-of-living index number for the month of October, 1941.
Under the original order in council the date from which the cost-of-living bonus is based and as therein set out was October, 1941.
On March 23, 1943, P.C. 2370 was passed, which provides:
Provided that where, in the opinion of the national hoard the application of this subsection has resulted in, or will result in, unequal or unfair combinations of wage rates and cost-of-living bonuses within an industry, it shall be within the power of the national board to order such adjustment of the cost-of-living bonus through the use of a month other than prescribed above but not earlier than August, 1939, as the national board may determine.
I should like to know whether the amendment that was passed the other day was to cover the situation mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. If not, what was the purpose of making the change, and what representations were made to the government which resulted in the change? That is the first question. I might as well mention the other two matters so that they can all be dealt with at once. The whole situation with regard to the cost-of-living bonus is, I presume, tied up with the maintenance of the price ceiling and the prevention of inflation. Up to the present we have not been informed what the cost of these expedients has been. Having regard to the manner in which the government of the United Kingdom has approached this problem, I think it would be well if the minister was prepared to give a statement showing what has been dispersed by way of cost-of-living bonuses, first, by the government and, second, by private industry. Then there is also the matter of subsidies. I think it is only fair that the minister should place before the house and the country the cost of subsidies to date in order that the people of Canada may know what has been expended in order to maintain the price structure. These are matters that are of interest to the taxpayers and to the people of Canada as a whole. On one side of the equation we have the benefits, with which we all agree, but on the other side is the cost. So far as

Supply-Finance

I know this has not been placed before the house. I am sure that hon. members would appreciate a statement on these two matters.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall let the Minister of Labour deal with the reason for the amendment to the wage order. With regard to the other matters, I expected that at the proper time I would have to give the house, and I would have no hesitation in doing so, a statement of expenditures on subsidies. It is elementary that the house would be entitled to that information, and I had expected to deal with it on the war appropriation. These are questions that would have to be answered at any time that hon. members want the information.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister be prepared to give the expenditures to date in round figures?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I should not like to try it because I might be too far out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I started to try to get this yesterday, but something else intervened. I did not follow it up because I thought it would subsequently be brought out. Certainly the minister ought to be in a position to give us the cost to the treasury of the cost-of-living bonus for the civil servants. The other is also most important. The country ought to know, as the hon. member for Lake Centre has said, first, what is the cost to the taxpayers, and second, what is the cost to industry of this policy of maintaining the wage level. I do not know whether this is the appropriate time, but certainly we ought to know at some appropriate time what is the cost of subsidization to maintain the price level of commodities.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will get the totals with
regard to the public service to date, and if we are on this item to-morrow I will give it then.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That will be good enough.


James Lorimer Ilsley: But I do not think there is any way of getting the total of the cost-of-living bonus paid by private employers. I will make inquiries and see, but I do not know any way of getting it. All employers in Canada are paying the cost-of-living bonus, but at different rates. In a great many instances the bonus is based on the cost-of-living increase since October, 1941; in a great many other instances, on the increase since August, 1939, and in other instances on the increase from intermediate dates, the intermediate date as a general rule being the date of the last basic wage increase.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps
the bureau of statistics has the information.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think it has.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Certainly it is asking for information from employers.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will see what I can get on subsidies between now and to-morrow, but I think a more appropriate time to give that information would be on the estimates for the wartime prices and trade board.


John George Diefenbaker: We do not know when they are coming up.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish I knew-I can tell the committee that.


John George Diefenbaker: Inspectors have
been appointed in connection with the administration of the cost-of-living bonus, and they are investigating from time to time for the purpose of ascertaining whether industries are in fact paying the bonus. I would think that these inspectors would report the nature of the bonus and the amount, and that that information would be in the hands of the department. Without that information it is impossible to tell what the cost-of-living bonus is costing the country.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not know that this was to be the drift of the debate this evening. I thought this question might more likely come up under the war estimates or the departmental estimates. I do not wish to give my hon. friend offhand a figure that I may have to correct later.
With respect to the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I think he was referring more particularly to the civil service. He covered a lot of territory, but I think he was speaking particularly of the amendment that had been made to the order. It was felt that there should be some elasticity so that the bonus might be equalized in certain respects after the board had dealt with the case. As in all cases when amendments are made to orders, representations were made by different organizations that that should be done. I do not think I can go further than that at the moment.
I think my hon. friend will agree that I had something to do with the establishment of the wage stabilization policy in this country. I will be frank and say that I could not give offhand the statistics which he thinks should be given to the house. I did have placed before me to-day the amount of the wages and of the bonus involved in applications with respect to war labour boards, and I could easily table that information. When it is

Supply-Finance
realized that every one who works for wages in this country comes under the wage stabilization policy, I think my hon. friend will agree that it would be somewhat difficult to get the information he desires because, after all, there is nothing static in industrial employment. Men are quitting or taking a few days off or a few weeks off from time to time, so that it is well-nigh impossible to get anything like the definite figure my hon. friend desires. But let me say this to my hon. friend, that if hon. gentlemen over there were sitting here they would in the very nature of things have to bring down and maintain a policy of a similar character to that now in effect. I think it has been the greatest contribution made by any government for the protection of what I might call the defenceless people in this country, those living on old age pensions and pensions generally and people living on fixed incomes. The great white-collared class do not belong to any organization, and the policy is for their protection. Since implementing this policy we have been able to stabilize the cost of living to a much greater degree than our good friends to the south or the people of Great Britain have done.
While any policy of this kind will be criticized, I would say to the critics that they must take the responsibility when they are criticizing if, as a consequence, we are unable to maintain the price structure. That responsibility goes along with the right of criticism. On the whole I think the policy has worked reasonably well. Of course no policy on such a large scale could work 100 per cent perfect. It is a policy that is based on fairness and equity for the protection of the weaker classes in the dominion. I am not greatly concerned over the criticism that it.is propaganda and that sort of thing, because this policy was worked out by sincere people who had at heart only the interests of the great mass of the Canadian people; and when the history of this war is written, provided we keep our feet on the ground, when we look back to this period all of us will be able to take credit for the fact that we were able to stabilize the cost of living for the Canadian people.
Furthermore, to those who speak of social security and Beveridge plans I would say that, when this war is over, unless you have a stable currency and a stable price structure, you will miss the tide and another generation will pass by before your plans can be realized. I think that Mr. Beveridge himself recognizes that in his report. We must plan for social insurance, and there must be a reasonable assurance that the price level and purchasing power will
remain stable. The thrifty people are the backbone of a nation, and I think it would be positively dishonest to borrow money from people through war savings certificates, to borrow say one hundred dollars, and then to give back only fifty dollars in five years' time, when you have the means at hand to see that they will get back the full purchasing power of the money they lent. All that is tied up in this stabilization of prices and wage stabilization policy. I feel sincerely that the policy up to the moment has worked successfully, and can be maintained provided it gets the support of the people. Of course, without that support it must by the very nature of things fail.


