1945-04-13

PRESIDENT TRUMAN


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read to the house a telegram which I sent this morning to President Truman, at the White House, Washington:
My colleagues in the government of Canada join with me in expressing to you and to the government and people of the United States our heartfelt sympathy and that of the people of Canada in the loss which the United States has sustained in the death of President Roosevelt -a loss which will be felt throughout the whole of the freedom-loving world.
As you assume the great responsibilities of your high office at this critical period in world affairs, we wish to assure you of the firm resolve of all Canada to maintain and strengthen the ever-deepening friendship and ever-widening cooperation of our two countries in matters of common interest and in the cause of world security and peace.
W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to make a statement on the winding up of the business of the present session, a matter which we have discussed two or three times in the course of the present week.
This week, on Wednesday, April 11, I reminded the house that if the business of parliament were not concluded before midnight on Monday of next week, this parliament would be automatically dissolved. I stated that at no time had I any thought or intention of recommending dissolution with a view to shutting off discussion in the house. I added that, as hon. members well knew, the sole reason the government had waited up to the last or almost the last day of the term of parliament before going to the people had been our desire to avoid a general election while the war in Europe was still in progress. I have stated, over and over again, that the intention of the government was not to dissolve parliament if that could be avoided before the decisive battles were fought in Europe. That position was subject only to the limitation that the people should not be denied the right guaranteed to them by the constitution of electing a new parliament at least every five years.
In a nation-wide broadcast on March 2, I said:
Once the war in Europe is over, we feel there should be a general election as soon as possible.
On Monday, April 9, I gave to the house an outline of the minimum time which would be required for a general election, and placed on Hansard an official memorandum on that subject which had been given me by the chief electoral officer. That statement made it apparent that the earliest date at which a general election could be held, following upon the expiration of the parliamentary term, would be June 11. As to the completion of the business of the present session, it rests with hon. members on the opposition benches *-and here I am not referring to any particular party or group but to all hon. members opposed to the government-whether the war appropriations and supply bills will be ready for royal assent on Monday next. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. 840	COMMONS
Business of the Home-General Election
Graydon) has said that so far as members of the Progressive Conservative party are concerned, they are prepared to conclude the debates in this chamber at six o'clock this afternoon. Intimations have also been given by the leaders of the C.C.F. and the Social Credit groups that they and their followers are prepared to assist the government in speedily completing the business for which this session had been specially called.
Were it possible to have the bills reach the other house this evening, that would permit of prorogation being arranged for Monday afternoon, April 16, at three o'clock. If that cannot be carried out, then the house will of course resume its sitting at three o'clock on Monday afternoon, to be continued, if need be, until eleven o'clock at night. Were this to happen, without the business being concluded and royal assent given to the bills before midnight, the government would be obliged to resort to governor general's warrants to meet expenditures both for the conduct of the war and for civil government over the period of the general election and the opening of the new parliament.
As hon. members are aware, I stated some time ago that a general election would be called before April 17. It may assist hon. members in deciding upon the course it is advisable in the public interest for them to pursue if I inform the house at once, on my responsibility as Prime Minister, that His Excellency the Governor General has authorized me to say that he is willing to approve a recommendation to have parliament dissolved just as soon after the conclusion of its business as may be possible. His Excellency has also authorized me to say that he is willing, at the same time, to approve the immediate issue of a proclamation for the holding of a general election on June 11.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Well, Mr. Speaker, at last they have been forced to go to the country. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Prime Minister, that as a party we have been desirous of having the business of the house concluded and the various readings given the necessary bills by to-night, if at all possible. That has been our general policy with respect to this matter, and I was about to rise to indicate our desire to be cooperative in that respect. In doing so, however, I should like to point out that there is a tremendous amount of work still to be accomplished as far as this chamber is concerned. I take it that work which otherwise would take weeks and weeks will not be attended to because of the shortness of the session. The responsibility for that situation, as I pointed out the other

day, does not rest with us but with the government. We are making a great sacrifice in order that the civil supply and war appropriation bills may be duly assented to before the expiration of this parliament, but, as I said in my address to the house the day before yesterday, we are anxious that the government shall not take it upon itself to adjourn, prorogue or dissolve before these bills are properly passed and the order paper cleared.
At this stage I should like to say to the Prime Minister that for quite a long time we have been hoping that he and his government would finally summon up enough courage to face the people. It is no wonder that we received with a great deal of interest and delight the announcement which has just been made. While we realize that it takes courage and fortitude on the part of the members of any political party who aspire to carry on government in these difficult days, nevertheless I want to tell the Prime Minister that no party or group in this house welcomes the announcement that the government is going to the country more than the Progressive Conservative party does, for the very good reason that after the appeal to the people we shall be ready and willing and prepared to form the next government of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: I have heard more forced laughs and hollow laughs from the government side in the last little while than I have for a long time.
I think it was the day before yesterday the Prime Minister had something to say about our leader, John Bracken. From the best information I can get, the problem of the Prime Minister now will not be to try to get John Bracken into the house but rather how to keep him out and get himself in. So while I sympathize with the government and its supporters in this rather serious hour, as far as they are concerned, still we hope that when we are the government we will receive the sort of treatment we have tried to accord them since we have been in opposition. We will understand their position. As the Prime Minister sits over here we will be watching him; but I am afraid the difficulty will be that he will not be able to sit over here after one election but that it will take one or two by-elections to get him here. In the days that lie ahead I will not forget the remarks of the Prime Minister during the last couple oft years, when he did not quite sympathize with me but rather was somewhat critical from time to time because of the fact that my leader had not. a seat in the house. When the appeal to the people is over the tables will be turned.

Business oj the House-General Election


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker, that actions speak louder than words. We have heard the words of my hon. friend, a great many there were, but I just wish he could have been on this side of the house, to have a glimpse of himself and his followers when I made the announcement that the election was to be held on June 11. While there was great applause from all other parts of the house I noticed that not a single member of the Progressive Conservative party rapped his desk-not until after I had spoken to my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) on my right and my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) on my left, and suggested to them that they take a look at hon. members immediately opposite. I did that because not one of them was receiving the announcement with any degree of satisfaction at all.
In conclusion may I say that one has only to be on this side of the house-


Mr. CARDIFF:: On a question of privilege, I would ask the Prime Minister to retract his statement that he did not see anyone on this side of the house rap his desk.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I repeat I did not see anyone of his party. My hon. friend may have been patting his desk, but not much more. I watched and I did not see anyone applauding in real fashion on the other side of the house. But what I did see at that time-and what I still see1-was the gloomiest lot of countenances I have ever seen in my life.


Gordon Graydon: One word, after what the Prime Minister has said: I wondered why he had that rear-view mirror in front of him. Now I know.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, from the general feeling of the house I do not think much more business will be done at this session. May I say, however, that I think everyone would welcome the Prime Minister's announcement that the election is to be held soon in order that the people may make a choice. I do not think this is the time to indulge in idle boasting or anything of the kind. The government which will be formed after the next election must be prepared to face grave problems, in some respects graver than those the government now in office has faced.
I rose really to say this, that there is a tremendous amount of unfinished business. The Prime Minister has appealed to all hon. members of the house to facilitate the passage of the bills, in order that parliament may vote an appropriation, and that the government 32283-54
may be authorized in a democratic and proper manner to finance war and civil activities in the next five months. As I have said several times this week, we are prepared to facilitate the granting of the appropriations. But I should like to point out that there are very important departments of government which have not been questioned. For instance, there is the Department of Labour, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, and other departments, none of which has been questioned, and about which a number of inquiries should have been made, and an opportunity for comment should have been given. In my opinion, parliament should have been called earlier. There has been time, however, to do the business of the country, had we stuck to business instead of spending several hours this week in political discussion in preparation for the election which has now been announced, the business of the country would have been much more expeditiously and efficiently done than has been the case.
I would say further that the rules of this parliament need revision. In the mother of parliaments, which is democratic to the core, the kind of discussion we have had in the last two weeks could not have been as prolonged as it has been here. With the tremendous amount of business facing the country, and the tremendous amount which will face the country in the future, I suggest one of the first things the House of Commons should do when parliament meets after the election, is to revise its rules to the end that the business of the house may not be held up by all kinds of often inconsequental or repetitious discussion.
I say the business of the country should have been done by calling parliament earlier. Under our present rules we knew that this situation might face us. We are now within a few hours of dissolution, and I join with the leader of the opposition, with the Prime Minister and with other hon. members of the house in urging that the business be wound up as efficiently as possible under the circumstances now prevailing in parliament. Then we can all go to the country with clearer consciences, and with the feeling that the job has been done, trusting to the wisdom of the Canadian people to choose the government they consider will give them the greatest and best service in the next several years.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter for deep regret that when the house was called in November to discuss the question of conscription the government did not see fit to continue the session of parliament from that time to the present. I see no sufficient reason why that

Housing Loans

could not have been done. I dislike very much to think of leaving in the air some of the all-important matters which should have been considered with the greatest care by this parliament. I have in mind the document tabled yesterday by the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe), respecting employment and income. That is a document which should have occupied the time of the house, and should have been given the greatest possible care and attention for three or four weeks, in order that hon. members might fully understand what is really in the minds of those connected with the department. Yet we shall scarcely have time to refer to it.
As to the time of the election, our group and our movement are ready. They will be happy to meet the Prime Minister and the representatives of the other parties on the hustings or anywhere else.
There is one further matter, and that has to do with expediting the business. During this session our group has done everything within its power to expedite business, and we are prepared to continue to do so. We are not very well satisfied with the amount of time taken by some hon. members in the discussion of matters which in my view might well have waited until the next parliament.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) make his promised statement in connection with question No. 3 on the order paper respecting the matter of the application of the housing act to Saskatchewan?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Yes. The questions are:


Mr. BENCE:: 1.	Have any lending institutions indicated their intention to the government of participating in the National Housing Act which went into effect on January 18, 1945, with respect to the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, how many of such institutions have so indicated?
3.	Have any lending institutions indicated that they were not prepared to participate in the said National Housing Act with respect to the province of Saskatchewan?
4.	If so, how many of such institutions have so indicated that they are not prepared to participate in the said National Housing Act with respect to the province of Saskatchewan?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Answer, 1 to 4:
On January 26, 1945, the Minister of Finance announced the coming into effect of the
"Mr. Blackmore-l
National Housing Act, 19-44, and in the course of his announcement made the following statement commenting upon various inquiries received as to whether the act would operate in Saskatchewan and Alberta:
"The government is most anxious that all parts of Canada and all Canadians, whether living in cities, towns or villages or on farms, should be in a position to enjoy the benefits of the National Housing Act. The Canadian parliament in last summer's revision of the act went as far as it could to assure this result. However, if there should be provincial legislation of such a character as seriously to affect the rights of mortgagees, this may prevent prospective home builders from getting loans under the housing act. It must be remembered that these are joint loans, private companies putting up seventy-five per cent and sharing in the ultimate risk of loss. I intend shortly to invite representatives of the Saskatchewan and Alberta governments to come to Ottawa to discuss what steps these governments might take to enable the act to operate within their borders."
This statement was made following a conference during which the representatives of a number of lending institutions had expressed grave concern as to whether, in view of legislation that was already on the statute books or was threatened in one or both of these two provinces, the institutions would be justified in making National Housing Act loans, which are very high percentage loans, in these two provinces, and had pointed out the necessity of action being taken to remedy the situation if the National Housing Act was to operate freely and satisfactorily in these provinces.
Some time later the Minister of Finance had discussions first with representatives of the government of Alberta and later with the government of Saskatchewan for the purpose of discussing the legislation and other factors that were retarding lending under the National Housing Act within each province. Following these conferences, the Alberta government introduced and secured the enactment of legislation at the session of the legislature which has just closed, and lending operations under the act are being actively resumed in that province by a considerable number of approved lending institutions. It is understood that a bill was also introduced and passed at the recent session of the Saskatchewan legislature which was apparently intended by the Saskatchewan government to remove at least certain of the difficulties and the Saskatchewan government was asked to send a copy of the legislation which was enacted to the Minister of Finance, but no copies of the

statute have as yet been received and it is therefore impossible to say if it is likely to result in active lending under the National Housing Act in the province.
There are three approved lending institutions which have never ceased to make National Housing Act loans in the province of Saskatchewan, although operations have been on a limited scale. No lending institution has made any definite statement to the Minister of Finance that it will not be willing to make loans under the National Housing Act in the province of Saskatchewan.



REQUEST THAT WINNIPEG BE DECLARED A CONGESTED AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I regret that I was unable to send him notice, as my question is based on a letter that I received just as I was coming into the house. The letter is from the clerk of the Winnipeg city council. It relates to the fact that because the wartime prices and trade board has thus far found it impossible to bring Winnipeg under the emergency shelter administration, the city council has set up its own emergency shelter organization, but feels that the administration of this set-up would be more satistory if the wartime prices and trade board would bring the city under the government's emergency shelter regulations. They are anxious to know if the board will consider again the question of declaring Winnipeg a congested area. The city council offers the full cooperation of its own set-up. Will the minister bring this matter to the attention of the board?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.



RESTORATION OP HOG PRODUCTION STANDARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact we are not likely at this stage to have a detailed statement from him in committee, may I ask what steps are being taken to restore hog production in Canada to meet the serious shortage of meat which is threatening the allied countries, in the face of drastic reduction in hog production in Canada.


