1943-05-13

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
commodity pkices stabilization corporation
['1.\tNo.\n2.\tAnswered by No. 1.']
Mr. ILSLEY:: This is answered; but, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the answer is a reference to a return which I tabled to-day in response to a motion of the hon. member for Kootenay East. The answers are:
1.	Yes.
2 and 3. Answered by reply to Mr. MacKinnon's question appearing in Votes and Proceedings, 29th January, 1943, page ii, and which covers the fiscal year 1942-43, and the limited payments made between December 24, 1941, and March 31, 1942.



Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Have any payments been made by way of subsidies on soap and shortening sales to, (a) soap manufacturers; (b) shortening manufacturers, during the calendar year 1942?
2.	If so, what are the amounts for each month during the year 1942, paid to, (a) soap manufacturers; (b) shortening manufacturers?

Questions


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) No.
2.	(a) January to June, inclusive, none; July, 813,685; August, $171,788; September, $8,918; October, $194,458; November, $7,374; December, $101,134-8497,357.
(b) Answered by 1 (b).
national defence headquarters staff-


EMPLOYMENT OF MEDICALLY FIT OFFICERS AND MEN
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Are officers or men, medically fit, 30 to 35 years of age, employed on the headquarters staff of the Department of National Defence, (a) in Ottawa; (b) overseas?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	What are their names, and their ranks?


Mr. RALSTON:: I ask the hon. member to drop the third .part of this question. There can be only one reason for that question, namely to draw some inference that these men are not doing their duty. The Department of National Defence and the officers responsible take full responsibility for these men being at their posts. We are quite willing to give the number of men and to take whatever responsibility or criticism there may be for having men of that age at headquarters; but to give the names of these men is quite a different thing. It seems to me that in fairness to them one would have to give opposite their names the reasons why they are in these posts; therefore I will ask my hon. friend to drop the question. That reason applies doubly or trebly to men overseas. I do not think it lies in the mouth of any of us to question what the men are doing there, whether they happen to be in Canada or in England. They are posted there by their superior officers and they are prepared to go and serve wherever required. I would ask that the question be dropped.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I think the minister is right on the. question of names, but would it be possible to answer that part of No. 3 which would indicate the rank?


James Layton Ralston: That is the. only thing the hon. member has not asked for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, he asked for ranks.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I should like to have the question stand and in the meantime I will take it up with the minister.
Question stands.


IRON SPRINGS, ALTA., SUB-EXPERIMENTAL FARM
Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	Is there a sub-experimental farm located at Iron Springs, Alberta?
2.	If so, who is at present operating this farm?
3.	What has been the cost of same to the dominion treasury in each of the years 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, and 1942?
4.	What benefits, if any, have been derived from this farm in each of the above years?
5.	Is this farm to continue in operation during 1943?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	An illustration station was operated at Iron Springs, Alberta, from 1938 to the end of 1942.
2.	Not in operation at present. The owner recently sold the property.
3.	$425 per annum.
4.	This station farm has been organized on a six year rotation basis, aiming to give community leadership by contributing to a better understanding of the best cultural methods, fertilizer practices and cropping procedures to associate with the efficient utilization of irrigation water. Cereal varieties have been tested and some 500 bushels of certified seed have been disposed of locally. At the request of local sugar beet growers, an extensive experiment was laid down to determine the most economical rate of application and chemical fertilizer formulae for the growing of sugar beets. Fibre flax of the Stormont Gossamer variety was produced as a source of certified seed for distribution. The straw was processed and sold as green tow. Six varieties of peas and six of beans were compared in growing tests in 1942. These were varieties in which farmers were interested as the seed companies were endeavouring to get growers to contract for their production in the district.
5.	No arrangements have as yet been possible for the reestablishment of illustration station work in the Iron Springs district for 1943.


PRICE CEILING ON FUEL WOOD
Mr. MATTHEWS:: What action, if any, does the government propose taking in the case of shippers who, having wood for sale, refuse to dispose of it at a price within the regulations of the price ceiling?


Mr. HOWE:: The coal controller has authority to direct that wood fuel be sold in a specific market or to a designated purchaser. With the concurrence of the wartime prices and trade board, he may also set the price at which such

Questions

wood shall be sold. Or, if considered necessary, the coal controller may take possession of wood fuel and dispose of it as in his judgment the public interest may demand.
In practice, each individual case will be considered on its merits and the action to be taken, if any, will be determined on the basis of the particular circumstances of that case.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-ENLISTMENTS OF VETERANS OF GREAT WAR
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	How many veterans of great war No. 1, under contract with the soldier settlement board, have reenlisted for service in the present war?
2.	Has an order in council been passed since the outbreak of war, permitting any department of government to deduct from the dependents' allowance of the above enlisted men, any portion of the allowance to be applied on the settlers' indebtedness to the soldier settlement board?
3.	If so, in how many instances are deductions being made, (a) with the consent of the parties concerned; (b) without the consent of the parties concerned?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	713. Soldier settlers.
2.	Yes. P.C. 138/1936 of March 19, 1941.
3.	(a) 137.	(b) 25.


EXCHANGE OF DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES WITH MEXICO
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	During his good-will visit to Mexico in 1941, did the Minister of Trade and Commerce make any announcement that Canada would be pleased to consider an exchange of diplomatic representatives with that country?
2.	Has the government of Mexico approached Canada recently, suggesting that an exchange of such representation should be consummated?
3.	If so, when did Canada receive the suggestion, and with what result?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Informal discussions are in progress.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


AIR TRAINING PLAN-MEXICAN AIRMEN
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Has the government of Mexico approached Canada with a view to participation in the joint air training plan for the training of Mexican airmen in this country?
2.	If so, with what result?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	What is the basic period for the fixation of prices by the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	Have any commodities been excepted from the price ceiling policy? If so, (a) what commodities, and when were such exceptions made; (b) what was the reason in each case?
3.	Have increases in prices of any commodities been sanctioned by the board since the price ceiling policy was inaugurated? If so, when, and in respect to what commodities? To what extent was the price of each commodity altered by virtue of such change?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Return tabled.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-GENERAL PURCHASING BRANCH  CEILING PRICES


Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Are there any optional purchase clauses contained in government agreements with private corporations in connection with government investments in any industry or plant?
2.	If so, with what companies has the government made such optional agreements?
3.	What are the terms of all such agreements that have been made by the government?
4.	In addition, are there any verbal agreements or understandings regarding the disposition of government-owned properties?


HALIFAX HOTEL PROPERTY
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Has the government purchased or leased the Halifax hotel property at Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, from whom was the property acquired, and if from a company, state names of directors and manager?
3.	When was the property acquired, and for what purposes?
4.	What was the purchase price, or consideration for, (a) the real estate; (b) the

Labour Conditions
furniture and equipment; (c) agents and solicitors, to whom payable, and amounts to each ?
5.	What was the property assessed for by the city, (a) as realty; (b) for business purposes; (c) what were the yearly payments for such taxes; (d) will the government continue payment of taxes?
6.	What is the estimated cost to make the property suitable for the purposes of the government?
7. What is the estimated yearly cost to maintain and operate the property?


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1. Who are the members of the wartime prices and trade board?	_
2.	What salary, honorarium, living or other allowance, and travelling expenses, have been paid to each member of the board since appointment?
3.	How many employees of the wartime prices and trade board are there in the following categories, (a) $2,001 to $3,000; (b) $3,001 to $4,000; (c) $4,001 to $5,000; (d) over $5,000?
4.	What has been the total expenditure by, of, or in connection with the wartime prices and trade board since its establishment for,
(a)	salaries, honoraria and living allowances;
(b)	travelling expenses; (c) printing; (d) advertising; (e) radio programmes; (f) rentals; (g) all other expenditures?


MILITARY SERVICE-SYPHILIS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	How many men and women, upon being medically examined for the army, navy, or air force, were found to have syphilis?
2.	Were rejects with syphilis treated for this disease?
3.	If so, how many were treated?
4.	How many were allowed to return to civilian life?


RECLAIMING OF USED MOTOR OIL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West);
1.	Has any department or agency of the government made any investigations into any process for the reclaiming of used motor oil by filtration or similar method?
2. If so, what were the results of such investigations ?
3.	Has any department or agency of the government purchased any machinery to be used in the reclaiming of oil?
4. If so, what number of units of such machinery have been purchased?
5.	What percentage of the total amount of oil used by the government can be reclaimed by the use of such machinery?
6.	Has the government under contemplation the purchase of additional machinery for this purpose?
7.	To what use, if any, is used oil, which has not been filtered or otherwise reclaimed, put?

Mr. DESMOND:: 1. What is the total amount of money paid by all departments of the federal government for
legal services to Mr. Gerald Fauteux, K.C., crown prosecutor in the judicial district of Montreal, from January, 1939, to May 1, 1943?
2. What is the total amount of money paid by all departments of the federal government for legal services to the Honourable Philippe Brais, K.C., of the city of Montreal, or to any firm of which he is a member, from January, 1939, to May 1, 1943?


RIGHT HON. WINSTON CHURCHILL PARTICIPATION OF CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER IN WASHINGTON CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the answer he gave last evening with respect to his visit to Washington early next week. Is it the intention that any other members of the cabinet will accompany him on that occasion?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am not in a position to say at the moment.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I wish to ask the Minister of Labour a question, notice of which I gave him yesterday. I have a telegram from the president and secretary of the labour organization in the Collins and Aikman plant at Farnham, Quebec, informing me that employees walked out yesterday because of the refusal of the management to comply with the decision of the regional war board made on January 20, 1943. Can the minister tell the house what has been done?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I have received a similar telegram and I believe the statements embodied in it are substantially correct. That was the first information received in the department with regard to any dispute. A senior conciliation officer, Mr. Trepanier, of Montreal, was immediately assigned to investigate the dispute in an endeavour to bring the parties together. I was informed this morning, however, that the Minister of Labour for the province of Quebec has telegraphed to the company to comply with the order of the regional board.


JOHN INGLIS PLANT, TORONTO-CHANGES IN PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND SCHEDULES -TRANSFER OF LABOUR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: Will the Minister of Labour make a statement
Labour Conditions

to the house regarding the proposed lay-off of men. at the John Inglis Toronto plant? According to my information from the trade union officials it involves about three thousand men.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know the circumstances.
There have been, two or three suggestions in the house with regard to lay-offs in the John Inglis plant, but so far as I am aware no man has been laid off there up to this date. So far as I know, there is no immediate proposal to lay off men. However, we are facing a situation which all hon. members should understand. The war has reached the point where we have' now filled the initial requirements for certain types of equipment. We have provided all the initial requirements of the troops plus the required number of spares. Future requirements will depend on usage. Once capital requirements are filled, usage requirements are smaller. We are now revising our programme with that in mind. There are other phases that must be considered, one being that the war has passed from the defensive to the offensive stage, so that certain defensive weapons such as anti-aircraft guns are not now needed to the extent that they were some time ago. We are also directing the course of the war instead of permitting the enemy to do so. It is no longer necessary to put supplies of arms into countries that are likely to be attacked. We can now concentrate our supplies as the offensive strategy of Britain and her allies directs. AH these considerations have caused changes in the production requirements and production schedules of the allied countries. We are revising our scheduler Items that are likely to be affected are all types of army guns, from small arms up to the largest calibre guns, including anti-aircraft guns and many types of artillery ammunition. I think that is the general range of items that will be curtailed. In the course of time the schedule calls for making considerably fewer Bren guns than are being made now, and there will be a reduction accordingly, in the staff of the Bren gun plant, arising from the fact that the present rate of output of guns from that plant is no longer required.
As regards closing, there is nothing definite about it. When the men will be laid off is a matter that is indefinite, but I would point out that there is a very serious over-all shortage of man-power in war industry to-day. I know of very few plants that have the number of men required to permit them to. obtain the desired output. What will happen will

be a transfer of labour from plants making less urgently required equipment to plants making equipment for which there is greater urgency. I sincerely hope that I shall not have to answer a question in the house every time men are changed from one plant to another. I am stating the whole programme to-day and there is nothing more that I can add to it. Transfers will be effected by selective service and they will be rather frequent over the course of the next three or four months.


Gordon Graydon: With regard to the proposed lay-off in the John Inglis plant-


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no proposed lay-off
in the John Inglis plant.


Gordon Graydon: I am not going to- argue with the minister; let me say the lay-off contemplated in the question by the hon. member for York South. If that lay-off does take place, will there be sufficient opportunity for the war industries in the Toronto area in which the John Inglis plant is situated to absorb whatever labour is actually laid off from the Inglis plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is my understanding not
only that there will be sufficient work to absorb it, but that the men will be moved from, one plant to a specific other plant; that they will not be allowed to shop around for employment but will be moved from one plant to another. Selective service is working on plans with my department to-day for just that transfer. But ample notice will be given through selective service in each case.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Will the Minister
of Labour supplement the statement made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply and tell us in just what way selective service proposes to assist in the transfer of men from one plant to another?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I am afraid that
question cannot be asked, on the orders of the day.


LOGGING INDUSTRY-HIEING OP LOGGERS FROM NEWFOUNDLAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: I should like to ask a question
of the Minister of Labour. Is it true, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of May 12, that consultations are now being carried on between the government of Newfoundland, and

Gasoline
the Canadian government with a view to relieving the lack of man-power in the logging industry of this country by hiring loggers from Newfoundland to replace Canadian loggers who were mobilized under the National Resources Mobilization Act or who were allowed to enlist in the Canadian active army?


Humphrey Mitchell: Consideration is being given to
the problem which, the hon. member has just mentioned.


USE OF PRISONERS OF WAR AND INTERNEES FOR FARM LABOUR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: In view of the order tabled by the Minister of Labour in reference to making prisoners of war and internees available for agriculture, would the minister make a statement for the benefit of farmers particularly, outlining how these men will be made available to the farmers and what wages they will be paid?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is very difficult to make a statement offhand in regard to a matter of this kind, but the hon. member may rest assured that we will use good common sense in the allocation of these prisoners of war.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not asking the minister to make a statement to-day, but many farmers would like to know how they can secure these men. We take it for granted that the government will use common sense, but I think the minister should make some statement in order that the farmers may know how to make application for these men, what wages will be paid and how those wages are to be paid.	.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to do that. DAIRYING INDUSTRY


EFFECT OF RATIONING UPON PRODUCTION OF WHEY BUTTER BY CHEESE FACTORIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. ERASER (Peterborough West):: On May 11 I asked the Minister of Finance a question in regard to whey butter. He said he would find out from the wartime prices and trade board what they were doing. Is the minister in a position to answer that question now?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I took the matter up with the wartime prices and trade board and was informed yesterday
that representations to the same effect as those made by the hon. gentleman had been made to the board and that these representations are now receiving consideration.


REPORTED SHORTAGE IN NORTHERN MANITOBA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I have just received a telegram from Manitoba dealing with the matter I mentioned in the house a short time ago, a complaint that adequate supplies of milk are not coming through to points on the Hudson Bay railway served from the Pas. There is no adequate reserve supply; trains run only once a week, and some communities are without a proper supply of milk for children. Can the minister say whether the position has been improved?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Since the hon. member mentioned this question before I have had no complaints from the Pas. I understood they were satisfied with the amounts being sent.


Major James William Coldwell: Apparently these communities are on the Hudson Bay railway line served from the Pas; they cannot get adequate supplies in and there are no reserve supplies.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will find out whether there is any further information.


GASOLINE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Would he have arrangements made by which gasoline stations throughout rural Canada would be authorized to stay open one evening a week, preferably Saturday evenings, until ten o'clock, for the convenience of farmers? It would mean a tremendous saving in man-power hours and be a great help to the war effort and agriculture. I raised this question a year ago, on May 14, and dealt with it fully.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will call the request of my hon. friend to the attention of the oil controller, and I am sure that some action will be taken in that direction.
Coal Situation


COAL SITUATION-INCREASE IN PRICE OF COAL IN TORONTO
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I have an emergency question that I want to ask the government. It relates to the coal situation. The two weeks' truce in the labour dispute in the coal mines in the United States will expire on Sunday night. What is the government doing to ensure an adequate coal supply for next fall and winter? The second question is this:	An order has been passed by the controller raising the price of coal in Toronto seventy-five cents a ton for delivery. That order will expire next Tuesday. What means are going to be taken by the government to declare coal a preferred industry? Will the seventy-five cent order be continued for a time until a permanent coal policy is decided upon? What is to be done about next winter? If the seventy-five cent order is suspended on Tuesday some small dealers will not be able to carry on. I suggest that the government might well consider under the price ceiling policy an allowance of a dollar a ton for domestic retail delivery. This winter is not yet over; coal is still required, and in four months delivery for next fall and winter will start. It is a matter of great urgency.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government is giving the closest possible attention to the coal situation. It is recognized that the situation is grave; every effort is being made to meet it. I have no immediate information on the situation in Toronto, but I shall be glad to get information and give it later.


Thomas Langton Church: We shall be frozen next winter.


UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 12, consideration in committee of bill No. 76, for granting to his majesty aid for the purpose of making available Canadian war supplies to the united nations-Mr. Usley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.
On section 3-Canadian Mutual Aid board.
Mr. BLACKMORE:: At six o'clock last evening I had been commenting upon the committee which is to be appointed to carry on the activities envisaged by this bill, and I said I thought the committee, which is being

selected from the members of the cabinet, was being chosen wisely, since the members of the committee would be directly responsible to the cabinet and to the House of Commons. I had also expressed approval of the number of members of the committee. I was going on to point out that when the federal Department of Finance had in it men who were realistic in their outlook with respect to financial matters, then the standard of living in Canada could be raised through the activities of this committee to a level which would conform to the ability of the country to produce goods and services. I had pointed out that this committee will have very important functions to perform. First of all its work will have to do with the war; then it will have to do with the reconstruction period before the treaty of peace is signed, and later there will be definite and responsible work for this committee to do during the time of peace which will follow the signing of the treaty.
It may be argued that the life of this bill is only one year, but as I see it this is only the first of a long series of acts which will be based on the principle of lease-lend. When the time comes for the world to settle down to peaceful pursuits, we shall find it necessary to carry on mutual aid operations for the benefit of countries whose resources are not adequate to support the standard of life which ought to obtain there, considering the period of the world's history in which we shall be living. It wiH >be necessary, therefore, for us to have boards like this and acts like this to enable Canada to contribute her portion of the goods which must be contributed by the nations possessing rich resources, in order that the nations less abundantly equipped may be able to enjoy a fair standard of living.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order; I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying because of the noise in the committee.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman ; I must say it was becoming impossible to hear what I was saying myself. I believe there is altogether too little attention being paid by hon. members of this house to vital matters pertaining to the reconstruction of the world. Too many people have the idea that we know all about how to carry on in the days that are to come. As a matter of fact we are as hopelessly unprepared for the peace that is coming as we were unprepared in the year 1936 for the war that was coming. The result will be just as great a disaster in connection with the peace as we have seen as a result of the -war, unless hon. members of this house and the people of this country become alive

Mutual Aid Bill
to the fact that there is real difficulty in this world which must be made right. It is not going to be possible to carry on under the old order, as we have been doing for the past forty years.
Now that the committee is able to hear me, I think I have concluded what I have to say at this time, not wishing to go into too great detail on this section of the bill.