Mr. McGEER:: While a discussion of the cost-of-living bonus is undoubtedly timely in a general sense, I understood that the item under consideration by the committee was the mint.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I explain that?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I think the minister might do so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The item is 416, which is the Royal Canadian Mint; but a number of items other than that-417, 421, 422 and so on-were allowed to pass the other night on the understanding that anything under these items might be discussed under item 416. That is the reason for the range of the discussion here this evening.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Of course I understand that the mint is so general a topic of itself that almost anything can be discussed under it. However, the feature of it in which I am interested is the mint that produces the thing with which the cost-of-living bonus is paid, as well as a great many other things.
I rise this evening, Mr. Chairman, because in his kindness the minister expressed appreciation of my attitude. I want to let him know7 that I believe I echo the sentiments of eveiy member of this committee when I say that I do not think Canada in war time or in peace time has ever had a minister of finance who has been more devoted to his responsibilities, who has been more industrious in his efforts, and who as an orthodox financier has shown more ability to perform the difficult tasks with which every orthodox finance minister is confronted. I am not speaking because his attitude or his ability disappoint me; I am speaking because I believe I see in his administration a cautious but nevertheless well-moving programme to the consummation of monetary reforms which will in time give democratic government the power to relieve the people and the government of Canada from the slavery of involuntary debt.
Supply-Finance

He made one remark with regard to which I should like to speak; it was with reference to myself. It seemed to say that I was keeping "my" ideas before parliament. I say to hon. members, to my colleagues and to the minister that no idea I have ever expressed in reference to monetary reform belongs to me. What I laid before the banking and commerce committee in 1934 was, I believed, a correct interpretation of the Macmillan committee report filed with the British government in 1931. I did not develop any fantastic conceptions by looking up at the mountains which fringe the Pacific coast. Any ideas which I had were developed in the hardest kind of reading and study of men who had given expression to their thoughts and ideas and who had come to their conclusions in the field of actual experience.
This evening I shall ask the committee to bear with me while I call as witnesses out of the pages of our history some of the men who have declared the need of the reforms which I believe we are on the way to see put into effect.
We have all heard of Guernsey island currency. That should be of particular interest to Canadians, because it was an experiment in national currency carried out by Delisle Brock, president of the government of that island. Delisle Brock happened to be a brother of Sir Isaac Brock, who died at the battle of Queenston heights and whose monument is one of the greatest historical relics of our dominion. After putting into effect national currency as a means of bringing relief to the people of Guernsey island after the period of the Napoleonic wars, Brock offered this conclusion: He said:
If there is one incontestable principle it is that all matters relating to the current coin of any country have their source in the supreme prerogative, and that no one has a right to arrogate to himself the power of circulating a private coinage on which he imprints for his own profit an arbitrary value. If this is true for metal coins still more so is it for paper money which in itself has no value whatever.
. . . Permission cannot be granted to certain individuals to play with the wealth and prosperity of society. . . . Let the private banks reply to the questions already put: Let them say what inducement they can offer the public to drive out of circulation the state notes, the profit on which benefits all, especially the productive classes, and substitute for it bank notes, the profit on which benefits only individuals of the unproductive classes? The public treasury is the heart of the state. Finance is the pivot on which turns the administration of affairs. The government must retain its sovereign right to issue currency.
That was issued more than a hundred years
ago.

To come to our own continent, President Andrew Jackson, who was responsible for the veto of the first bank of the United States, which was modeled after the Bank of England, said this:
The bold effort the present bank has made to control the government, the distress it has wantonly produced, the violence of which it has been the occasion in one of our cities famed for its observance of the law and order, are but premonitions of the fate which awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.
It is fervently hoped that thus admonished, those who heretofore favoured the establishment of a substitute for the present bank will be induced to abandon it.
During the same time, one of the greatest senators who ever spoke in the senate of the United States gave his view upon the danger to the state of transferring to a banking corporation the power to issue money or a substitute for money. He said:
There never has been devised by any man a plan more specious by which labour could be robbed of the fruits of toil than the banking system. The people not only take bank paper as money, paying interest on it, but when the banks suspend, the people lose the discount while the bankers gain it.
The people wonder why financial panics occur so frequently. I can tell them why. It is to the interests of the bankers and brokers that they should occur. It is one of the specious methods by which these despotic and utterly useless knaves rob the producing, manufacturing and mercantile classes of their honest earnings. It is one of the chief plans by which this infamous ring is riveting the chains of slavery upon the limbs of labour. It is one of the chief means adopted to build up a money aristocracy that shall live in idle luxury and ape the pretentious airs of European nobility.
That was Daniel Webster, United States senator.
To come back to England, Gladstone, a Chancellor of the British Exchequer, in 1852 recorded this statement:
The government itself was not to be a substantive power in the matter of finance, but was to leave the money power supreme and unquestioned.
I began to fight the conditions of this situation by financial self-assertion from the first. I was tenaciously opposed by the governor and the deputy governor of the Bank of England, who had seats in parliament, and I had the financial community of London (the city) for an antagonist on almost every occasion.
Gladstone, as a result of that fight, established the post office savings bank in England, and we in Canada copied the post office savings bank but never put it to work. It is hidden away in the post office. It is one means by which the government of the day could secure

Supply-Finance
an enormous amount of savings deposits for the service of the government both in time of peace and in time of war.
There are a great many witnesses that I could' call upon from history, but the other night I referred to Lincoln. I believe Lincoln was the most profound, statesman that the people of our race have ever produced. When he used national currency to win the civil war he left a record' that everyone should be ready to study and to benefit from. We hear our national currency described as "confetti" or "rubber money." Let me quote what Lincoln thought of the national currency with which he won the civil war and which is available to us I believe in even greater measure. Writing to the one to whom he gave credit for that assistance to the government, he said:
My dear Colonel Dick, I have long determined to make public the origin of the greenback, and tell the world that it is one of Dick Taylor's creations. You have always been friendly to me and when troublous times fell upon us and my shoulders, though broad and willing, were weak, and myself surrounded by such circumstances and such people that I knew not whom to trust; then I said in my extremity, "I will send for Col. Taylor, he will know what to do." I think it was in January, 1862, on or about the 16th that I did so. You came and I said to you, "What can we do?" Said you: "Why, issue treasury notes, bearing no interest, printed on the best banking paper. Issue enough to pay off the army expenses and declare it legal tender." Chase thought it a hazardous thing, but we finally accomplished it and gave it to the people of this republic, the greatest blessing they ever had-their own paper to pay their own debts.
It is due to you, the father of the present greenback, that the people should know it, and I take great pleasure in making it known. How many times have I laughed at you telling me plainly that I was too lazy to be anything but a lawyer.
That is from "Lincoln's Words on Living Questions", by Taylor and Fulwiler.
When men sneer at our national currency as "confetti" or "rubber money" let them remember that in Lincoln's estimation it was the greatest gift that had been given by a democratic government to the people of any country.
Let us now come to some other witnesses in more modern times.
We have had some strange experiences during the twentieth century. One remark made by the distinguished visitor in the house to-day referred to the terrible times which happened between the two wars of the twentieth century. Let me put upon the records of this house the statement of a prophet who published a book on monetary reform in 1896. This was his final paragraph:
The gold standard money system creates debts and then prevents men from settling them. It places mankind in perpetual bondage. It is a
prison gate that only opens inward. Its victims are permitted to enter but never to escape.
Not only are the factors of well-being and of progress rendered impotent by the gold standard money system, but the factors of evil minister to its exploiters. Wars, state extravagance and political corruption all serve to build up this pyramid of irremedial debts which almost every nation is now adding to and upon which the gold octopus feeds.
Repudiation is inevitable. Let us clearly see this. It is not a threat. It is an inevitable result. It cannot be avoided. Nations must strangle this monster or it will strangle them. The gold debts of the world can never be redeemed.
In vain men toil, in vain they produce, so long as this tapeworm of society exists. All our surplus wealth which should go to form a national store, all our surplus creations we must sacrifice. In vain science prosecutes her voyage of discovery and art labours to convert the discordant and hostile elements of nature into a system of usefulness and harmony. In vain temples of learning are reared and libraries founded. All these institutions, all these achievements that have for their object the advancement of learning and the raising of labour to a higher state of efficiency serve but to strengthen and nourish this octopus and give it a firmer grasp and a strangle hold on society. The gold standard means inevitable war. Nations cannot possibly exist long under it.
The children born of it are fire and sword, red ruin and the breaking up of laws.
This question, this money question, is the supreme question of the hour. It is not a mere abstract question of economics. It does not merely concern statesmen and students of finance. It is the greatest moral, the greatest social question, which mankind has ever had to consider. It concerns the lives, fortunes and happiness of every human being in society and all the generations yet unborn. It is the problem at the turn of the century, and our answer to it will determine the character of the drama we shall have to witness and upon which the curtain of the twentieth century is about to rise.
Yes, we held to the gold standard and we bathed the world in blood, not in one war but in two wars in the twentieth century.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: May I ask
whose words those are?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: That is Arthur Kitson, in "A Scientific Solution of the Money Question," published in 1896. Arthur Kitson lived through the last war; he was still active when the Cunliffe commission recommended the return to the gold standard in 1918. He warned the people of England and the people of the world against the danger of accepting that recommendation. He said:
We cannot possibly go on in the sense of reconstructing and developing our trade and industries with a scarcity of money which the committee recommend. It is therefore the bounden and patriotic duty of those who really understand this great question and foresee the dangers and perils to which our economic
Supply-Finance