Mr. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I think this is the same question which was asked earlier in the session, and which I agreed to answer when my estimates 32283-54i
Hog Production
were before the committee. But as I understand they are not now to come up, I shall answer at this time.
I would point out that that part of the hon. member's observations which form the question is as follows: "What steps are being taken to restore hog production in Canada?" And then he goes on to add, "in the face of drastic reduction in hog production in Canada." It all depends upon what one is referring to, whether that last statement is or is not correct. Hog production in Canada has been doubled during the period of the war. That is, we are marketing twice as many hogs now as we were in the last year before the war. In so far as the present is concerned, it is scarcely correct to say that there has been a "drastic reduction" in hog production in Canada. Inspected slaughterings for the first three months in the last three years were as follows:
1944
Hogs
1.624.000
2.824.000
1.918.000
In other words, the slaughterings in the first three months of 1945 were 300,000 higher than the slaughterings in the first three months of 1943. However, if you compare the slaughterings in the first three months-of this year with the exceptionally high slaughterings in the first three months of 1944, it will probably be correct to say that there has been a considerable reduction. Apart from that there has been a great increase in hog production in Canada as compared with any other period at any time in its history.
Then comes the question: what is being: done? First, there is the ceiling on grain purchased to feed hogs. No matter in what part of Canada hogs are being fed, there is a ceiling price on the grain with which those hogs are fed. Second, freight is paid on grain to feed hogs in that part of Canada east of Fort William and in all that part of Canada located in the province of British Columbia. Third, there is a premium of $3 on grade A hogs produced anywhere in Canada and a premium of $2 on grade B 1 hogs produced anywhere in Canada. Fourth, there is a contract guaranteeing minimum prices until December 31, 1946 with Great Britain for all surplus hogs that can be produced and processed in Canada and sent to Great Britain. Fifth, there is the question of farm labour. An order has gone out from the Department of Labour to the man-power mobilization boards or the selective service boards throughout Canada to the effect that postponements should be granted, if asked for, to those who are engaged in the feeding of hogs on farms in Canada. In addition to
Family Allowances

that, there are the special instructions, which were read to the house the other day by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence, which have gone out to the armed forces to provide for the release of certain persons to assist in the feeding of hogs.
In other words, there is the regulation of feed; there is the payment of freight on mill feeds and other feeds; there is the payment *of premiums from the treasury of Canada amounting to millions; there are the signed *contracts guaranteeing a minimum price down to the end of 1946, and then there are the provisions being made of labour for this purpose to the greatest possible numbers.



SUPPLIES TO GREAT BRITAIN-RATIONING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given a moment ago by the Minister of Agriculture that [DOT]contracts had been made with Great Britain to take all the hogs that Canada can produce, and in view of what the minister said a few *days ago that the food administrator in Great Britain had sent a cable stating last autumn that they would take all the meat we could send, is the minister prepared to state whether the government is ready to announce its policy on meat rationing?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can only give the same answer I gave the other day, that this is a matter of government policy. If it were to be decided, it would not be the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture to announce it.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, notice of which I sent him earlier to-day. I realize that if it were not so late in the session Your Honour might take exception to this question, but in view of the circumstances that exist I trust that you will permit me to ask it.
When section 8, subsection 2 of the Family Allowances Act was under discussion last year, the minister, at that time parliamentary assistant to the President of the Privy Council, assured me that consideration would be given to my request for an amendment to this subsection so that the allowance would not be

denied in respect of children of those receiving war veterans' allowance or the special allowance to veterans' widows. My point was that these children should be treated the same as the children of those in receipt of pensions under the Pension Act. The minister's assurance that my representations would be considered will be found on page 6876 of Hansard for August 1, 1944. Can the minister indicate whether this consideration has been given and whether the proposed change has been made? If not, will it be considered further?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, consideration has been given to the point, but in view of the very considerable number of classes of people already in receipt of allowances and changes that have recently been made with regard to veterans and others, a decision has not been reached as yet. It is hoped that an announcement can be made within the next few weeks.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Defence for Air):: I should like to lay on the table answers to questions that were asked during the course of the discussion of my estimates by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), dealing with senior officers of the Royal Canadian Air Force.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. Is the reported closing of the military embarkation depot at Windsor, Nova Scotia, correct? If so, what are the reasons for closing it, and what disposition will be made of the establishment?


Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of this question. I am informed that the transit depot at Windsor is to be closed on April 15, the facilities being no longer required. Movements will be handled at Debert. The hospital is to be kept in operation, but the camp itself will be put on a care and maintenance basis.

Dominion Elections



NAVAL SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Percy Chapman Black: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services if he will bring down the replies to the questions I asked when his estimates were before the house regarding the total costs for construction, equipment and land of the establishments at Deep Brook, Sydney and Esquimalt. When I asked these questions the minister promised that he would give the answers later, as he did not have the information before him at that time.
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services)': I am checking the figures now and I hope to have this information for my hon. friend by six o'clock.



CAPITAL COSTS AT CORNWALLIS AND SYDNEY, N.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, I can now give to the member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) answers to the questions which he asked some time ago. I have already given him the capital costs at Cornwallis and at Sydney, Nova Scotia. The cost of equipment at Cornwallis, according to the figures I have here, was $803,000; the cost of equipment at Sydney, $746,000; new construction at Esquimalt, $5,032,000; equipment at Esquimalt, $1,069,000.
Percy Chapman Black: I understand that the figures which the minister has just submitted, added to the figures which he gave to the committee before, constitute the total capital expenditures and expenditures on equipment up to the [DOT] present time, not taking into consideration operating costs?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: My hon. friend says, up to the present time. I think that the figures that I gave him for Cornwallis were up to December 6, 1944; that was for the capital cost. The figures I have given for Sydney were up to February of this year. There might be a slight increase by now over the capital figures I gave, but I do not think it would be very great. The figures I have given on cost,of equipment should be added to the figures I gave on April 4 for capital costs.



DOMINION ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South:) Earlier in the session I raised a question as to what provision was being made by the government for the taking of the vote on the personnel of the merchant marine during the coming election. I wonder if the secretary of state can give us that information.
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: The hon. member for York South was kind enough to advise me of his intention to ask this question, and in answer I should like to read a memorandum prepared by the chief electoral officer with regard to voting by those in the merchant marine. This reads:
By clause (c) of subparagraph 1 of paragraph 5 of the Canadian war service voting regulations, 1944, merchant seamen engaged in coastwise or foreign service are entitled to vote at the next general election as war service electors under the special voting procedure prescribed by the regulations.
Paragraph 36 of the regulations prescribe that these merchant seamen may cast their votes before any commissioned officer of the naval, military or air forces of Canada specially designated for the purpose of taking the votes of war sendee electors.
War service electors will vote during the twelve week days prior to polling day at the next general election.
Several voting places will be established for the taking of the votes of war service electors at Halifax, Saint John, Quebec, Montreal,. Vancouver and Victoria, where these merchant seamen may cast their votes upon satisfactory proof of their identity and of their qualifications as war service electors, during the voting period of twelve week days.
Furthermore, these merchant seamen will be able to vote as war service electors in large ports in the United1 Kingdom and other allied countries.



MINIMUM NUMBER OF DAYS PRESCRIBED BY CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister how it is possible under the act to call an election in six days less than the minimum prescribed by the chief electoral officer?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would say to my hon.
friend that I consulted the chief electoral officer
846	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
this morning in regard to the statement I intended to make this afternoon, and he gave me the fullest assurance that the election could safely be held in that time.


Grote Stirling: So this statement on page 6E8 of Hansard is inaccurate?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say
as to that, but I can say that I have the positive assurance of the chief electoral officer that polling can safely take place on June 11. I am surprised that my hon. friend should raise any question about our having an election then.


Grote Stirling: He raised no question
other than that if a mistake is made under the act after the statement of the chief electoral officer it would be a very serious matter indeed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is quite right.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
The bouse resumed from Thursday, April 12, consideration in committee of a resolution to grant to His Majesty certain sums of money for the carrying out of measures consequent upon the existence of a state of war-Mr. Ilsley-Mr. Bradette in the chair.

['Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks with respect to the Department of Reconstruction. I had intended to speak briefly on this matter when the minister\'s portion of the appropriation was before the committee; but time interfered. Yesterday the minister tabled a pamphlet entitled "Employment and Income." I have read this pamphlet through. After the great amount of advance advertising which it and the work of the Department of Reconstruction received from the minister himself and from other ministers, I had been led to believe that in this pamphlet we were going to have something really epoch-making. I thought possibly we would really be given an idea as to how we could emerge from the old order into a new order. But I must say that reading this pamphlet through greatly disillusioned me. I was utterly disappointed. There is in this pamphlet no evidence whatsoever of any new heaven or any new earth. There is no indication of any real appreciation of the causes of the economic ills which afflict the world at the present time, and there is no sign of any knowledge how to remove those causes. That is an exceedingly serious matter.\nI spoke on March 23 about the international conference at San Francisco, and I found the same fault with the general set-up there. They seem disposed to talk about everything but the causes of the trouble and how to remove those causes.\nNow, the causes of the trouble which we face to-day are briefly these: that we have developed great machines of astonishing efficiency; we have perfected highly efficient technological skills, as a result of all of which we are able to produce abundantly and largely without the use of men, the result being that the purchasing power in the hands of the people as related to the amount of goods and services which are coming on the market is gradually decreasing, with the result that we have an inability on the part of those who produce to sell their product at a reasonable price, and an inability on the part of the people generally to buy the goods; the result\nbeing that we have poverty in the midst of plenty and general consternation and dismay, with the tendency for the producers to combine in greater combines and cartels, international organizations, and a tendency on the part of the labouring men to combine in a similar way to combat the power of money, with the result that there is an urge everywhere apparently to centralization of power and the destruction of democracy. Not only is this to be observed within the nation but it is a world phenomenon. We shall never overcome this difficulty; we shall never be able to protect democracy unless we discover the fundamental causes of the trend of our day and set about remedying those causes.\nWith respect to this white paper, the Social Credit group has not had time fully to study the government\'s employment and income scheme, but we are convinced from the study we have made that the white paper does not contain any effective cure for the economic disturbances which ended in the world catastrophe of 1939. Rather, controls are to be increased to make effective -resistance by nations to economic ills more difficult, if not impossible. Further, it is clear that disarmament and similar proposals are not advanced in whole or even mainly in the interests of peace through international good will, but rather to prevent national resistance to economic conquest by means of an international gold standard. These are hard things to say about the minister\'s general proposal, but the mere fact that the whole plan centres around the Bretton Woods agreement indicates that what I have said is not an unjust criticism.\nI have several suggestions to offer the minister in connection with the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Canada. As he will agree, we must increase production and consumption or distribution in Canada. Only by these two processes can the standard of living of the Canadian people be raised to where it should be and maintained there. The ordinary socialist takes the stand generally, I gather, that private enterprise will not produce abundance. That, I maintain, is the most flagrant nonsense because private enterprises are producing so much goods that we find it utterly impossible to sell them all. Therefore our difficulty is by no means production. We can produce if we could only enable private enterprise to sell. The problem is, therefore, to enable them to sell and at reasonable prices. I am not going to deal now with how that is to be done except to hint, but I intend to approach the problem of rehabilitation from the practical point of view in a general way, a thing which the minister will, I think, readily understand.', 'War Appropriation', 'I am going to refer to my own constituency. In my constituency there are several rather unusual possibilities for increasing production and consumption. One of those is coal. In Alberta we have extensive deposits of high quality bituminous coal and quite a large percentage of it is in the Lethbridge riding of Alberta. Up to the present time we have done very little in Canada by way of utilizing our coal for the production of desirable means toward improving our standard of living. For example, very little is done with respect to processing coal to obtain power for rural electrification and the like. There is a great need for rural electrification and consequently a great opening for the use of coal to produce power for that purpose. Almost nothing has been done in Canada with respect to processing our coal for petroleum. The minister pointed out this afternoon, and has pointed out previously in his speeches in this house, that Canada is dependent largely on outside sources for her petroleum, oils, gasoline and the like. With the tremendous deposits of coal which we have in Canada I maintain, that it is a reflection on our intelligence to have to be importing our oil from outside when nations such as Germany, Italy and Britain have been producing their oil needs in such large measure from coal. We have such tremendous quantities of coal. I am told that the amount of gasoline and oil products which we need in Canada could be produced from about twenty million tons a year. This would add greatly to the prosperity of the coal mining areas in our country and would add greatly to our own security and self-sufficiency in time of stress.\nMuch has been done in other countries in the way of processing coal to get certain chemicals. Very little is being done in Canada. Men process coal in order to get plastics, explosives and solvents of one kind and another. All of these are possibilities of the future; I submit to the minister that he should take into the most careful consideration the possibility of processing our coal deposits in order to produce those very desirable commodities in our country. I am told that in Britain and in Germany they have used coal to obtain coal tar for the building of highways. We need highways in Canada very, very badly. We have much difficulty in getting highways that will stand up to our weather. It ought to be a sound proposal to obtain coal tar from our coal deposits and with it to build highways.\nI should like to refer the minister to a good brief which has recently been submitted to the royal commission on coal that has been sitting across Canada. This brief was submitted by the Lethbridge board of trade. It is called\n\n"A Fuller Utilization of Coal Deposits." If he will read that brief he will obtain some ideas which I think will help him to avoid too much study in the matter.\nMay I turn from our coal deposits to the possibilities of irrigation. Every gallon of water that runs down the slopes toward Hudson bay should be carefully stored and beneficially used on the thirsty soils of the west. We have all too little water in western Canada, and of that which we have a great amount, in fact by far the major portion, is being allowed to run to waste year after year with nothing being done about the matter. May I particularly draw the attention of the committee to the project for the utilization of water in my own constituency, called the Lethbridge southeast water conservation project, or the St. Mary\'s and Milk rivers conservation project. In this project it is proposed to take the waters that run in four rivers flowing through southwestern Alberta and store them in ten reservoirs, the combined capacities of which will be 738,700 acre feet; then to distribute that water over 345,000 acres of land in the federal ridings of Lethbridge and Medicine Hat, the total cost being $15,178,430. The land upon which it is proposed to put the water is choice soil. It has been semi-arid for centuries; consequently it is very rich. The climate there is unusually fine and the location with respect to transportation and markets is good. By utilizing the land and water we can add greatly to the stock raising capacity of Alberta and the west, the dairy producing capacity, the capacity to cam goods and the capacity to produce sugar. Sugar beets particularly grow very well with high yields and a high percentage of sugar content. Up to the present time the people of Canada and particularly the present government of Canada have greatly neglected the possibilities Of producing beet sugar in Canada. It is an amazing thing to me; nevertheless it is obviously true.\nBeet sugar is one of the most important commodities which we can produce in Canada. During this war we have had to go short of sugar. During a future war-let us not forget that a future war is a possibility-we might not be able to get the meagre supplies that we have been able to get from abroad. It is only the part of ordinary common sense to put ourselves in a position where we can produce our own sugar, and we can do that successfully in Canada.\nMay I return to the water conservation project? I would suggest to the minister that he read the report of the committee\n\nWar Appropriation\nwhich was appointed under the name of the St. Mary\'s and Milk rivers conservation committee to examine into the possibilities of the project about which I have been speaking. This committee submitted a report to the Minister of Mines and Resources in February, 1942. On page 12 of the report the committee pointed out that they believed this project was a desirable one for post-war rehabilitation in Canada; and in the report they pointed out the serious danger of Canada losing her share of the waters of the St. Mary\'s and Milk rivers because they are international streams, since that share was awarded by the treaty dated January 11, 1909, and stipulated by official order of the international joint commission dated October 4, 1921. I specially urge that the government proceed immediately with the St. Mary\'s dam of a capacity of 270,000 acre feet. This would cost roughly $4 million. It would provide plenty of water to make up for the shortage which now exists in the irrigation districts in the Lethbridge area comprising 120,000 acres, and it would provide water for 94,000 acres of new land. These are very important matters. Therefore I commend to the minister\'s most careful consideration the Lethbridge southeast water conservation project.\nI referred a moment ago to the beet sugar industry. May I turn the attention of the committee to that again for a minute or two? Any nation that does not or cannot produce its own sugar needs cannot be really free. Sugar is likely to become more important as the generations pass. Canada could easily produce her own sugar. One beet sugar factory like the one at Raymond, Alberta, in my constituency, can produce one-twentieth of Canada\'s annual requirements of sugar. Canada could produce all the sugar she needs in southern Alberta, south of Calgary. The beet sugar industry should, I maintain, be encouraged. I urge upon the minister that he bring influence to bear upon his colleagues in the cabinet to the end that this may be done. As I said a moment ago, the present government has been unsympathetic to the beet sugar industry, and has hurt that industry in Canada.\nMay I now turn for a few moments to agriculture in Canada, as it is affected by the rehabilitation programme. If agriculture is to be rehabilitated in Canada three things must be done. First, the farmer must have parity prices. This means the bonusing or subsidizing upward of the prices the farmer gets, and the bonusing or subsidizing downward of the prices of the commodities he has to buy. The subsidizing process should be 32283-56\ncarried to the point at which every farm family would be able to have a modern home and a cultured, educated family free from financial worries. This should be the ideal. Anything short of that is unworthy of any government whatsoever that might have power in Canada. Second, the farmer needs full markets; markets in Canada to the limit of the capacity of Canadians to consume the goods, andi markets abroad for all our surpluses, either through trade or through mutual aid so financed as to avoid increasing taxation or debt. The third need is generous credit facilities. If the minister will provide these three requisites to the farming population of Canada, he will have no need to worry about rehabilitating them, for they will take care of the rehabilitation themselves from there on.\nI now turn to the question of housing. Some attention has been given to that matter up to the present during the debate. I maintain that the present housing programme of the government is altogether inadequate. The proposed assistance is not available to the very people who need housing assistance most. Money for housing must be made much more widely available so that the poor man, working for a low and uncertain income, may be able to possess his own home. Interest rates must be much lower than are now proposed, not more than perhaps two per cent. The repayment of the loan should be on the basis of the income of the householder. If he pays a moderate percentage of his income for a period of, say twenty years he should be guaranteed clear title to his home. Every family must have an opportunity of possessing its own home.\nCanada exists for the sake of the people of Canada. Without plenty of patriotic, healthy and prosperous people, Canada will never grow. The people must come first. Measures must be taken to encourage an increase in the Canadian birthrate, and suitable housing provision would be one such measure.\nSome people will say it sounds foolish to argue that if the householder has paid a certain percentage of his income for twenty years he should have possession of his home. May I just point out to hon. members that the administration in Alberta is proceeding on just such a basis. When they turn over, we will say a half-section of land to a returned man they say to him, "Now, if you give us a certain percentage of the produce of your land for a certain number of years, perhaps ten or fifteen years, you can have the land." I believe eight per cent is all that is called for.', '8S2\nWar Appropriation', u'If the man has crop failures, all right; in that event he does not have to pay anything. So that when a man buys a house, or borrows money with which to build a house, if he does the very best he can, if he gives a percentage of his income every year, the state should be prepared to give him complete possession of that house. That may sound strange, but hon. members will have to become accustomed to hearing many strange things before they realize what is really meant by a new order in which human beings shall count more than material things. Living incomes must be guaranteed to all people willing to work.\nI now turn to one or two other matters. First, I should like to say a word about old age pensions. I am not at all satisfied with the old age pension provisions of this country. An old age pension of at least $50 a month for all who have reached the age of sixty-five, although I prefer the age of sixty, and for those who have reached the age of unemployability, must be guaranteed; and that at an early date. There will be those who will say, "Well, we cannot afford it. Where are we to get the money?" I submit that the question should be:\'can we produce the milk and cream and butter and cheese and other foods? Can we produce the clothing; can we produce the housing; can we produce the medical care, the dental care, the hospital care? Can we produce the material things? The answer must be, yes. Well, then, if we can produce the material things, certainly we can find some way or another of producing the counters or the money tokens which represent the things we produce, and distribute those to the people who are to use the goods. Certainly we can. Just as soon as we begin to realize that what is physically possible can be made financially possible in peace as well as in war, we shall not hesitate at all to give the old people that to which they have a clear title.\nA moment ago I mentioned finance, and I turn to that question again. The minister must find ways of changing our present debt-creating financial system into a non-debt-creating financial system. He must ascertain all the factors entering into the present debt-creating system and provide for the neutralizing or the liquidating of the debt resulting from that system. If the minister fails to accomplish the objectives I have indicated he will fail to rehabilitate the Canadian people. I may be asked how all this can be done. My reply is that very little can be done under the present financial system; and I make this\n\xa3Mr. Blackmore.]\nremark in reference to the minister\'s whole set of proposals as envisaged by his white paper. I grant that in this pamphlet he says that this is only the first stage, but judging from the direction in which he is travelling I would say that all the other stages will be just as bad as this first one. After all, if you set out going directly east in the first steps you make, you are likely to continue going east all the way through. The minister simply will not be able to find the money to make good the promises which are implied in this pamphlet. He will be at a loss to know what to do in order to accomplish his aims.\nI may be asked, "Well, what would you do?" Of course a good many hon. members will say they are familiar with the social credit ideas. Yes; and they must become more familiar with social credit ideas. In these last days of the session I am going to ask hon. members this question. How many times have they found that the Social Credit members have been right, since they came here in 1935? They will be surprised if they go back over the list to see how many times we have been right. AVe implied a forecast of war in 1936 and 1937. We stood in favour of preparation for war; and I could go right through the whole list. Why was that? It was because we have been doing a little studying with respect to these matters. It has not been any accident. I am prepared to say that in financial matters members of this house and the country at large will find the Social Crediters have been right. I hope hon. members do not have to go through another depression and another war before making that discovery.\nThe minister must see to it that fundamental changes are made in the present financial system. I suggest to him in all earnestness and sincerity that he must concentrate his attention upon the question of money. My socialist friends of course will begin to see red when we mention money; but we have already learned how to produce the goods, and now all we need to do is to find how to produce the money. I hope the minister will concentrate upon this question of money with the same singleness of purpose and the same determination he would bring to bear upon a great engineering project. If he does that he will discover the essential facts and will be able to devise the essential changes necessary. May I suggest to the minister that money is only a claim to goods. Consequently, where the goods are, the money can be. Undoubtedly Canada can produce the goods. Then certainly she can produce the money. This country\n\nInterim Supply Bill\ncan produce the goods in abundance; and the minister must learn how to produce the money free from debt and free from taxation. The minister will be able to save a great deal of time and energy, and avert a dangerous feeling of frustration throughout the country, if he will frankly adopt the monetary principles of social credit.\nBefore resuming my seat, I should like to spend just a moment on this general question of trends with respect to free enterprise which was discussed briefly this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Free enterprise, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar pointed out., is finding it difficult to survive nowadays because of certain trends. May I point out where the main difficulty for free enterprise lies. It is in the fact that free enterprise is unable to find markets; and because it is unable to find markets, combines of producers result, in an effort to cut down overhead. The combines get bigger and bigger until, first thing you know, they are vast trusts, and have become international cartels.\nWhat is the cause of that trouble? Purely that they are unable to find markets, and purely that they are unable to have prices guaranteed. Now, if we can manage to provide these industries with markets at guaranteed fair prices it will be a simple matter to govern their activities beyond that, and free enterprise, large and small, will survive and flourish in a country, with freedom. If we fail to find markets for the goods they are able to produce, then I warn that there will be more and more development toward autocracy, more and more development toward totalitarianism and dictatorship until it bestrides the world, and you will find a titanic struggle going on between powerful business concerns organized into a monopoly on one side, and labour organizations organized into a monopoly on the other side. If the business organizations happen to win the contest which follows you will have a fascist dictatorship, and if the labour men, on the other side, win, you will find that you will have a communistic dictatorship, or a dictatorship of the proletariat. And there is no way in the world of escaping this, unless we adopt the method of guaranteeing prices and guaranteeing markets.\nUnless we do that by some such technique as social credit-and I suggest that the social credit technique is admirably adapted to the problem to be solved-we are headed for disaster. And all the Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco conferences that we can devise in the next fifteen years will not save us from dictatorship, and, finally war. I submit this, as a humble con-32283-56J\ntribution which might be used by the government in its endeavour to solve the problem which confronts our country at this time.\nBill reported, read the third time and passed.', 'The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.']
Mr. GREEN:: Mr. Chairman, there are two -matters on which I would ask the minister to make a short statement to-day. The first has to do with government policy on the renegotiation of contracts for war supplies. In my home city of Vancouver there are quite a number of small manufacturing plants doing engineering work, largely in connection with the building of ships. These firms have made representations asking that the government investigate the whole situation with regard to renegotiating contracts, that the situation be clarified and some uniform system adopted, and furthermore provision made that they be allowed to get back in due course the refundable portion of the excess profits tax they have paid.
Most of these firms started in a small way, as the minister knows, and they have done excellent work manufacturing war materials of various kinds. They have provided jobs for a great number of men and women and have in reality built up new industries in our city. The situation is probably the same in many other centres in Canada. In view of the fact that their growth was, of course, largely

a war development, the}' have been subject to heavy excess profits taxation and have been unable to retain sufficient funds to lay aside for the post-war days. Of that taxation, in the last two years-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-twenty per cent was considered as refundable, the plan being that they would get that much back after the war. We are told that they have planned to use that twenty per cent for conversion to production of civilian goods and as working funds for their operations in the days of peace. But a short time ago the Department, of Munitions and Supply stepped in and has been carrying on the renegotiation of these contracts. I do not want to be taken as condoning for a moment the making of unfair profits out of war production. Every member of the house would be very much against that. But in some cases this work was done by tender, in competition with other firms, and now, after the work has been done and the excess profits taxes have been paid on that basis, these firms are faced with renegotiation of their contracts, and in some cases at least- the refundable portion of their tax has been eaten up by reason of the renegotiation carried on by the Department of Munitions and Supply. Hon. members will see that that will havp a direct effect on the ability of these firms to employ people after the war. It may force many films out of business at a time when the government is relying on industry to provide a great number of jobs. That is the policy of the present government, and I am convinced that it would be the policy of whatever government is formed after the election; I do not think there is much chance that Canada will adopt state control of all these industries. It is therefore particularly important that these firms be given a reasonable chance to carry on and provide jobs.
The policy of renegotiation of contracts does not apply to firms which are doing civilian work; it applies only to firms on war work, which of course means that the latter are dealt with far more severely. I would ask the minister to make a statement as to policy in this connection. I repeat that these firms are asking that the whole situation be clarified. Apparently there are no uniform rules; each firm is dealt with on a separate basis; and I ask that an attempt be made to permit them to retain the title to the refundable portion of the tax they have paid. That is the first matter I am placing before the minister to-day.
The second has to do with the shipbuilding industry, which of course is the industry for which most of these smaller firms are produc-