James Arthur Ross: I should like to say
just a word with reference to the amendment that has been proposed. I agree with some of the other hon. members who have spoken that the committee which is to be set up may have an important influence upon the trade policies of Canada following the war. I am. satisfied that the United States, in. regard to its lease-lend bill, certainly has an eye to its future trade policies. In my opinion many of our past difficulties with respect to agriculture have arisen from the fact that we have had one minister responsible for production and another minister responsible for marketing, an arrangement in which I have never been able to see any sound economy. In my view the Minister of Trade and Commerce, by virtue of his office, should be, next to the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the most important member of this committee. Yesterday I asked a question concerning an agricultural commodity delivered to Britain under the aid bill of last year. Four of the five proposed members of this committee were present, yet I was unable to obtain an answer to my question. Certainly I think the Minister of Agriculture should be a member of this committee, as it is proposed he shall be, but I believe it most important not only to agriculture but to the future well-being of the w'hole country that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should be a member also, because no matter what our occupation may be our future welfare depends upon the trade of the country. This bill is to deal with a war condition, but you cannot dissociate its operation from matters of trade which will have a distinct bearing on the future of this country. Therefore I hope the minister may see fit to accept this amendment and include the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The first thing to keep in
mind in discussing this amendment, and I know every hon. member does keep it in mind, is that we must not have any regard whatever to personalities. So far as my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is concerned, everyone has high regard for him.; his judgment is of the best, and
he would be an addition to any committee or deliberative body. But the question whether or not the Minister of Trade andi Commerce should be a member of the Mutual Aid board must be determined upon entirely different considerations. I should tell the committee that we set out to keep this committee or board just as small as possible. If we couldihave had a board of three or of two members it would have been desirable, other things being equal, because, generally speaking, the smaller the boards, the more expeditious are their proceedings. But it seemed to be impossible to . escape the appointment of five members of the cabinet, and there are- compelling, and strong reasons for the selection of all those selected. The Minister of Munitions and Supply would of course have to be on the board. He would be the proper minister to act as chairman. He is in charge of the procurement of munitions, and their production in this country, which are the foundation of the greater part of the operations of the board. But there is another important group of products in Canada, namely the products of the farm. The procurement agency for agricultural products is the Department of Agriculture, headed by the Minister of Agriculture. It was thought necessary that he be made a member of the board. - Between them, those two members cover nearly the whole field-not the whole of it, of course, but nearly the whole of it. Their departments cover the range of products which will be supplied, to our allies. It was necessary to have the defence departments represented. There were excellent reasons for appointing all three defence ministers to the board, because each has a vital interest in the allocation of munitions as between the requirements of our own services and those of the services of other countries. It was finally decided, however, in the interests of keeping the board small, that the Minister of National Defence should serve as the representative of the three defence departments, although the other two defence departments _ have a vital interest in the allocation of munitions and supplies.
I believe the reason for having the Minister of Finance on the board is a compelling one. Finance must be represented, not only for the reason mentioned by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, the extent and importance of the financial expenditures involved, but because a shortage of Canadian dollars is an important criterion for a country receiving assistance under the act. The Department of Finance is the only one which can supply information and advice on that point. It must say whether goods should be charged
Mutual Aid Bill

to the war appropriation, or to the Mutual Aid appropriation. That is distinctly a financial problem and indeed a difficult one. Therefore it was necessary to have the Minister of Finance on the board. The Minister of Justice was appointed to the board because arrangements will be made by exchanges of notes, agreements and the like, in respect of the supply of these goods, with various governments. In my opinion no one in the government or outside of it would be more competent to advise and guide on matters of the kind than would the Minister of Justice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would that not be within the duties of the Department of External Affairs?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think so. It might pertain to external affairs, of course; but if one brings in the Prime Minister as chairman of the board and-


Gordon Graydon: Does the minister think he would not make a good one?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think he would make an excellent one, but the drain on his time would be great. Then, apart from that the board would approach the dimensions of a government, and we might as well have everybody on it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As to the minister's statement, and it is quite true, that this board will have relations with other countries, should it not be the under-secretary of state for external affairs? There would seem to be good reason, in that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There may be, but something must depend on practical considerations. If the Prime Minister were to be included, then it might as well be the war committee of the cabinet, or the whole cabinet. There must be some attempt to save the time of the Prime Minister, and we have tried to do that as much as possible, because of the extent and gravity of his responsibilities.
I do not think the Minister of Trade and Commerce should be added as a member of the board, and I say regretfully that I cannot accept the amendment. As I said yesterday, the board is not one for the promotion of the commercial interests of Canada. The principle underlying the setting up of the board' is not the principle outlined by the hon. member for Lake Centre. That is, this is not a board set up to make trade agreefMr. Usley.]
ments writh other countries, to promote commerce with other countries, or to find markets. That is not the object of the board at all. The object of this board and of its activities will be to make as advantageous a distribution of the surplus supplies of this country, from the point of view of war needs, as is possible.
If we should put it on the basis on which we have heard it put in the house, flatly on the basis that for post-war advantage and for the extension of the commercial interests of Canada a certain minister should be appointed to the board, we as the parliament of Canada should be taking a position which it seems to me would not be defensible when one considers the purposes for which these boards are set up in other countries, and for which we should set up the board here. The terms and conditions upon which goods are to be supplied to other countries are subject in all cases to the governor in council. In council, not only would the Minister of Trade and Commerce have an opportunity to express his point of view in any decision, but so would other ministers. So, for instance, would the Minister of Fisheries, because we are supplying fish products in pretty large quantities to other countries.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Who negotiated the
arrangement with Belgium respecting the 7,000,600 bushels of wheat? Was that not done through the Department of Trade and Commerce?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know about that. I am not sure. If it was a sale, undoubtedly it would be negotiated by the wheat board.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: It would be a post-war arrangement.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know about any post-war arrangement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is an arrangement now for delivery to be made if, as and when.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If it was a sale it would be negotiated by the wheat board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was a sale.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I think it would be the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: The minister mentioned me, and I wish now to ask a question. He has stated that under the terms of this

Mutual Aid BUI
bill, or this legislation when passed, it would be indefensible for Canada to ask for trade considerations


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: In consideration of the advances.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, I did not say that at all, or anything like it.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Chairman, Hansard will record what was said-that it would be indefensible. Is it not a fact that under the bill as now constituted the government of Canada could enter into a trade arrangement in return for advances made within the provisions of the bill, or could exact a trade arrangement, as a condition for the advances and assistance provided under the legislation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Such as what? One does not exact arrangements, Mr. Chairman. One' exacts concessions. What concession does the hon. gentleman have in mind?


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking the
minister whether or not he, as minister in charge, will give an assurance that in no case in the administration of this bill will any concessions be asked for in connection with trade after the war in return for the advance of this assistance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot give that undertaking. That is not the intention, but I cannot give that undertaking.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The possibility is there.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The possibility is there. Subsection 2 of section 4 reads in part:
-and the governor in council may require, in respect of specific classes of supplies or any specific transfer of supplies under subsection one of this section, such payment or repayment in kind or property or such reciprocal action or provision of supplies or such direct or indirect benefit as the governor in council deems appropriate.
It is legally possible under that section to ask for some concession in respect of tariffs or something of the kind by another country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Or to
demand it.


John George Diefenbaker: The other day the minister saw fit to suggest that it was a concoction when I pointed that out as a power which he could use. From the minister's own lips there now comes an admission of the possibility of what I suggested the other day.
I say to the minister that we are one hundred per cent for legislation such as this; we are for any legislation which will assist the united nations, which will assist in the common defence against the common enemy, but we in this parliament have the right to know whether or not this legislation is designed for one purpose only, that of providing common aid for the common defence of the united nations. The minister should bring in an amendment stating that this legislation will not be used as a means of securing concessions in connection with trade or otherwise. Let us be clear on that. Let us tell the other united nations that Canada by this contribution, if you will, is coming to their assistance without regard to the possibility of what considerations may be secured after the war.
That was the essence of what I said the other day, and at that time the minister suggested that I was building up brick by brick an imaginary edifice. I built up that edifice on the basis of the legislation that he brought before parliament. I did that only because I was aware of the fact that in the United States provision was made for reciprocal arrangements. But he gave us his assurance that that was not the purpose here, that he did not have it in mind. I pointed out the possibilities, and to-day he says, that under this legislation these possibilities remain. He mentioned the agreements and the notes which had passed between Canada and the United States in November last. I have them before me. There is no suggestion here that the dealings between Canada and the United States under lend-lease are to be on a cash basis. If I read them aright, these notes are all based on the one fact. I have here the letter from the Canadian legation in Washington to the Secretary of State of the United States of America, dated November 30 last, wherein the following appears:
Our two governments are prepared to cooperate in formulating a programme of agreed action, open to participation by all other countries of like mind, directed to the expansion, by appropriate international and domestic measures, of production, employment, and th.e exchange and consumption of goods, which are the material foundations of the liberty and welfare of all peoples; to the elimination of all forms of discriminatory treatment in international commerce. . . .
We have the right to ask what conversations have taken place between. Canada and the United States with respect to the matter of lend-lease, and what conversations have taken place between Canada and any other of the united nations. When I asked yesterday

Mutual Aid Bill

whether agricultural products were to be disposed of under the terms of this legislation, the. minister said that we may do so but it was felt that we would be selling most of our agricultural products. We have the right to be assured, the Canadian farmer has the right to be assured, that when this bill becomes law we shall be ready to turn over to any of the united nations which may be in need of Canadian farm products, the surplus wheat we have to-day, and that a reasonable price will be paid to the farmer. We are prepared to advance a billion dollars to provide war munitions and supplies, including wheat. Here is an opportunity under this legislation to give the farmer a fair and reasonable price, a parity price for his wheat. It could be purchased by the Canadian government and turned over to the needy nations. Here is the question I asked yesterday and the minister's reply as reported on page 2615 of Hansard,-.
Under this legislation, do war supplies include not only munitions but agricultural products and the like?
Mr. Ilsley: They may.
Mr. Diefenbaker: Well. I should hope they would include agricultural products to a very considerable extent.
Mr. Ilsley:	Agricultural products may be
sold, very largely. You see, this is not going to cover all the supplies that may be furnished to other countries.
And a little later the minister said:
I can conceive of a situation in which all the exports of agricultural products would be sold.
Here is an opportunity for the government to take over our surplus wheat and pay to the farmer a fair and reasonable parity price. The wheat could then be turned over to needy nations that require it. We are going to turn over munitions; we may turn over various other supplies, and we have the power to turn over agricultural products. However, the inference is that it is not intended to do so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What better chance does the hon. gentleman think there would be for the farmer to get a higher price for his wheat than by our selling it?


John George Diefenbaker: The government
of Canada, the people of Canada, are to advance a billion dollars by way of assistance to the united nations, and I suggest that twenty or twenty-five per cent of that should be used to purchase agricultural products at a fair and reasonable price. The wheat or other products could then be turned over to the united nations. Does the minister not agree with that course?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It does not make any difference m regard to the price of farm products whether we give such products under this bill or sell them.
fMr. Diefenbaker.] *


Thomas Langton Church: I was surprised to note that even in the government press there was no hallelujah chorus about the set-up in this particular bill. There was hardly any government paper that supported this section 3, and one government evening paper last night in the edition I read, carried no report of this measure. There was a complete absence of the hosanna and hip-hurrah chorus of the government press which generally accompanies a lot of these measures, and praise of the controls and subcontrols. Are we to get value for this money? The government has had some experience since this war started in connection with these matters, but what did we find yesterday? The whole civil service was ignored. It was announced yesterday in the government morning papers that a Mr. Fraser, who was assistant to E. P. Taylor at Washington, is to become head of the department, over the heads of the whole civil service, of all these experienced people, at probably may^be three or four times their salary. I can tell the minister that the country is much disatisfied with this state of things. When the set-up goes into effect what shall we have? A secret star chamber-that is what it is- the governor in council, passing on these applications from what they call the "allies". New allies can be added overnight by a stroke of the pen perhaps some of them will be those who so far sat on the fence, as I remarked the other day.
The point is that in consenting to this political set-up in section 3 parliament is losing forever all control over this lease-lend bill. No longer is information to be handed over to the daily press. Some of the government and other papers are silent on this set-up of a committee of the cabinet in charge of this. It seems to me that we might as well be meeting in secret for all the information we can get on what goes on down here from most of the press. Since the last war we have observed the commercializing of the press. This has been especially evident in the case of some large dailies, with millions of subscribers, as in London and New York, and1 which are not giving the people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about this war. They sit on the fence and will not take sides on some contentious matters to keep popular with their readers. We shall never get our proceedings reported so long as the government continues to ignore the press the way it has been doing. I contend it is the press which should do this publicity work, this educating the people as to what goes on here in parliament, although I do not blame them, in view of

Mutual Aid Bill
the way they are used, for not doing it; they are not entirely to blame for not publishing the proceedings of parliament better. We ourselves are mostly responsible for the people being blindfolded and deprived of information as to what goes on here, because we allow control by bodies like the governor in council and information boards and amateur censors; we acquiesce in the taking away of rights and privileges and functions which have been ours from time immemorial. Virtually we might as well go home and1, as one hon. gentleman said on Monday, put a padlock on the door. I cannot reproduce the Parisian accent of my hon. friend from Vancouver East on how to pronounce Temis-couata* but in this matter the hon. member for Temiscouata, with the word "padlock", hit the nail on the head. The people will be much dissatisfied about the arrangements for the distribution of lease-lend funds under this particular bill, whether for war purposes or for the rebuilding of Europe after the war. Control is vested in an executive committee of the cabinet-for that is all they are- consisting of five ministers. All of them are good men, doing good work. I did not object yesterday to inclusion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce; far from it; but I am opposed to any ministers being oil a committee of this kind. I am in favour of an administrator being appointed and made responsible to this parliament.
I believe the people will have little confidence in the distribution of this fund, whether from a commercial, a military, or a humanitarian aspect under this set-up. We all know that certain allies are doing the work ana certain other- are getting the credit. We know that information is given out in the form of canned interviews by the information bureau. We know that this is what has happened regarding this very bill, even before it is passed by the House of Commons. If such canned information is to be distributed as it is done now by the administration, and other departments are to be ignored, it will not be possible to find out the facts about the distribution of this Mutual Aid fund. We. shall never have a proper system so long as an outsider is brought in to operate over the heads of trained civil servants of the army, the navy and the air force, men who have worked all their lives for this country, who constitute some of the ablest administrators we have, and who have carried on conscientiously and faithfully on small salaries, struggling to pay their income tax. I have read in Houston's, annual about the corporations with which
72537-167*
some of these control men the government brought in are connected. Some of these corporations have contracts with the government, although some of their executive directors are serving as controllers and under the government, and they have more influence with the cabinet than not a few hon, members.
I am unable to understand what reason there can be for dividing the departmental controls of his majesty's forces. The young minister who represented Kingston City in 1940 and 1941 had under his control the whole of the three departments now concerned with the army, the navy and the air force. With all this multiplication of machinery in a population of ten millions, what is the result? Overtaxation and waste. Widespread waste of money, duplication, such as one sees around Ottawa, where you have a building the size of Eaton's to house one department, and then another department comes along and wants accommodation of equal size, spending money like water. I have never seen extravagance to approach it. They are sending opera company shows all over the country. The army wants a show, the navy wants a show, and then the air force want another.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You had
better send the House of Commons.


Thomas Langton Church: It was said by a distinguished French soldier concerning the charge of the Light Brigade, "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre." It is magnificent, but it is not war. That remark can well be applied to this magnificent ceremonial performance and special trains and special actors and actresses, and to the whole of our present methods of doing business. These information bureaus and picture bureaus and liaison press officers, and information they get out are nothing very largely but a waste of money. The people of this country are very much aroused about these things.
Who is going to audit the accounts under this lease-lend bill? Is it the auditor general? No. According to the audit act, which I quoted last session, the auditor general cannot audit one cent of the five billion dollars or of the three and a half billion dollars allotted for the -war. A short time ago there was appointed a comptroller of the treasury. By virtue of the appropriation bill of five or six clauses which the minister introduced, as long as any item of this three and a half billion dollars expenditure comes under one of these sections the comptroller of the treasury puts the stamp on it. This house should be careful about giving away its privileges under section 3 of this bill, then, because it will not get them
Mutual Aid Bill

back after the war is over. There is supposed to be a check by the committee of the house on war expenditures. Well, what check have they got? All they do, as far as I can see,-and their reports have never been discussed in the house-is, when the session is over, visit some plants and make a Cook's tour through Canada. I am glad they do; they are entitled to the trip and to proper privileges, and I appreciate the good work they are doing. But so far as any control of the treasury or its expenditures is concerned, there is none and there will be none under section 3 of this lease-lend bill either.
As I said yesterday, there will be sure to be politics in the administration of this fund; there is no doubt about that. In my opinion there was a great deal of wisdom and truth in what was said on this matter yesterday by my hon. and learned friend from York-Sunbury, but his criticisms elicited no reply whatever from the government. The procedure in these big spending boards in wartime, is to bring in some outsider who has always been a good Liberal. I have no objection to the Liberals; they are a good party and they have done a good deal of useful work for Canada and in this war; but I say to them, you should not pass over the trained men. of the civil service for unknown outsiders. Where could you go outside into the country or to the United States and get an official like the Clerk of the House of Commons, who handles the work with so much knowledge, experience and ability? He is only one of a splendid type of civil servants and officials who have given their lives and their services night and day to this country; there are deputy ministers and others of great competence in every department, but their wisdom and experience are ignored, they are passed over and other men brought in.
What will Mr. Fraser do if he comes in as head of a department? He will probably engage two or three members of the civil service, presumably not top-notchers but third-class clerks, and then some sisters and cousins and aunts of the controllers may be brought in to assist in the administration, and by and by he will build up a duplicate spending department of great magnitude with another regiment of. officials. Take the head of the wartime prices and trade board as an illustration of the extent to which we have given away our privileges to controls. Consider the power that has been placed in the hands of Donald Gordon. He is a czar. Well, if they have made a czar of Donald Gordon why have not the government appointed somebody, an inside civil servant preferably, to handle in an independent way the administration of this lease-lend bill?

Time is the essence of the contract in this lease-lend administration, but I predict that the people of Europe will be starving for months before they get any help, if we are to have this antiquated system carried on by a committee of the cabinet.
I do not know in how many committees members of the cabinet are engaged. I saw a book the other day that gave a list showing that some of them were serving on fifteen or twenty subcommittees. Political ignorance and apathy are the two greatest enemies of the democracies, and by the same token they are the best friends of the axis powers. Why not give the public the real picture. It is the function of a democratic government to support a democratic press, so that the taxpayers may obtain, through the medium of that press, information in regard to the expenditure of public moneys such as is contemplated here. After all, the taxpayer is the man who is going to foot the bill; the cost will not be paid by a committee of the cabinet or by this committee. It is the taxpayers of Canada who will have to pay it. They will get it in their income tax and in other ways. I submit therefore that it is the duty of the government to make it possible for the people to get all the information they can. I do not blame the press for not publicizing the matter when the government has shown such a lack of confidence in the press of Canada by appointing an information bureau to discharge the functions that should properly be discharged by our newspapers. It should be the function of the press to obtain the necessary information from the government in regard to bill 76 and to give a real picture of what is going on, not only in our domestic affairs but in regard to foreign questions as well, and to stimulate interest in public affairs. For that reason I am opposed to the information bureau. I have objected to it because I do not believe that it is in the interests of the country to appoint a bureau to explain the bill and to give interviews in regard to section 3 and other provisions of the bill.
The government. I repeat, has shown lack of confidence in the ability of our press to fulfil its proper function, which should be to supply the public with information to which the taxpayers are entitled. We as a House of Commons should protect the taxpayers and see that the people are kept in touch with what is going on. And there is only one agency through which information can reach the people. That is the press. When you next come to censorship which will [DOT]further keep this house from the facts and the people also, I would ask the government, how

Mutual Aid Bill
will the House of Commons find out what is going on? How shall we know what this committee of the cabinet are doing in handling this business? The censor will come along and we shall find that not even members of the House of Commons will get any information, because it is not in the public interest. It is provided that a report shall be presented to parliament, and of course the money will have to be provided. In my opinion this policy of carrying on is simply a relic of other days. This system would not have been tolerated in the other war; and as far as lease-lend is concerned, if we are to be running to Washington all the time and copying everything they do, and if we are to follow the star chamber method of appointing committees like this to handle matters of this sort, taking it out of the hands of the people's representatives, then we shall certainly become the Washington of the north.
At the start of this session everybody got the idea that the war with Germany would be over in a very short time,- and a red herring w-as drawn across the trail, giving social security the place of the war, although the war was primary and we were in it. Steps were taken early here this year, forgetting largely the war accordingly, to investigate the new order and to make provision for the new paradise that we were going to have, a land of milk and honey, as Ramsay MacDonald once said. We started the session on January 27, and for the first two weeks we heard nothing about committees and then the committees were appointed. The government would not allow a committee of the cabinet to run the Canadian National railways, which is a public utility, and I suggest that if an outside commission can handle the national railways, the radio, the control boards and several other services of that sort, there is no reason why the government should not appoint a body to handle these matters.
The Minister of Pensions and National Health is a hard-working man, and he has done a good deal of work in connection with pensions and health. It was said humorously by a lady sweeping the floors here that by chipping in fifty cents we would all get all the food and clothing we wanted forever, and that the fifty cents would include all the medicine you wanted. But you would only get a bottle of that kind of medicine every week-end, not one every day. Well, we have dropped the committee system like hot cakes in this bill for a subcommittee of the cabinet called the privy council. They do not wear the privy council uniforms when they sit around the lease-lend table to get
information. The ministers who have been named are busy gentlemen and I sympathize with them for the hard work they are doing.
I do not know anyone who would want to substitute for the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Munitions and Supply or the Minister of National Defence. The hon. member for Temiscouata said that he would not want to be nominated to be one of these secretaries to ministers and I do not blame him, because one would have to be up all day long and at night too to work like the ministry on this bill.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the government is making a fatal mistake in the conduct of the war. Party politics will be rampant. Everywhere you go they will be talking about the lease-lend bill on every political platform and the poor suffering people in Europe will be left starving, without munitions or food supplies, while these committees are meeting and selecting what countries and allies to aid.


Gordon Graydon: Subsection 3 of section 3 provides that the board, with the approval of the governor in council, may appoint and fix the remuneration of such officers, clerks and other employees as are necessary. In view of the magnitude of the undertaking contemplated by the bill, has the minister considered the approximate amount which will be required yearly by way of salary and otherwise for the administration of the act? I should like to get that information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The amount will be very small. The staff will not be more than one senior man and four or five junior officers such as stenographers and clerks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A vain
hope.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is contemplated that the work will nearly all be done by existing agencies. The purchasing will be done by the purchasing branches of the Department of Munitions and Supply and the forwarding and shipping will be handled by existing agencies. Contracts in London and Washington will be made through the agencies that now function and the cost of the administration will be practically nil.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to have some undertaking that in passing subsection 3 of section 3 we are not giving approval, as a committee or as a house, to the first step in building up an expensive administrative board under the terms of the act. I can recall in previous years a discussion which was led by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), which provides interesting reading even
Mutual Aid Bill

in this war time. He showed in humorous vein the way in which boards and commissions are built up, huge spending bodies with salaries and other expenses mounting up month by month, year by year. I am glad to have the undertaking of the minister on that point, I think the committee is entitled to the assurance that this board will not attempt to emulate some of the other boards that have been operating in government circles for some time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to endorse what the leader of the opposition has just said. I am glad to have the minister's undertaking, but I can tell him it is a vain hope. Once you establish a government bureau and put a man at its head, no matter how good he may be, unless you confine him you will find that from that moment he will begin to exaggerate the importance of his position. I recall a conversation I had with the late Thomas A. Low, who was at one time minister of trade and commerce in this country, and the honest effort he made to cut down administrative bureaus, but he was obliged to throw up his hands.