future will be exposed by a return to our prewar currency system, to do all in their power to prevent. the adoption by the government of the committee's report.
We are threatened with wholesale bankruptcy and national ruin through the return to the gold standard now being strenuously advanced by the treasury and inland revenue officials, aided by certain financiers both national and international and their organs.
But we laughed at Kitson; we accepted the advice of the experts on finance. In both instances the prophecy of disaster which Kitson had dared to offer to the world came to realization.
But let me go back to the United States, and I hope I am not wearying hon. members with these views of men whom I call as witnesses, who offer to-day a challenge to you, as the men responsible for the government of Canada and responsible to the people of Canada, to grapple with this problem before the disaster of unpayable deist again overwhelms us.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the hon. member permit me to ask a question on that point, in regard to his reference to the money printed by Lincoln?
Mr. MeGEER: Yes, gladly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not going to criticize in any way what the hon. member has said, but when he speaks of the greenbacks printed by Lincoln as winning the civil war I wish at the same time he would tell us why the money issued by the confederate states did not win the war for the south. The truth of the whole matter is that the northern states had a fleet and the southern states did not.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: My hon. friend is not asking a question; he is making a statement, which is pure nonsense.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is no more nonsense than what the hon. member is saying.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I am pointing out that the confederacy lost the war-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Because they did not have a fleet.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: -because they did not have the power; but when Lincoln came to find a medium of exchange to put his army on
a paying basis, to meet his obligations and to get a medium of exchange that would serve the United States government in the place of gold, of which they had none and which was withheld from them at that time, he used a national currency system. Of course they did not win the war with currency; they won it with fighting men and guns, but they used that national currency to put those men and guns to work in the service of that nation.
[Mr. McGeer.}


John Ritchie MacNicol: They had the men and
the guns and the fleet before they printed the greenbacks.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I do not know that my
hon. friend is as conversant with the history of the civil war and with Lincoln's activities-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to say that
I am thoroughly conversant with the civil war.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I have not the slightest
doubt that the hon. gentleman thinks he is, but I am inclined to think he is wrong.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then explain why the
southern paper currency did not win the war.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Well, Mr. Chairman, I gave the hon, gentlman the courtesy of the floor, and this is the sort of thing we always get from that quarter. Let me quote from one who probably has as much knowledge of the United States as the hon. member for Davenport; I refer to Woodrow Wilson, who brought into being a federal reserve system in the hope that it might cure the situation that existed in that country. In 1911, before he was president, Woodrow Wilson pointed out:
The great monopoly of this country is the money monopoly. So long as that exists, our old variety and freedom and individual energy of development are out of the question. The growth of the nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, by reason of their own limitations chill, check and destroy genuine economic freedom.
Wilson made a great attempt at monetary reform in the establishment of the federal reserve system; but Elihu Root, one of the greatest lawyers who ever sat in the United States senate, said:
This bill (the Federal Reserve Act) proposes to put in pawn the credit of the United States. We are setting our steps in the pathway that brought Rome to its fall.
That was because the federal reserve system was a bankers' system, owned by bankers and controlled by bankers, and not owned and controlled by the government of the United States. That was what Roosevelt found also when he came to power; but before that, President Hoover had something to say about the situation that existed in the disastrous years from 1928 to 1932, when he was president. This is what he said:
I stated that this depression has exposed many weaknesses in our economic system. It has shown much wrongdoing. There has been exploitation and abuse of financial power. These weaknesses must be corrected and that wrongdoing must be punished.
The American people must have protection from insecure banking through a stronger system. They must be relieved from conditions which permit the credit machinery of the

Supply-Finance
country to be made available without adequate check for wholesale speculation in securities, with its ruinous consequences to millions of our citizens and to national recovery. This the federal reserve system has proved incapable of doing. I recommend to congress the sane reform of our banking laws.
Let me now quote from another man who is somewhat conversant with American history.
I refer to President Roosevelt who, in one of the first speeches to congress after his election, said:
Nature still offers her bounty, and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our door-step but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own incompetence. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have proposed only the lending of more money.
They have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision and where there is no vision the people perish.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths.
Let me now call as a witness another British statesman and what he had to say about Roosevelt when he tackled the problem of reforming the banking system of the United States. He has gone a long way beyond the point where Woodrow Wilson laid down his great work. Speaking of Roosevelt's attack on the bankers, Lloyd George said:
The intrepidity with which he is fighting against the machinations of the established and arrogant priesthood of the golden calf is being watched with a thrill of admiration by those who, all the World over, have been suffering from its thraldom. If he wins he will have rendered a service to mankind which will exceed that of Lincoln when he abolished a more limited slavery.
But his task is even more formidable, for the hierachy he has challenged is powerful and its janissaries in all lands are federated in a well-knit, well-drilled and well-equipped brotherhood in arms. They play into each other's hands-they fight each other's battles. If they fail, they will share each other's ruin-if they succeed, they will divide the loot among themselves.
In London and in Paris they are unassailably entrenched. To adopt the scriptural quotation, "Judas is their law giver. Industry is their wash-pot and over successive ministries have they cast their shoe."
I am not calling witnesses from the rabble rousers; I am calling as witnesses for this cause the statesmen of the world; and let no man iu this house ever again say that I am
bringing forward my own ideas. The ideas I have offered on this great question are not mine. They belong to men infinitely more capable than I, men of established position not merely in economic academic thinking but in the world of political history.
Let me now come to our own house; hon. members probably will recall these words:
Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit it matters not who makes the nation's laws.	,
Usury once in control will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government, and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.
That was saidi by the then leader of the opposition speaking in the house in opposition to the Bank of Canada bill, establishing the Bank of Canada as a privately-owned institution. That leader of the opposition is now Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King).
Supporting his then leader in opposition, now the Prime Minister, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) made this declaration:
The control of credit and currency is the biggest and most important public utility in the activities of the nation. The central bank is a public utility, and the citizens should not relinquish control of its administration.
I am not one who necessarily champions public ownership at all times and in -all places, but there are certain things that should be under public ownership or public control, and certainly the very first and most important of these is the institution which controls, which guides, which directs the whole economic life of the nation.
I could quote many more-many men equally distinguished. In an ordinary- case at law I never would have to call as great an array of witnesses men who were experts upon the basis of their actual experience to secure a verdict than those men whose statements I have placed before the committee tonight.
No; these' ideas are not mine. I would not. think of asking my colleagues in parliament to consider any view I might have on so important an issue as national currency, were I not able to sustain and support that view out of the wisdom of the ages, and out of the- plain actual experience of reason and common sense. No; they are not my views.
There is one other statement the minister made. He said, "We are doing what England is doing." I want to say this: One of the great mistakes we have made in the economy of Canada has been our attempt to appropriate an economy which is successfully applied in England, but which does not apply to Canada at all. Canada is a nation with an abundance of resources and a dearth of
Supply-Finance