TFar Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
ing. Last summer the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing association presented a brief to the government which contained suggestions and recommendations having in view the furtherance of the interests of Canadian marine transportation. I should not like to be taken as agreeing with all of these submissions, but I shall read them to the house because I think they are very important. The shipbuilding industry is of great consequence to Canada, from the point of view not only of providing work but also of maintaining our navy in the days of peace. In fact it should be one of the key industries of Canada. These are the recommendations made by that association:
1.	The government should restrict the coasting trade of Canada to vessels now registered in Canada and hereafter built in Canada.
2.	That a national shipping policy should be enacted whereby Canadian ship owners engaged in foreign trade in and" out of Canadian ports will be encouraged by all possible means, including subsidies if necessary, to build and register their ships in Canada.
3.	That the government should give consideration, as a part of the post-war reconstruction policy, to the replacement of obsolete vessels employed in the government service by new vessels built in Canada.
4.	That all Canadian naval vessels shall be built in Canada, and that the government make representations to the British government to establish a policy whereby educational orders for British naval vessels may be placed in Canada in the post-war period.
5.	That steps be taken to reduce vessel orders awarded by the government to those shipyards owned and/or controlled by the government with a view to liquidation of these shipyards as soon as the war emergency permits.
6.	That the government should promote a policy of aid to Canadian shipbuilders to enable them to build ships for foreign ownership, through the medium of loans secured by mortgages. or other approved financial arrangements.
7.	That a committee be appointed by the government to study a polity of government purchase of Canadian-owned and registered vessels engaged in the Canadian coastal trade and which have become obsolete, at a fair valuation to be applied as a credit against Canadian built replacement tonnage.
8.	That Canada's shipbuilding and shipping policies be controlled through one government authority, and that Canadian shipbuilders be invited to nominate representatives to all committees dealing with questions relating to marine transportation.
This will be of interest to the Minister of Fisheries:
9.	That all vessels engaged in the Canadian fishing industry shall hereafter be built in Canada.
10.	That consideration be given to the establishing in the principal shipbuilding districts of special facilities for technical education in shipbuilding and marine engineering. *
These recommendations were submitted to the government, and press dispatches of September 11 of last year set out that an eleven-man interdepartmental committee was being set up by the government to consider a merchant shipping policy. The report went on to say that this interdepartmental committee would-
-report to the cabinet upon completion of this study and a meeting will then be arranged at an early date between Mr. King and members of the cabinet and the five-man executive of Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association, which submitted the brief.
In addition to the shipbuilders, the labour unions whose men were building the ships were very much interested in this brief, and asked that they also should be allowed to be represented at this meeting with the cabinet. That is very important, because, after all, to the unions it is a matter of jobs, of enabling the men and their families to live. Will the minister tell us whether or not that meeting has been held, and if not, when it will be held, and also what the general policy of the government is with regard to maintaining the shipbuilding industry after the war?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: Mr. Chairman, with reference
to the small machine shops on the Pacific coast, I may say at once that I have some sympathy with the owners of them. They started as small shops, as a rule, with little equipment, and they have become large shops with modern equipment-at the expense of the government; nevertheless they are faced with the post-war years with operating that sort of plant. Under the tax laws the standard of profits of these firms is low, and I think that any relief they should get should be in the direction of change in the basis of standard profits. It is the duty of my own' department to place war contracts at the lowest possible cost consistent with fairness. That has been done with the main contracts. Where direct government contracts have been placed and where costs have been reduced, it has been the custom to have frequent renegotiations: For example, the shipbuilding industry, when it became more efficient was able to increase the profit on a ship from about 830,000 to as much as $300,000. Naturally the shipbuilding industry was renegotiated, and it is operating to-day on about a three per cent basis. That happens with every type of contractor that has a direct contract with the department. The costs are watched very carefully; we have our auditors checking costs, and as soon as the costs improve so that the profit becomes excessive, it is the custom to renegotiate the contracts with both retroactive and current effect.
848	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
The shops to which my hon. friend refers are not main contractors of the department. In other words, for the most part they do not receive contracts direct from the department; they are subcontractors of the shipbuilding firms; therefore they come in a special class. The government has no direct dealing with them; consequently it does not audit their accounts. Nevertheless, in examining the shipbuilding industry as a whole, it was found that whereas the costs for the finished ships have been brought down progressively as costs improved, the shipbuilders did not renegotiate their subcontracts, with the result that many were paying the same price for components in the third year of the war as they were originally. That led to an investigation of the position of the subcontractors, and it was found that they were the real profiteers of the war.


Howard Charles Green: The minister does not mean that in its worst sense?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, but I mean the people who have made excessive profits in the war are usually subcontractors.


Howard Charles Green: Any profits that they made were taken away by taxation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Taxation has nothing to do with the Department of Munitions and Supply. The tax collector comes in after the department gets through. Were it charged that any subcontractor had made thirty per cent I do not think anyone in this house would accept my explanation that it does not matter, because the tax collector would get part of it. That would not be an excuse at all. We must make sure that our contractors are not overpaid. My department has been steadily on the job of renegotiating war subcontracts, and it is a tremendous job. They run into many hundreds. But the work is progressing and the recoveries are really startling. I suppose the profits made by some of the small machine shops to which the hon. member refers run as high as twenty-five or thirty per cent of their turnover. Of course that is wholly excessive.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know the figures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My department simply sits down with the contractor and says: "Look here, an audit of your books shows that you have made this large profit. We do not think you are entitled to that profit; we think a reasonable scale of profit would be this." The amount we have recovered out of those transactions runs into millions of dollars. There has been no great difficulty in arriving [Mr Howe.]
at a fair settlement. It is true that the shops to which my hon. friend refers will not have the refundable portion of their profits which they expect, but they will have the refundable portion to which they are entitled in equity. So far as I am concerned my department had no option; knowing that those profits existed we had to go out and recapture them. That is what we are doing.


Howard Charles Green: Take a case where a firm
tenders on a job in competition with others.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They did not tender to us.
Those firms were not main contractors of ours. They may have tendered to a shipbuilding firm, but even if that were done, a tender put in in 1940 should not govern the price being paid for the article in 1943, 1944 or 1945. In other wTords the original price may have been put in as a tender in 1941. As a rule the shipbuilding firms have not rechecked their subcontract prices as they should have done as the efficiency of the industry improved; therefore we are forced to do the job.
As I say_ these are not direct contractors of ours. The position of those firms is not as serious as my hon. friend might suppose. After all, most of them have been furnished with greatly improved and enlarged shops and greatly improved machinery. They are all fitted with the most modern machinery, and they are permitted to write them off under accelerated depreciation so that the small man is in a vastly better position to operate after the war than he -was at the beginning of the war. He may require working capital; if so, he will, of course, have first recourse to the industrial bank which was formed to take care of exactly that kind of loan.


Howard Charles Green: That would mean they
would have to borrow money and pay interest on it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Borrow working capital.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister be willing to have an : ./estigation made into the position in which those firms find themselves?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are investigating every
day.


Howard Charles Green: I mean taking them as a
group and having the whole situation looked into.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not a matter of a
group; it is a matter of each firm. We do not deal with groups. Each company sits down with our cost accountant and renegotiation officer and his case is discussed. If some

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
of his work happened to be private work, that is eliminated, because we have no right to negotiate private work. If the work is being done by tender, and if he has an exceptionally efficient plant, that is all taken into account, and my renegotiation officer and the firm -never fail to agree under all the circumstances to a reasonable profit.


Howard Charles Green: How many years back can
they go?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Right back to the beginning
of the war. We have officers from each department all across Canada doing that kind of work; and I may say to the hon. member that it is not small change they are recovering. To date the total gross recovery from renegotiation runs into $250,000,000. You may say the tax department would have recovered that, but at least $70 millions is not recovered by the government.


Grote Stirling: Are the adjustments
retroactive?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes.


Grote Stirling: Sums are refunded?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We take the responsibility
for correcting the tax situation. If the firm has paid income tax on the income that it expected to have before renegotiating we take its refund to the income tax office and have its income tax readjusted accordingly. All that is taken care of as part of our renegotiation. That is a very important part of our department and in my opinion it is an excellent piece of work that they are doing.


Howard Charles Green: What would happen if it
was found that the firm was operating at a loss?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is taken into account
too. We usually hear of that much more quickly than we hear of the profits. If a firm is operating at a loss, it does not go on very long before we hear about it.


Mr. MacINNIS:: May I say a word on this subject? I have had letters from those firms about which the hon. member for Vancouver South has spoken. In my view the principle of renegotiating is accepted both here and in the United States where they have contracts of this kind. The only point that can be made is this: has renegotiation been carried on on a proper basis? Neither the hon. member for Vancouver South nor myself is in a position to express an opinion on that. I cannot see that a committee can be appointed to deal with it now. If the house were in session for
a longer time and the war expenditures committee were sitting, then there would be a possibility of hearing these people and having them explain their case. In lieu of that we shall have to take the statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. He has given me an insight into it that I did not have before.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As to the shipbuilding brief,
I am glad my hon. friend has said that he would not support every chapter of it. I read the brief of the committee of shipbuilders.
I pointed out that it was a one-sided brief. It asked for a great many things that the government should do, but I saw nothing at all in it showing what the shipbuilders must do.


Angus MacInnis: That is free enterprise.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have had two or three frank talks with the members of the shipbuilding industry. I thought the industry should have put in the brief something that was a little more reciprocal than that contained in the brief from which my hon. friend quoted a few minutes ago. In other words, if the industry expects help from the government it must put itself in shape to justify that help. To-day it is operating to capacity on a lavish scale with work enough to last many months into the future, and it is hardly the time to sit down with the government to decide how much government help it is entitled to. When the new government takes over, there is a job to be done with shipbuilding. I think there is a good deal of merit in the proposals of the shipbuilders that a maritime commission be established to handle every phase of shipping and shipbuilding. If this government is returned to power I should be disposed to recommend that to the government. At the moment we are stretching our man-power very tight. If I were to attempt to form a maritime commission to-day I would find it somewhat difficult to secure the men I would wish on that commission. They are busy on other jobs. The men I would want have responsible jobs which they cannot leave under war conditions. I think I can give a reasonable assurance that, if this government is returned, a maritime commission will be appointed.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not deal with one aspect of my question. Has labour been consulted at all in regard to this question of shipbuilding? The unions were asking to be called into consultation on the question. Has that been done?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We shall be glad to hear representations from labour when we are prepared to act, when a policy has been formulated.
S50	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
Certainly it will be discussed with labour. Every major action of the government that has repercussions on labour is discussed with labour; and any plans we have in the direction of a new shipbuilding programme will be discussed with labour. As I say, however, it is a matter to be dealt with by the government that will take over after the election; and until the government is ready to take action, until it has its own plans formulated, there is little purpose in holding discussions with labour.


Howard Charles Green: I think the unions have several very helpful suggestions to offer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have always found suggestions from labour very helpful. I can assure my hon. friend that if I had any intention at all of moving in the matter within the next few weeks, I should be consulting with labour to-day. As I have not, however, I think it should be left until we are ready to proceed.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: There is one clause in the brief referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South in which I was particularly interested:
That steps be taken to reduce vessel orders awarded by the government to those shipyards owned and/or controlled by the government with a view to liquidation of these shipyards as soon as the war emergency permits.
Would the minister care to make a statement as to the policy of the government in that regard? Before he does so I would remind him that some eight or ten days ago a delegation from the Toronto shipyards, a government-owned plant, interviewed him. At that time fears were expressed that the yard was being gradually dismantled, that vital equipment was being or about to be sold. I believe the minister undertook to find out whether that was being done, and to let us know. Has he any further information on that subject?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The future of the government in the shipbuilding business will be a matter for the maritime commission when it is appointed, or whatever government agency is in charge of shipbuilding in the post-war period. It is hardly fair to consider yards that were put up to do particular war jobs as industries. For example, the yard at Toronto was designed to build corvettes and minesweepers. Another yard was designed to build 4,700-ton freighters. Three yards were designed purely for the outfitting of ships fabricated in other yards. Whether or not they are shipyards might cause some little debate. We are quite prepared to place those yards in the hands of anyone who thinks he can make a go of them in the post-war period.

They were not organized or built by the government with the intention that they should be operated after the war, when the classes of ships for which they were designed are no longer required. They were simply emergency yards to meet an emergency condition. As far as Toronto is concerned, some equipment was removed from the yard there for other government operations, and it is subject to recall if required. I think those interested, particularly those in the city of Toronto who have shown some concern, are aware of the fact that the assets of the yard are for sale, and I am hopeful that an offer for that equipment will be received in due course from someone who believes he can operate the yard successfully in its present condition.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I want to ask the minister a second question by way of following up the one I asked with regard to wage agreements with men serving on the Park ships. The ship I have reference to is the S.S. Coronation Park, one of the Park ships which was articled to a Vancouver firm and then chartered by the shipping board at Washington. The information I have is that the crew on that ship signed their articles in Vancouver, contracting to serve for a year, with no knowledge whatever of what their future movements might be. They soon found themselves in the southern Pacific delivering war supplies to American soldiers, exposed to enemy attack from the air, from the surface of the water and from under water, and subject to all the tropical diseases that prevail. I am itold that American sailors on Liberty ships, doing the same type of work, receive by way of war * bonus one hundred per cent of their basic wage rate plus $5 a day, because of the dangers and risks involved in that particular area. Has the government any supervision over contracts made by a private company with another government for the use of Canadian ships? Canadian seamen on board that ship are receiving $44.50 a month in war risk bonus. American soldiers are getting up to $350 a month war risk bonus. These men have been there since November. The minister mentioned that their interests were protected by the seamen's union. I am told they have had only two partial mail deliveries in that area since November. While American sailors there can get mail within a week after it is mailed in the United States, our soldiers have to go as long as nine weeks without mail. There is not much the union or anyone else can do in that connection.

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
Incidentally when these men sailed they thought they were going on an ordinary voyage, and, as I pointed out the other evening, they were given no protection. Not a single sailor on that ship was given an injection of any kind as protection against tropical diseases; nor had they been given such protection up to March 12. It seems to me the government should assume some responsibility for the men serving on board their own ships and in the service of an allied country. These men have made a protest to the United States government by way of a petition, I believe signed by the entire crew. They want to know who is benefiting by the cheaper rate which prevails on Canadian ships as compared with American ships. Is it the American government; is it the private company which entered into the agreement with the United States shipping board, or is it the Canadian government? There is a vast difference between the cost of delivering goods in an American ship and in a Canadian ship, and it would seem that the men on the Canadian ship should receive more consideration than they have been given. I do not know what facilities the minister's department has for investigating a situation of that kind, but I should like him to make a statement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Park Steamship company supervise the operation of all Park ships. A wage agreement has been negotiated with the men, through their proper negotiating agency, standard for all ships in all waters. If any ship goes into the combat zone, war risk insurance applies, and it is the Canadian scale of war risk insurance. The ship my hon. friend mentions as trading in the Pacific is by no means the only Canadian ship which trades in the Pacific. We have been operating ships to Australia since the first ship was built on the Pacific coast. I suppose at least a third of the Park fleet is in the Australian trade.
I think my hon. friend is mistaken when he suggests that this ship is chartered to the United States. It may take on United States war cargo, but all allied ships are operated in a pool. If a Canadian ship is not filled up with Canadian cargo the pool would order it to a United States port to complete the cargo from that country. That is only incidental. One would find United States ships in Vancouver harbour, topping off American cargo with certain cargo from Canada. But that ship is operated as a United States ship, just as a British ship is operated as a British ship where-<ever she may be sailing.
Tramp steamships call at many ports and carry the cargo of many nations. That is a practice which has been going on for years. Our scale of pay on all war business in Canada is lower than in the United States. There is nothing unusual about that. The pay of a steelworker in Pittsburgh is higher than that of a steelworker in Hamilton, but the cost of living for the steelworker in Hamilton is correspondingly lower than that of the steelworker in Pittsburgh. So, when it is all added up I think perhaps the Canadian is as well off as his American counterpart who receives higher pay. This applies all through. Our economy is on one scale, while the United States economy is on another, both as to the income and as to the expenditure of individuals. I have yet to be convinced that our Canadian worker is in any poorer position than his American counterpart in the United States.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The information I
have from an officer on that ship is that it sailed light to an American port, that it was hired by the war shipping administration at Washington, and since last November has been used to deliver American goods to American soldiers in the war zone of the south Pacific.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the ship were chartered to the United States government it would be a bare boat charter, and the ship would have an American crew. If it still has a British crew it is not chartered to the administration, but is simply a Canadian ship operating in the united nations pool. The fact that it carries American supplies continuously does not affect the position. One would find Swedish ships and the ships of other nations carrying war supplies in the Pacific. War risk insurance is paid, because those are dangerous waters-at least there is an element of danger; I do not- think the Pacific has been anything like as dangerous as the Atlantic in any stage of the war. I do not believe it is to-day. Losses in the Pacific from submarine attack have been almost nil, whereas my hon. friend knows that losses in the Atlantic have been exceptionally heavy, both proportionately and in numbers of ships sunk.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Does that S44.50 per month war risk bonus apply to seamen?