Mr. POULIOT:: The hon. member could mention anyone except him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know why that interjection. He was a man who was trying to do something in an honest way and he had the respect of the House of Commons. Certainly he had my respect and friendship. However I rose primarily for the purpose of continuing the discussion that the minister was having with the hon. member for Lake Centre. We have now an admission from him that under the language of subsection 2 of section 4 it is quite possible for the government to enter into important commitments and arrangements with other nations, all without the consent of parliament. That principle, I suggest, is wrong. The minister should redraft the section to make clear the intention of the government. I offered him a suggestion the other day which I hoped would be taken in the good spirit intended. So far we have no evidence of that. I suggest again that the wide open powers conferred upon this board be more restricted and brought into conformity with the principles of parliamentary government and control.
On the question of expenditure for agricultural products, if I gather what is in the mind of the minister, it is not intended to spend any appreciable amount of this billion dollars for the purchase of agricultural products; it is the hope that those will be

bought. Undoubtedly Britain will provide funds for what she requires to feed her own people.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not say it was not the intention. I said it might be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister will pardon me if I put my interpretation on what he said, which was that it is not the primary intention that any large portion of this sum should be given away in agricultural products. What the minister said in reply to the hon. member for Lake Centre would indicate that it was the intention of the government that as far as possible those things should be paid for.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: "Be sold very largely". Those were the words the minister used. The minister went on to argue that if wheat, for instance, was given away in large amounts under this bill, it would not raise the price of wheat. If you combine those two ideas, that wheat is to be largely sold to those who can pay for it, and that a substantial amount of wheat is to be given away to those who cannot pay for it, the volume of national income going to the agricultural population of this country would nearly double and the farm income will be substantially enhanced. That is what we are trying to argue for, that in utilizing this measure a portion, I would say a substantial portion, ought to go to the agricultural producers, which would have the effect of greatly enhancing the grand total of farm income.
Mr, ILSLEY: And cut down the amount of munitions that we should supply.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, that perhaps may be a third point. In view of the statements made in this house and published in the newspapers, the well-known fact that production programmes in many cases have now reached their conclusion and that we have to have a change-over from one class of production to another, I want to know from the minister whether this billion dollar vote is intended as a stop-gap to take up the lapse in production from these plants during the turnover period, and thus avoid a period of substantial unemployment in Canada. Because I believe, as much as I believe anything, that unless there is a rapid turnover from one type of production to the other there will be substantial unemployment during the transitional stage. Industrial production cannot be changed from one type to another overnight; there has to be retooling and all that sort of thing. Apparently it is one of the objectives behind

Mutual Aid Bill
the bill to provide most of this money for the supply of munitions. I need not tell the minister that there are people in the united nations who will want food, and there will be people in the occupied countries who will want food, and a substantial amount of this gift should be expended for agricultural products to be sent overseas to those who require them. Food is just as important to the sustaining of the morale of people overseas as are munitions. I happen to know, and we heard it to-day from the Minister of Munitions and Supply, that in all kinds of production there is a surplus. There is a surplus of guns, of tanks, of motor vehicles, of small arms, of ammunition-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Ships?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, not ships. I did not say so.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not all kinds, then.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But a substantial amount. I happen to know from others in Canada that there is a substantial surplus of many of these things that the government would be proposing to send out under this bill. And I am wondering whether one of the reasons for this bill is not to help take up the slack in a period of unemployment facing this country during the transition.
The trouble with our war planning is that in 1940 after Dunkirk we became panicky and rushed into everything. Perhaps I have some responsibility for that, and if so I am quite willing to assume my share, because I urged upon this government that they do everything possible to make and ship things to aid the distress of the one power that was withstanding the hun. But we never had any coordinated plan of production from that day until recently when certain boards were set up. The result is that we have gone along and produced, and to-day there is no longer any necessity for some of this production. I am told that of certain types of machine guns they have so many they do not know what to do with them. We have one contract for Lewis guns, an initial order of one thousand, and they do not want them. They have not been produced yet. As a matter of fact they have so many they do not know what to do with them. The Minister of Munitions and Suppfy may deny that there is an immediate prospect of a lay-off at the John Inglis plant. Let me tell him it is in the air in Toronto and everywhere else that there is to be a substantial lay-off at the Inglis plant in the immediate future, and perhaps it will come a great deal quicker than people think. Why? Because they have a great surplus of Bren guns in
the allied world. The newspapers are full of this. All these signs indicate that whatever may have been the errors of the past the government certainly is using this bill to take up some of the slack in that unemployment period which is in sight. I am not going to object very much to that; I just want the information. Is it so, or is it not so? I realize that there will be grave difficulty in this country if there is any period of unemployment in the congested industrial centres.
I return, however, to the thesis that a substantial portion of this grant should be used for food. May I once more impress upon the minister the desirability of redrafting this section to provide that the government may not compel nations by force majeure, by duress, by pressure, by intimation or any of the other approaches, to enter into arrangements with this country which ought to be the prerogative of parliament alone.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Dealing in the first place with the question of what I said yesterday, the hon. gentleman stated that I said the intention was to sell agricultural products very largely or for the most part. I have found what I did say, at page 2615 of Hansard. These were my words:
Mr. Diefenbaker: . . . Under this legislation, do war supplies include not only munitions but agricultural products and the like?
Mr. Ilsley: They may.
Mr. Diefenbaker: Well, I should hope they would include agricultural products to a very considerable extent.
Mr. Ilsley:	Agricultural products may be
sold, very largely. You see, this is not going to cover all the supplies that may be furnished to other countries; they will not be all financed under the Mutual Aid bill. Unless that part of our war effort is very considerably reduced, a substantial portion of these supplies will be financed by sale, as they have been in the past. I can conceive a situation in which all the exports of agricultural products would be sold.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Our interpretation is quite correct, then.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My hon. friendi said a very different thing. He said it was the intention, and that I so expressed it yesterday, that munitions were to be contributed but that agricultural supplies were to be sold. I have read the exact language, and that language indicates that this may happen. It may happen to munitions or it may happen to agricultural products; that will be a matter for discussion and decision by the board. What difference it makes in regard to price, I do not know. I suppose if the prices paid to those producing are higher, then there will be less of the billion
Mutual Aid Bill

dollars left to spend on something else; that may be true. For instance, if a very high price were to be paid for agricultural products it would mean just that many fewer munitions, ships and so on, that could be paid for out of the billion dollars. Otherwise I do not see what bearing the price would have, nor do I see that this depends in the slightest degree upon whether these articles are given away or sold. As I said before, the position of the hon. member for Lake Centre seemed to be that if you gave them away, in some manner or other you would be justified in using up the gift much faster on agricultural products, leaving very much less for guns, ships, planes, tanks and so on. That is not a sound position.
Then I should like to say a word on what my hon. friend has had to say about coming back to parliament. That comes under section 4, and I shall discuss it there, but I say now that I disagree with him. Apparently we have two groups in the opposition, the one thinking we should go after concessions and the other thinking we should swear we won't.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not belong to the first group.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know when the two groups will come together. The hon. member for Souris, the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Rosedale are the concession-hunters; the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for York-Sunbury are the concession-haters.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Lake Centre wants to know, and wants parliament to know, when these concessions are entered into and when these treaties are made, that they shall not be binding upon this country until they have been approved by this parliament.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury). That is what we want.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member wants
parliament to be given the right to reject concessions. That is all he wants, and I think that is so very nearly ridiculous as to be hardly worth discussing. Let us take a definite position; let us not talk of theory all the time.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us have a
practical application.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Then would the hon. gentleman suggest what he is worrying about; what kind of concession he would like to toss back or he would like parliament to have the right to toss back?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Any; I
would leave it wide open.
 .


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think perhaps parliament could toss it back, but all the Americans are asking for is contained in article VII of the lend-lease agreement. They say:
In the final determination of the benefits-
They were talking about benefits in their legislation.
-to be provided to the United States of America by the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-
This was the agreement with Russia.
-in return for aid furnished under the act of congress of March 11, 1941, the terms and conditions thereof shall be such as not to burden commerce between the two countries, but to promote mutually advantageous economic relations between them and the betterment of world wide economic relations. To that end, they shall include provision for agreed action by the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, open to participation by all other countries of like mind, directed to the expansion, by appropriate international and domestic measures, of production, employment, and the exchange and consumption of goods, -which are the material foundations of the liberty and welfare of all peoples; to the elimination of all forms of discriminatory-treatment in international commerce, and to the reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers; and, in general, to the attainment of all the economic objectives set forth in the joint declaration made on August 12, 1941, by the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the basic principles of which were adhered to by the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on September 24, 1941.
At- an early convenient date, conversations shall be begun between the two governments with a view to determining, in the light of governing economic conditions, the best means of attaining the above stated objectives by their own agreed action and of seeking the agreed action of other like-minded governments.
In the exchange of notes we subscribed to these principles. It might very well be that we would ask some country to which we supplied goods to subscribe to a similar set of principles. If we did so I do not think there would be any occasion to bring it back to parliament and give parliament, a chance to repudiate the Atlantic charter. Perha/ps my hon. friends would like to have that chance; I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We would like to have something to say about what we do; that is all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Let us say that the concession, so called, was something very minor. Suppose we said, "We are prepared to turn over these munitions to you, but we think you should not impose duties on something else, which is not in the nature of munitions, that enters your country." Suppose we were to do that; the moment a concession like that

Mutual Aid Bill
comes into the picture are we to hold up the transaction and keep the guns here until we consult parliament on the subject, simply because we obtained that concession?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do not
ask for a concession or trade arrangement that ought to be discussed in parliament before it is binding upon Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not want to give any such undertaking, but I can say there was no such intention. That was not in the picture at all; it was never thought of, but I am not going to tie myself up with any undertaking, because one cannot foresee the conditions which might be desirable. As I said yesterday, a concession might be the right to use a port without the payment *of port charges. It might be the right to use an airfield; it might be assistance to facilitate the shipment of goods.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
purely administrative.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a concession, and it might be interpreted as a trade concession or the kind of concession covered by most favoured nation agreements. One thing is sure: if we did get concessions, if my hon. .friends opposite are worrying about discrimination, and we got it from one of the countries which had taken assistance under lease-lend from the United States, they could not give it to us exclusively. We could not get discriminatory concessions. So that those who do not like concessions can cease worrying about them. Those who wish them can worry about them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are contending about the supremacy of parliament, which is being ignored.


James Arthur Ross: I think I should not be called a concession-hunter, but the minister said this afternoon that this bill was not associated with the post-war period, and is not connected with it. We were discussing the appointment of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the board. Well, the minister may not think that even this government is concerned with the post-war period or with any trade policy for the future. But the Minister of Trade and- Commerce announced the sale of 7,000,000 bushels of wheat to Belgium, to be delivered when a part or all of Belgium is liberated. Surely that is post-war policy. He announced that sale at ninety cents per bushel, Belgium to pay the carrying charges of four-fifths of a cent per month, from last December, when negotiations were begun in connection with the deal. Surely that has to do with post-war policy.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not say we were indifferent to the post-war period.


James Arthur Ross: But the minister did not think there was any association between the two. As to being a concession-hunter- well, if seeking parity within Canada means that I am a concession hunter, then I am guilty. I have always argued there should be some parity in connection with services rendered and goods produced in connection with the war effort. I am concerned in the transactions connected with the war, and our war effort, and I do say that the agricultural population of this country are entitled to the same consideration as are the workers in industry or those engaged in any other vocations. They are entitled to the same consideration from this government.	These
services should be divided up within the country, and under this Mutual Aid bill agricultural ' products are entitled to just consideration.
The minister raised the question with the hon. member for Lake Centre as to what difference prices can make to the agricultural producer.	The more goods those people
deliver, the more it will mean to agricultural income in Canada and to the individual farmer and producer. As was pointed out the other day by the hon. member for Lake Centre, we have every faith in the sincerity of the Minister of Finance. As I have said before, it is my belief that he is a conscientious minister. But we are delegating a tremendous authority to this board. I cannot make myself believe that some of the matters taken before the board under this measure will not in some degree affect the future policy of this country. I think all are agreed that the greatest essential in the post-war period will be foodstuffs, and chiefly the production of agricultural products to feed the peoples of those overrun nations. I think we have reached the point where we are satisfied we are going to win the war. Whether by design or not, in some degree we are establishing principles and policies for the future.
In my opinion we should give this matter serious consideration, because whether we conscientiously believe we are doing so or not, the fact is that we are developing and in some measure setting up a trade policy for the future.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Hon. members have talked about wheat. I just wish to have clear what they would like to have. They want a lot of this money devoted to the giving away of wheat, as I understand it. To begin with, it is not possible to ship wheat to countries which do not need it, and countries which do need if are getting it to the extent that shipping
Mutual Aid Bill

facilities are available. We sent it to Russia, to Greece and to Great Britain. No country will take wheat that has no ships to carry it, unless wheat is required. It is unreasonable to take the position that we should send wheat and use up critical shipping space-send wheat to countries which do not need it, to get rid of the surplus so as to enhance the price to the farmers of this country. That is an unreasonable position.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: With regard to wheat, I think the minister is quite right when he says we have not the shipping facilities available to ship surplus wheat. I should like to point out, however, that the world is going to need far more wheat than we can grow in the years immediately following the war. We will' need this wheat now on our farms. There are over a billion bushels of grain to-day in storage on farms in western Canada, and farmers are suffering seriously because they cannot sell it. Here is an opportunity for the government to make advances to the fanner for the grain stored on the farm. The farmers could be given initial payments for all grain properly stored, and it could be left there for them to hold, the government paying the balance when the wheat can be shipped. An immediate initial payment could be made. If we leave this situation as it is and the time comes when we need far more wheat than we have for delivery, we are placing the whole burden on the backs of the farmers.
As I said in respect of a similar measure last year, the board is going to be allowed to purchase this grain, or any other commodity, or make it available in any way the board wishes. So far they have been purchasing grain through the wheat board. The farmer is not guaranteed a parity price. Here is an opportunity for the government to see that he gets a parity price for his commodity. He is about the only person producing commodities for shipment who is not receiving the cost of production. He must carry the burden of storing the wheat until it is required. Here is an opportunity to give him justice.
In paying his taxes, the farmer makes his contribution to Canada's gift to other nations, when she buys war materials, war supplies, tanks, guns and things of that kind. The producer of those manufactured articles is guaranteed his price, but the farmer, when making his contribution of wheat, is not guaranteed even his cost of production. Purchases are always made through the processors or handlers of his products, and those processors are guaranteed their price. The pork processor gets the price he wants.
The farmer is to-day carrying the burden of storing the food which will be required. This measure affords an opportunity to the 
government to relieve the situation, and do something to help the farmer. I made a similar statement in respect of last year's bill, and I make it again to-day.


Mr. PERLEY:: I believe the discussion is on the amendment to add the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: Where is the Minister of Trade and Commerce to-day? Is he not in Saint John, New Brunswick, officiating at the loading of a vessel of grain to be given to an allied country?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot say; I do not know.
.Mr. PERLEY: If I heard correctly the announcement over the radio, he is there today officiating at the loading of a vessel. I believe wheat is being loaded. I see one or two ministers nodding their heads, so I assume I am correct. That may be one argument in favour of adding his name to this board. No doubt there will be many similar gifts under this measure.
I have not said much in this debate. I thought the hon. member for Lake Centre made a strong argument when he said that a considerable portion of the gift is made by way of food. Checking the statement tabled yesterday I find that last year nearly twenty-five per cent agricultural and animal products were included, and I should think that would be a reasonable amount this year. There is no doubt that a considerable proportion will go to the, purchasing or giving of agricultural products. I hope the minister will see fit to add the Minister of Trade and Commerce to this board. This minister has had the responsibility of selling our grain. It should be possible to increase the price to the farmers and give them a parity price for their wheat. Then something should be done to increase the quota. The quota of fourteen bushels this year is not giving as much relief to the farmer as it should. If this quota could be increased, by means of this gift or otherwise, it would be a splendid thing.
The minister should, be able to state fully just what officials are to be appointed. The government has had the experience of last year in connection with the billion dollar gift and should know how many officials will be required this year or bow many additional ones will be required.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There was no organization for the billion dollar gift.


Ernest Edward Perley: There must have been an increase in the staffs of the different departments. The government is being given the

Mutual Aid Bill
power to make appointments, and I think the hon. member for York-Sunbury is quite right in asking the minister for a definite statement with respect to the increased staff.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Minister of Munitions and Supply gave a definite answer to that.


Ernest Edward Perley: He said that there would be practically no staff.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right. There may be a secretary and a few others.


Ernest Edward Perley: We know the experience in the past when organizations such as this have been set up.


Mr. GREEN:: I realize that the Minister of Finance was being facetious when he described some of us as concession hunters. If he will read what I said yesterday I think he will see that I did not say anything to indicate that Canada should try to drive a hard bargain with any of the united nations. That thought was not in my mind at all. What I had in mind was that it would increase the efficiency of the board if the Minister of Trade and Commerce were made a member. After all, his department should know more about trade and commerce than any other department, since that has been their business for many decades. They have had trade commissioners in many countries and if he were made a member of this board that would increase its efficiency in handling the products that are to be sent abroad and perhaps would bring about a wiser distribution. It wmuld probably mean that Canada would build up good will with other countries. Take China, for example. I am sure that if the Minister of Trade and Commerce were sitting in as a member of the board, knowing as he must do that it is of great importance to Canada to have the good will of China and to have China deal with us when the war is over, that would be most helpful. That is what I had in mind in offering my amendment; there was no idea of advocating that Canada should drive a hard bargain with any of the united nations.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I am not quite
satisfied wdth the answer given by the minister to the question asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre. As I understand it, every aeroplane, every tank and every gun that is sent to any of the allied countries and is accounted for under this Mutual Aid will be charged at a price that will give the manufacturer his production cost plus a profit.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It may or may not. Ordinarily that would be the case, but if he is supplying goods under a tender and his tender was too low, he would not have a profit.


Mr. NOSE WORTHY:: I think it has been stated already in this house by the minister that much of the production of war machinery and munitions is carried on under contracts which provide for cost plus a profit. It may not be a percentage profit, but a profit is agreed upon. I take it that all shipments of processed foods which are charged up will be charged at a price which will give the processor his cost plus a profit. Are any primary products to be shipped under this arrangement, that is, products which require no processing, where the purchase price is paid directly to the primary producer? If so, what objection would there be to using this fund in such a way as to see that the primary producer is given his cost of production plus a fair profit?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The cost of production is
completely unascertainable.


Mr. FAIR:: I do not think the minister
should give an answer like that, because the cost of production and parity price figures have been given on several occasions. It would appear that the farmers of this country are being placed in a position of poverty and are to remain there. Apparently some plan is in process of formation whereby the farmer will not receive anything like his cost of production.
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency) (Translation): Mr. Chairman, in bill No. 76, the first subsection of section 3 reads as follows:
(1) There shall be a board to be called the Canadian Mutual Aid board consisting of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice, acting as a committee of the King's Privy Council for Canada, which shall be charged with the administration of this act.
I understand that this committee is entrusted with the distribution of armaments, munitions, aircraft or ships to the various allied nations. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion to the committee? Every one of the allied countries using this materiel fights under its own flag, which recalls to the soldiers on the march and to those who are in the thick of the combat the traditions and history of their native land. Why does this committee not suggest that the Canadian government give our troops a flag which will be our very own. In this matter, Mr. Chairman, may I bring to your attention and to that of the committee a dispatch from the Canadian Press which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of May 7th, 1943, headed, "World may decide old question of flag for Canada."
(Text) The first thing Canada knows she will have a flag of her own, despite the inability of
Mutual Aid Bill

parliament to make np its mind whether the dominion wants one. In most public buildings in Washington, in store windows, canteens and recreation centres, the flags of the united nations are draped together.
Canada, the only united nation without a distinctive flag, is represented by the red ensign bearing the Canadian coat of arms which, of course, is not an ofiieial Canadian flag at all. If this goes on long enough, the rest of the world may decide Canada's flag question for her.


Mr. MacNICOL:: On a question of order, Mr. Chairman, what has discussion about the flag to do with the business before the committee?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I must point out to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) that his remarks do not seem to bear any relation to the section before the committee.
Mr. LaCROIX (Translation): Mr. Chairman, I have nothing more to say.
Amendment (Mr. Green) negatived.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have another amendment to move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski. It is a simple thing. We have heard that the ministers were so busy that, as the Prime Minister told us, it was hard for them to meet hon. members even in the corridors and elsewhere. It was said when the parliamentary secretaries were appointed that it would be cruel to impose on ministers the task of attending sittings of boards like this. It is really cruel, when the ministers are doing so much work, and are absorbed in their own departments, especially those ministers who have to be on boards, and the only thing to do is to suggest that this board should be composed of parliamentary secretaries. These hon. members, as it has been said, have the confidence of the ministers; high tribute has been paid to all of them; but they have not been given an opportunity to show what they can do. It would be a fine test to give them the opportunity to manage the billion dollars and the staff; the amount is bigger than the capitalization of numerous companies; it is just as large as the capitalization of all the Canadian banks put together. Therefore I follow in the footsteps of the Prime Minister in showing my confidence in the parliamentary secretaries by suggesting that they replace the ministers on the board.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member, like
myself, was opposed to their appointment.