people. England is a nation with an abundance of people and a dearth of resources. Canada has an abundance of things to create and export. England depends upon her foreign trade, and must bring in, industrialize and ship out again. England's financial situation is not similar to ours, nor can what is good for England be accepted as good for Canada.
Let me point this out to the committee. A little while ago orthodox financial experts told us that we had to stick to gold, or we would lose our credit in the markets of London and New York. We were told that unless we maintained that credit we would not be able to get from the accumulated savings of the world the means by which we alone could build our railways, our schools, our hospitals, our communities, and all the things tending to the development of a young country which had not accumulated savings.
A miraculous change has taken place. Today we have assumed a war obligation for this year that is eleven times greater in money value than was the war obligation of the last year of the war of 1914-18. We are spending in 1943-44 about five thousand million dollars. The budget in 1917-18 was S450,000,000. We are financing this ourselves. But on top of that we have said we will finance a contribution to the war of England, to the war of China and of Russia to the value of another billion dollars. We are not going to New York. We are not going to London, for either money or credit. Canada has a bank which the people own, and a banking system that has proven that it can accept and fulfil that burden with Canadian capital. Let no one ever say again that the development of the Dominion of Canada is dependent upon the will of international bankers resident in New York and London.
There is one other statement, the answer to which I should like to have on the record, namely the statement that we know what we are doing. I am not questioning the ability of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) or his advisers; but with the greatest of respect to them I say that in the matter of finance so far as this war is concerned we are moving in uncharted seas. A great job is being done, and we are proving that we can do things in the realm of finance we never dreamed we could do. But mark the difference between this war and the last one. In the last war we went along firmly convinced that victory would be ours, and confident that we would make the defeated nations pay every dollar of cost that the war would involve. We tried to impose those costs in the terms of the peace treaty. Reparations were set up. What did we find? We found that in the very 
imposition of those money obligations were the roots, the seeds, of the disasters which happened in the years of peace, and which eventually grew into another disastrous war.
We have no such conception as that. Today our statesmen are declaring that the power of Germany, Japan, and Italy must be completely destroyed. Does anyone think for one moment we shall take reparations out of those destroyed nations to liquidate the enormous cost of this war? No such idea prevails anywhere. We are therefore assuming obligations which cannot be carried with safety and security unless we bend the best ability and understanding we have to see to it that, when victory comes, the men who have won that victory and the people who have made their contributions in sacrifice are not to be shackled and enslaved by a load of unpayable debt.
There is no danger of our being unable to finance the maximum of the productive capacity and fighting power of the resources and materials that we in Canada possess.
I wish to say in conclusion that whether or not we agree with the policy of the minister, hon. members not only on this side but in all parts of the house must be solidly behind the administration until the fight is won. But that should not deny us the right to offer for consideration ideas which in our opinion may make some contribution to the better understanding and better solution of the problems which face us. So far as I am concerned, I offer what I have to offer in that sense, and with the understanding that if my suggestions can be of any value- to the ministry I hope they will be accepted. If they are not accepted I shall not be deterred in the least iota from giving my wholehearted support to the minister in the work he has to do.


Mr. HANSELL:: Perhaps we should pass this item after the speech to which we have just listened. Some time or another I wish the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard would go a little further in his remarks. We know he is an authority on these matters, and we should like to hear more from him, not merely on the subject of currency but on the highly developed technique of banking in this country. I leave that suggestion with him.
I should1 like to ask the minister if the government is giving any consideration at all to increasing old age pensions. I know that this would not come under the present item, but I wish to know if any consideration has been given to granting a cost-of-living bonus to old age pensioners. We all realize that the wage-earner, who may be making a substantial wage, needs the cost-of-living bonus, but the fact remains that the bonus is

Supply-Finance
not given to these unfortunate people whose earning power is gone and who need the bonus even more than does the wage-earner. I wish the minister would give a favourable answer in this respect. There are many aged people who are getting less than $20 a month. The cost-of-living bonus would not amount to very much in their case, but that little extra would mean a lot. Could1 the minister give us some encouragement along this line?


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I say a word to the hon. member for Lake Centre. He asked for the cost of the subsidies which have been paid to preserve the price ceilings. He will find on page 883 of the budget speech an estimate of the cost of administration and subsidies paid by the commodity prices stabilization corporation. For the fiscal year which is just closed, 1942-43, this estimate is $80,000,000, which I think is reasonably correct. I should like to point out that this estimate includes the cost of subsidies which are really production subsidies, such as those paid to producers of milk, and the subsidy on butter. It also includes the subsidies which were announced early in December to reduce the price of certain commodities in order to keep the cost-of-living index from rising, a type of subsidy which was not contemplated when the estimate of the cost of subsidies was given last spring.
The submarine campaign in the Atlantic is responsible for a substantial part of this $80,000,000. Increased freights and war risk insurance rates have increased import subsidies to a substantial degree, particularly on petroleum. In view of the fact that our estimate in the spring of 1942 was $50,000,000 for the year, and in view of the fact that these exceptional circumstances have developed, I think the estimate of $80,000,000 is a fairly satisfactory figure for the year that has just closed. The estimate for the present year is, I think, considerably higher than this.