Clarence Decatur Howe: On every Park steamship.


Mr. ROY:: Mr. Chairman, when I resumed
my seat yesterday I was giving my reason for opposing the resolution, and was about to quote the words of the late Hon. Ernest Lapointe as they appear at page 2468 of Hansard for 1939:
852	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
We are not alone in that view. Australia has always been against conscription, South Africa will never have conscription, Ireland would never have conscription. I think I am true to my concept of Canadian unity when I say that I shall always fight against this policy; I would not be a member of a government that would enact it; and not only that, but I say with all my responsibility to the people of Canada that I would oppose any government that would enforce it. I agree with what was said yesterday by the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister, and what was said by Mr. Bruce of Australia, that the time for expeditionary forces overseas is certainly past, and it would not be the most effective way to help our allies.
There cannot be any misunderstanding as to the Liberal government's external policy. Let us see where the evolution began. Speaking in New York on October 24, 1940, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) said:
We have sent men and ships and guns and planes, over the seas, and we shall send more and still more, so long as there is a single Canadian dollar left to be spent or a solitary Canadian citizen to take his stand in defence of freedom.
Was the government prepared to endorse the policy involved in that astonishing statement? Yes, it was. Here is what was said by His Excellency the Governor General in his speech from the throne one month later, as it appeared in Hansard of November 7. 1940:
The measures which will be submitted to you are such as seem necessary to my advisers for the welfare of the country, and for the prosecution of the war to the utmost of our strength.
That, without equivocation, is a confirmation of what the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services had said. As a matter of fact all this has materialized, and to the utmost extreme.
Coming back to the minister's statement, may I say that it shows a thorough upset in the external policy of the Liberal government. Why has there been such a reverse in the government's attitude? The following revelation by the Prime Minister will explain the whole matter. In his speech of January 26, 1942, as it is reported at page 46 of Hansard, this is what he taught us:
Every hon. member of this house knows that except for the assurance that, in the event of a European war, there would be no conscription for service overseas, this parliament would never have decided, in the immediate and unanimous manner in which it did, to stand at the side of Britain in the resistance of aggression, and the defence of freedom.
As we now have conscription, it is needless to say that it was a cheated parliament which accepted Canada's participation in the war. Continuing with this revelation the Prime Minister added:

Hon. members are also aware that if, at the time when Canada's participation in the war was challenged in an election in the province of Quebec by a government professing a different political faith, a like assurance with respect to service overseas had not been given in the name of the present government by the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, by the Minister of Public Works, and other Liberal leaders and members of this House of Commons from the province of Quebec, the verdict of the people of that province might have been wholly different.
_ It was also, Mr. Speaker, a cheated population that had not rendered a different verdict from the one rendered.
Now that we have had five years of applied conscription, of tremendous war expenditures, of gifts-more than three billions of dollars- to the governments of the empire, of ridiculous propaganda and of solid colonial servilism, let us see how the cycle of the Liberal party's imperialist evolution was completed. Speaking in the House of Commons on March 28, 1945, the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 299 of Hansard:
Hon. gentlemen opposite will find out when the opportunity comes-and I am thankful to say it will be given fairly soon-for them as well as the government to appear before the people of this country, whether or not the people of Canada feel that I have done my duty by the British commonwealth of nations, by the British empire, through every hour of the time I have been serving as Prime Minister of this country.
By that emphatic declaration the Prime Minister branded himself as a true imperialist and a straight Tory. I have spoken of evolution and of contradictions, but I wonder if those appellations are the right ones. I must confess I am rather lost. Would not the words "betrayal" apply more adequately?
Moreover, I have another very serious reason for opposing the resolution. I am given to believe that the verdict rendered by the electors of Grey North indicates a true opposition to conscription. Notwithstanding what has been so often said by members on both sides of the house, here is what was published in the Owen Sound Daily Sun-Times of January 23, 1945 on page 6. You can see from your place, Mr. Chairman, that most of this page is devoted to the Liberal party and General McNaughton's propaganda. To the right you will see a picture of the Minister of National Defence. I shall not go over all this political propaganda; it would take too much time. I am not using this for any political purpose; I am using it simply to make my point. This reads:
And the same Garfield Case told you at Rocklyn, January 16, "I'm still opposed to conscription as such but am for total mobilization of man-power and resources."

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
Men and women of North Grey, do you find this kind of double-talk reassuring-when your men overseas want reinforcements? Where is that "clear and emphatic policy of reinforcements" he talks about?
Case says plainly he is opposed to conscription. That means that if Case had the say-those 8,300 draftees would not be overseas now.
Let's have a man of action-not words and wind.
You want reinforcements, for your men overseas. McNaughton is getting your reinforcements. This is proven fact-not double-talk.
My conclusion is that the people of Grey North, having defeated the Minister of National Defence who was a champion of conscription, having elected the other candidate who was opposing conscription, have indicated that they are against conscription. They defeated the Minister of National Defence who still continues to impose conscription in this country against the will of the population of Ontario as well as of Quebec.


Mr. POULIOT:: Who published that
advertisement?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: It is published by authority of the North Grey Liberal Association.
Speaking about the participation of Canada in the war of the Pacific and of Asia the Prime Minister has outlined what was to be the importance of the proposed participation. He has said that conscription was not to be enforced, and so forth, and he concluded by saying that that was the government's intention if it were still in power after the election. There is an axiom that the past guarantees the future. If we can foresee the future through the past of the Liberal government we cannot depend upon those enunciations.
Canada has shed enough blood and has gone into debt sufficiently for a cause which brings about to-day conclusions far different from what we were told at the beginning of the war. That is, we have defended a cause and interests that we knew nothing about. We must not permit more Canadian blood to be shed in Asia or more debts to be imposed upon the Canadian people in order to make gifts to others. We must not permit more sacrifices to be made for the sake of interests which are not ours and which we do not understand. This is well proven by the hypocrisy which we have discovered in those international financial schemers from Basle who are responsible for this world-wide butchery out of which they are making commerce.
These are a few of the reasons I have for voting against the two billion dollar war appropriation. Rather I would suggest that the National Resources Mobilization Act of
1940 be repealed immediately and that all controls and rationing be done away with. I am opposed also to the maintenance by Canada of a force in Europe after the war and to the sending of troops to participate in the Pacific war. It is as clear as lime water that the people of Canada, who have already indicated a lack of confidence in the government in the last by-election, will not endorse its external policy at the coming general election. In the meantime let us keep this money for developing our country and doing all those good things outlined by the Prime Minister in his 1939 speech for the welfare of the Canadian people.
If Mr. Speaker had been in the Chair at this moment, and as I may not have the honour of addressing him again before the expiration of the nineteenth parliament, I would like to have congratulated him upon the distinguished manner in which he has occupied the Chair. I would like to have thanked him for the impartiality which has always characterized his decisions throughout the five years of this parliament. The dignity of his personality may very well be the only fine thing which will be left from this nineteenth parliament. I am sure that when future generations learn of all the incredible things that were done by this parliament they will be convinced that we have just gone through the most inauspicious and anti-Canadian episode in all Canada's history.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: There are a number of questions I should like to ask the minister, who seems to be in an amiable mood. I am sure the questions I intend to ask will not arouse him in any way. In past years when some considerable time was taken up with the estimates of the Minister of Munitions and Supply he seemed rather to resent the questions that were asked. I had hoped that there would be an opportunity to discuss the white paper the minister placed before parliament during the present week, but time prevents discussion in detail.
I must say that the white paper is a most interesting and exceptionally well put together document. I have read it with a great deal of care and attention. The problem of the post-war and the period of reconstruction is one that is exercising the minds of men in all democratic countries to-day. It seems to me that this white paper combines the recommendations of Sir William Beveridge and of Lord Keynes, as well as incorporating in a large measure the recommendations of the national resources planning board of the United States, particularly those contained in its report for 1943 on the post-war plan and programme.
854	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munilipns and Supply
There seems to be very little with which we who believe in the principles of private enterprise can offer disagreement. The general idea and conception of this white paper seems to be founded in part upon the four year plan that was announced for Great Britain by the Prime Minister on March 22, 1943; also, in so far as employment is concerned. the employment policy of the United Kingdom as set forth in the documents put out by the Minister of Reconstruction in Great Britain in May, 1944.


John Horne Blackmore: When the hon. member for Lake Centre says that the Progressive Conservative party believe in private enterprise, would he be willing also to include Social Crediters?-because we believe in private enterprise too, although we certainly do not believe in that white paper.


John George Diefenbaker: I accept the suggestion of the hon. member, absolutely. As a matter of fact the whole foundation for the white paper and its ideas is pretty well epitomized in the speech delivered by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill on the 15th of March when, enunciating the government's plan for the post-war, he used these words:
At the head of our mainmast, we fly the flag of free enterprise. We are determined that native genius and the spirit of adventure, or risk-taking in peace, as in war, shall bear our fortunes forward, finding profitable work and trade for our people, and that good, thrifty house-keeping, both national and private, shall sustain our economy.
He goes on to point out that that does not mean that necessary controls are going to be removed immediately after the war. It is interesting to note that while there are those in Canada of the labour unions who say we must accept the socialistic concept in its entirety^ in the United States the American Federation of Labour and the C.I.O. accept the necessity, and in fact demand the continuance, of a system of private enterprise. At the expense of holding up the committee for a few moments, Mr. Chairman. I am going to refer to the proposed management-labour code that was enunciated as the new charter for labour and management on the 28th of March as a result of the consultations of President Eric Johnston of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States with president William Green of the American Federation of Labour and Philip Murray, president of the C.I.O. It is interesting to note that the leadership of the C.I.O. in the United States accepts the principle of private enterprise that is accepted by the American Federation of Labour and by the president of the Chamber of Commerce in the United

States. I believe this is one of the major problems that face us not only in Canada but throughout democratic countries everywhere. I do not believe we are going back to the days of an uncontrolled private capitalism. Those days are past. I believe a great responsibility falls on private industry to-day. Private industry cannot continue during days of prosperity to employ men and then as soon as difficulties come and restrictions become necessary say to the government that the responsibility is now theirs. Unless private industry is prepared to accept the challenge that comes to it-and I believe that challenge is accepted in this charter which we of the Progressive Conservative party have accepted as applicable to our viewpoint, and as a matter of fact it representing the viewpoint which had been previously enunciated by our leader, Mr. John Bracken- something drastic will be the result.
Private industry must realize that in the post-war reconstruction period a responsibility rests upon the captains of industry that never heretofore rested upon them. Instead of outlining my ideas of what they should undertake to do and how they should do it, I am just going to quote a few excerpts from this new charter for labour and management; for I believe that everything that appears in the white paper that was laid on the table of parliament by the minister appears in this charter, and something more. This is what the charter says:
AVe in management and labour firmly believe that the end of this war will bring the unfolding of a new era based upon a vastly expanding economy and unlimited opportunities for every American.
This peacetime goal can only be attained through the united effort of all our people. To-day we are united in national defence. To-morrow we must be united equally in the national interest.
Management-labour unity, so effective in lifting war production to unprecedented heights, must be continued in the post-war period. To this end, we dedicate our joint efforts for a practical partnership within the framework of this code of principles.
Now I come to the code of principles, and I am going to refer to them briefly:
1.	Increased prosperity for all involves the highest degree of production and employment at wages assuring a steadily advancing standard of living. Improved productive efficiency and technological advancement must, therefore, be constantly encouraged.
Then comes No. 2, and this is so important to-day, having regard to the different attitudes taken by the C.I.O. in our two countries. Here again I repeat that the head of the C.I.O. and the head of the American Federation of Labour agree that:

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
2.	The rights of private property and free choice of action, under a system of private competitive capitalism, must continue to be the foundation of our nation's peaceful and prosperous expanding economy. Free competition and free men are the strength of our free society.
That to me, Mr. Chairman, represents one of the most unusual and pertinent declarations that have been made with the approach of the end of the war Then comes No. 3:
3.	The inherent right and responsibility of management to direct the operation of an enterprise shall be recognized and preserved. So that enterprise may develop and expand an earn a reasonable profit, management must be free as well from unnecessary governmental interference or burdensome restrictions.
Then it asks for certain rights for labour, and says that they must be accepted as they are being accepted to-day by the head of the chamber of commerce in the United States and by industry in general. Paragraph 4 says:
4.	The fundamental rights of labour to organize and to engage in collective bargaining with management shall be recognized and preserved, free from legislative enactments which would interfere with or discourage these objectives. . . .
5.	The independence and dignity of the individual and the enjoyment of his democratic rights are inherent in our free American society. . . .
6.	An expanding economy at home will be stimulated by a vastly increased foreign trade.
Those principles, which as I see it are outlined in detail in the white paper, we of the Progressive Conservative party accept I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the government give consideration to the creation of a national committee composed of representatives of business and of labour organizations, which committee, just as is being done in the United States where a similar suggestion has been made as a result of the collaboration of the three groups I have named, shall seek to promote understanding and sympathy and the acceptance of these principles and assist in proposing to the government national policies to advance the best interests of this nation.
I have touched on only one or two phases of this vast question of post-war reconstruction in order to place before parliament the viewpoint of His Majesty's opposition. I regret very much that, since parliament did not meet earlier, the opportunity to discuss this white paper is denied members of this house.
Having referred in general to that, I come to certain questions which I wish to direct to the attention of the minister. To-day one hears strong criticism on every hand of the attitude of various controllers and the disregard which too often they show of the rights of the
people. Too frequently their decisions seemed to be based upon caprice, not upon the needs or exigencies of the moment. The result is that, with the approach of the end of the war, people on every hand are asking what are the plans of the government with regard to the demobilization of the necessary controls and the liquidation of orders and regulations which too often, even during the war period,, have been carried into effect and maintained having only as an excuse, war needs and war requirements. As to rubber and gasoline, motor cars and the like, these criticisms have not been levied against those in control. But the people of the country as a whole, I think,, would like to have some information with regard to gasoline rationing. I know of no declaration which has been made by the minister in that regard since the beginning of this session. In the United States-and I speak now from recollection-Mr. Secretary Ickes-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Ralph Davies, deputy
oil controller.