Jean-François Pouliot: Pardon?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thought my hon. friend had opposed the appointment of parliamentary secretaries, as I did.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I did', the same as
my hon. friend; but since neither of us has succeeded we must accept the state of things as it exists. It is the policy of the accomplished fact. My hon. friend has done his duty; I have done mine. Most unfortunately, we did not succeed in opening the eyes of those who were in the majority; and I accept on this question the decision of the majority because we cannot reverse it. But do you not think this amendment is the more timely because the committee has just turned down an amendment to add another minister? I wonder who drafted this bill; but the committee does not seem inclined to have a board like this composed of ministers.
With regard to what is at the base of this bill, aid to those who need it, nobody has any objection to it, upon two conditions. The first one is that satisfactory account is rendered of what has been done in the past; the second is, reasonable assurance that this bill will help those who really need help and will not serve only to increase the wealth of the mandarins. What I mean by mandarins is, speaking of Chinese politics, those who take personal advantage of what is supposed to be given to the needy. They are what we call in this country "toll-gates". In China the practice is quite common. Since we have started a new policy of our own, I wonder if it is not the experience of the bank for international settlements, which has been reported to us by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, which has induced the government to deal direct with the united nations without passing through the canal of last year. What was revealed to us by our colleague the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay was far from being edifying, but he quoted from official papers, from the Westminster Debates. I am a little concerned about the clutching hands of high finance in dealing with very large sums of money. It reminds me of a serial of about twenty-five years ago in which Grace Cunard was the main actress. It lasted for some time, and at the end of each picture there was a clutching hand with long fingers and long nails which was making some grasping gestures, frightening children. But in matters of this kind I warn the Minister of Finance once more against international finance. The other day, although I have no parliamentary secretary, I took the trouble to get the facts about Barclays bank. I am now doing a little work on the Bank of England. One of the directors of Barclays Bank Limited of London is no less a nobleman than Lord Melchett. Lord Melchett is greatly interested in nickel, and the other day the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar read the following

Mutual Aid Bill
statement, which I am not quoting from his remarks, because I want to observe the rules not to quote from a preceding debate, but which I read from the same document. It is on the second page of the report of Falconbridge Nickel Mines Limited, 25 King street west, Toronto, giving the remarks of the president at the annual general meeting of shareholders on April 21, 1943.
Incidentally you will be glad to hear-as I was-that through indirect channels it is reported that your Norway refinery is safe so far and is being maintained.
"Indirect channels"-they have their own means of communication with countries occupied by Germany. "Being maintained"- being maintained in German-occupied territory.
It is in operation by your Norwegian staff, under German control, on the same Norwegian nickel-copper ore-production that we formerly handled on toll basis.
This is a subsidiary of the other nickel companies of Lord Melchett-Mond is the family name-who is a director of Barclays Bank Limited, Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, Industrial Finance and Investment Corporation Limited, International Nickel Company of Canada Limited, Mond Nickel Company Limited-that is a family affair- Palestine Electric Corporation Limited, Power-Gas Corporation Limited, South Staffordshire Power and Gas Company, Thames House Estate Limited. That is ' something.
Now to come to what I tried to explain the other day, that person is a director of Barclays Bank Limited, London, which controls Barclays Bank (Canada) Limited.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Would the hon. gentleman mind stating in what respect his remarks are in order? I have listened attentively to see some connection between them and the section, and being unable to find any I must raise a point of order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: An amendment has been submitted, and there is a strict rule that remarks with regard to an amendment should be kept within the limits of the motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir; but I am sorry I have not the faculty of saying at once all I have to say, and I do not think anyone has that faculty. However, I am coming to it. Yesterday I was deprived of the right of saying what.I had to say-what I thought of the modern Flavelle, remembering the bitter condemnation of the old one by the Liberal party in the past. Now I am coming to the point and it will be a relief to some and an embarrassment to others. What I was saying, sir, was that Lord Melchett is a director of Barclays Bank Limited, London; that bank
controls Barclays Bank (Canada) Limited, and the president of that institution, which is just an agency of the main London bank, of which Lord Melchett is a director, is the financial adviser of the Minister of National Defence in his own department-the only president of any bank who is the official adviser of any dominion cabinet minister. I do not know of any other minister, not even the Minister of Finance, who has the president of a bank as his adviser. The Minister of Finance is supposed to get advice from the presidents of all the banks, and he has not one president attached to him as his own adviser. I find it tough, and I think the Minister of National Defence should be very strong, he should have a triple metal armour around his breast, to be able to resist the advice of his former president. Pretty tough. I object the more to it because the same man, the Minister of National Defence, is, according to an old order in council, the perpetual acting Minister of Finance, replacing the present Minister of Finance the moment he leaves the limits of the city of Ottawa. That is another reason why I object to it. I find that the Minister of National Defence in his capacity as perpetual acting Minister of Finance has as his personal adviser the president of the bank which is just an agency of an English bank of which Melchett of nickel fame is a director, and he should never sit on that board.
This is one reason, but I have other reasons as well. I will go farther than I did at first because I have been called to order. Precision is wanted and I will give it. I object to the Minister of Munitions and Supply being on that board, and I do so for a very good reason. He has rendered shapeless accounts of his department and now he is rendering none. As a member of the House of Commons, sir, you have no doubt received, as others have done, these shapeless records of contracts awarded by the Department of Munitions and Supply. They started in the month of July, 1940, to print books. Before that time the records were mimeographed, but from July, 1940, until the fall of 1941, they were published in book form and this is the size of these books: 673 pages; 772; 533; 603; 580; 468; 459; 409 ; 596 ; 723; 828 ; 873. That is a total of 7,517 pages of information which was not worth a piece of paper on which nothing is printed-why? Because he never mentioned the quantum. He said, for instance, that there were contracts with Canada Packers for meat or dressed meat, so much money, but no one knew the quantity sold or the price paid for it, or for lumber or for anything else. The contract was mentioned, but the quantum was not mentioned, so that no one knew what the price was.
Mutual Aid Bill


Mr. McNEVIN:: The hon. member could find out.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend did, he was more patient than I was because I had not the time.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I had no trouble.


Jean-François Pouliot: I work just as hard as the hon. gentleman and I have put things on record. He could do as well as I do, and if he is not satisfied he has only to go to the county of Sam Hughes. But may I say that the next time he runs he will surely be defeated and another man elected in Victoria, Ontario. I have good information to that effect.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I challenge you to run against me.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would not leave my electors, but if the hon. gentleman wants a speech from the member for Temiscouata I am ready to go at any time, and he will be left in a one-piece bathing suit. But it seems to me that that is something to come from Victoria-Haliburton.
We have no information from the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Moreover, when I asked him a question the other day he gave a slight reply which could permit hon. members to conclude that I was not stating the facts exactly. Perhaps there was a shadow of difference in what I said, but the fact was true. He said no meat was sent to Russia. It was not sent direct; it was stopped on the way. But the minister's answer was far from being satisfactory, and therefore I find it is a very good reason to oppose his being on the board. I have nothing against the other ministers. The Minister of Finance is my friend, although I find he is often wrong. But I would have no other objection than that he is too busy to be there. And the other ministers are too busy. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski, that a parliamentary secretary should be appointed to replace the minister on that board.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is moved by Mr. Pouliot, seconded by Mr. d'Anjou:
That clause 3 shall be amended by striking out all the words from the word "minister" in the second line of the first paragraph to and including the word "justice" in the fifth line of the said paragraph and by substituting therefor the following words:	"members of
parliament duly appointed parliamentary secretaries to cabinet ministers"; also by striking out paragraph 2 and by substituting 2 for 3 in the first line of paragraph 3.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 4-Board1 may make war supplies available to the united nations.
George Hugh Castleden: I was interested in the minister's statement in reply to the question of the hon. member for York South to the effect that the reason why the government could not give the farmer a parity price for his grain was that it was impossible to determine the cost of production. Agriculture across Canada will be interested in that remark. I should like to give the minister this information, that so far as the United States are concerned, which he has quoted on several occasions in defence of this bill, the government of the United1 States own most of the grain which they expect to carry over this year, and congress refuses to sell that grain at less than a parity price, which is determined by their own agricultural board as over $1.40 a bushel. If the government of this country have no such standard of measurement of the cost of production of wheat, it is long past time they had.


Mr. ADAMSON:: 
Mr. SHAW:: What happened in South Africa? Who bought the South African securi- , ties that were repatriated?


Agar Rodney Adamson: South African securities have not been repatriated.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Most of them have.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The government securities have, but not the private securities; that was the point I made the other night.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It is not the private securities at all.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There may have been some, as there have been some in Canada, but not as a whole.


Mr. KNOWLES:: How many have been repatriated?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I do not know how many individual securities have been purchased, but it has not been the policy of either the South African government or the British government to repatriate the South African securities; it is not a matter of government policy. In this house we are dealing with government policy, not with the actions of individual companies.
Apparently hon. members to my far left wish to have those securities repatriated. I thought they had no use for securities, no use for money or other things, but if that were done we would find the control of some of our greatest assets transferred to the United States, the only market able to handle such a volume of securities. I for one am glad the government have not asked for the repatriation of those securities; I am glad to think these great enterprises are still controlled by Britain and ourselves.
In connection with this bill there is one danger I should like to mention, because I am not sure that it is being adequately emphasized in this house. At the present time we
Mutual Aid Bill

are confronted with a climacteric in the progress of the war, brought about very largely by the gun beating the armour, and when I say "armour" I use the word in a military sense, meaning armoured vehicles and tanks. In the early days of the war the armour had its way against all opposition. We have now developed our weapons to the extent that the gun has made the tank no longer the prime weapon of attack it was two years ago, except after a break-through. Therefore we have entirely to adjust our methods and procedures of production. This may and no doubt will cause quite a considerable dislocation of industry. Some industries will close; others will open elsewhere. One thing I wish to emphasize strongly is that when the war is over, we must not find ourselves the possessors of only war industries. Some thought should now be given to the * utilization of our war industry, after the war is over. I refer in detail to the aircraft industry. I see by the press that the production of Lancaster bombers at Malton has been discontinued. Possibly that is a wise procedure. I think, however, it is unfortunate, because poor, unhappy Malton has had so many misfortunes during the war that to add one more is rather hard.
I wish the government to make sure that it does not entirely do away with industries such as the aircraft industry. In Canada we probably have the ability to produce plastic aircraft, or craft of the Mosquito type. We have the wood, the raw materials, the ability to produce, and the scientists. In fact, some of the early developers of that type of construction of air frames were found in Canada. I understand some of the earliest experiments were actually done in this country.
After the war-and no one realizes more than I do that the war is not yet won-we shall be met with the desperate problem of turning our industry over to peace-time production. If we are in the manufacture of plastic aircraft, there will be less difficulty, and I would urge that the government maintain that industry as far as possible. I realize that we have to give equal shares, and that we must meet the other united nations in the joint demand. But I hope we shall not find ourselves with an industry which must be completely scrapped after the war is over.
I mention this on account of recent news. It may be conceivable that the internal strife in Europe may cause a debacle in Germany this year. That is conceivably possible. I do not by any means say it will happen, but it is possible, and I say we must take all eventualities, or as many as possible, into account. That is what I have to say respecting aircraft.

To-day we are building ships. Any ship to-day is a valuable ship. Any ship we can build is a vital ship. Any bottom which will cross the ocean is essential. But at the end of the war we shall find ourselves in the position-and here again I qualify my remarks by what I said before-of competing with shipbuilding firms like John Brown, Swan Hunter, and Harland and Wolf, any of whom can produce ships which will be far more efficient, and which will be better and cheaper carriers than anything we could produce. We shall also be up against the Scandinavian countries, whose operation of ships will be much cheaper than ours. We came across that problem at the end of the last war, and therefore I would) caution the country not to build too great hopes on a great merchant marine in Canada.
With regard to this billion dollars I say that, no matter how it is paid, no matter what machinery is put into operation to produce this fund, it is little enough that we can do to send our allies this equipment. We have been saved by others. We are a very poor example, both to them and to ourselves, if we do not gladly give them the tools they still want.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Does the minister feel that the phraseology of section 4 covers the lending of materials? It is phrased to cover almost every eventuality. But apart from the words, "transfer title to or possession", I do not see any specific power to lend.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is sufficient.


Roy Theodore Graham: It would have to be so construed. It might mean much more than that. There are some commodities in connection with which the board might wish to make lending arrangements.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The phrase to which the hon. member has referred would be sufficient to authorize lending. I refer to the words "deliver, transfer title to or possession of or otherwise make available." Then, in subsection 2 it is provided that the governor in council may require "in respect of a specific class of supplies, or any specific transfer of supplies, under subsection 1, such payment or repayment in kind or property or such reciprocal action or provision of supplies," which would authorize the return of it.


Roy Theodore Graham: That is what drew my attention to it. That section does not give return of the actual property. I suggest the minister might make it clear by amending to insert the word "lend" in section 4, and thereby clear up any possible doubt. I admit that transfer of possession might be considered as including the lending of an article.

Mutual Aid Bill


James Lorimer Ilsley: This section was carefully considered by the Department of Justice, and I do not think there is any advantage in adding the word "lend", provided one has power to deliver possession of the article, and power to require the return of it.


Roy Theodore Graham: Where does the minister find provision for return of it?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It states that the governor in council may require such payment or repayment in kind or property, or such reciprocal action as the governor in council deems appropriate.


Roy Theodore Graham: That does not cover it. Reciprocal action would be doing likewise, or giving us another ship for a ship we gave to them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Line 46 contains the words, "available to any of the united nations except upon terms and conditions approved by the governor in council." One condition may be the transfer of goods.


Roy Theodore Graham: That is governed by the remainder of the subsection.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a word in reply to what was said by the hon. member for York. West. His remarks were in two sections. First he praised the views expressed by the hon. lady member for North Battleford, and then he referred to Canadians, without mentioning names, who seemed to want an enemy victory. I challenge him to name anyone in this house who is wishing a victory by the enemy. The county which I represent has done its duty. It is a rural constituency, and about 2,500 boys have enlisted in the three branches of the armed services. That is a satisfactory result. I am receiving letters from these soldiers at all times, and I try to look after their welfare. I try to see to it that they receive proper medical care, and at times I try to obtain transfers for boys who speak only French and who may be in camps where nobody else speaks that language. I try to help their dependents. I take advantage of every opportunity to do something for these boys or their dependents. I am delighted to do this, and I am sure that all members from Quebec are doing the same.
I remember last year when I was advocating the case of the farmer another member from Toronto said that I was close to Hitler because I was taking this attitude, because I wanted the farmer to stay on the farm to produce the food needed by the army as well as by the civilian population. At that time we were ahead of selective service. Whatever may be said against any member from Quebec will not make us forget the hon. gentleman's defence of the selfish financial interests who control Falconbridge Nickel. I do not need to name the directors of this company, but I have it here in the Annual Financial Review, Canadian edition. He has no right to cast aspersions upon anyone and then defend the selfish financial interests, this small group in Toronto which has a nickel plant in Norway, now occupied territory. They speak about the sacrifices they are making, but my farmers are making much greater .sacrifices when their sons are in the army defending this country and facing the possibility of being killed by ammunition made from the nickel that comes from Norway. I would not change positions with the hon. member for York West. I am always ready to defend my people, while he is defending these selfish interests. It is the international makers of armaments, the armaments trusts, who started this war.
We are doing our duty, and yet we are misrepresented by the ho'n. member. He may have friends among the directors of this company; that is his business, but I contend that the soldier in the field who comes from Temiscouata or from any other county deserves more from the country than a defence of the interests with a factory in Norway who are glad that Hitler did not destroy it and that it is now doing quite well.


Mr. ROY:: I wish to add a few words to
what has been said by the hon. member for Temiscouata and to answer some of the accusations made by my former seatmate, the hon. member for York West. If I understood him aright, he said at the beginning of his remarks that a certain group of members in this house were refusing aid to the united nations merely to spite England. One reason why we cannot concur with many people in this country is the fact that we are always being misrepresented. We have an example of this in what has been said to-day by the hon. member for York West. So far as I am concerned, and I think I state the position of most members who have opposed this gift of one billion dollars, similar to the one made last year, I am opposed to the principle of a gift. We are not opposed to giving aid to any of these populations which may be suffering, which may even be starving. We realize that we must practise the charity which should be practised by all Christians. We are not opposed to giving aid to people, but we are opposed to the principle of a gift to a government. Other nations such as England and
Mutual Aid Bill

the United States have not made gifts to anyone, and they have the same obligations that we have.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about gifts to Russia?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: In reply to the hon. member for York-Sunbury, I would say that I believe the first man in, Quebec who pledged, in public the giving of aid to the needy of Russia by way of subscription was Cardinal Villeneuve. He advocated a clear gift of money to them. We ,are ready to practise charity when and where it is needed, but we are opposed to the principle of a gift to a government. We have never opposed, giving aid to those nations the hon. member has mentioned. Therefore I protest against the misrepresentations of hon. members.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about Russia?
Think of Filip Konowal, the holder of the Victoria Cross who is cleaning spittoons downstairs after having killed forty-two Germans with his bayonet during the last war.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, rising for
one minute on a question of privilege, on section 3, I should like to make a correction on a matter which was just called to my notice, relative to the following observation, as reported in Hansard, at page 2550, of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard):
I never like to see anyone, whether he comes from Toronto or elsewhere, cast doubt upon the loyalty of Quebec simply because some people in this house do not share the same views.
I never mentioned the word "loyalty" or "disloyalty." The remark I made, first, was that I believed that I supported rearmament in 1937, and that I was afraid that the enemy might come up the St. Lawrence by land, sea and air and bomb the citadel of Quebec. Second, the allusion I made was to the plebiscite vote and to the disunity which I thought it had caused; I suggested that it had brought about confusion and a great deal of disunity in the country, and a revival of old controversies.


Frederick Davis Shaw: There are a few observations
I should like to make relative to section 4. I have not taken the opportunity prior to this time to give expression to my feeling with respect to the general principle of the bill, namely, that I wholeheartedly approve

that principle. We in this group have, over a period of years, consistently advocated that we should at all times maintain an optimum level of production in the country and that we should lay particular stress upon maximum distribution within the country. That principle must, of course, be modified in a certain degree when we are confronted with war conditions. We readily appreciate that certain shortages inevitably arise, particularly as they concern consumer goods. That principle of optimum production plus maximum distribution does not apply only to the internal economy of this country, but more particularly in war time it is a condition which applies to the allied nations as a whole. We believe that it is the duty of Canada and Canadians, far removed as we are from the threat of invasion, and-if I may use the expression-from, actual invasion, to enhance our production not only of foodstuffs but also of war materials to the greatest possible degree, and that we should adopt as our main policy one which makes it possible- to export our surpluses, whether they be of foodstuffs or of war materials, to our allies.
The question sometimes arises in the minds of some people, is it proper to expect Canada .to stimulate its production to the highest possible degree and to give, if necessary, the surpluses to the peoples of other countries? Well, I say, if Canada is removed from invasion or the threat of invasion, we should thank God for that and we should thank Him that we have the opportunity of providing surpluses which we can give, if necessary, to those engaged wuth us in this conflict. It is not a question in my mind as to whether Canada may be doing more than some other country. We all have everything at stake in the conflict, and if we can give twice as much as another country, I say once again we ought to thank the Almighty for that privilege.
Need should be the determining factor in shaping our policy; that is, the need of another country, not that country's ability to pay. If China, which has never been very far removed from the famine line, requires our surplus commodities, we should not for one moment stop to consider whether China can pay. The same applies to Russia and to any of our allies. I am afraid that we have allowed-and I see it in section 4 of this bill-the question of the need to escape us, because in that section I notice the word "exchange". I visualize exactly that thing against which the minister stormed last week: for example, "cash on the barrelhead", as he called it. I shall come to that in a few minutes.
I think it is to the credit of the people of Canada that we have been able to achieve

Mutual Aid Bill
the things we have achieved since the outbreak of war. I know we have expanded our production of foodstuffs far beyond the imaginations of most of our people-at least, of their imaginations prior to the outbreak of war. Probably our production of war supplies and the tools of war has also expanded much beyond we believed was possible at the time war broke out. These things are definitely to our credit. On the basis of our productive capacity as realized since the outbreak of war, we have undertaken not only to support a much larger industrial population than we have ever supported before; we have undertaken to support, both with foodstuffs and the tools of war,. the largest army, navy and air force we have ever had. On top of that we have made certain definite commitments abroad. Those commitments have not only to do with the countries actually engaged in the prosecution of the war at the present time; they are also commitments and promises to the subjugated peoples of Europe, whom we have promised something better than the nazis are now giving them, after we have released them from this nazi tyranny. I have in mind, for example, Greece, where they tell us that half a million people starved last year. I have in mind a recent statement to the effect that the Greeks face extermination on account of food scarcity. We have promised those people assistance the minute we can release them; in fact, certain assistance, I understand, is going to them now through the Red Cross. We have promised them food, and we must be prepared to keep that promise. The same applies to all the other subjugated countries of Europe, because, if we cannot keep our promise to them when the war is over, tragedy will come upon the world.
I mention these facts because I believe we should be directing every energy in Canada toward the greater production of, more especially, foodstuffs. We all recognize that Germany did not collapse during the last war as a result of the military difficulties which confronted her, but she tried to devote too large a part of her energy to the actual production of military machines and so forth. Germany adopted an entirely different policy during this war. Germany taught her people over a period of years to do with less. Germany undertook the development of synthetic products to a greater degree probably .than most countries; and not only that, but she laid cleverly designed plans to subjugate rich agricultural areas in order to be guaranteed the foodstuffs essential for total war.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the hon. gentleman's support of the principle of the bill, but I suggest that his remarks are not now in order. They are not directed to a consideration of the clause under discussion.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Section 4 authorizes the Mutual Aid board to "contribute, exchange, deliver, transfer title to or possession of or otherwise make available war supplies to any of the . united nations." I am dealing with war supplies, the very things which the Mutual Aid board will be called upon to provide to our allies should this measure pass. I contend that foodstuffs will undoubtedly form a fairly large part of the commodities which will go abroad under this Mutual Aid bill. I am dealing with the provision of foodstuffs which we must provide if this bill is to have any meaning, and I submit, therefore, that I am in order.