John George Diefenbaker: Approximately
what?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot remember, but if the hon. gentleman will look at the estimates of the war appropriations which were placed on Hansardf he will find the figure there.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate that
answer, but I have not received a reply from the Minister of Labour in regard to the cost-of-living bonus. He made a lengthy statement on the success of the policy and condemned those who criticized it. I do not know whether that condemnation was aimed at me, because I do not think I would come
within its purview. I was just asking for information; I want him to explain something which has not been explained, namely, the reason for the order in council of March 23 last. I will not repeat what I have said on previous occasions, namely, that I feel that something should be done in connection with orders in council which affect private rights. From time to time parliament should be made aware of those orders in council that transgress or interfere with private rights. Hon. members have a right ,to know what representations are made to amend orders in council already passed.
The whole basis of the cost-of-living bonus was founded on the cost-of-living index number as of October, 1941. That was the basis upon which the original order in council and subsequent orders in council were founded. Just a few days ago, in March, while parliament was sitting, the whole basis was altered. The national board has been given the power to order adjustments in the cost-of-living bonus using a month other than that prescribed in the original order in council, not earlier than August, 1939. An alteration such as that will make a considerable difference in the administration of the cost-of-living bonus.
I ask the minister, what were the representations made that necessitated that change? Something must have taken place within the last few days to make the change necessary. In what industries was the cost-of-living bonus to be paid? These are things we should know, and this is the only opportunity members of the house have to find out. Questions such as this cannot be answered by a lengthy dissertation on the benefits of the scheme; they can be answered only by direct answer to the question: What was the weakness in the original order in council that necessitated this change? I do not know what it was. The hon. member for Cape Breton South gave certain instances which might very well come within the purview of the new order in council, and the minister said that the instances had no basis in fact. I ask now that the minister give an answer to the question.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I think I gave an answer.


John George Diefenbaker: Never dealt with it at all.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, I did. The answer was so simple that perhaps >my hon. friend did not catch it as I went along.


John George Diefenbaker: I went along with the minister, but I heard no answer.

Supply-Finance


Humphrey Mitchell: The framers of that order in council were not perfect. My hon. friend being a lawyer will agree with me that no law ever made is perfect. If it were, we would not need lawyers. In the functioning of the order in council certain difficulties confronted the boards in the adjustment of wage structures, and to correct those inequalities it was felt that an amendment of the order was necessary. We felt that the amendment would enable the order to be interpreted more easily and that it would make the order more just.


John George Diefenbaker: What benefit would flow from the alteration of the date from October, 1941, to August, 1939? That is what I want to get at.


Humphrey Mitchell: I could make a forty-minute speech on that.


An hon. MEMBER:: It might be wise to do it.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is quite true, but after I had made it, perhaps my hon. friend might not be any the wiser. A historical review of P.C. 7440 and of all the orders in council that have to do with the cost-of-living bonus would make a long story. P.C. 7440 laid down the bonus principles applicable to those industries -which came under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act as extended by another order in council. In the light of our experience the government came to the conclusion that instead of dealing specifically with those particular industries a wage stabilization policy should be adopted dealing with every person who works for wages in this country. That is the reason for the two different dates for the application of the cost-of-living bonus. I had* something to do with laying down t'he guiding principles of the wage stabilization policy. I a>m frank to admit that while we thought we had done a very successful job in laying down the first guiding principles, it was not long before experience showed us that they had to be amended. Then we come along to the amendment of which my hon. friend now speaks. It is felt that the policy can be administered better with that amendment because it gives the board power to make adjustments where in its judgment there are inequalities in the application of the cost-of-living bonus. I do not know whether I can make it any clearer than that.
Mr. NOSEWORTHA': Would the minister tell us whether in future we are likely to have the cost-of-living bonus in some in-

dustries as from August, 1939, and in others as from October, 1941? Is that the purpose of the new order in council?


Humphrey Mitchell: I cannot discuss a hypothetical case. I do not wish to get caught in that trap. My hon. friend had better take a case before the board. The board will have to speak for itself.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough AVest):: Does that not confirm what the minister said, that if he gave a forty-minute speech we might not understand it?
While I am on my feet I would ask a question of the Minister of Finance since the Minister of National Revenue is not in his seat at the moment. Item l&t provides for district offices of the income tax division, $350,686. I understand that is for extra assistance in the office. The taxpayers in the Peterborough district have to send their income tax returns to Belleville because the income tax division has no district office in Peterborough. Is there no chance of having an income tax inspector in Peterborough so that people there could go in and discuss their problems with him? The reason I ask for that is that the income tax forms are complicated and hard to understand, and some people certainly do not understand them. But if there were, in an office in Peterborough, some official to whom the people could go and discuss their difficulties, it would be very much better both for them and for the income tax department itself.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Minister of National Revenue is not in the chamber at the moment. It is a serious thing to establish a new income tax district office, and I would be doubtful whether that would be considered.
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West:) Even if you do not establish an office in Peterborough, would it not be possible to have a man there at certain times during the year to explain the income tax forms to those desiring further information? Ottawa has an income tax office; Kingston has one; Belleville has one; so have Toronto and Hamilton, but Peterborough has none, and it is a large city. In fairness to the taxpayers themselves, I think some representative of the income tax division should be there, even if he were there only at certain times of the year before payments have to be made.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All I can do is to tell my colleague that the hon. member for Peterborough West has made a suggestion and

Supply

Finance
tell him what the suggestion is. I do not know whether it would be possible to adopt it or not.


Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Chairman, I read in the Financial Post of February 6, 1943, the following statement under the heading "Australian Complaint":
Australia has been highly critical that while Canada supplied certain war material to the United Kingdom free of cost, Britain re-exported the goods for Australian use and charged the Australians in sterling. The Britain arguments were that Australia had considerable sterling balances with which to meet the cost, but the deal rankled none the less.
May I ask the minister whether that statement is true, and if so, what steps have been taken by the Canadian government to correct that state of affairs?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The goods and materials to
the extent of one billion dollars which were contributed to the United Kingdom in. the last fiscal year were contributed without any strings attached. They were based upon an anticipated deficit for the whole sterling area. What arrangements the United Kingdom made with other parts of the sterling area are not known to me. I have heard' the statement made, to which the hon. member has referred. Whether the arrangements between the United Kingdom and Australia are final, whether they are complete or not, I do not know. I am not in a position to state anything about those arrangements. We deal with the United Kingdom as the source of the sterling, as the centre of the sterling area, the dominant partner in that group; and I am unable to give any definite information as to the arrangements which the United Kingdom, government made with the governments of the other parts of the sterling area.
Let me now say this with regard to the future. We are adopting, as the hon. gentleman probably knows, a new principle in the mutual aid bill of this year. It is not to be a gift to the United Kingdom; it is to be a supply of goods-materials, munitions and so forth-to such of the united nations as we think fit to supply from time to time and on such terms as we think fit from time to time; and the situation which is alleged to exist in the excerpt which the hon. gentleman has quoted, and which I cannot affirm or deny, will not exist in the future as far as our contributions are concerned.