John George Diefenbaker: -and Mr. Ickes, as well, made reference to the matter and stated

 I am merely epitomizing what he said-that as soon as the active warfare in Europe ended it was the intention of the United States government to increase the gasoline ration which has prevailed throughout the period of the war. I think that before this session ends, having regard to the. magnificent advances which are being made on the continent of Europe, and the belief, from General Eisenhower down, that aggressive offensive operations on a large scale there will soon come to an end, we should have a declaration from the minister setting out in some detail the intentions of the government in this regard.
There is another matter, that of the supply of rubber tires. Would the minister, having regard to the production which is taking place to-day through the Polymer corporation, and the number of rubber tires in stock and in storage in Canada, inform us whether, with the conclusion of active hostilities in Europe, there will be any increase in the allotment of rubber tires?
Coming to the question of motor cars, this has been a subject of very great criticism. Cars have been stored in various parts of the country to be awarded on priorities. Of the decision which created that condition of affairs I have no criticism, but I should like to know this. Numbers of men are returning from overseas, among them commercial travellers who require motor cars in order to earn their livelihood and carry out the responsibilities of their occupation. Is it the intention of the government to grant priority in making
856	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
available motor cars to soldiers serving overseas as soon as they return to take up occupations wherein cars are needed for them to earn their livelihood, when the first motor cars which are ready for distribution are available?
There remains one other matter, and I want to refer at once to all the questions having to do with War Assets corporation. In itself a discussion of War Assets corporation would have resulted in many matters being brought before the minister which ought to have been put before him, but which-again-is not possible because of the shortness of the session. Let me, however, mention one thing particularly. Everywhere in this country to-day civic bodies, in the main towns and villages adjacent to airports which have been closed up, would like to make use of facilities which apparently will not again be required for the purpose for which they were constructed. The fact that the British commonwealth air training scheme is no longer operative on a great scale, and that large numbers of these schools have been closed down, has created a demand on the part of civic authorities for the right to an immediate priority to utilize these buildings. I have in mind-and I mention it only because it is an example-Davidson, Saskatchewan, where the airfield is closed down. The town, or in any event a local service organization, is desirous of getting the use of some of these buildings. In one town it is the desire to use these structures for the purpose of hospitalization; in another, for the training of men coming back from overseas, in order to fit them for an occupation. When you approach the War Assets corporation the answer which is generally given-at least this is my experience-is that as yet no decision has been arrived at as to what will be done in this regard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that the answer usually given is that they have not been leclared surplus to requirements of the armed forces. Isn't that it?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I was just going to point out, according to an answer I have here, that Mr. Carswell says that when this property is ready for disposal the municipality wanting buildings would enjoy a priority claim over a semi-public body in the matter of purchase. Now what I come to is this. Instead of tearing down these buildings which are adjacent to the various towns and villages, or making them available for sale to any municipality having a priority; instead of destroying these buildings by so 
tearing them down-which probably would be the result, the depreciation thus caused being some sixty-five to seventy per cent-is the government giving consideration to allowing the municipality adjacent to where those buildings are located to use them for public purposes so long as they are not utilized for the purpose of profits? I make the suggestion to the minister because unless a decision is arrived at very shortly these buildings will rapidly depreciate when they are left in a state of disuse. I know that all over the country public bodies are desirous of contributing to public welfare by utilizing facilities that are now available. I bring these matters to the attention of the minister because every one of them requires clarification at this time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: With regard to gasoline, the purpose of oil control is to divide up such gasoline as we can get our hands on as fairly as possible. We keep no pool of gasoline, and we are not accumulating gasoline. The tankers that we own, and those that we can lease, are bringing in all the crude oil we can get, and whenever we can get sufficient gasoline ahead to warrant an increase in the ration it will be increased. I think there is every right to hope that at the end of the European war it will be possible to increase the gasoline ration. When we think of the enormous consumption of gasoline, of bombers in raids over Germany, and in moving huge armies on the continent by motor transport, and visualize this demand dropping down to a small fraction of the present, I think we can be optimistic about additional gasoline being diverted into domestic channels. I saw a statement of Ralph Davies, the deputy oil controller of the United States, and I said at that time that the circumstances which would warrant Mr. Davies' forecast would warrant a similar forecast in Canada. We are not as well equipped to make a forecast as are our friends in the United States, because the United States is self-contained in oil and we are dependent on outside sources. We also depend more heavily on ocean transport for our supplies of crude oil than does the United States; however, I think the prospects for additional gasoline are encouraging. The timing depends upon the termination of the European war.
The supply of tires is purely a matter of fabrication. Through the Polymer corporation, we are able to keep up with the demands for rubber. We are just about in balance on buna-S rubber used for treads, and we have a surplus production of butyl rubber which is used for inner tubes. We are short of fabri-

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
eating capacity. Every capacity we have to fabricate tires is operating full out. We must first supply the needs of tires for military vehicles, and after that any surplus capacity is put into the production of passenger tires. I think it can reasonably be assumed that the demand for military vehicles and tires for military vehicles will decline with the end of the war in Europe, and there will be more capacity available for manufacturing domestic tires.


John George Diefenbaker: What has been the poundage of tires produced for military vehicles and for domestic use by the Polymer corporation during the present year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Polymer corporation does not make tires; it simply makes rubber. In April I believe the Polymer corporation ran about twenty per cent over rated capacity, and the rated capacity of the plant is about forty thousand tons of crude rubber per annum. It is operating about twenty per cent over capacity so that if you divided fifty thousand tons by twelve you would get just about the capacity for April. I am sorry I have not the April figures here; they are very interesting, and a source of satisfaction to everyone associated with the problem. Production has been stepping up each month, but I think it is now pretty well stabilized at about twenty per cent over the rated capacity. It is turning out a very excellent product, a product that is improving as the months go by, and as experiment leads us to a modification of the process it gives us better rubber.
So far as motor cars are concerned, we are working on a dwindling pool. The manufacture of motor cars was first cut in 1941 and stopped entirely in 1942. At that time, we had a pool of cars that we believed would carry us through until the manufacture of motor cars could be resumed. But at that time no one contemplated that the war would go on as long as it has. Our pool of motor cars is down to a very slender number.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the number?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is under one thousand,
anyway.


John George Diefenbaker: In the whole of
Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the whole of Canada, which, as my hon. friend will appreciate, is just about as thin a prospect as one would expect to take care of very urgent situations such as physicians' cars. They are being allotted to take care of situations of that kind.


Mr. HATFIELD:: How many light and
heavy trucks are available?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us have one question at a time. I am busy answering the questions of the hon. member for Lake Centre at the moment. The manufacture of passenger cars will be resumed after the war, as rapidly as arrangements can be made, but it will take considerable re-tooling to change over from truck tooling to tooling for passenger cars. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that. After the war ends in Europe, there will be an interval in which there will be no production. What will be done with the first cars from the first production is something we do not need to forecast now; the time is some distance away, but it will be a matter for the new government to look after and decide whether rationing should not be continued in the future, so that when production of passenger cars is resumed they are rationed into channels that will be most helpful to the life of Canada.
The position with respect to trucks is somewhat different. Some months ago wre were able to start up two lines making domestic trucks. These lines are operating. The change-over from army trucks to domestic trucks is not nearly as difficult as the change-over to passenger cars. We are rationing the trucks as best we can; I think we are keeping essential transportation moving, as much as we can hope to do under present circumstances. Just as soon as the demand for war transportation eases off we can swing over very quickly to domestic truck production, and I believe the situation in that field can be remedied in a reasonably short time.


Heber Harold Hatfield: How many heavy trucks are being produced per month?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canada does not manufacture heavy domestic trucks. All heavy trucks over three tons are imported. I think I gave the number for March of this year at the last sitting. I think there are about one thousand heavy trucks coming from our allotment from the United States. We keep a small supply in dealers' hands. We must do that to meet situations that are vital to our economy. Generally speaking, the trucks move quickly from the hands of the manufacturer into the hands of the user.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Can the minister tell
us how many two-ton trucks are being manufactured per month in Canada for domestic use?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is hard to keep the figures in mind. I believe I gave the figures at the last sitting; if my hon. friend will read Hansard I think he will find them. The
S58	'	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
production is about forty-five per cent of the number manufactured in the years 1936 to 1939.	.
In the matter of War Assets corporation, I think hon. gentlemen assume that, when a school is closed, the buildings immediately come into the hands of this corporation. 'That is not the fact. There is a storage problem involved, of fairly serious proportions. The air force have a great number of planes which they expect to use in due course, and those planes must be housed. Very often, after a school is closed, the buildings are utilized by the air force for storage purposes. When they finally come into the hands of War Assets corporation, the requirements of the province have first priority; the municipality comes second; then semi-public bodies, and finally the general public. It is the policy of War Assets corporation, a policy with which I think on reflection most hon. members will agree, not to give away property that it acquires. However, I have stated that as far as public bodies are concerned, we are prepared to sell buildings for which specific use can be named, at the price we would recover if the buildings were torn down and we attempted to salvage the material, which is a rather nominal price. It is not a matter of worrying about a large recovery; it is a matter of getting the buildings into good hands. The municipalities with which we have dealt to date have been quite satisfied with the terms we have offered them.


John George Diefenbaker: What would be a fair percentage of the actual cost you would recover by having the buildings torn down?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would be a very small percentage, perhaps a few hundred dollars. That is all you could get for the building as scrap, and that is the price at which we turn it over. There is nothing in the price situation to stand between either a province or a municipality acquiring any buildings it needs for local services. The buildings will be sold rather than leased, for the very good reason stated by my hon. friend, that the matter of maintenance is important. The government does not wish to have dilapidated buildings put back on its hands. If a community needs a building, we ask that it be bought. We would prefer them to move it to another site owned by the province or municipality, away from the airport, because generally speaking the airports will be used in post-war aviation.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the priority the minister mentioned for the province and the municipality apply also to personal property at the airports, equipment and the like? rMr. Howe.]


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our experience so far is that before declaring buildings surplus the air force removes the equipment and uses it in other activities. They are building and extending hospitals, for instance, and usually the hospital equipment is suitable for installation in other buildings. Should there be any surplus equipment in which the province or municipality is interested, the same priority would apply.
While I am on my feet, in his opening remarks my hon, friend reminded me that yesterday I had an argument with the hon. member for Waterloo South, and perhaps I might give the facts of the transaction. I have a memorandum from Mr. W. D. Low, one of our senior officers, in regard to "Cushion Pack 36 Inches" which is the description of the store:
As requested, I have investigated the purchase of the above noted packing in connection with which Mr. Karl Homuth, M.P., made some charges in the House of Commons yesterday.
The facts are as follows:
On June 23, 1944, the Department of Munitions and Supply awarded an order to Forest Products (Canada) Corporation, 264 Hospital street, Montreal, for a quantity of "cushion pack 38 inches" at $340 per ton, sales tax included, for delivery to the Department of National Defence (Army), Longue Pointe Ordnance Depot, Montreal. This material is used for the packing of delicate instruments for shipment overseas.
The statement has been made that Forest Products (Canada) Corporation is purchasing this material from another company at a price of'nine cents a pound. Mr. Joseph Finestone, owner of Forest Products, emphatically denies that he obtains the material from Standard Felt Products Limited, Montreal, which is evidently the company to which Mr. Homuth referred.
After this order was awarded, investigations were carried out by- the Department of National Defence (Army) and the signals production branch, Department of Munitions and Supply, to determine whether a suitable product was obtainable elsewhere. The Standard Felt Products Limited submitted samples for test and the material was found to be entirely unsuitable. The tests were conducted by the standardization division, signals production branch, Department of Munitions and Supply, and by Major R. H. Hall of the inspection board of the United Kingdom and Canada. In spite of the attractive price at which the material was offered, it was not suitable because of inflammability, lack of resiliency and for reasons of water absorption.
Investigations are still being carried on in order to obtain additional sources of supply of material equal to that supplied by Forest Products (Canada) Corporation.


Major James William Coldwell: I am thoroughly in accord with the representations of the hon. member for Lake Centre in regard to unused buildings at our airfields. This very field of which the hon. member was speaking this

~War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
afternoon was brought- to my attention some time ago, and I may say I have had the most courteous treatment over the last few months by War Assets corporation and the air force in my endeavour to secure buildings for the town of Outlook in my constituency, where the public school and some other buildings were burned down last November, I believe largely as a result of the work of a firebug. My understanding with regard to Davidson- is that the buildings have not yet been declared surplus, but that- when they are, they will be made available to some of the municipalities.