Mr. CRERAR:: I support the Minister of Finance. Section 4 deals with the manner in which supplies may be made available and the terms and conditions under which they are made available. It does not deal with what Germany did in the last war, nor does it relate to the production of foodstuffs in Canada. It simply deals with the method by which the purpose of the legislation shall be carried out.
I submit that the remarks of the hon. member are quite wide of the terms of this section.


Robert Fair: I think we ought to be fair, as I am, once in a while. Perhaps we should support the hon. member for Red Deer, because lie has not taken up any of the time of the committee thus far. If the Minister of Mines and Resources wishes to adhere strictly to the letter of the rule, we may call some hon. members opposite to order one of these days. I submit that the hon. member for Red Deer is quite in order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If the hon. member for Red Deer has been in order in the remarks he has been making, then it is perfectly open to every member of the house to engage again in a general debate on the principle of the bill, a debate which we thought we had concluded.


Frederick Davis Shaw: That, I submit, is exactly what has been done. All I have to do is to reflect upon the speeches delivered prior to mine, and there can be no question of the latitude which I may take at this time.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I know that members of the committee realize how difficult it is to keep speakers within the confines of the section under discussion, seeing that they are so wide in their definitions. It was different in clause 3. I believe that in clause 4 we have the whole backbone of the bill, and a great deal of money is involved. There are many ramifications from this provision. However, I would
Mutual Aid Bill

ask the hon. member and those who follow him to confine themselves strictly to the clause before us. To discuss post-war problems is out of order because, as has been pointed out, we must win the war, and this bill is intended to enable us to win the war. There is no question of a post-war programme before us at the moment. It is impossible for me to rule out of order the hon. member who has the floor, but again I would ask him to confine his observations to the clause under discussion.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, we are contemplating exporting to our. allies certain foodstuffs, not those which we shall produce in the post-war era but rather those which we shall be producing from day to day during the prosecution of the war. I contend that if, under the Mutual Aid bill, we have any idea whatever of exporting foodstuffs to our allies as part of the billion dollar gift, then we had better cast an eye toward the sources of such foodstuffs. I view the present situation with absolute alarm, the Minister of Agriculture notwithstanding. The only food commodity of which we have a surplus at the present time is wheat. The Minister of Agriculture stated recently that in tons the production of foodstuffs in Canada has increased materially, but that is definitely not true of a great line of foodstuffs that are absolutely essential to the prosecution of the war, not only' as regards our own needs, but as regards the needs of our allies. Since 1940, it is said, we have taken about 400,000 workers out of agriculture, and the production of foodstuffs has fallen off. For example, in 1942 we produced far less in the way of beef cattle than in 1941. Hon. members will have ample opportunity to review my figures. The same is true of calves, so far as I have been able to ascertain.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member has not the figures.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The same is true of hogs,
sheep and lambs. I am not speaking of tons or pounds; I am speaking of numbers.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not true of anything.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I trust, Mr. Chairman, you will give hon. gentlemen ample opportunity to correct me if I am wrong.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether your ruling covered this statistical review of agricultural production, but I certainly submit that it is not in order under this section.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I fully agree with the
minister, but the hon. member for York West this afternoon made a speech that had nothing
[The Chairman.]
to do with the bill before us; it was no more relevant than the speech being made now by the member for Red Deer, and it was allowed. In fact, two-thirds of what has been said on this bill has had no relation to it at all. If we are to draw the line at this speech, it could be drawn elsewhere. We have to be fair with the rules, or they will not work.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member is to be permitted to answer a speech I made in a previous debate on a question with regard to the production of agricultural commodities, I ought to be permitted to make a speech again on the same subject. If he is not out of order in connection with this particular bill, he is out of order from the point of view o'f the rule with regard to discussing something that has been said in a previous debate.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I did not quote from any
speech which the Minister of Agriculture made. Under the rules any member may refer to a previous speech, provided he does not quote from it. Is that not correct?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have given the same ruling several times, and there is only one principle that can guide me, namely, that we must stay within the orbit of the clause under discussion. It is the duty of hon. members to respect that rule. Everyone knows I have no power, physically or otherwise, to compel any member to behave himself. Once more I appeal to the hon. member and to others to confine themselves to the clause before the committee. I am sure hon. members will realize their own responsibility in a matter of this kind.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancoiiver Centre):: It is distasteful to anyone to be rising on points of order. But I agree entirely with the hon. member for Vancouver East; I submit that ninety per cent of the debate to-day has been out of order. I appeal to you, sir, to enforce the provisions of standing order 58, section 2.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We shall never get
through unless the rules are enforced.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to clear up a point. At page 95 of Beauchesne, under standing order 41, citation 293 reads:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this standing order, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(a) refer to any debate of the same session on any question not then under discussion.


Frederick Davis Shaw: It might well be argued that I am referring to statements made by the Minister of Agriculture when he was in western Canada recently. Anyway I think

Mutual Aid Bill
we can take care of the situation. I will refrain from transgressing the rules of the house if it is believed that that is what I have been doing. But I still have one or two matters that I should like to mention which I am satisfied are within the rules.
Let me refer to section 4 of this bill wherein it is stated that this Mutual Aid board shall be authorized to deliver certain goods to the allied nations, transfer title to such goods, contribute them or make them available; and then we come to the word "exchange." My conception of the Mutual Aid bill is that we were preparing to make a gift to our allies; the term has been used by many hon. members. Yet throughout, the discussion thus far we have heard about demanding certain goods in return, trading some of our goods given under this appropriation for certain goods which the countries that receive our goods may be able to send back. We also discussed the possible necessity of having much of our own machinery returned, following the cessation of hostilities, if it is not worn out. I do not believe I can be accused of being in a much different position from that of others when I say I have become confused. Speaking on the resolution-I trust I am in order in referring to what the minister said when we were dealing with the resolution that preceded this bill-the minister was referring to a contention of the hon. member for Acadia that we should take steps toward repatriating Canadian securities held in England. I know that is not going to be done, and I do not intend to pursue that point farther, but the minister at that time lashed out with a degree of enthusiasm bordering almost on frenzy when he said, as reported at page 2456 of Hansard:
I say very solemnly that with the United States pursuing the policy it is, and with Great Britain pursuing the policy it is, for us to revert to a cash-on-the-barrel-head policy would be unthinkable; it would be indefensible; it *would be intolerable.
I lay emphasis on those three words, "unthinkable", "indefensible" and "intolerable". Maybe I do not know what the minister means when he uses the term "cash on the barrel-head". I take it he means either that they will demand immediate payment or get the assurance that similar goods will be returned at a later date, or even that those goods which do not wear out, that formerly helonged to us, will be returned. Does the minister include that in his definition of "cash on the barrel-head"? If not, I do not know what he means.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is neither cash nor on the barrel-head.


Frederick Davis Shaw: When we use the term "cash" with respect to imports and exports I think the minister is perfectly clear what that means. Let us not convey the impression that when we send goods to England, England immediately ships back a 'barrelful of money or anything of that kind. We understand that trade is carried on to a large extent through the exchange of goods. Therefore I contend that when we export commodities to England and accept commodities in return, that certainly is not a gift; and it does come within any reasonable definition of cash on the barrel-head. When the minister writes his dictionary he may put a different meaning on that expression. In order to keep the minister perfectly straight as far as his definitions are concerned, I am going to move that the word "exchange" be deleted. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River:
That paragraph 1 of section 4 be amended by striking out the word "exchange" in line three of said paragraph.
I do so in order to eliminate some of the confusion which has apparently arisen, so that in the debate that follows we may have a clear-cut picture as to what part of the billion dollars will be a gift and what part we are to accept payment for. I believed from the beginning that it was to be a gift of goods to our allies; I sincerely trust that I am not wrong in that understanding.


Robert Fair: As seconder of this amendment I do not propose to say much. I endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer. Like the rest of the members of this group who have spoken, I am in favour of this gift, but I cannot say that I am in favour of the means by which those commodities are to be procured. I refer now to the commodities which we expect will be sent across at less than cost of production to the producers. I am thinking particularly of farm products and the statement of the Minister of Finance that higher prices were not paid for some farm products because they were not able to figure out the cost of production. I remember that on another occasion the Minister of Agriculture said that we were taking every dollar out of the treasury that it was possible to pay for agricultural products. I remember when the delegation of about four hundred representatives of agricultural western Canada came here a little over a year ago, they left it to the discretion of the government to figure out parity prices for those products in which they were interested. To-night I am sure that if some system, is used in figuring the cost
Mutual Aid Bill

of production of grain and other things selling below cost to-day, we are quite content to accept that price so arrived at by the experts of the government.
Amendment (Mr. Shaw) negatived.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the
Minister of Finance outline something of the mechanics that will be set up under clause 4? It states that the purpose of the board is to make war supplies available to the united nations. I understand that the technique will be somewhat different under this bill from what it was last year when the entire amount was going to Great Britain.
A number of questions arise in my mind. The first is, on what basis will this sum be allocated as between different united nations? Will it be determined by the board, or will it be determined in consultation with the united nations board at Washington? Will the grand strategy of the united nations be the determining factor rather than this board?
The second question I have in mind is this. In the spending of this thousand million dollars, how will it be allocated as between different kinds of goods? For instance, will an amount be set for these governments; will they come in and place their orders for commodities, with the understanding that the . Canadian government will simply meet the financial obligations which they have incurred up to a certain amount, or will this board determine what goods they are prepared to turn over and actually purchase the goods and turn them over? Then, arising out of that question, if this procedure is followed, how will these arrangements be brought about? For instance, will the British or Chinese or Russian government place orders with factories and have that obligation met by this board, or will the Canadian government place the order, buy the goods and turn them over? In the case of agricultural products, for instance, will these products be bought by the Canadian government, or will the government of the other nation concerned make the deal, buy the commodity and then have this board simply foot the bill up to an amount which has been agreed upon? I wonder if the minister could just outline something of the technique that has been or will be followed.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No technique at all has been followed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What was done
last year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Last year it was very
simple. Under that legislation there was a

gift of a billion dollars to the United Kingdom; that money was placed to their credit in the Bank of Canada and they spent it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As they
wished?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, just as they would their own money. That was not all they spent, by any means; during the course of the twelve months they spent nearly twice as much as that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There was no attempt to allocate that thousand million; it was simply placed to their credit?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right. Of course we had to agree to provide certain munitions, certain farm products and certain manufactured products of a civilian nature. It was a matter of what we produced, what we could dispose of, and what they needed for their purposes. There was no difficulty about that arrangement at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have any gifts been made for these purposes so far this year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Nothing has been done under this?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, nothing has been done under this. Up to date we have been able to finance by other methods: with the money the United Kingdom obtained as the purchase price of the plants, and in the other ways I have mentioned in the various statements I have made in the house. This has made it unnecessary for any transactions to take place under this bill; as a matter of fact they could not take place under this bill.
With regard to the first question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn, as to how the supplies will be allocated among the various united nations who receive them, the reply is that they will be allocated by this board. The question then arises as to whether the programme of this board will conflict in any way with the munitions assignment boards which are sitting in Washington and London. In order to prevent it from conflicting it will be necessary to keep in very close touch with those boards and see that there is a harmonious programme, but I will not say it will be a programme determined by the munitions assignment boards, because this board will have the determining voice as to how this allocation is made. It will have to be a rational allocation, having in mind the disposition of goods that is being made by the assignment boards..

Mutual Aid Bill
The second question was as to how the billion dollars will be allocated as between the various commodities described in or covered by this bill. That will have to be worked out, and I cannot say in advance what will be done in that connection. Some commodities produced in the Dominion of Canada will be sold in the ordinary course, I suppose, through private transactions. They would not come under this bill at all. I presume some commodities will be sold by governmental agencies, because there will have to be quite a good deal of selling. If our trade keeps up to its accustomed level, we shall export to the united nations much more than a billion dollars worth of goods. Part of those goods will, of course, be paid for by these nations from the proceeds of their exports to us, the services they render to us, and so on. So that there will be a certain volume of transactions taking place other than under the provisions of this legislation. Whether those transactions or sales will have to be based upon or related to the contributions made under this measure is a matter that will have to be worked out. I think the whole picture will have to be kept before the Mutual Aid board, but farther than that I do not think I can map out anything definitely. One cannot say what nations will pay and what nations will not pay; that any nation will be expected to pay in the same proportion as any other nation, because something will depend upon the volume of their dollar resources. Something will depend upon their capacity to do something for us in some way or another, which they may very reasonably be expected to do. They may have some product of which we are in need and which they might be very willing to let us have, or there might be some service they could render for us. That is about the best picture I can present at the moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I may again refer to the question of agricultural products, what was done last year with Great Britain, for instance, and what will be done this year with the other united nations? Will these agricultural products in the main be purchased by the Canadian government and turned over under this legislation, or will they be obtained through the ordinary private channels, with this board simply footing the bill up to a specified amount?


James Lorimer Ilsley: In the past, our agricultural products, in the main, have been sold by agencies of the dominion government such as the bacon board, the wheat board and so on. It is my expectation that a certain amount of that will continue. Just how much will go
through these agencies and how much through this board will depend upon a number of factors which I cannot appraise at the moment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has no consideration been given by the government as to what will, be done, for instance, for China, which is so hard pressed at the moment for certain supplies? Has no approach been made by the Chinese government to this government for assistance? If there has, what has been the result of those consultations, and have we made any tentative commitments?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot answer that question. Certainly this board has done nothing, but I read in the press that Mr. Soong was here and interviewed the Minister of Munitions and Supply and perhaps some other members of the government. I did not see him, and I do not know whether any outline of China's requirements was given at that time, so that I am in no position to report to the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It seems to me quite pertinent, and I think we should know if there have been any commitments.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not see just how much the committee could be told-and I do not say that out of disrespect to the committee- in connection with requests for weapons or munitions.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask this, arising out of the last question and the answer just given: Do I understand that in respect of the negotiations between the Chinese government and this one, that such negotiations would be made directly between the two governments, or between the Chinese government, or its representatives, and the Mutual Aid board?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Correct.


Gordon Graydon: Or would that come directly through the general assignments board? I am wondering whether the initial approach with respect to negotiations of this kind would come directly to the Mutual Aid board, or to the general assignments board, to which the minister referred a moment ago. Or does the assignments board, only after an approach has been made to the Mutual Aid board, then decide upon the urgency in a general way, having in mind nil the points involved? '


James Lorimer Ilsley: The approach would be made to the Mutual Aid board. The assignments board does not make any disposition of the goods disposed of by the Mutual Aid board.


Gordon Graydon: The Chinese government does make its representations to the Mutual Aid board, then?
Mutual Aid Bill


James Lorimer Ilsley: That would be the proper way.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask a question of the minister in respect of agricultural products, and the method whereby allocation will be made harmoniously among the nations requiring assistance. I was rather surprised the other day, upon reading the speech of the secretary of agriculture in the United States, to find just how great a place is occupied by agricultural products under the lend-lease arrangements. Under the system of lend-lease in effect in the United States a great quantity of agricultural products has been delivered to Great Britain. But the amazing part of the situation is that in contra-lend-lease Great Britain has given the United States a great deal of agricultural products.
For the purpose of showing the nature of the contribution made by Great Britain, let me point out that within the last year Britain has supplied United States citizens in Great Britain with 101,000,000 pounds of flour, over
41,000,000 pounds of potatoes, 50,000,000 pounds of butter, and so on. Agricultural products have played a large part in lend-lease arrangements. Yet there is a combined production board in Washington, and a combined munitions distribution board, on which Canada has representatives. But on the combined food board we are not- represented. I suggest to the minister that Canada should be represented, now that she is embarking upon a system of lend-lease and Mutual Aid which will necessarily come in conflict with the distribution being made by the United States. In order properly to equalize and determine the proper shares and proper needs of the various united nations, we should have a place upon the combined food allocaton board in Washington.
When I asked the minister about that yesterday he answered, as reported at page 2616 of Hansard:
The matter of representation on boards is one of high policy concerning which I should not like to make any statement.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Correct.


John George Diefenbaker: Then he went on to point out the difficulties. I cannot understand how a board consisting of ministers of the crown in Canada can administer fairly and properly, according to the needs of the nations requiring assistance, the distribution of farm products and the like, unless we have membership upon that board. The position of affairs under this measure will be that the United States of America and the other united nations will make distribution, according to the needs of nations, as determined by the joint board; and Canada will operate independently of a central, unified control.
I suggest to the minister that for Canada to have a place upon the combined food allocation board in Washington is the only way in which the measure can be administered, provided it is intended to allocate a fair and proper proportion of this billion dollars to the distribution of agricultural products.
I am not going to discuss the other phase of the matter which I dealt with the other day, namely, that having to do with trade agreements which might be entered into under the provisions of this section. I have dealt with that matter at length, and I shall not deal with it again, more than to point out that the minister admitted to-day that under section 4 it would be possible for the Mutual Aid board of Canada to ask, in return for the delivery, contribution, or making available of war supplies to any of the united nations, for the execution of a trade agreement with that united nation. When I asked him to give an assurance that that would not be done, the answer was that he could not give such assurance.
That being so, and wishing in no way to interfere with the right of Mutual Aid board to do what is necessary in order to assure a proper and fair distribution of the assistance which Canada will give under this measure, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle:
That section 4 be amended by adding to subsection 2 the following words:
"Provided, however, that any reciprocal trade or tariff agreement made in pursuance of this subsection to be binding upon Canada must be given the approval of parliament within six months after the signing of such agreement".
I place the amendment before the committee, not with a view to controlling the actions and the discretion of the Mutual Aid board now being set up, but with a view to ensuring that parliament and the representatives of the people shall have an opportunity, within a period of six months, of ascertaining what trade arrangements have been entered into. Otherwise the position of affairs is this, that having regard to the provisions of section 8 of the bill, the government or the Mutual Aid board might enter into a trade agreement which would not become known to parliament or the people until after the termination of the war.
I ask thp minister whether, having regard to his frank assurance that there is no suggestion or intention on the part of the Mutual Aid board or the government to exact or ask for trade agreements in return for assistance in the cause of international defence among the united nations, this amendment might be accepted by the government.

Mutual Aid Bill


James Lorimer Ilsley: I listened attentively to my hon. friend. It is so hard to make oneself understood in this house. I am not referring to the acoustics, but rather to the language, or the manner in which language is accepted. I never said it would be possible under this legislation to make a reciprocal tfade or tariff agreement with another country; and neither would it be. I said that in return for the supplying of munitions or the other goods and materials and services which may be furnished under this, it would be within the power of the government of Canada to stipulate for a concession.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Exact a
concession.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not say "exact."


Richard Burpee Hanson: I used
that term.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That was an addition of the hon. member for York-Sunbury. I must say that I am chasing hon. members, and have been all day, trying to get them to quote me correctly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
you can sidestep as quickly as anybody.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not sidestepping one
thing. I have been congratulated upon my frankness several times bsr the hon. member for Lake Centre, and I think justly so.


John George Diefenbaker: You should not be
so modest.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have said, or I have admitted, if that is the correct word to use, that under the concluding words of this section, which are-
. . . the governor in council may require, in respect of specific classes of supplies or any specific transfer of supplies under subsection one of this section, such payment or repayment in kind or property or such reciprocal action or provision of supplies or such other direct or indirect benefit as the governor in council deems appropriate.
-we may ask for some concession in respect of customs duties or something of that kind. But that is not a reciprocal trade agreement. Whatever power we may have under the War Measures Act or under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, we have no power under this legislation to touch the tariffs of Canada. Unless we have such power to touch the tariffs, we cannot make a reciprocal trade agreement. I do not think I ought to consent to an amendment which will be used for the purpose of placing upon this section an interpretation which it was never intended to bear. This is not a section to authorize the government to
enter into a reciprocity agreement, a reciprocal trade or tariff' agreement, because no power is conferred on us to do anything with the tariffs of Canada. It is a misconstruction of my language; it is a misquotation of my language to say that I admitted this afternoon or at any time that we should stipulate the entering into of a reciprocal trade or tariff agreement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You can
stipulate that the other party to the contract must make a tariff concession to this country.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I admitted that. But if we
did that, why should we bring it here with the idea of giving parliament a chance to reject the concession? That is what it would mean. What my hon. friend is asking for is that power be given to this house to reject the concession. I have been trying for days to find out what the hon. gentleman is afraid of. I presume he is afraid that we shall lower the tariffs of Canada unduly.


John George Diefenbaker: I want parliament
to know what the government is doing.