Mr.   IIANSELL@: Perhaps the minister has
forgotten to answer my question with respect to old age pensions and the possibility of aged parents being able to receive the cost-of-living bonus. The most unfortunate people in Canada to-day in respect of income are the
old age pensioners. A man in receipt of a salary is getting something anyway, although the cost of living has gone up and he is entitled to his bonus and should have it. The old age pensioner cannot earn a living; yet he has to exist on the very small income of $20 a month or less, in some provinces a little more, because some provinces provide an extra five dollars a month; but his earning power has gone, and yet there is no increase for him. The very things which the old age pensioner must have are the things which have risen in price. Take butter, for instance. I do not know how much the price of butter has risen since the war, but it must be somewhere between fifteen and twenty per cent. Or take meat. The price of meat must have increased thirty, forty or even fifty per cent since the outbreak of war. Last winter was an exceptionally hard winter, and while the cost of an extra ton of coal may not mean much to me or to some other man with a fair or even less than average income, to our mothers and fathers who are getting only $20 a month it means the absorption of a veiy large proportion of their monthly income. These old people are in a very unhappy position to-day. Would the minister indicate whether the government is considering the unfortunateness of these people, and can he give the country some hope that the old age pensioner will soon receive at least the cost-of-living bonus?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have always regarded the cost-of-living bonus as inappropriate to pensioners. The cost-of-living bonus policy is part of our wage policy and is confined to that. As a matter of fact, if the cost-of-living bonus were extended to old age pensioners on the same basis on which it was extended recently to soldiers in respect of their dependents, it would be so small that it would not be satisfactory to anybody. The old age pensioner's problem will have to be met in an entirely different way. A great deal of thought has been given to it. Essentially the question is one of jurisdiction; and the position which this government has taken, and which I announced in November, 1941, is that we regard the responsibility for old age pensions as primarily one of provincial jurisdiction, just to the same extent as mothers' allowances, for example. So that the provinces would not be penalized in any way, so that they would be perfectly free to increase payments to old age pensioners, we offered in November, 1941, to amend the regulations for any province which wished them amended in respect of that province, so that the province itself could pay supplemental allowances to old age pensioners without reducing the amount of the contribution which the dominion government was
Supply-Finance

obligated to make under the dominion act. Several provinces applied for amendment of the regulations, and several provinces are paying supplemental allowances, while others are proposing to do so. I think it is there that the responsibility lies. I hope to see the day when we shall have a contributory old age pension system in this country. We certainly should have it, but we require an amendment of the constitution in order to provide for it, just as we had to have an amendment of the constitution to provide for unemployment insurance. I cannot see why, in a state of affairs where all the provinces have surpluses, and some of them enormous surpluses, the provinces should not undertake this, which is primarily their responsibility, not ours, instead of calling on us, with our huge deficits, running up to two and three thousand million dollars a year.
Despite that fact, I did make this offer in 1941, that if all or substantially all of the provinces requested a reconsideration of the maximum limit in the Old Age Pensions Act, consideration would be given to that request. I did not say that favourable consideration would be given to it; and I am not so sure, in view of the high surplus position of the provinces, that favourable consideration would be given to it. But a start is being made to a certain degree in some of the provinces in accordance with the social views of the people of these provinces-which vary greatly from one province to the other-by the supplemental allowance system.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: Before this vote, having to do with the operation of the mint, is earned, will the Minister of Finance tell us what authority he or his department exercises over the closing of branch banks in different part's of the country? Branch banks are to an extent supplementary to the work of the mint, and in some places they have been closed, at great inconvenience to the people whom they formerly served. In my constituency of Cumberland, Springhill, which in 1941 had a population of 7,170 and is now well up to 8,000, with a large population tributary' to Springhill, one of the two banks has been closed recently. We all realize that . extra work is now imposed on the banks all over Canada, and that splendid services are rendered to the Canadian people at this time in spite of reduced staffs. Some bank managers have told me that nearly half of the work which they are doing now is related to the services they perform for the government. They are carrying on under great handicaps, because many of their staffs have enlisted and they have had to take on inexperienced help, including many girls. These banks pay heavy

taxes both to the federal government and to the provincial and municipal governments. In spite of additional duties, in places such as Springhill and in other parts of Canada the banking facilities have been reduced. In the town of Springhill the demands on the banks have been greatly increased, but half the banking facilities have been allowed to close. I should like to ask the minister what authority he or the government exercise over the closing of branch banks in such circumstances.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We have no authority over the chartered banks. However, at times I do make representations to them in respect of the proposed closing of a branch. I have done that on several occasions, and sometimes the banks have changed their plans in response to my representations; sometimes they do not. I have no power to do anything but make suggestions.
The banks have lost a great many of their young men, who have gone to war. They have tried to replace them by girls, and have been successful to a certain extent, but their man-power problem is a real one. In my judgment it is all right for the banks to close some branches, but for the most part I think they should be city branches rather than rural, because the cities are probably pretty well served, perhaps over-served in some instances. I think the banks have tried to serve the country as best they could. Very often a branch will not be making any money but will be running into a deficit year after year, and naturally the banks want to close such a branch. It is hard for me to press them to keep it open under such conditions, although I have at times urged1 that they give much consideration to the requirements of the community instead of to their own interest from the profit-making point of view.


Mr. GREEN:: The Minister of Finance
has taken a definite stand this evening with regard to the responsibility for the payment of old age pensions. He has said that it is primarily the responsibility of the provincial governments. As we all know, the situation is that the Old Age Pensions Act was passed by the dominion, and the dominion has taken the lead throughout. It paid first fifty per cent and now seventy-five per cent of the pensions. Now we come to the position where the pension being paid is not large enough to enable these older people, in many cases, to keep body and soul together. I suggest to the minister that he is dead wrong in taking the stand that it is not the responsibility of this government but of the provincial governments. He has compared the pensions to mothers' allowances, but they are an entirely

Supply-Finance
different type of allowance, paid entirely by the provincial governments and have been so from the start. There should not be any such comparison.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not a different type,
though.


Howard Charles Green: This matter is too serious to be just shoved aside in that way. Here is the group of Canadians who are suffering the most on account of the increase in the cost of food, clothing and other necessaries of life. Take for example, the increase in the cost of tea and coffee charged by the restaurants; it has hit many single old age pensioners very hard. The minister should take the lead in meeting the difficulty. He should arrange for a conference of representatives of the dominion and the provinces to review this whole question, including not only giving these people an increase to meet the rise in the cost of living, but also the regulations which in many ways are far too drastic and quite unfair. For example, I think the way in which the income of an aged person is arrived at is quite unfair in many respects; that should be carefully reviewe'd.
Year after year, some of us ask that these changes be made, that this condition be met, but each year we are just pushed aside and the question is shoved off. The matter is far too serious for that. Something should be done to improve the position of these older citizens.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I was rather surprised to hear the statement of the minister to-night as to the policy with reference to old age pensions. We in British Columbia were, I think, the first to bring about the agitation for the establishment of a national act, and I had always thought that the old age pension was one of the great reforms inaugurated by the Liberal party in England in 1906 and that came forward as a great Liberal reform here in 1928. We passed a federal act offering to any province that would come in, to pay half the old age pension up to a ceiling of $20 a month. The theory of that legislation was that in time all the provinces would come in, because it was a reform sponsored and maintained by the national government. It was accepted as a national responsibility by the Conservative administration during the depression, when to relieve the provinces it took over an additional twenty-five per cent, paying seventy-five per cent of any amount paid up to $20 a month.
If we are going to lay down a new Liberal policy, if we are going to repudiate the Liberalism of 1928 and say that this is to become primarily a responsibility of the provinces, that is a retrograde step which I do not believe many Liberals will support.
I know something about these huge provincial surpluses, to which the minister has referred, bookkeeping surpluses, and where they come from They come from two sources: one, the abnormal expenditures of the national government; and the other, the curtailment in expenditures under conditions of war economy practised by every government. Also to some extent they are a product of the efficiency of the accounting department. I have been in politics in British Columbia and in Canada for about thirty-five years. I have heard of nothing but surpluses; I have seen nothing but the steady accumulation of public debt.
Whenever we say to the old age pensioner, you must be thrown upon the care of the provincial administrations because in war time they have surpluses, that would be another step in retrogression, not progress. I do not wish to discuss that more fully now, but I will do so when this matter comes up in its proper place in the estimates. We have either to recognize that a new Liberal policy repudiating that of 1928 is now in operation or to reestablish again the Liberalism of 1928.
In the United States the ceiling is $40 a month, and the federal government there contributes half of what any state government will pay up to that amount. In the state of Washington they have recognized the value of an old age pension not as a mere dole for the aged to live on, but have taken the view that the old age pensioner spending his living allowance is an economic unit of value, circulating throughout the community the medium of exchange that he requires to provide him with a decent standard of living. The old age pensioner takes his poor pittance, even of $40 a month, and spends it. He puts the farmer to work; he puts the local merchant to work; he becomes a consuming employer. We should begin to recognize that our aged are not people whom we should keep in pauperism and bondage but people who in a spirit of goodwill we should convert from liabilities to assets. I speak in this way because I do not think there will be any retrogression on the part of the Liberal party in regard to this matter even in war time.
Let me now add another word. It was a great Liberal reform in England that brought about this change, and it was the Liberals who reduced the age limit in England from seventy to sixty-five years. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, I am heartily in accord with the policy of the government in making a contribution of a billion dollars to the war effort of our allies,
Supply-Finance