John George Diefenbaker: Did you get any buildings yet?


Mr. COLD WELL:: No. I believe the council and the school board recently went back to look at the airport buildings at Davidson, and at another airport, to see if they could get some of them-, but as the hon. member has said it is a long process. While I am on this particular topic I have in mind that there is much other equipment, in the way of kitchen utensils, beds, hospital supplies and so on, that could be used in a good many of our small hospitals and even in- our schools for cafeteria purposes, and so on. Instead of this equipment being turned over to some private organization for resale, I think public bodies who are interested should be appraised of the possibility of getting such equipment and encouraged to obtain it, because it would be of great use in many communities, in hospitals, schools and elsewhere. I hope this point will be given some attention by War Assets corporation. I do not think it is proper to turn any material or equipment over to business organizations, who will sell it again and make some profit out of it. We have paid for it; the nation owns it, and it should be made available for socially useful purposes. I hope a policy of that kind will be worked out.
May I just comment, too, on what the hon. member for Lake Centre said with regard to the agreement which was reached among the leaders of the trade unions in the United States and the chairman of the chamber of commerce. I am not going into that matter very fully this afternoon except to say that for a long time I have thought the United States might still become a sort of capitalist island in a world moving in an entirely different direction. If we have studied the history of modern social evolution we find that nearly all nations have gone through certain evolutionary processes. And this very statement illustrates that, I think, to a degree, because my recollection goes back to the early 1900's, when you found groups of
miners, and so on, agreeing with certain organizations in Great Britain to do very much the same kind of thing as is now suggested by these people in the United States of America.
But what I was going to add was this, that the evolution of society goes on. It matters not how much an attempt may be made to hold back the progress of the world in any one community, ultimately what happens throughout the world will influence every part of the world. At the moment we find Great Britain, we find European countries, through statements by de Gaulle and other leaders over there, we find our sister nations of the British commonwealth moving, because of economic development, in the direction of greater public ownership and greater social control. It seems to me that in the United States at least, if I may put it in this way, they have not the political outlets for the common people's opinions and aspirations that we have built up-whether we are right or wrong-in countries like Canada, the other British nations, and in European countries.
The rigidity of the United States system is of such a nature that we may find in the course of the next ten, fifteen or twenty years a serious development, because of the brittle nature of the political machinery there. But I am not going into that this afternoon, because one has to develop the whole argument in order to place one's point of view comprehensively either before the house or before a public gathering. But I am convinced of this, that they may try once again, as they did in the thirties, as we did in this country when we pinned our faith to so-called private enterprise-which in modern times is monopoly enterprise; and we shall find that we have very much the same results in a few years' time as we had in the hungry thirties. If we dare risk that, or if they dare risk that in the United States-and apparently they are going to do it-then, whatever the consequences may be, when they have fifteen or twenty million men and women unemployed, perhaps with a depressed price level and no well-organized political instrument-well, let us hope that Canada may escape the consequences which will accrue within such an economic situation at that time.
I, too, was very much interested in the white paper, and that is the only reason I wanted to offer a word this afternoon. I believe that white paper, as was said by the hon. member for Lake Centre, from the point of view of those who wrote it is a very fine piece of work. I do not agree with that
860^	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
point of view. I believe it is written from the wrong point of view at the present time. But while I say that, I recognize it as a document worth studying, and I say we should have had it before us long ago. We should have had a longer session, and we should have gone into this white paper very thoroughly and fully in order that we may know what we are talking about.
I say that' because, inevitably, it is an election document. It is going to be an election document, and it will be discussed. Those of us in the party to which I belong in this chamber are in the position that we are the only party which takes a view opposite to that expressed in the white paper. We do not believe in private enterprise in the sense in which my hon. friends use the term. I believe in private enterprise-but in another sense, a sense that is wider, probably, for many hundreds of thousands of young men and women in this country were, at least from 1930 to 1940, denied any chance of real private enterprise in the economic field. Their only initiative could be exercised in searching for the work they could not find from one end of the country to the other.
I was going to say this, that even this white paper, and even the speech of Mr. Winston Churchill, quoted by the hon. member, recognize that private enterprise, as it is defended in this country, has passed away. Thus this paper admits, as Winston Churchill says, that certain controls will have to be maintained. Let me add this, that you can have controls from two points of view. You can have a control which will help the people, and you can have a control which will help the corporations. Where you have a partnership between government and big business, there you have not democracy but you have fascism, if I may use the term now applied to that form of economic development and control.
But the white paper and Winston Churchill both admit that in the post-war period there must be a considerable control, at least for a considerable time. At page 20 the white paper says this:
In addition, the maintenance of certain controls will aid in meeting the more urgent requirements of reconstruction, including the first steps in industrial reconversion, the provision of more housing, and the development of export markets of a peace-time character.
That is a recognition that the controls .which we now have, and which have assisted during war, must be carried into the peace-time period-something which a few months ago was an anathema to the great corporations of this country.

Then the white paper says something which I hope our United States friends who believe in free enterprise will remember. We find this at page 6:
For its part, the government is prepared, as rapidly as circumstances permit, to facilitate, through its war-time controls and otherwise, the reestablishment of peace-time markets-
Then the sentence ends: "for Canadian exports".
May I just say this, that when we talk about improving our employment situation, when we talk about being able to make free enterprise work in this country, or in the United States, we must remember that it is not only exports in which we have to become interested. We have to become interested in imports, too.
As has often been said, and as I heard the appropriate United Kingdom minister, the president of the board of trade, say last September at the time of a conference I attended, after this war Great Britain will have to export from fifty to sixty per cent more than she exported before the war, in order to get the raw materials and foods she requires. This white paper says that we have to export in monetary terms, or in terms of goods and services, fifty or sixty, as the case may be, higher percentage than we exported before the war.
In other words we are all thinking of exports. And, in the world in which we are going to live, we cannot export unless we import; that is, unless we are prepared to continue indefinitely some forms of mutual aid. As I heard it stated last night by a commentator over the radio, I believe the whole policy in this white paper is a gamble, a real gamble on the ability of private enterprise to meet the needs of the Canadian people.
We do not believe that private enterprise, in the manner in which we speak about it in this house, can possibly do the job that is to be done. I say the governmnet has no right to engage in a gamble with the living standards of the Canadian people, and with their employment-unless, of course, it is prepared at the same time to assume the obligation for the maintenance of either full employment or the kind of a standard of living the people would get if they were to be in full employment.
This white paper states clearly-and I might have some question about this figure, because I believe it to be low, although I am going to accept it now-that if 900,000 new jobs do not materialize the government will then resort to public enterprise and industrial controls in the same manner as it has during the war. Waiting for the event to determine what we

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
shall do is a policy that is entirely wrong and likely to bring ill effects upon the whole Canadian economy and upon the common people of this country. The white paper is an expression of hope; it is an expression of intention, but it definitely is not any kind of blueprint for the sort of post-war economy of full employment and wide distribution of goods which the people of this country have a right to expect.
I contend that the white paper fails to take into account the necessity of maintaining imports in order to improve the standards of living. It relies upon the encouragement of exports, first by the continuance of mutual aid. That is good. We have to give aid to the suffering people of Europe and of the world, but we have to give nutrition and aid to the suffering people of our own country too. After that has been done there is a proposal for the extension of credits. Credit implies that some day it will be retired. I venture to say that the only way whereby that credit can be retired, unless we are prepared to write it off and call it mutual aid, is by importing goods or acquiring services from the countries to which we export.
There is a reference in this white paper I was surprised to see. There is an approval of the Bretton Woods agreement. I understood that parliament would have an opportunity to make an exhaustive study of the Bretton Woods agreement before any sort of endorsement was given. Since this white paper has been laid on the table, although it is a document of a government whose life expires in a day or two, it will be looked upon by a good many people in this country as an endorsement by the government, perhaps even by this parliament, of the Bretton Woods agreement.
I have read a great deal on the Bretton Woods agreement and I find that the opponents of that agreement are of two entirely opposite types or groups. You find the international bankers in New York are all for the international bank but are opposed to the stabilization fund. You find that the progressive groups in Great Britain, the Labour party and so on, are opposed to many ideas behind the establishment of the international bank but look with favour upon the stabilization fund. This country has had no opportunity to study this agreement, and neither the government nor this parliament nor this country should be committed to that agreement until we have really had an opportunity of studying it and making up our minds about it.
In my opinion there are certain weaknesses in this agreement. The principal one which I should like to place upon record is the separation of the financial problem from the economic and social aspects of the whole world problem. I think that is fallacious. Finance cannot be separated from production and distribution. When we attempt to consider finance apart from production and distribution we get into the clouds and begin to believe, as some people do believe, that money is all that matters. Money does not matter at all. Anything can be money. The main things are the goods and services that support money values.
In my opinion international agreements of this type cannot be efficient or effective so long as there are economic rivalries between nations. You must tackle these economic rivalries first and then you may be able to settle your financial problems. The Bretton Woods agreement attempts to do something with regard to finance but omits altogether the more important features, the economic rivalries and the economic problems of the distribution of raw materials and living standards.
No financial agreement can be successful unless a solution is found for the distribution of the real wealth of the world across the world, and for raising the standards of living everywhere in the world. This world cannot remain at peace; this world cannot remain free as we call it free if one-half of the world is underfed, underclothed, underhoused and. indeed, underprivileged in any respect.
So I say that the real task which we ought to be considering in this house before we give any endorsement to an agreement of this type is the economic problem of production and distribution. That problem should precede and, indeed, exceed the financial arrangements that may be made in almost any field or in any respect. The Bretton Woods agreement is too limited in scope. It fails to provide also for representation in the actual councils of the people who are primarily concerned; that is, the actual producers and consumers of wealth.
Apart from this the technical arrangements of the Bretton Woods agreement seem to me to be full of imperfections. The international bank seems to be imperfect in several respects. I should like to give the committee what in my opinion is the most imperfect part of the proposed international banking system. It proposes, once again, not altogether but to a very large extent, to tie the world down to a single and scarce commodity as a standard; that is, gold. I think we should go into that very carefully before we adopt such a proposal. We should remember what happened in the 1930's and the three or four years that preceded 1930 when Great Britain and this country went back to the gold standard.
S62	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
This Bretton Woods agreement gives tremendous power to two or three of the large states, to one state in particular which controls the bulk of the gold in the world. Conversely, it places the devastated areas and the more impoverished areas in an inferior and difficult, if perhaps not a hopeless position.
What I have said in these few brief words regarding this agreement does not imply for one moment that I think the Bretton Woods agreement has no merit as a basis of discussion. I think it has. I believe it contains a good many features which could form a basis of discussion, but since approval of the agreement is given on page 7 of the white paper I wanted to place myself on record before this house rises. The government may know more about it thani the rest of us, but certainly it should not be implied in any way that this house endorses the white paper's endorsement in that respect.
As I said at the outset with regard to the main proposals in this white paper, it seems to me that the government is wagering that private enterprise will be able to meet the demands of the post-war period. In my opinion the issue is far too grave to be the subject of what in effect is a huge bet. I do not believe that the white paper offers a winning policy at least for the Canadian people, whatever it may do for some powerful interests in Canada.
There are a number of other matters which I intended to discuss this afternoon but I shall refrain from doing se. There is no time to go into the multiude of things that one would like to discuss, and I shall leave them for the present. We shall have an opportunity not only on the hustings but when the new House of Commons meets-at least I hope that some of us will be here; I hope I shall be here myself, to be perfectly frank about it-to discuss these matters when the new parliament is assembled. But as we leave these problems to-day, now that we are approaching the time that we are to give approval to the appropriation bill, I must repeat what I said earlier this afternoon, that it is regrettable that the house should be placed in the position in which it finds itself of not having time to discuss matters which ought to have been discussed. The house should have been called earlier so that we were not rushed in this manner at the end. But that is the responsibility of the government, and the government must assume that responsibility.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I am going to leave these other problems that I should have liked to discuss had there been time, until a future occasion when I hope and believe that I shall have an opportunity of discussing them here.