James Lorimer Ilsley: All the orders in council will be tabled, and a report is to be made to parliament. Suppose the hon. gentleman means something different? Suppose he wants parliament to have the power to reject the concession which is the consideration for a transfer. Would that undo the transfer of the materials and goods? In other words, do we get our guns back? The hon. gentleman does not mean that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What he means is that this executive should not take power which would preempt the province of parliament. That is what you are attempting to do by section 4; you are usurping the powers of parliament. This would not be the first time and I do not suppose it will be the last time that this government has undertaken to do that. There never was a government in the history of the Dominion of Canada which has so flouted parliament as this one has done under the guise of the war effort.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not remember who introduced the War Measures Act, but certainly that government never could have got it through if the majority had been composed of gentlemen who hold the views of the hon. *member for York-Sunbury.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If you will review what was done in the last war under the War Measures Act, and especially what that government did in relation to man-power, you will see that they came to parliament for ratification of every single thing that was

Mutual Aid Bill

done. They did not do anything behind the backs of the people of this country. They came to parliament; they submitted their case to parliament, and they stood or fell by what parliament said. There were no back-door methods.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My information is that they did not even submit estimates to parliament; that their estimates consisted entirely of war appropriation estimates.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There is an amendment before the committee, and a point of order has been raised by the Minister of Finance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He has not raised a point of order.
Amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) negatived.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A few minutes ago I was trying to get some information from the minister with regard to the procedure which would be followed by the board in carrying out its functions under section 4. There are just two points I wish to make. I appreciate that we cannot be told the allocation of the materials, what materials will be given to any particular nation, but it seems to me that it should be possible to outline more clearly the procedure that will be followed and the underlying factors that will determine the decisions which will be made by this board. The preamble states that these materials are to be made available according to strategic needs and in such manner as will contribute most effectively to the winning of the war. I am wondering just how these strategic needs will be made known. Will China and Russia or other members of the united nations make representations to Canada through the external affairs department or direct to the board, or will they be made through the assignment board?
What about foodstuffs? We have no representatives on the food board in Washington, and I should like to know how the needs of these countries with reference to foodstuffs will be .made known to this board. I am a little afraid that there may not be a proper liaison between this committee, and the general strategy of the united nations. Unless this board knows the general strategy of the united nations and is in contact with those who are guiding the high policy of the united nations, it will not be in a position to make allocations in the most effective manner. I can see -where there would be some liaison in the matter of munitions, because the minister who is to be the chairman of this board is also a member of the priorities board in Washington.

But that is not true of foodstuffs, nor is it true of the munitions board of Great Britain, although the chairman of that board is represented here and there is some liaison.
The other matter I have in mind is in connection with agricultural products. I gathered from what'the minister said that some foodstuffs will be bought by government agencies and disposed of to the united nations, while other foodstuffs will be bought by the united nations through their own representatives or purchased through the usual channels of trade. Even though we are actually giving them these materials, the fact remains that the more buyers there are on the market the greater will be the tendency to keep down prices where prices are not pegged. It seems to me that this is a fairly good argument for the position we have taken all along, that we ought to have commodity boards set up by the government, taking delivery of these commodities at a price to be determined by the government in consultation with the organized producers, and then these commodity boards either selling or making available through this legislation these commodities to the united nations. It would prevent a number of buyers from coming in, through different government agencies and other channels, competing on the market and naturally affecting the price. There would be more satisfactory handling if these commodities were dealt with through a commodity board.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I thought a multiplicity of buyers drove prices up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes; if you have them bidding, it has the effect of driving prices up. But the fact remains that if you have these different channels through which these goods are being disposed of, you have a variety of prices being offered. You might have government agencies; you have, for example, in wheat at this very time. You have the wheat board offering one price; you have buyers coming on the market and offering another price. You have, for instance, the Americans with a much higher price for cereal grains, with the result that we have had to take steps, either to prevent the export of these cereal grains, or to require would-be sellers to have permits to export them. The farmer gets one price if he sells to the wheat board, another price when he is selling on the open Winnipeg market, and another price if it is possible for him to get his commodities across the line. It seems to me that it would make a much more satisfactory situation if all of these goods were delivered to a commodity board at a fixed price rather than have

Mutual Aid Bill
two or three price levels as is the situation with regard to cereal grains at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we ought to have some more definite information from the government a-s to what they propose to do with this, that and the other commodity. Here we are giving a cheque to the government for a billion dollars, but we are not being told with any degree of concreteness or definiteness what is to be done with that billion dollars, save and except that they are to operate it under certain proposals set out in this bill. I do not think that is quite good enough. If this were in relation to anything except war, does any hon. member suppose that this house would vote a billion dollars with as little information as we have received to-night as to what is to be done with that sum? It would be fantastic to ask for it, and no government would think of asking for it. Now there is a war on, and the government proposes to take out of our surplus goods to the value of a billion dollars and give them away. I am all for this proposal, because I think it will help to win the war, but we ought to be told what they propose to do under it.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Would the hon. member tell us what the allies will need? We shall then be able to say what we may give.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why ask me a silly question like that? I can quite understand that the Minister of Fisheries would know nothing about it; he has not been in the government long enough, and he has not yet an assistant secretary to help him.


Ernest Bertrand: But I have heard the hon. gentleman for quite a long time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now I have the floor, and what I am now proposing is in no sense foolish. The government of this country has been handling this war proposition for three and a half years, and it ought to know what the allies are short of. I venture to say it knows what China wants.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It varies from time to time.


Ernest Bertrand: We shall have to wait for the allies to tell us what they need.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course the hon. gentleman does not know anything about it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is cheap stuff.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I repeat, that is cheap stuff.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I ask the hon. member to withdraw it. I think both the interjection of the Minister of Fisheries and the interjection of the Minister of Pensions and National Health are cheap interjections. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. gentleman has been responsible for too many cheap interjections in the last three days. He has interrupted more than all the other members of the house put together.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What I want the minister to do is to give as much detail as possible as to what the government propose to do with the billion dollars.
I want hon. members who object to the principle of the gift to know that, in all these international operations, the traffic is not all one way. I think it will be a matter of very great surprise to hon. members to know what Britain has done for the United States under lease-lend. I hold in my hand an article taken from the Atlantic Monthly of a recent issue, and it is astonishing what Britain has done for the United States under lease-lend. This is what it says-and it is taken from reports to the lend-lease administration:
Lend-lease aid for our forces in the British isles actually begins before the troops leave American ports; for thousands of our men, and mountains of supplies, bound for Britain are carried in British ships convoyed by the British navy. In many parts of the world, United States warships and merchant ships in British ports are provided with repairs, fuel, services, and supplies without payment by us.
In Britain itself all accommodations and facilities for our troops are furnished without dollar payment on our part. So great is the task of housing our men that two-thirds of all the British army and civilian labour force available for military construction has been engaged in building barracks, airfields, hospitals, supply depots, roads, and other facilities for us.
That is, for the United States.
The cost to Britain is .$240,000 a week in wages for civilian workers in the direct employ of our forces. In addition, many existing facilities have been turned over to us, -while the maintenance costs of our airfields alone-
That is, in Britain.
-run into tens of millions of dollars and these are paid by Britain.
I want my hon. friends who are opposed to the principle of the operation of this bill to listen to these words, which are based on facts that have been adduced in the United States by United States authorities:
She estimates that the total cost to the British treasury of new construction for United States forces in Britain is in excess of half a
72537-168J
Mutual Aid Bill

billion dollars. The British government also pays the transportation cost of moving American soldiers within the British isles.
And listen to this:
British-made arms requested by our forces are supplied without cost as mutual aid. In addition to several hundred Spitfire planes and many field guns and howitzers, Britain has provided us with 1,450,000 square yards of portable airfield runways and is furnishing several million more. We have received such supplies as 15,000 bombs ranging from 250-pound incendiaries to 2,000-pound block-busters
And so on all down the line.
Cannot the minister tell us-if he cannot, I am prepared to accept his word and not prolong the discussion-what it is proposed we shall give under this measure; because I do think that when we are giving the government the right to fill out a cheque for a billion dollars we ought to have more than the generalizations we have had to-day, yesterday and the day before.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot say what will be required by any particular nation for the purpose of carrying on the war. I brought into the house a fairly full account of what we supplied during the calendar year 1942.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is, out of the billion dollars?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Out of the billion dollars.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who got. the furs?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am wondering about that kind of thing.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know, but they were sold privately. They were an ordinary export.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, they are not part of the billion dollars?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have to explain time after time that you cannot attribute any particular export to the billion dollars.
With regard to what will take place under this bill, perhaps I did not answer the hon. member for Weyburn very fully. This is what is contemplated. Kepresentatives of the countries that require any particular product of the dominion will make their needs known to this board, just as they have done in the past, to the Department of Munitions or the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Fisheries or some other department, as the case may be, and the board will check up on those requirements to find out what they can about the general situation. That is where contact with the munitions assignment board at Washington will be especially valuable.

They will ascertain what the Canadian dollar resources will be, through the treasuries or through the agencies here that have knowledge of that kind, and they will make up their mind as to what shall be done in the general interest. As regards strategic considerations, we must remember that we have interests of our own, services in Canada, to keep in mind, and the experts of these departments will have something to say about the amount of equipment that should be sent abroad and the amount that should be retained at home. These are matters that have to be taken into consideration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As yet no survey has been made, and therefore the minister can make no report. Is that not about the situation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: You cannot make a survey covering the next twelve months with regard to military requirements. As the Minister of Munitions and Supply said to-day, you go into a certain line and then the situation changes. The war changes from a defensive to an offensive war. The initial equipment is all supplied; then a different kind of equipment is required, and that situation is changing from time to time. Moreover, it is changing not only in this country but in every country, and the idea that we can come forward here and for twelve months or until the end of the year say that we shall make and supply so many of this gun, so many of that plane, so many ships of the other kind and so on is to ask us to do something that is absolutely impossible. The whole thing is in a state of flux all the time. The war is. This talk about over-all plans, plans coordinated among all the nations covering a long period ahead, must all be taken with that qualification. There is a tremendous amount of acting in accordance with changing circumstances in a war. That is what makes it so hard to estimate, and that is the reason why we have to. have these loose, vague estimates with which we come into the house under our War Appropriation Act. We cannot do better than that and should not be expected to.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under the War Appropriation Act the government do tell us how they propose to allocate these things. You could not carry on a private business in this way. A manufacturer would have to know six, nine, ten months or even a year in advance, if he had to carry on a big business like this, what he proposed to do. It occurs to me, therefore, that the government is asking for this for some reason which it has not yet disclosed. Did I put my finger on

Mutual Aid Bill
the situation this afternoon when I indicated that in my view this proposal was being put forward at this time in this form in order to help the government out of what may be a very serious position with respect to employment in the next few months?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is incorrect; it was never thought of.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then you had better think about it.


Angus MacInnis: It seems strange to me that a measure on which the members of the house are almost unanimous should take a week to get through-and it is not through yet. The amazing feature of it is that the passage of the bill is being retarded as much by those who are in favour of it as by those who are opposed to it. I am not sure, however, that the fault is all on one side. I agree with the position which the minister has now taken, that it is impossible for him to tell the committee how much of any kind1 of war material or supplies, foodstuffs or anything else, will be given to the united nations under this bill. That is absolutely impossible, and anyone who asks for it is asking for the impossible.
I wish, however, to call the minister's attention to section 6 of the bill, which we have not yet reached. It provides that the governor in council may prescribe terms and conditions under which the supplies may be made available to the united nations, and the procedure for carrying that out. If these terms can be worked out after the bill becomes law, they could be worked out before the bill becomes law, and those terms could have been put before the committee now. If that had been done, I am sure it would have done much to satisfy members as to how the legislation will operate. However, since that has not been done, I do not think there is anything to be gained by a continual discussion across the floor of the house. Evidently the minister cannot give the information that has been asked for, but he should be able to give the procedure under which the measure will operate, and he should be able to give it in fairly complete detail. That not being available, however, I suggest to hon. members that they allow the bill to go through. For a gift, there is an awful lot of discussion about this matter. If I ever received a gift that was given as reluctantly as this gift is, judging by the discussion, my need would be very great; otherwise I would tell the giver to keep it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-$1,000,000,000 may be paid out of the C.R.F.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has not told us why a billion dollars was the objective. Why have any sum; why not half a billion or two billions? Why a billion dollars? Was it on account of the amount of last year's contribution? What was the determining factor with respect to the quantum?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We felt that the government expenditure this year could not be more than $5,500,000,000 and that unless there was to be a substantial increase in prices, which would disturb the picture completely on the present price levels, that was about the maximum that could be considered. That is the highest amount that the government can spend, having in mind the productive capacity of the country and other obligations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is all you thought you ought to take from the people?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. It is a large sum.
eleven times as much as we normally spent before the war. Our own requirements are about $4,500,000,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A little
more than that.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is $3,890,000,000 for war appropriation and $610,000,000 for nonwar appropriation. That is $4,500,000,000, and this is the other billion. We think that pretty well gauges the capacity of the country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So that it was measured not by the necessity of the country but by what the country could afford to pay in its production. If you tell that to my hon. friend the member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), he will tell you that that which is physically possible is financially possible.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right. This is the
measure of what is physically possible.


Mr. STIRLING:: Has the minister any
idea of the proportion any sums paid for war supplies for which payment should be made in cash by any united nations will bear to the billion dollars? Has he any conception of what sums of money are likely to come into this fund in the form of cash, keeping it a revolving fund?


James Lorimer Ilsley: What we get in cash does not come into this fund. This is in addition to what we get in cash.
Mutual Aid Bill


Grote Stirling: The government anticipates certain sums coming in, which will turn it into a revolving fund?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No cash will come into
this fund. Last year we were dealing largely with Great Britain. I cannot give the figures for the full year; it was $18,000,000 or $19,000,000 that Great Britain paid us. We supplied the balance by a credit at the Bank of Canada, the billion dollar gift, so-called, The other came as a result of their exports and services to us. There will be more like that this year, but it will be in addition to the billion dollars.


Mr. GILLIS:: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: The expenses of administration will be charged to the billion dollars. 1 was not clear on that myself, but apparently there is power to do that, because section 5 is in these words:
There may be paid out of consolidated revenue fund, for the purposes of this act, a sum or sums not exceeding one thousand million dollars. . . .
And one of the purposes of the act is the appointment of such officers, clerks and employees as are necessary for the conduct of the board's business.
But that staff will not amount to much. It will be very few. The work under this will be done, as was the case under the billion dollar gift, by the various departments concerned.
The other question, as to reporting to parliament, is covered by section 8. Perhaps we can discuss that when we come to that section.
[Mr. Ilsley.l


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: The minister failed to answer the question the hon. member for Cape Breton South asked in regard to the precautions this government is taking to see that goods that it gives to other countries, China, for example, do not get into the hands of private interests who can sell such goods at inflated prices.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The governor in council may fix the terms and conditions on which the goods are made available.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would the goods be turned over to the governments of the other countries, or to individual business concerns?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Governments.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Regulations.
Mr. JACKMAN:: Under paragraph (a) of section 6, "prescribing the terms and conditions under which war supplies may be made available", we heard an example yesterday of the case of merchant ships which might be turned over to the use of one of the allied nations and which, if still in existence after the war, wculd be returned to us. I note in the preamble, however, that one of the purposes of this bill is that post-war commerce shall not be burdened or conditions which would lead to the imposition of trade restrictions be applied. Is it likely to be the intention of the administration in carrying out this legislation that in the terms and conditions we shall require repayment for any of these goods or services after the war, or will there be other conditions which will become operative after the war which will be made contingent upon our delivering any goods or services to these nations?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It might require return of goods, but certainly not payment in cash. This is not a sale; we would not need an act for that.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: There might be terms which would become operative after the war which might not be equal to those that we might get by a sale. If the article is an expendable, food or munitions or something of that kind, then there would be no payment whatsoever or any condition or consideration.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There might be some condition or consideration; I cannot say.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Even though the goods are not in existence after the war?	[DOT]

Mutual Aid Bill


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, there might be. If I make a definite statement on such a matter I may be going entirely too far. Conditions and terms may be of very many kinds, such as affording facilities for transportation or some other facility to this country for some purpose connected with the war. I have not anything particular in mind, but it leaves us free to impose terms and conditions if we see fit. But payment in cash is not one. We would not need an act to authorize us to sell goods for cash or on credit.


Frederick Davis Shaw: What is the significance of paragraph (c) "prescribing rules to determine the Value of war supplies"?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That paragraph was put in so that there would be no difficulty about determining the amount to be charged against the billion dollars in the case, for example, of a product made by a crown company. A value wculd have to be set upon that article. If a person could put nothing against it, it could go on and on to cover an indefinite number of articles. This is authority to contribute only a billion dollars'- worth of goods, so that there must be some authority to put a value on the goods.


Mr. HAZEN:: Will the regulations to be made under this section be available to members of the house?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not necessarily. There may be reasons why some terms and regulations cannot be made public. These are not necessarily general regulations. They are regulations that may apply to a particular country, concerning the terms on which goods are supplied to that country; they may be secret and, in some instances will be.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister indicated that perhaps one of the terms or conditions might be the return of unused or undamaged material.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have seen press reports to the effect that in the United States arrangements have been entered into with certain manufacturers providing that such things as tractors and se on made for war purposes cannot be resold or used for agricultural purposes after the war is over, and there are disquieting rumours abroad in various parts of this country to the effect that this may be true here also. Could the minister give us any assurance that this is not the Case in Canada?


James Lorimer Ilsley: What does the hon. gentleman say is the situation in the United States?


Joseph William Noseworthy: That agreements
have been entered into with manufacturers of war implements that, when the war is over, these implements will not be sold for agricultural or any other civil purposes, to displace such machinery as may be manufactured definitely for civil use.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I never heard of any such agreement here. The only minister who could give any assurance on that would be the Minister of Munitions and Supply, but I never heard of any such thing.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I am particularly interested in paragraph (c), which gives the governor in council power to determine the value of war supplies. I figure that agricultural products are war supplies. Apparently under this clause the board will have the power to determine the value of the agricultural products that we shall be marketing under this act. Speaking earlier to-day, in reply to a question by the hon. member for York South, the minister stated that it was absolutely impossible to determine the cost of agricultural products.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister repeats that now. In connection with other war products such as guns, ammunition and so on, it is the custom of the government to send its accountants into the factories in order to fix the cost of producing these articles. All factories are not necessarily the same, but they take what they consider a fair price. In some instances the government have factories of their own producing these articles, and they take the cost of the articles produced in their own factories as the fair cost. With regard to agricultural products, we have experimental farms right across this country being operated by the government. They have accounting systems which determine exactly the cost of production of every kind of agricultural product. It would be no more difficult for the government to determine the cost of agricultural products than to determine the cost of other products. If necessary, they could have accounts kept- by the farmers themselves, just as they force factories to keep accounts in order to show the cost of the articles they are manufacturing. Therefore I cannot take that statement by the minister as a fair one, because it is possible to determine the cost of agricultural products just as it is possible to determine the cost of anything else produced in this country. Under this clause the board has power to determine these costs and to ensure that
Mutual Aid Bill

agriculture receives exactly the same treatment as other people in this country I would urge the board to see to it that this is done, since they have the power under this legislation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not wish to enter into any argument about the possibility of determining the cost of production of agricultural products. Certainly I was under the impression that it varied with each farm.


Percy Ellis Wright: It varies in different
factories.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, and they are paid different amounts when their goods are bought on that basis, which I can assure my hon. friend would not work very well in buying farm products. As I say, I simply differ with him on that point. He suggests that we should take the cost as established by some experimental farm, but to what area would that cost apply? I do not know. I have heard this argued for many years; I have heard so many costs of production for particular commodities, and so much argument about it, that certainly I was convinced that the costs varied from farm to farm, depending upon the management of each farm and factors of that kind, so that the cost of production is incapable of ascertainment. This section does not apply in the case of a purchase; the price would be the value, in the case of a purchase.
Section agreed' to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Annual report *to parliament.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In reply to some views which were expressed about this section the other day in regard to the words "except such information as the governor in council deems it incompatible with the public interest to disclose", I may say that these words were taken from the lease-lend act of the United States. The language there is something like this: "except such information as the President deems it incompatible with the public interest to disclose." Hon. members at once said that that gave the government too much freedom; that it gave the government the right to keep anything away from the house, and did not specify the principle upon which they would withhold information. So that I thought the section could be improved by striking out the words after "act" in line 3 of the section and substituting for them these words: "provided that such report shall not contain any information the disclosure of which would, in the opinion of the governor in council, be
LMr. Wright.J
prejudicial to the security of Canada or of any other united nation." The section then would read:
As soon as practicable after the close of each fiscal year, the board shall prepare and lay before parliament a report of operations under this act, provided that such report shall not contain any information the disclosure of which would, in the opinion of the governor in council, be prejudicial to the security of Canada or of any other united nation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


Gordon Graydon: I understood the minister to say just now that the words originally in the section had been taken directly from the United States lease-lend act?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Gordon Graydon: Apparently in that act the words "deems it incompatible with the public interest to disclose" are to be found?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: I think there is very good reason for this amendment. The whole question of what is or is. not in the public interest is, in my opinion, much too wide to be left as it was in the original draft of the bill. The question as to what is public interest might perhaps cover a more comprehensive field than that which the minister now uses, when he suggests the words "disclosure of which would in the opinion of the governor in council be prejudicial to the security of Canada or of any other united nation".
Whatever the minister may think of the criticism of bills which come before the committee, perhaps he will readily realize that in some instances objection to the terms of bills becomes most important, from the point of view of national interest. We have heard much about matters not being in the public interest. I was wondering whether the minister's disclosure to-night, where he pointed out that the expression "not in the public interest" is taken from the United States legislation, is not an indication that he is departing from the policy he indicated in another discussion of this bill. At that time he said he was not prepared slavishly to follow the legislation, or the wording of statutes and reports of the United States congress. Perhaps, in this instance at least, the government might have drawn from the United States legislation the words "not in the public interest".
It might be a good thing in days to come that these words should not be drawn on any more. The whole question of what is in the public interest is one which most members of the House of Commons would like to have

Mutual Aid Bill
relegated to the past. There are perhaps some instances where the wording used in the amendment might be applied. I should think such conditions would form the only basis upon which information should be refused to the house.	.
The -whole question of public interest is far too wide, in its phraseology. If in a period of war we are to have a reply based upon the question of the security of Canada or of other united nations, then the matter becomes an entirely different one. But I must point out to the minister that at least in respect of some of these matters some actual benefit and advantage have come to the government and to the country generally through the criticism offered.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but I must say that the phrase "not in the public interest" is not distinctly a United States phrase. It is certainly a phrase common in British practice. If the hon. member is worried about it he will find it-


Gordon Graydon: I am not worried so much about the phrase as about the unnecessary use of it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Several times this session my hon. friend has said that he was sick and tired of hearing the phrase "not in the public interest".