but a nation that can find the means of financing such a magnificent contribution to the cause of world freedom can hardly say that we cannot do something for our own needy and aged. Canada must move along with England and the United States. We must get the age limit down to at least that of England; and being as wealthy and as capable of taking care of our people as the United States is, we ought to have at least the same standard that exists across the line.
The question of contributory pensions is not an easy thing to accept. There are a great many people who should enjoy' old age pensions who have no means of making a contribution. What about the wives of the workers? It is true many of them are working to-day', in war time, but does anyone think . that immediately this war is over we shall not attempt to return to the normal life of the nation, when the man will be the labourer and the breadwinner, and the wife and mother will be the custodian of the home? Do not accept contributory' pensions as the solution and do not dismiss the needs.of the aged of Canada to-day on questions of artificial surpluses. Let us never forget that we as a Liberal government have given birth to this great reform and that we have a responsibility to maintain it, as one of the national responsibilities of Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I wish to refer to a few remarks of the hon. member for Vaneouver-Burrard. He says that it is a new policy to state that the responsibility for old age pensions is primarily provincial. That is not correct. I think it has always been admitted by all that the primary responsibility is provincial. That is why provincial governments have the administration of the old age pension system. The dominion government does not administer old age pensions, nor does it pay old age pensions. The dominion government makes contributions to provincial governments, nothing more and nothing less.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: We took the first step.


Mr. SHAW:: May I ask a question?


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: In view of what the minister has just said, I am wondering whether he has given due consideration to the effect that the increase in old age pensions would have upon our war effort?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It depends upon the increase.


Mr. NOSE WORTHY:: I am thinking of the tens of thousands of old people in this country whose sons are in the armed forces, and whose old age pensions are reduced because those sons make assigned pay to the old folks at home.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Assignment of pay does not reduce old age pensions.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Yes, it does.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, it does not. There was an amendment made some months ago to the old age pensions regulations providing that assigned pay is not to be regarded as income to bring about a reduction of old age pensions.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Is that so in respect of dependents' allowances?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, that is different. Dependents' allowances are certainly income. Assigned pay with dependents' allowances are income-but not assigned pay alone.


Joseph William Noseworthy: But where there are dependents' allowances with assigned pay, they are counted?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am thinking of the effect this condition has upon the boys themselves, in the armed forces. I have come in contact with scores of them who feel that their parents are not getting a square deal at home, while they are asked to risk their lives abroad. Has the minister given consideration to that phase of the matter, as it affects the war effort?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I do not wish to accept the minister's statement. I would call to his attention the fact that British Columbia was the first province to accept responsibility of taking care of what we thought old age pensioners needed. I had something to do with that, myself, because in conference with members of the provincial government I pointed out I did not think we would get in war time an expansion of the old age allowance from the federal government. Therefore do not lecture me about failing to recognize the responsibilities of the provinces.
I appreciate the danger of inflation and the danger of withdrawing from the war effort something that can be sacrificed from civilian use, thereby making a contribution to the war effort. But some of the things the government has done have helped the war effort immensely. The increase in the pay of the soldiers, which applies in Canada as well as overseas, increased the spending power of our soldiers. The amount involved there, is much more than would be needed to place old age pensioners in a category in which they could be cared for under the changed conditions of war. The increase this government has made with respect
Supply-Finance

to dependents' allowances has also increased spending power in Canada. But these things were never treated or recognized as factors which would reduce Canada's war programme. On the contrary they were things done by the government which strengthened enormously the war programme of the nation.
Let me say to the government, to-day when we are fighting for freedom let the word cross the seas to the Canadians in the armed forces; let the word go out to Canadians throughout this land that, notwithstanding the burdens we are carrying, we as a national parliament are prepared to guarantee not only that we shall give everything to the winning of the war, but that we shall give something to the well-being of our own Canadians in need. That will not interfere with our war effort at all.
In the discussion of every issue on domestic policy let us not raise this question or make the suggestion that all Canadians need to be reminded that the winning of the war is their responsibility. Every Canadian knows that. There has been no sacrifice yet asked to which Canadians have not willingly responded. I agree with the minister that not a penny should be spent that can be avoided. But when we say we must deny the old age pensioner a fair standard of living, a minimum subsistence allowance, and pay at the same time bonuses to the men who are working for wages they never had before, then that smacks of a type of impartial justice which is not the type of impartial justice for which we are fighting.
Yes, the minister has the support of every member of the house and every citizen in Canada in the work he is doing. But let us not overlook the fact that as we carry on the war there are some domestic obligations which have to be fulfilled at the same time.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member has spoken about dependents' allowances, and the increased pay to soldiers. That was our responsibility, and goodness knows we have enough of things that are our responsibility. And we try to discharge our responsibility in the field where it is clearly our responsibility. But the point I was making was that the other was primarily a responsibility which the provinces should discharge.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I rise to make one or two suggestions to the minister. In the course of his remarks he spoke about responsibility, and asserted that federal responsibility went only as far as contributions made to assist the provinces in meeting the cost of old age pensions. I would remind the minister of somethnig he well knows, namely, that the 
Old Age Pensions Act is a federal act, and that all the regulations in relation thereto are laid down by the dominion government. Federal government representatives are in the provinces to check every application submitted on behalf of old age pensioners.
In November, 1941, the minister asserted that payments made to old age pensioners were adequate inasmuch as the cost-of-living index in 1927-2S was in excess of what it was in 1941. But at that time he overlooked the fact that no one in 1927 or 1928 argued that the amounts paid at that time were adequate. It was stated that since this was a new adventure we must proceed with caution. It has been our bitter experience not only in respect of the Old Age Pensions Act but in respect of other acts that when payments have been made much lower than were considered adequate because the scheme was in an experimental stage we have lived to regret those low payments. I am not impressed unduly by the impassioned discourses of the minister when he takes exception to a matter of this kind. I contend that our war effort cannot be completely successful unless we give the fullest possible considers tion to all classes of the people in our community and see that justice and equality of sacrifice prevail.
It cannot be asserted and substantiated that these payments to old age pensions, which range from between $11 and $12 to S25 a month, ever were or much less are adequate at the present time. Not only that; we have described the discrepancy which exists between the single and the married old age pensioner whose wife is not old enough to qualify. The single man of seventy years of age may have his application for old age pension granted, and he may receive the maximum of $25 a month. But the married man of seventy years of age, whose wife may be anywhere between fifty and seventy years of age, receives no increase in his pension because he is married. That is rank inequality.
In connection with dependents' allowances and assigned pay, I contend that these should have absolutely no effect upon the payment of old age pensions. It is appalling even to consider that our government is doing that. I know what effect it is having on many of our boys overseas, and I know what effect it is having upon unity in this country. The minister asserted-I think he later made a correction-that where assigned pay alone is being paid, no deduction is made in the pension, but that where assigned pay and dependents allowance is being paid, they are both regarded as income. I contend that neither should be regarded as income in connection with the payment of old age pensions.

Supply-Finance
When it comes to making an expenditure apart from old age pensions, or when it comes to granting a cost-of-living bonus to men who are getting S2,000 or $2,100 a year, there does not seem to be any danger of the economy of Canada being jeopardized; but when we appeal for S5 or $10 additional for our old age pensioners, just because it does not happen to be the government policy we are told that we are ruining the economy of the whole country. That is pure rot. We have to face up to this question, and we have to face up to it soon. It is only by doing so that we can establish the degree of unity which this government believes, or which it has stated at times exists in this country, but which many of us know does not exist. I urge once again that we accept our responsibility in this connection and make the payments to our old people to which we know they are entitled.


Mr. POULIOT:: In the first place I wish to tell the Minister of Finance that I admire his patience. He follows the discussion in the house very attentively and gives answers to questions asked to the best of his ability, sometimes under the most difficult of circumstances. To-night I have listened to some of the speeches that have been made by hon. gentlemen. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard and the hon. member for Red Deer, who has just spoken, expressed some views with which I agree, and which I am sure are shared by many hon. members.
Mention has been made of old age pensions. In order to understand this we should go back to consider how old age pensions were instituted. In the first place it was not provincial legislation; the first act was dominion. It was only after that act was passed that it was offered to the provinces as bait to induce them to contribute on a fifty-fifty basis. Mr. Bennett increased the dominion contribution to seventy-five per cent; he did not increase it to 100 per cent because he knew that this was purely a provincial matter according to the constitution. There are many old people who receive a pension, and several of them have had their pensions cut quite drastically.
The hon. member for Red Deer was correct in his reference to assigned pay and allowances. A father is not entitled to an allowance except in special circumstances. This contribution by the state of an allowance is granted only when the soldier assigns one-half of his pay. The matter is subject to investigation by doctors who make a report. The soldier or the officer must contribute part of his pay before an allowance is granted. A bachelor, or even a spinster who is in the army and who is supporting parents or younger brothers and sisters is in exactly the same position as
the head of a family, but the allowance to the wife is higher. Where a father is sick and unable to support his family; where this burden is assumed by a young man in the army who was the supporter of his family before his enlistment, I do not see why the allowance should be less than it is to a soldier's wife and children. I think that is most unjust. This is one of the domestic problems the government must consider.
The minister has referred to his burden and the burden of the country, namely, the tremendous debt. He has also said something about pressure that comes from other quarters. I admit that if any minister is subject to pressure, it is undoubtedly the Minister of Finance. He has my deepest sympathy. There are cases where we admit that there is pressure, and there are other cases where the pressure is not known, although it may exist. Members of the House of Commons are very anxious to know where the pressure comes from in certain cases, especially in the case of lend-lease for this year and the gift of one billion dollars that was made to Great Britain last year. Did any member of the House of Commons exert pressure on the Minister of Finance and on the government at large to bring down such a financial policy, or rather did the pressure come from the Old Lady of Threadneedle street-the Bank of England? We do not know what is behind it, but it was after the visit of Sir John Dill to Ottawa that we were told that the government had adopted this new policy of a billion dollar gift to the United Kingdom.
I do not see how we can give a billion dollars to any other country when we have some of our own fellow citizens who are old and some who are sick and who have not enough to make both ends meet. It is a question of humanity. All those who have spoken for the aged have been speaking for the underdog, the man or the woman who perhaps they will never meet but who is suffering now on account of the cold and who may be suffering also the pangs of hunger. What has been said to-night will be reported to them and will bring comfort to them. This is a domestic problem that has to be solved. In a country like ours there is no reason why we should not look after our own, and I appeal not only to the fairness of the Minister of Finance but also to his good heart, and in appealing to him I am not using any pressure. I ask him to remember the old people of the Annapolis valley, with whom he has lived and whom he knows so well, old people who may be sick, old people who were formerly fishermen but who cannot go out in their boats any more because they are too
Supply-Finance

old. I ask him to think of them when he has to make a final decision. I congratulate all the hon. members who have spoken for the aged. They have spoken as true Canadians. They do not forget that those who live in this country must rely upon the parliament of Canada for help when they need it, and I am speaking not only of help for our civilian population but also of help for our army. I will go further, Mr. Chairman, and ask the minister to enunciate a new policy on behalf of our soldiers, who at times have to pay for their own meals. I ask him to make the allowance to soldiers' wives and children, soldiers' parents, brothers and sisters in all needy cases non-contributory. I mean by non-contributory that, in the future, soldiers-when I say soldiers I mean both the men and the women who assign their pay- will no longer have to assign a portion of their pay to those who are so dear to them and whom they supported until they enlisted in the army.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I do not know exactly
how this question of old age pensions got into the discussion to-night. It is a pity that year after year we should be discussing pensions of $20 a month for our aged people, and year after year come to the conclusion that we can find nothing more for them than $20 a month. When we estimate the value of $20 a month in the things that the old age pensioners need, some sort of shelter, food, some clothing and a few other odds and ends to make their life fairly comfortable, are we to say that the people of Canada-and remember that these things can be provided only by the people of Canada who work and produce them-cannot provide our aged people with these modest comforts of life? I think every member of the house should blush with shame to ask our aged people, who have given their lives to building up this country, to live on the paltry subsistence that can be procured for $20 a month.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The pension in British
Columbia is $25, is it not?


Angus MacInnis: L agree. We are more generous in British Columbia than people are in other parts of the dominion. The further west you go, the more generous you find the people.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The pension has been raised in other provinces. Nova Scotia is proposing to make it $25.


Angus MacInnis: I was a member of the city council of Vancouver some years ago, and I remember that a great many old age pen-
sioners who had no relatives or homes used to come to council and turn over their pension so that they could go into an old people's home that was kept up by the city. The $20 a month which they turned over to the city did not pay more than half the cost of their living in the old people's home. I remember on one occasion asking the man in charge of the home what effect staying in the home had on the health and life prospects of the inmates. He said that it added on the average ten years to their lives because, he said, "When they come in they are free from all worry." I often wonder why or how the government of the day came to the conclusion that $20 a month at seventy years of age was the proper amount for an old age pension.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 2, 1943