Gordon Graydon: And I am still sick and tired of it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I point out to him that the phrase has the very finest and the most solid authority. It is to be found in paragraph 353 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, where it is stated:
An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon if the answer be refused by the minister on the ground of public interest.
The government of a country has some responsibility as a government. It has means ff deciding at times whether the publication if a matter, particularly in a time of war, is jr is not in the public interest. And I certainly do not wish this or any other government to be placed in the position of being ashamed of using the words "not in the public interest" or "in the public interest."


Gordon Graydon: There will be no doubt on that score.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I intend, when I think it is not in the public interest-and I say this with a full sense of responsibility-to take a certain step, that I will tell the House of Commons.


Gordon Graydon: I say to the minister
there will be no doubt in anyone's mind about the government's being ashamed to use the words "in the public interest", because they
have used those words so often. I am not arguing that the words "in the public interest" are not to be found somewhere in the English language. That is not my argument at all. I am saying to the minister that from the discussion to-night we can take one lesson, namely, that we have drawn once more to the attention of the government the necessity of surveying with great care that which is or is not in the public interest, and the phraseology connected therewith. I should think that after its having been drawn to his attention, the minister would be just a little more careful in the future than he has been in the past. I read him that lesson, for what it is worth.
Mr. MaeINNIS: There is not much I wish to say, except that I should like to congratulate the minister upon adding diplomacy to his many other capabilities. The only difference between the words in the section, namely, the words "public interest", and the expression "prejudicial to the security of Canada or any other of the united nations" is that the latter is a little more highbrow. That is what comes of associating with professors. I did not have the benefit of a university education, but I think I understand the meaning of words; and I am quite satisfied the leader of the opposition will get just as little from the Minister of Finance when the minister replies that he cannot give information because it might be prejudicial to the security of Canada as he will get when the minister says that it is not in the public interest to disclose. He will get just as much-but no more. It was a nice stroke of business to put it over in this way.


Mr. HANSELL:: I must confess that I like the original wording of section 8 better than the new one. If I understand correct English, the amendment states that the report will be presented, provided such report shall not contain any information which is prejudicial, and so on. As I see it, a report can be made, but if that report has within it a paragraph that is prejudicial, we do not get the report. Under the original wording we would get the report. If there were anything prejudicial we would not get the prejudicial portion, but we would get the report, just the same. I would rather have the report, leaving out that which is prejudicial, than not have anything. Although my understanding of English may not be perfect. I believe my interpretation is the proper one. Would the minister throw some light on the amendment?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think the amendment means what the hon. member thinks it does, or that it is capable of such construction. It does not mean that a report shall be given parliament only if such report does not contain anything prejudicial to the security of Canada.

Mutual Aid Bill

That would lead to an absurdity of the most laughable kind. It would mean that the board could write a report, insert a sentence which it believed would be prejudicial to the security of Canada, and, having inserted such sentence, could then say that it is now illegal to make a report to parliament. If the language would bear any other construction, such construction would have to be placed upon it. It does bear another construction, and I say the natural construction is that the proviso is a statutory direction to the board not to insert in its report anything prejudicial to the security of Canada. .


Ernest George Hansell: I was not imputing any motives to those who might prepare the report, nor was I suggesting that they might attempt to insert a clause which would render the report incapable of presentation to the house. But I would ask the minister to read his amendment. The section as amended would read:
As soon as practicable after the close of each fiscal year, the board shall prepare and lay before parliament a report of operations under this act, provided that such report shall not contain any information the disclosure of which would, in the opinion of the governor in council, be prejudicial to the security of Canada or of any other united nation.
My hon. friend over here is, I believe, a professor of English. I ask him to read over this amendment, scrutinize the English used in it, and tell me if that is not what it means.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest to the minister
that he would meet the objection and make the section absolutely clear if he would have the amendment read, "except information, the disclosure of which would, in the opinion of the governor in council, be prejudicial to the security of Canada or of any other united nation." That makes it absolutely clear and gets away from any possibility of an interpretation such as the hon. member for Macleod has suggested.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not wish to appear to
disregard these suggestions. I do not think it requires any clarification. The hon. gentleman is reading "provided" as though it meant "if." It does not mean that, it means "with this provision "


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is also reading "shall" as though it were "does."


Ernest George Hansell: We get the report anyway.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie, Vancouver Centre) agreed to.


Thomas Langton Church: If the government of the
day during the period between the two wars had given a little more thought to the safety
[Mr. Ilsley.l
of the state, we would never have had this war. This amendment to section eight of this bill should never have been submitted to a committee considering the bill. No dominion has had as little information during the war from its government of the day as has Canada. This applies also to the press and to radio broadcasts. I should like to set forth my reasons for opposing this amendment. We have been given less information about the conduct of the war than any other dominion. No one wishes to give away state secrets. I do not know of any citizen of the dominion, except a very few, who would ever think of giving away anything that would hurt our forces on the land, in the air or on the sea.
The giving of supplies under this lendJease arrangement will have to be continued to those countries which have been devastated by the axis powers. Why should the governor in council have the right to spend money without the high court of parliament having a word to say about the matter? If this committee passes such an amendment we shall be saying good-bye to any control over the expenditures of this country. We say we are fighting for the four freedoms, and we give power to the executive to conduct its affairs in secret. I am absolutely opposed to this amendment. The governor in council is given the power to make rules and regulations which will have the force of statutes, and parliament is to know nothing about them. A war was fought for nearly a hundred years to secure for the House of Commons control over expenditures, and every day we sit here we continue to lose control over the executive conduct of the war.
I asked for some information about his majesty's forces. I could not get it here, but I got it from the New York papers, which reported a statement by Mr. Lyttelton, minister of production in Great Britain. This was in connection with .the great armada which went to Algiers and Morocco. His statement gave the number of ships, which I believe was 500 transports and 350 warships. That information was given to the United States people, but we were refused all that information. We have an information bureau, but they will receive only such information as the governor in council wants to give them. Where will the press come in with regard to all this? Are they to be denied information about the conduct of the war?
The governor in council are not spending their own money, they are spending the money of the taxpayers. They have no right to keep this information from the public, from the

Mutual Aid Bill
taxpayers of this country. The people of Canada, and especially the working classes, have not been given sufficient information about the conduct of the war. Right up to the outbreak of the war we were told that there would be no war, that everything would be all right. The Minister of National Defence made a good presentation of his case when he asked for a moderate increase in his estimates, and it was not many days before he got it. Under this bill vital information is to be withheld from the public, and if this is continued we shall have another war very shortly. Children and babes in arms of to-day will be called up twenty years hence. I am opposed to the principle of this bill. I have opposed all these things right from the start of the war. I believe the public are entitled to know the facts. They are entitled to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the conduct of the war and the way in which the executive is conducting the war.
Section as amended agreed to.
On the preamble.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to refer to a section of the preamble which reads:
. . . whereas it is expedient that the conditions upon which Canadian war supplies are made available to other united nations should not be such as to burden post-war commerce or leave to the imposition of trade restrictions or otherwise prejudice a just and enduring peace.
May I commend the minister for the clarity of vision and the depth of understanding revealed by the man who drafted this preamble. We have heard the Prime Minister from his place in this house utter some exceedingly superficial remarks with regard to the objectionable features of economic nationalism and the objectional aspects of having tariffs and trade restrictions and all that sort of thing, just as though the dear man did not understand why all these things are imposed by the various nations. I am glad that the person who drafted this bill apparently did understand this. He realized that the fundamental reason for economic restrictions, tariff barriers, exchange restrictions, quotas and all the rest is the simple fact that the nation imposing such restrictions does so because it finds itself falling behind in the contest for world trade. In other words, it has developed an unfavourable trade balance and, in order to protect itself, it imposes these restrictions.
The man who drafted this bill has foreseen that during the war it is possible that certain nations may fall into debt to other nations to such an extent that they will have to establish restrictions and resist the tendency
72537-189J
to trade, thereby creating all the troubles which were supposed to have caused this war. I merely wish to point out that not only during the immediate post-war period but during all time to come, as long as we persist in retaining the present economic system, any nation in the world will be in danger of having an adverse trade balance, provided it must import more than it exports. As I see it, one of the main advantages of this bill is that it, or a measure similar to it, can be applied, say ten or fifteen years from now and that it will be possible thereby for Mutual Aid or lease-lend arrangements to be in operation, so that nations like Canada, which can produce a surplus of wheat, for example, for which they have no use, will be able to give of that surplus to a nation which is in danger of having an adverse trade balance. In like manner, the United States and other nations with abundant resources, if they and their rulers possess sufficient vision and understanding, will be able to remove the dangers of adverse trade balances throughout the world and thereby establish what this bill calls a basis for "a just and enduring peace".
Very little has been said in this debate about such a possibility. I do not wish to be out of order by going too far on this matter, but I believe, Mr. Chairman, you will indulge me if I go just far enough to point this out. It has been advocated already two or three times in this house, and all over the country ad nauseam, that the way to solve the world's problems after the war is to establish a supranational government with a big police force with a huge stick to force the nations to do as they ought to do. Yet never a word has been said by the advocates of this supranational government about the fact that nations have adverse trade balances because their population is too large for the size of the country, or the meagreness of their resources renders it impossible for them to produce enough goods to give their people the proper standard of living; and no provision is made by the planners of these supranational governments for meeting that situation. Yet may I point out that its fundamental cause, as is indicated here, is this very failure of nations to compete with other nations in international trade. Countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand. United States and Brazil, which have an abundance of resources in very wide variety enabling them to produce more goods than they can possibly use, making it possible for them to have favourable trade balances all the time, can introduce perpetual pacts
Mutual Aid Bill

of Mutual Aid, and provided the people in charge of their financial affairs see how they can be financed without debt or taxation, can perpetually distribute of their abundance to nations which are less favourably situated, thereby removing want and fear. This is the only means whereby Roosevelt's and Churchill's dream in the Atlantic charter can be realized and we can guarantee freedom from w'ant and freedom from fear. This same device of Mutual Aid, which we are using today to fight and win a war with, can be used in peace to win the peace; and it is the only kind of device which can be so used.
I submit that if the nations which are so abundantly blessed come to understand this thing, they will not need to have any supernational government poking its nose into their affairs in every direction and telling them how to run their own business, any more than Canada has to have any such organization telling her what to do during this war. If Canada finds that Great Britain needs wheat, Canada produces wheat and lets Britain have it, and that is that. If Canada finds that Great Britain needs pork, she produces pork and lets Britain have it. Britain does not have to come over here with a fleet of aeroplanes and an international police force to get Canada to do it; Canada does it, and is better off for doing it. Once we see this vision, we shall never again give even a moment's thought to the idea of yielding any degree of our national sovereignty to any international gang of uncertain nonentities. That is one of the results which will come from the application of the principle of this bill.
I think I have said enough for the present time. I shall probably say more on a later occasion. Once more, let me congratulate the minister and whoever it was drafted this bill upon his clearness of vision and his understanding. It has given me a great deal of comfort to find someone who understands and is honest enough to acknowledge and recognize in writing just what is the cause of war and what would be the cause of future wars, and to indicate how that cause can be removed without destroying the sovereignty of any of the united nations.


Thomas Langton Church: Regarding this amendment about the governor general in council-


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is carried.


Thomas Langton Church: -I draw attention to a statement which is directly contrary to what Britain did.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is the Chairman aware that the hon. gentleman is talking of an amendment which was carried?
fMr. Blaokmore.)


Thomas Langton Church: I can speak on the amendment in committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is carried.


Thomas Langton Church: I am only going to be a minute. I could speak on the third reading, but I shall occupy not more than a moment. Are we to tell the country if we pass this amendment that the people and the press are to be allowed only so much information as the government wishes to give them, or are we to be told the real facts?
In this connection I wish to refer to one item of information given last Monday by the Prime Minister, as recorded in Hansard, at page 2501, and relating to Tunisia, which I find is directly contrary to what the British information board has given out in England. The board stated that General Montgomery's Eighth Army consisted to the extent of seventy-six per cent of men from the British isles, and that ninety per cent of the army of General Alexander which battled its way across the desert were men from the British isles, the remaining ten per cent being from the dominions, Africa, India and other places. That information is entirely different from what I find recorded on page 2501. I ask, are we to allow the country to know only as much as the government wants to let them know, or are we to tell them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about all phases of the war?


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Usley for the house to go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it expedient to introduce a measure to provide, inter alia,
1.	That sums not exceeding $3,890,000,000 be granted to His Majesty towards defraying any expenses or making any advances or loans that * may be incurred or granted by or under the authority of the governor in council during the year ending March 31, 1944, for-
(a)	the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;
(c)	promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and

War Appropriation-Army
(d)	the carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.
2.	That the governor in council he empowered to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $3,890,000,000 as may be required for the purpose of defraying such expenses or making such advances or loans, the principal and interest of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund.
3.	That the governor in council be empowered to reexpend, advance or loan moneys that may be received by way of refund or repayment of advances, loans or expenditure under the War Appropriation Acts of 1939 (second session), 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943.
Gordon Graydon: Before the motion is adopted I have one or two observations to make. I should like to put our party on record on one or two points in connection with the war appropriation measure, and I wish to have it distinctly understood that in allowing the resolution to pass to the committee stage we do not desire to escape a debate on the general principles of the bill but rather wish to expedite the examination, which we intend to make in an exhaustive manner, into the various items that constitute the war appropriation bill itself. May I say to the government and to the Minister of Finance that when this resolution goes into committee of the whole we shall expect that minister after minister shall give full, explicit and complete disclosures of all matters covering their departments in each particular instance. We want no reservations on the part of ministers but a full disclosure of all matters relating to war appropriations.
May I recall the undertaking given by the Minister of Finance some weeks ago when we asked for a comparable statement with respect to expenditures under the various items of the war appropriation bill as they appeared in the other acts passed under war appropriation in previous years since the war began. I recall that undertaking so that when the bill is in committee we may have the benefit of the information which was asked for at that time.
This is a huge expenditure of money, the largest war appropriation bill ever brought down before the House of Commons. For that reason, of course, the people of Canada will expect, and they have a perfect right to have, a full inquiry and the closest sort of scrutiny into the war expenditures which are indicated. That is a part of the duty of His Majesty's loyal opposition, and in allowing this bill to go into committee as speedily as possible we do so for the purpose of avoiding at this time any lengthy general debate. The purpose is
to come to grips with the whole matter of governmental expenditures relating to the war as expeditiously and as effectively as possible. Without making any general remarks with regard to the appropriation bill, I wish to say at the moment that we hope to be able to make a particularly exhaustive inquiry into every item in the bill. The people to-day are more anxious than they have ever been about the expenditure of money. Many classes of our people are paying taxes who perhaps have never paid heavy taxes before, and in their interests as well as in the interests of the nation at large, it seems to me that the Canadian people will expect that, on the most important measure which has so far come before parliament, the government shall \give in minute detail, and shall be examined on just as minutely, every item which is being brought down.
I conclude with this remark. When the supplementary vote of the War Appropriation Act of last year was passed, a definite undertaking was given by the government on that occasion that we would be allowed under this vote and under this discussion to examine into those phases of the war appropriation measure of last year which might have been properly examined and inquired into on the occasion of the debate. Therefore I am deliberately taking the position this evening that we must move as quickly as possible into the committee stage of this bill for the purpose of hearing the statements of the ministers of the several departments, so that, thereafter, we may examine, exhaustively and effectively, every item of expenditure and the policies which the various ministers enunciate from time to time. If that is done, I think that in the days which lie ahead, in the committee stage of this bill, we shall render some reasonable service to the citizens of Canada by eliciting from the government that information to which the taxpayers are justly entitled.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

James Layton Ralston: Perhaps I should begin by reminding the house of an arrangement which was come to between the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and the other groups and the service ministers with regard to expediting, if possible, and with regard at least to regularizing and discussing in as orderly a manner as possible, the items that have to do with this resolution. It was arranged with the leader of the opposition and the other groups, in conference with the Prime Minister and the
War Appropriation-Army

defence ministers, that the committee in considering the resolution would endeavour to exhaust the discussion on each of the services in turn, so that there would not be overlapping and so that the members of the committee could prepare themselves with inquiries which they, desired to make. It was also understood that the amount included in the resolution for each of the services should be broken down under objects of expenditure in a manner somewhat similar to the method used in dealing with peace-time estimates, and in this connection-I pause to call the attention of the committee particularly to this- the objective was that all matters which it was required to discuss would be exhausted on each item, so that orderly and definite progress could be made, and when the discussion was concluded on that item it could be considered closed. In that way we would avoid the constant and time-wasting reversion to items already dealt with.
The Minister of Finance has already put on record that, in so far as the army is concerned, the amount included in the resolution is $1,764,000,000. And he also put on Hansard the different items under which that expenditure is to be authorized.
There have been different kinds of ministerial statements in the past few years. It is needless for me to refer to them. I just say that after trying two or three systems, speaking for myself, I am reverting to the system which I adopted in 1940, and without any apology to the committee I am going to try to cover a good deal of ground. I am sure that some of the material I have will be regarded by the committee as boring, but I am putting this information before the committee because I believe it will be useful and will give the country some information with regard to the activities of the army, and I can only say that the subject of the statement will be matters, for instance, with regard to the size and composition of the army and the general policy which we are endeavouring to pursue both in Canada and overseas with regard to mobilizing, enlisting, training and maintaining the arniy-and reinforcements of course. And the matter of man-power is very much to the fore; that vitally affects the army. I propose to remind the committee of the tasks of the army, and I wish to say a few words with regard to the development of the programme of the Canadian army overseas for both the past year and the year to come, the programme in Canada for the fiscal year which is past
and the fiscal year to come, including manpower. And I should like to touch on some special activities of the army in that connection.
I want to preface it with this, that I am going to try to make the statement as constructive, comprehensive and informative as possible, and if it is convenient for the committee I would hope to be allowed to proceed with as little interruption as possible. I think when I am finished the committee will be able to see the complete programme of the army, and then hon. members will be able to elicit such further information as they require on the points which interest them.
The subject with which I begin is a statement with regard to the tasks of the Canadian army. First let me say, that while we separate certain army activities in Canada from those overseas, we must remember that the army in Canada is the base and foundation of the overseas organization. The general role of Canada's army is to make Canada's weight felt as fully as possible in the fight to destroy the forces of the axis powers. On the assumption that Germany is the backbone of the axis, the strategy of the united nations is to direct the main operations against Hitler and his Italian satellite first.
To accomplish this, our job has been and is, and will be-because it is far from over yet- (a) to organize and maintain the strongest force of which we are capable, well forward in the main theatre of operations, for use wherever Germany and Italy can be met and overcome; (b) to cooperate in the defence of North America on our own coasts and in outpost positions with the object of (i) preserving the safety of our shores, our homes and our institutions from direct attack; (ii) carrying out our agreement with the United States for joint defence; (iii) maintaining a strongly defended base from which to provide, train and dispatch reinforcements; (iv) preserving a vitally important source of supply to the Canadian army here and overseas and to the united nations of raw material, foodstuffs and ammunition-which have been the subject of the bill just under consideration; (v) maintaining a strategic reserve to meet the unexpected at home or abroad.
Consequently our military forces are at present deployed in two main components, one in the European theatre of operations and

War Appropriation-Army
the other on this continent and its outposts. The two are connected by the Atlantic lifeline along which flows a stream of equipment, and trained reinforcements. The efficiency of the line of communication depends on the increase or decrease of U-boat strength, the number and nature of the tasks elsewhere for transport and escort craft and aircraft, and on the success of anti-submarine warfare and of the ship-building programme.
To come to the development of the Canadian army, there "has not been put on record or brought to the attention of the Canadian people the process of the development of the Canadian army. I think there is misapprehension in regard to that, and I should like to take the time of the committee for a moment in that connection.
The development of the army is a story of increase in strengths, increase in equipment and increase in training and fitness. People call for planning; I wish to say there has been a plan for the Canadian army. It has not been hit or miss. Mistakes have been made. It could hardly be otherwise in any organization that has increased one hundred times over since 1939, but I believe that the general principles on which we have worked have been sound.
Here is the sequence. Soon after war was declared we authorized the mobilization of the first and second Canadian infantry divisions, and within four months from the time war was declared we had the first infantry division in England. In the fateful and almost fatal year 1940 we authorized two more divisions, the third and. fourth infantry divisions, and early in 1941 we authorized the fifth armoured division and the first army tank brigade. That armoured division and that tank brigade were Canada's first ventures in armoured formations, and the Canadian armoured corps was set up.
We actually dispatched overseas the second infantry division in August, 1940. The first had been dispatched just before the end of
1939.	A Canadian corps of two infantry divisions was formed overseas on Christmas day,
1940.	Late that fall of 1940 I went to England, and after consultation with the war office our programme for 1941-42 was announced and approved by this house. Under that programme we were to dispatch in 1941 the third division, the fifth armoured division, the first army tank brigade and thousands of
ancillary troops. In the fall of 1941 another visit was made to the United Kingdom, and our plans integrated with theirs. We felt that instead of attempting to add to the five divisions we had (four overseas and one in Canada), our best contribution was not to form more divisions for overseas but 'to consolidate and organize what we had in such form as would make it capable of serving best.
The 1942-43 programme was settled and again authorized by this house. It was to form the second army tank brigade; to convert the fourth division into an armoured division and to send it overseas in 1942; to organize two corps, into which the three infantry divisions and the two armoured divisions could be fitted as circumstances might require; to provide the corps troops for those two corps, and to bring the two corps together under an army organization called the First Canadian Army and to provide army troops.
Let me stop to impress on the committee two points. Over two years ago, namely, early in 1941, all five divisions and an army tank brigade of our overseas army had been authorized, and what we have been doing in the past year is to make those individual forrhations as self-dependent and effective as our resources will permit. Secondly, the formations authorized since that time have- except the second army tank brigade-been the headquarters second corps and the headquarters first army and the corps and army troops which are ancillary and supplementary to these formations. I make those points because there seems to be in some quarters an idea that we have embarked on some new and overambitious policy regarding our overseas army. I would call attention to the fact that with the exception of the organization of the second corps and the army headquarters, and the additional army troops, the whole army programme was authorized early in 1941, nearly two years ago.
I have had prepared, thinking it might be useful to hon. members either now or in the future, a statement showing a summary of Canadian army units and formations dispatched or awaiting dispatch, showing the unit; when it was authorized; when it was announced and when it was dispatched, both for overseas and in Canada; also an indication of the sort of units we have in Canada and on outposts outside Canada but on the North American continent. With the permission of the committee I propose to have this summary placed upon Hansard:
War Appropria tion-Army



SUMMARY OF CANADIAN ARMY UNITS AND FORMATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Overseas
(Dispatched or awaiting dispatch)
Unit or formation
1st Canadian Infantry Division	
2nd Canadian Infantry Division	
3rd Canadian Infantry Division	
4th Canadian Infantry Division	
Converted to-
4th Canadian Arm'd Div., Jan., 1942.
8th Canadian Armoured Division....
(was 1 Cdn. Arm'd Div.)
1st Army Tank Brigade	
2nd Army Tank Brigade	
Other Corps and Army Formations- 1st Canadian Corps	
2nd Canadian Corps.
1st Canadian Army	
(Commands 1 and 2 Corps)
Ancillary units supporting the foregoing formations are:-	[DOT]
Army troops, G.H.Q. and line of communication units consisting of all arms and services.
Canadian military headquarters	
Canadian reinforcement units	
Canadian Forestry corps	
Authorized	Announced	Dispatched overseasSept., Sept., May,	1939 1939 1940	Sept., 1939 Sept., 1939 May, 1940	Dec., 1939 June-Dec., 1940 June-Sept., 1941May,	1940	May, 1940 1 Announced as' an Arm'd Div., Jan., 1942 J	Aug.-Nov., 1942Jan.,	1941	Mar., 1941	Sept.-Nov., 1941Feb., Jan.,	1941 1942	April-June, 1941 (In Canada)Dec.,	1940	Dec.,	1940	These two Corps H.Q.were formed overseas and are designed to command either Inf. or Armd.Jan.,	1942	Jan.,	1942	Divs. or a combination of both as required operationally from time to time.Jan.,	1942	Jan.,	1942	Formed overseas.
Units formed overseas and in Canada as required from time to time.
Dispatched abroad, 1939-1942.
Static Coast Defence-
Coast Artillery-
(Fortresses and defended ports)
In Canada
Anti-Aircraft Artillery-
(Defending fortresses, defended ports and vulnerable points)	
Fortress Engineer Companies, RCE Coastal Command Signal Units....
Unbrigaded Infantry and Machine Gun Battalions-
(Defending fortresses, defended ports, and beach and aerodrome defences)	
Supporting the foregoing arms are:-	[Authorized and mobilized from time to
Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, supply and trans- time since beginning of war. port units	
Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps, hospitals and mobile ambulances	
Royal Canadian Dental Corps, dental companies and detachments	
Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, maintenance, repair and supply depots (servicing and supplying mechanical transport, guns, weapons, equipment, ammunition and stores	
Pay, Provost, Postal, Chaplain, Auxiliary and Intelligence services	
[Stage Direction]
War Appropriation-Army
SUMMARY OF CANADIAN ARMY UNITS AND FORMATIONS-Cone.
In Canada-Cone.
Unit or formation
Despatched
Authorized Announced Overseas
6th Canadian Division-
(Originally formed as three brigades, later expanded to
a complete division)	 March 1942 March 1942
7th Canadian Division-
(Originally formed as three brigade groups, expanded to
a complete division)	 March 1942 March 1942
8th Canadian Division-
(Organized as two brigade groups)	 March 1942 March 1942
A brigade group	 March 1942
On North American Outposts Outside Canada
Various army forces are located in strategic areas defending:-
Newfoundland,
Labrador,
Alaska,
Islands adjacent to the West Indies and the east coast of j United States.
The composition of these forces varies depending upon the nature of their duties, and include.-
(Authorized, mobilized and dispatched from time to time since beginning of war.
Coast Artillery Units,
Anti-Aircraft Units,
Engineer Detachments,
Signal Companies,
Infantry Battalions with supporting services.
I said that in connection with the organization of the army we organized ancillary troops, that is corps and army troops; and I am bound to say to the committee that the number of troops required for corps and army has been larger than was expected. Those units required for the numerous kinds of service on lines of communication have increased in number and variety with the changing needs of modern warfare. For instance, there are thnk transporter companies, road construction companies, engineer units, signal units, hospitals and medical units, supply companies, transport companies, motor ambulance convoys, repair and maintenance units, which seem to multiply as the days go by,; workshops and depots; repair and maintenance units and workshops needed for armoured fighting vehicles, for supply and transport vehicles, for engineer units and for equipment and armament of every type and description. These really are the maintenance and supply men between the front line and the base. Then in England we have reinforcements, hospitals, workshops, depots and the forestry corps, not
under the direct administration of the army but which serves the army in the United Kingdom. That is just a quick resume of the growth and development of the Canadian army.
I wish to deal in just a little more detail with the programme of 1942-43, which is just over, and the programme for next year, with which I shall deal last. In the meantime I stop to deal with something in connection with the Canadian army overseas which it seems to me should be dealt with immediately. That is. there seems to be an idea persisting in some quarters that the role of these units and formations in Canada's army is rigid. I wish to say that exactly the contrary is the case. The role of the units and formations in Canada's army is not rigid; their role is flexible. They can be taken apart on the principle of the sectional bookcase. It has always been and still is our policy that the Canadian army in whole or in part is available to be used wherever and for whatever task would best serve the common cause. I wish to emphasize that because, I cannot understand why, there seems to be a
266S
War Appropriation-Army
[Stage Direction]
persistent attempt to indicate that somehow or another there has been a policy laid down that the Canadian army must be used as a whole or not at all. That never was, is not now and will not be the case. I made it a point to impress upon Mr. Churchill, Sir James Grigg, the secretary of state for war, and Sir Alan Brooke, the chief of the imperial general staff, as I had to the previous secretary of state for war, Captain Margesson-this was in personal interviews, when I saw them myself- that the Canadian troops were in England to be used either in whole or in part in any way in which they could best help to win this war. I repeated to them expressly, so that there could not be a vestige of doubt, that we were not stipulating in any way that the army be used as a whole. That was nothing new to them; it has been our policy from the beginning and they understood it perfectly.
I further discussed with them the plans then under consideration and the possibility of using some part of the Canadian army outside the United Kingdom. They assured me that the fullest consideration had always been given that possibility, but that plans had not permitted it so far, except for Spitsbergen and Dieppe, and they expressed more than once the appreciation of those who are directing the major strategy of the war for the part Canadian troops have taken in those long days overseas. As a matter of fact, at the interview of which I am speaking, with General Brooke, General McNaughton and our own chief of staff were with me, and the policy which I then enunciated and repeated had the complete concurrence of both these gentlemen. I wish to put this on record, further, that General McNaughton himself has made it clear to the war office beyond peradventure *that he was and is only concerned with making the best possible contribution to winning the war, and that if it was considered at any time advantageous to supply individual formations to separate theatreg of war, he was prepared to recommend it.
Canadian troops have been employed at jobs in which those who are directing the strategy of the war considered they could best serve. They know fully our attitude; they know, too, how anxious Canadians are to come to grips with the enemy. They know also the striking power which Canadians can deliver. Great preparations are going forward, as everyone knows, and the Canadians are in the midst of them. But Canada is a member of a team, and in the first place it is not good team work if Canada attempts to insist on a particular position. In the second place we shall have to be pretty sure that success will follow before we can insist on thrusting these troops

into some particular task without the advice either of our own military advisers who are on the ground or that of those who are responsible for major strategy. What we can do and what we will continue to do is keep before those who make the plans the availability, the readiness to serve and the efficiency of the Canadian army overseas.
To sum up on this point, which I have brought in early in my remarks because I think it needs to be said, let me say that any idea that the government or General McNaughton or anyone in authority representing Canada has or ever had any notion of insisting or even desiring to maintain the Canadian army intact, if its components can better serve separately, is wholly unfounded. I hope that statement will be accepted at face value and will end these references to the fact that troops of the Canadian army did not happen to be employed in this or that theatre. I can only say, and I believe the committee will agree with me, that references of this kind cannot serve any useful purpose but, worse than that, they can be definitely harmful to morale.
Now let me deal with the overseas programme for 1942-43. I have just given a running sketch of the development of the Canadian army. It was to organize the second army tank brigade. That brigade has been formed; it has not yet been dispatched overseas. It was to convert the fourth Canadian division into an armoured division. That has been done, and the fourth armoured division is overseas. Then, when this division was dispatched, we would have five divisions overseas plus corps, army and line of communication troops. That brought us to the point where five divisions were considered definitely too many for one corps to administer and fight, and the proposal to form a second corps was brought forward. Then we would have two corps into which these five divisions could be fitted from time to time as circumstances require. That second corps has been organized and staffed under Lieutenant-General Sansom. Then, we were to bring together these two corps under an army organization. The First Canadian Army has been organized and staffed under General McNaughton.
The formation of the second corps and of the First Canadian Army called for the formation, as I have said, of ancillary and supplementary units of various kinds to help make up corps, army and line of communication troops. We have mobilized in Canada and England over 170 units of all sizes for this purpose. Most of those organized in Canada were dispatched overseas in 1942. A few of those organized here are still awaiting dispatch.

War Appropriation-Army
Just to give the committee a rough idea of what these corps, army and line of communication troops are, I would point out that there are two principal divisions. First there are combat units, including artillery and anti-aircraft units, outside the divisions themselves, which can be used by the corps commander or the army commander as the case may be, to support and cooperate with any unit or formation which he thinks may require them.
Second, there are servicing units, to extend the maintenance and supply services toward the base.
The result has been that whereas the strength of the Canadian army overseas was on March 31, 1942, over 130,000, the strength as of the same date this year is over 190,000. This means that in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1943, we have sent overseas more than 70,000 men for units and reinforcements.
I must pause here to mention that in addition to sending those men, the Canadian Women's Army Corps is worthily represented overseas by about 400 young women who went over in the latter part of 1942, and early this year.
Now, with regard to enlistments, I estimated when I was speaking in the house last year that the army would need enlistments in the fiscal year of 90.000 to 100.000 men. Actually, enlistments for the fiscal year 194243 have been upwards of 125,000. I might point out that not all of these enlistments have been for reinforcements. They might be used as reinforcements, if occasion required; but a portion of them were enlisted in units being formed for overseas, and in units which were performing home defence duties.
Although this comes more properly under the programme for Canada, which I shall deal with in a few moments, I think I should say here that in addition to those enlistments it is estimated that there will have been for the fiscal year just closed an estimated intake into the army through the National Resources Mobilization Act a net of something like
60,000.	That is, 74,000, subtracting those who have enlisted after they have been enrolled, leaving the net of 60,000.
Gordon Graydon: Is that the total under the National Resources Mobilization Act?


James Layton Ralston: No; there are altogether now something like 65,000. The point is that during the fiscal year just closed we have more than enough enlistments to meet the needs, more than we set out to make, taking the figure approved by this house.
I wish to add that enlistments for March and April were down somewhat, and May has not begun too well. I have an idea-and I shall have something to say about man-power -that enlistments may be affected by the drive which has been made to procure men from the army for various civilian occupations; by the assumption that because the army was not in battle, men were not needed; by the proposition put forward in some quarters that the men of the army called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act be released. It is evident to me that those who proposed that step either overlooked or did not understand the extent of the obligation which parliament has imposed on the army for Canadian defence. All these things have no doubt had a tendency to create the impression that the army does not need men. I wish to say here that that idea is absolutely erroneous. The army does need men, and it will continue to need them in a constant flow, until the war ends.
Now a word respecting the overseas programme for 1942-43. I do not think any resume of overseas operations or overseas activities could be complete without some mention of Dieppe. It has been mentioned in the house more than once, and I have felt I should put some statement on record with regard to it. On September 18 last I made a public statement giving as much detail as possible regarding the Dieppe operation. That, statement received a good deal of attention, both here and in the United States. It was intended to be, and I think it was a candid recital of the main facts connected with the operation. I shall not repeat that statement in full, but I wish to quote from it in some instances. I am putting it on record so that if anyone feels a desire to discuss it further, he may have an opportunity to do so.
Subject to what I am going to say in that respect later on, I should like the committee to understand this, with regard to Dieppe, that it was undertaken as part of the offensive policy upon which the united nations had agreed. That policy required that the fullest possible information concerning the enemy's strengths and dispositions should be obtained. It is frequently the case that facts essential to the successful prosecution of offensive operations can only be obtained by fighting for them, and the Dieppe operation must be regarded in that light. It was, in fact, as has been said repeatedly, a reconnaissance in force, conceived with the important objective of obtaining information and experience vital to the general offensive programme.
It was considered most important that our forces should have an opportunity for practical experience in the landing on an enemy-
War Appropriation-Army

occupied coast of a large military force, and in particular in the problems arising out of the employment in such a force of heavy armoured fighting vehicles.
These were the strategic objectives. The Dieppe operation also had tactical or local objectives for the destruction of enemy installations in the Dieppe area, and the infliction of as much local damage as possible on the enemy. It was a heavy task. It was a task which could be entrusted only to troops of a very high standard of training and general quality.
I wish to say this, that I have had the opportunity of looking at the reports regarding Dieppe. The operation was planned with the utmost care and with the most meticulous attention to detail. Highly qualified officers, including the chiefs of staff of the United Kingdom, the chief of combined operations, General Montgomery, and our own officers considered the plans and approved them. Before the employment of Canadian military forces was approved by the general officer commanding the Canadian Army, he satisfied himself that the objectives of the proposed operations were vital to the agreed offensive policy, and that the means available were likely to be adequate to the task before committing the Canadian troops to a part in it. He examined in advance the arrangements for cooperation, and' found them to be satisfactory. He also gave consideration to the sufficiency of the land forces which it was proposed to detail, as well as the sea and air forces. Reference was made to Canada to the war committee, which took the responsibility for authorizing Canadian participation.
As is known, Canadian military forces involved were large elements of two brigades of the second Canadian division commanded by Brigadiers W. W. Southam and Sherwood Lett, and the battalion of the first Canadian armoured brigade. In addition, there were attachments of all arms and services, which played essential parts in the operations.
Three British commandos were employed, as well as small detachments of United States rangers and fighting French troops. The naval force participating included no vessels larger than destroyers, and was composed primarily of various types of landing craft and support craft. In addition to vessels of the Royal Navy, the force included a Polish destroyer and some fighting French chasseurs.
The air force consisted of units from all operational commands of the Royal Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the United States Army Air Force, the Royal New Zealand Air Force, and Polish, Czech, Norwegian, Belgian and Fighting French squadrons.
This operation was most thoroughly prepared in advance in every detail. The officers charged with planning the operation had at their disposal a great mass of information relating to the Dieppe area which had been collected from many sources. The proposed operation was checked on a large scale model of the area to be. raided, and when the plans were completed a most thorough understanding had been established between the three services. I think that is borne out by what took place and the cooperation that was the experience of that day.	.
The forces to be employed in the enterprise wrere subjected to an intensive special programme of combined operations training. While details of this training cannot be given, I can say that the Canadian military units chosen to participate were trained on suitable terrain within the United Kingdom where conditions could be considered to approximate those in which the operations were to be conducted. Careful precautions were taken for the maintenance of secrecy. A good deal has been said about the matter of secrecy. Special means were used to conceal the movement of troops. Thanks to the precautions taken it is believed that the enemy, in spite of the size of the force involved and the necessary magnitude of the preparations, had no information that a specific operation against the Dieppe area was projected.


Gordon Graydon: Were the troops which took part in the Dieppe raid regarded as green troops, or had they had previous military experience?


James Layton Ralston: I do not remember at the moment whether any of them had been engaged in any previous operations, outside the Spitsbergen expedition. I am reminded that many officers and men were veterans of the last war.


Gordon Graydon: But not of this war.


James Layton Ralston: That is true of any troops going into battle for the first time. You have to have a first time.


Gordon Graydon: I am not suggesting that you do not have to have a first time; I am only asking about this particular operation.


James Layton Ralston: However, in consequence of our avowed aggressive policy, the enemy had been strengthening his position on the French coast generally, and during the raid it became clear that he had recently brought additional troops and guns into the Dieppe area. This appears to have been done as part of a general policy of reinforcement of coastal areas. The Germans on the French coast were therefore in what may be called a state of general alert.

War Appropriation-Army
With regard to the behaviour of the troops, the report which was compiled by officers who were thoroughly familiar with the operation, many of whom had participated in it, states that no terms could be too warm to describe the splendid assistance given by the Royal Navy. There are on file statements by many members of the Canadian military forces, from private soldiers upwards, which testify to their deep understanding and most grateful appreciation of the manner in which the naval forces ran all risks to assist the troops.
Air cover and bombing were likewise magnificent, and drew equally warm tributes from the troops and from the navy. Throughout the operations, both the air force and the navy provided smoke screens at the times and places where they were required, which greatly reduced casualties to ships and personnel. The distinguished part played in these operations by both Canadian sailors and Canadian airmen has excited the warmest appreciation on the part of the Canadian army. Considerable numbers of Canadian naval officers and ratings were engaged on board the naval vessels; one flotilla of landing craft was almost entirely manned by Canadian naval personnel. Numerous cases of gallantry on the part of such personnel were recorded. At one point, light craft ventured into extremely heavy fire to rescue men of the Royal Regiment of Canada who were clinging to the bottom of an overturned landing craft close to the shore. Of these rescue craft, one was commanded by a Canadian officer, and in another a Canadian rating and an English rating sacrificed their lives to save these soldiers. Two army cooperation squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force attached' to formations of the Canadian army overseas participated in the operation. Both did gallant work and suffered losses. Canadian fighter squadrons likewise played a brilliant part. Many Canadian airmen served in Royal Air Force squadrons engaged in the operations.
Throughout this operation the conduct of all ranks of the Canadian army forces engaged, and their determination to capture their objectives at whatever cost, were beyond all praise. Although they came under the heaviest forms of artillery, mortar and machine gun fire, and confronted situations comparable with the most dangerous tasks assigned to troops in the last war, there was not the slightest hesitation, and all ranks evinced the keenest desire to come to grips with the , enemy. Literally hundreds of documents relating to this hazardous operation have now been examined. In not one of these is there the slightest suggestion that so much as one man of the Canadian army failed in his duty.
I need only remind the committee of the awards which were made to Lieutenant-Colonel Merritt, commander of the South Saskatchewan regiment, and Lance-Sergeant Hickson, who were specially mentioned in the report. As a result of the operations, his majesty was graciously pleased to award no less than 235 decorations and there were 301 mentions in despatches. Of these ninety-three decorations and ninety-one mentions in dispatches were received by officers and men of the Canadian army.
Here are the results of the operations as given in the report. I am bound to say that there is very little more I can give at this time. The report is being studied and, more than that, it is being used as a handbook in connection with landing operations, and every possible lesson which could be learned is being extracted from it for the purpose of future use in the course of the war. These points can be mentioned. A large naval force crossed the channel and approached the French coast, protected by powerful air support, and remained off that coast for many hours with the loss of but one destroyer and a number of small landing craft. This was a significant achievement.
Although Dieppe was a very strong place, military forces were landed on the enemy-occupied beaches, and heavy tanks in large numbers were transported across the channel . and successfully landed. The importance of this has already been referred to. It can be stated that the organization of combined command worked out in such detail in ad* vance of the operation functioned most admirably. The three services worked together in perfect cooperation, and in this respect the result of the operation has been to afford complete confidence in the effective coordination of the efforts of the services in large combined operations. A special point concerning the air aspect of the operations may be made. This extensive raid compelled the enemy to concentrate air squadrons Torn many distant points and to commit a large force to action. Even night fighters, night bombers and training squadrons were thrown into the fight. This gave the Royal Air Force a valuable opportunity, and in the intense air fighting over Dieppe the German air force suffered losses in aircraft amounting to a very serious strategic reverse.
As for the more limited and local objectives of the raid, enemy batteries and a radiolocation station were destroyed; heavy casualties were inflicted upon the enemy and prisoners of war were brought back; and one and possibly two armed vessels were sunk. For the lessons learned and the advantages
War Appropriation-Army

gained, the forces engaged, and particularly the land forces, paid a very heavy price. The history of similar operations in the past serves to indicate that heavy losses are to be expected in amphibious operations of this type directed against a fortified coastline held by a determined and alert enemy. At Dieppe the losses suffered were probably due in part to the misfortune of the chance encounter with an escorted German tanker. Such small circumstances are often important in operations of this kind.
The Canadian military units engaged in the Dieppe operation gained combat experience which will be of great value to them in future operations. The troops returned from the enterprise with added confidence in themselves and, in particular, in the leadership of their officers and non-commissioned officers, which from start to finish was of the very highest order. All ranks of the units concerned, and especially those which suffered most heavily, are anxious for another opportunity of contact with the enemy which will enable them to exact from him a further reckoning for the losses which they have suffered on this occasion. The heroism of those who fell and those who returned will be a source of future inspiration to all ranks of the Canadian army.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 14, 1943