Percy Chapman Black: Mr. Chairman, the sands of this session and of this parliament are running very low. Indeed, the leader of our party has given the undertaking that we shall not, unless some new matters are introduced, take up any more time after six o'clock, which is only fifteen minutes away.
The Department of Munitions and Supply and the Department of Reconstruction are two departments in which the people of my part of Canada are greatly interested. I believe, with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and many others who have spoken in this discussion, that we should have been given a much longer time to deal with these departments and many other matters that should come before this parliament.
Before making observations with respect to the Department of Munitions and Supply. I should like to pay my tribute to my fellow-townsman. the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Ralston) whose intention, I understand, is to retire from public life. I do so from the point of view of his friends and admirers in his home town and county, Cumberland. Colonel Ralston has had a notable career in his profession, in the provincial legislature and in the federal parliament. He had an outstanding record in the last war, and he has never spared himself in this war. He was at the head of the Department of National Defence during the critical years when problems of administration and enlistments were being dealt with, and he never spared himself day or night. To-day he must feel like applying to himself the words of Cardinal Wolsey in Henry the VIII;
Had I hut served my God with half the zeal
I served my king, he would not in mine age
Have left me naked to mine enemies.
Colonel Ralston might well feel that he has been left naked. But he has the admiration and the love, I believe, of everybody in the armed services who faces the enemy. He can be assured that when he goes back to his native county of Cumberland and his native province he will have the respect and esteem of his fellow townsmen and his fellow Nova Scotians.
The matters which are before the committee and which have been referred to by the Minister of Munitions and Supply are matters that require the serious consideration of all the members of the house. He reported that his department had spent $13,900,000,000 during the war, and that last year his department had expended $2,206,000,000. He also placed before the committee the expenditures for the current year, and only yesterday he placed before the . house a "white paper" dealing with the post-

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
war period. These are important matters, involving long term policies and enormous expenditures, affecting the welfare of our people for long years. But we have only a few hours in which to give them consideration.
The people in the town of Amherst are largely dependent upon industry. They have enlisted in as large a percentage for any theatre as have the people of any section of Canada. They have not been able to get all the work they would like to have had. They feel that they would have got more if there had been a fairer distribution of the war work to eastern Canada. But there has been little complaint. They have accepted the situation as it existed. They have sent delegations to Ottawa, representatives of labour and other citizens, to interview the Minister of Munitions and Supply and members of the government as well as the heads of industry in Montreal. The reception they received was different from the reception which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre described a delegation from his constituency as receiving. The committees were received by the minister, who explained the situation to them as it existed. It may not have been as favourable as they would have liked it to be, but they accepted it. There has been a curtailment of work in the Canadian Car and Foundry company's plant at Amherst from about three thousand to about twelve hundred workers at the present time, with prospects of a further curtailment. Quite a number of the employees have had to leave their home community and go to central Canada, to seek work. There will be some heart-burnings in the east when they read the statement which the minister made in presenting his estimates:
The latest figures at hand show a total of 675,000 men and women employed on the manufacture of war equipment as of January 1, 1945.
That is engaged on production under his department. He goes on:
There has been a substantial decrease since January 1, 1944, but, despite this, there is every indication that our greatest labour shortage will occur in the next six months.
We have to face a situation that is different from that portrayed by the minister the other day. The committees that interviewed the minister returned home and they carried out the minister's request. They explained the situation to their associates, the people of the town, and they set up what they call a "procurement committee" to work out plans for the remainder of the war years and to make preparations for the post-war years. They enlisted the wholehearted support of their members, the heads of the company, the
mayor and town council, service organizations, patriotic and benevolent organizations, in order that there might be a definite and clear understanding of what they might expect during the war and in the post-war years. Only yesterday I had a telegram from Chignecto lodge No. 11, Knights of Pythias, stating that the lodge "joins with and supports all other organization in Amherst in connection with the brief submitted by the Amherst works procurement committee"-which was first instituted by the representatives of the labour organizations.
The town of Amherst has made over the years, what is perhaps the biggest sacrifice of any industrial community in Canada. They saw their industries submerged, absorbed by other industries, driven out of business, during the last forty or fifty years. They now want to know, and it is proper that they should know, what is to be expected in the post-war years. There is in the town of Amherst a rolling mill which is, since the closing of the plant at Trenton, the only rolling mill in Nova Scotia. The question arises whether that mill will be modernized. Although an expenditure of $1,000,000 or more is involved, the company is prepared to proceed, provided that there is reasonable encouragement and assistance from the.federal and provincial governments and if they can get power at a competitive rate. The company which generates electric power has given them to understand that if there is a firm contract they will supply power on a competitive basis, provided that they are not taxed as private enterprise is taxed in comparison with tax-free publicly generated electrical energy'. As I have said in this chamber before, the people of Cumberland are taxed in an amount of $150,000, which communities elsewhere in Canada are able to avoid, because their electric current is generated-provincially.
There is also the question of the wheel foundry' and other industries which operate at a disadvantage. There should be special post-war industries. It is unfortunate that the opportunity was not taken of establishing them during the w&r, with prospects of postwar continuation. In order to keep operating rolling mills and wheel foundries it is necessary that special consideration be given to transportation costs, both of raw materials and of the finished products.
Nova Scotia and the town of Amherst made great contributions to Canada at the time of confederation and since. Amherst is the birthplace of four of the fathers of confederation. One of these, Sir Charles Tupper, was one
864	COMMONS
War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply
of the fathers of the national policy, a policy under which industrial Canada developed. If this policy had not been put into effect in this country, it would not have been possible for the minister to have brought before this house the record of industrial accomplishments which he has been able to report. So that a tribute of gratitude is due from this parliament to the memory of Sir Charles Tupper and those associated with him, to the people of Nova Scotia, and to the citizens of Amherst, who built .up their industries in confederation and have seen them fade away from causes over which they have no control. I say to the minister and to the members of this committee, if there is to be fairness, justice and contentment in this country, if we are to have a united Canada with equality of opportunity, something must be done to distribute, with some approach to equality, manufacturing and industrial opportunities. I am sorry we have not more time to discuss this matter, but it is my duty to put our position before the committee.
One other subject to which I wish to refer is a complaint which I have received from a labour organization in Amherst. That organization has given the minister and the company where its members are employed the very best service and cooperation, equal to any in Canada. The minister arranged for certain wartime housing in Amherst, for which our labourmen and citizens are grateful. In that wartime housing was included a staff house which is being closed. The executive of the labour organization in question, lodge No. 771, International Association of Machinists, wrote me through their secretary, Mr. R. C. Pettis, under date of March 28, enclosing copy of a letter from Wartime Housing Limited, signed by W. H. Nugent, mlan-ager administration department, dated March 26, addressed to the lodge, which reads in part as follows:
Attention: Mr. R. C. Fettis Re: Closing of Amherst Staff House Dear Sir:
We beg to acknowledge receipt of your night letter of March 23, relative to the closing of our men's staff house at Amherst.
We would point out that our tenants have every opportunity of registering their objections, if any, through their respective employers, or direct to this company. Any intermediary is unnecessary.
I will not read the rest of the letter.
I have a complaint from the executive of lodge No. 771, from whose letter of March 28 I will read one or two paragraphs only:
Enclosed you will find a copy of letter received from Mr. W. H. Nugent re staff house closing, which is self-explanatory.

We draw your attention particularly to the second paragraph, which questions the right of lodge 771 in taking up this matter for the workers.
We feel that a man in Mr. Nugent's position should be given to understand that labour organizations represent "workers" and have every right to intercede for their membership in any matters of this nature that affect their welfare.
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, how can this government expect cooperation from labour organizations when they are given rebuffs such as they received in this case? I brought this matter to the attention of Mr. John A. Marsh, special assistant to the minister; and he expressed regret that it had occurred and suggested that it would not occur again.
There is much more I could say, but it is six o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Having in mind what was said earlier in the afternoon-I do not wish to cut off any discussion-I should like to ask if it might not now be understood or agreed that the resolution be passed at this stage and have further discussion on the bills when they are introduced? This will not prevent any further discussion, but it might make possible our proceeding a little more rapidly toward a satisfactory wind-up.


Mr. CHURCH:: The Minister of Veterans' Affairs was to make a statement in reference to the progress at Sunnybrook hospital.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I shall be very glad to do so either now or on the committee stage of the bill, whichever my hon. friend prefers.


John Horne Blackmore: Let us get it clear so that we may know exactly where we stand. If we allow the passing of the resolution the discussion will continue after eight o'clock. Anything an hon. member desires to say will be in order and he will be allowed to say it without interference whatsoever from anyone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will it be possible to ask questions at that time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the bills are in committee.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 3, for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. ILSLEY moved the second reading of the bill.


Gordon Graydon: I take it that this is the time we rise?

War Appropriation


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us get it into committee.


Mr. DORION:: I understand there is a motion for second reading of the bill. Before the motion is carried I have a few remarks to make, and I would ask you, sir, to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Frédéric Dorion: Mr. Speaker, as I said at six o'clock, I have just a few words to say on this motion for second reading of the bill, and at the end of' my remarks I shall move an amendment.
According to the latest declarations made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott), on the eve of a general election the government is endeavouring to convince the people that there will not be compulsory service in the war against Japan. The hon. member for Westmount went on to say that after the war in Europe was over the mobilization act would be repealed. Such promises are not altogether new to the people of the province of Quebec. During the course of the last twenty-five years we have been told the same thing at every federal election, as well as at provincial and even municipal elections. We were called upon to give our support and confidence to the Liberal party. We were assured that by so doing we would be saved from going into any future war. Unfortunately for the Liberal party, however, when world war No. 2 was declared it was a Liberal government that was ruling Canada. Then all previous engagements taken and promises made to the province of Quebec suddenly vanished. They had gone with the wind. Now that we are about to venture upon another political campaign the Liberal party thinks the same old hackneyed story still stands. I am sure, and the by-elections held during these last few years have abundantly shown, that the Liberal party has lost the confidence of the old Liberal province of Quebec. The motto of Quebec is "Je me souviens" or "I remember." Hence, on the next polling day, before casting their votes citizens of Quebec will remember and tell themselves:
I remember 1917 when you told me, you Liberal members, that I must condemn those who, even if they have not made any promises, 32283-55
had declared war against Germany; those who imposed conscription; those who had chased my sons whether they were farmers or sons of farmers.
I remember 1921, when you Liberal members asked me to vote confidence in [DOT] you because my sons had been gaoled by the Union government for failing to report to the military authorities during the war. You told me that, even if my sons were defaulters, they should not have been prosecuted.
I remember 1925 and 1926, when you came back to my province and told me that I should not forget the hardships of 1917 and 1918, as imposed by the Union government. I remember the cartoons which appeared at the time in le Soleil, the official Liberal newspaper in Quebec, showing the leader of the Union government with blood-stained hands offering Canada to the imperialists.
I remember 1930, when you came back to my province and advised me that if I voted for the Conservative party my sons would be dispatched at once to European battlefields. I remember the day preceding the 1930 election, when you published in le Soleil and la Presse a false telegram entitled "London, the Tories and the War," reading as follows:
In Great Britain it is hoped that the Conservatives shall triumph in Canada, so that war may be waged in Egypt and India.
I remember 1935, when you told me that Hitler was becoming dangerous in Europe and that I should vote for the Liberal party in order to prevent Canada from becoming engaged in a second world war.
I remember 1938, when the late minister of justice stated in Quebec city, as reported at the time in le Soleil:
Instead of going to war in foreign lands, we shall stay home to defend the Canada we love.
I remember 1939, when in the course of a provincial election you told me that even if you had declared war, nevertheless you stood as a bulwark against conscription and against every form of compulsion.
I remember 1940, when you told me that if the Liberal party was returned to power we should have a moderate, voluntary and free war effort.
Remembering all these things, how can I have any confidence in this party after what has been going on during these last five years? War was declared by the Liberal government. Mobilization of all the national resources was imposed by the Liberal government. Total conscription for service anywhere was forced upon us by the Liberal government, notwithstanding prior engagements taken or promises

War Appropriation

made. Our sons are conscripted and fighting on European battlefields, and now you have the courage to tell me that if any other party were to gain power, things would be worse. My answer is: they cannot be worse. Furthermore, if I have been misled by the Conservatives, I have been equally misled by the Liberals; and, having no confidence in the C.C.F. party, there is only one choice left. I must have representatives in the House of Commons who will not be tied up by party machinery or political partisanship, who will really represent my interests rather than be the tools of a political party.
In view of what I have just said and in order to give a chance to the Liberal government, particularly the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Westmount, to be believed by the population of the province, of Quebec, I ask them to take, before the next election, a definite stand by voting for the following amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), that all the words after the word "that" in the present motion be deleted and substituted by the following words:
this house is of the opinion that no money should be spent for the enforcement of the National Resources Mobilization Act, as well as order in council 8891, and that the above act chapter 13, IV, Geo. VI. and also the above order in council be repealed at once.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata) : I have just a word to add to what has been said. This motion is clear; it speaks for itself. It is not at all in opposition to the bill. It simply gives a direction to the government, which is a committee of the house, in regard to the spending of money; and that direction comes from parliament. The meaning of this amendment is that no money' shall be spent for conscription after the statements made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence, and by other leading members of the government. I support this amendment on account of the statement made by the Prime Minister on the first day of March over the radio, when he used this one sentence at the end of the second paragraph:
The reinforcement pools overseas are more than amply filled to meet the needs anticipated by the field commanders.
This is the statement of the Prime Minister, and I am sure he does not speak through his high hat, as some of his colleagues do. He must be well informed, well acquainted with the war situation, and he could not make such a statement without being sure of his facts.
Taking it for granted that the Prime Minister informed himself before making that

statement, and taking it for granted that the Prime Minister's statement is correct, I can do nothing but support the amendment of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion). That is the1 only reason. I base my support upon the Prime Minister's statement, and I do not want anyone to say that we are opposed to the war effort. We are not opposed to the bill, but we members of parliament think members of the government need a secondary direction from parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Does anyone wish to speak on the amendment? I am of the opinion that the amendment is in order. Therefore the question is that bill No. 3, for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security, be read a second time, to which the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay has moved that-
All the words after the word "that" in the present motion be deleted and substituted by the following words:	"this house is of the
opinion that no money should be spent for the enforcement of the National Resources Mobilization Act, as well as order in council 8891, and that the above act, chapter 13, IV, Geo. VI, and also the above order in council be repealed at once.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE: (Minister of Veterans' Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I am in order, but I wish to point out that if this amendment carries it means that the whole war effort of Canada is retarded and impaired. Under the circumstances it is a most serious amendment to contemplate.
I understand Your Honour has ruled it to be in order, but with all respect and deference to Your Honour's ruling, I have some doubts that it is in order. However, in view of your ruling, I have nothing further to say.


Thomas Vien: I am willing to hear your argument regarding it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I humbly submit to Your Honour that the amendment to the motion, one which is for the voting of supply to carry on the war effort of Canada, where the amendment has reference to the National Resources Mobilization Act, or any other activity, and where it imposes a limitation upon the message received from His Excellency the Governor General by this house, is not in order. It would be limiting and impairing, and making really impossible the purpose of parliament, which is, I think, more or less unanimous in prosecuting the war to its conclusion.

War Appropriation
On these grounds, grounds of high public policy, I humbly suggest to Your Honour that this amendment is not in order; and if it is out of order I would, of course, ask that it be ruled so. If it is in order may I again point out the seriousness of it to the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, not as to the point of order, but as to the effect of the amendment's carrying, may I point out that it does not mean that the amount voted by the house is somewhat reduced, as might be thought by a hasty reading of the amendment. It means that no money at all is voted by the house, and that we are left without the war's being financed at all. It is not a case of the war effort being impaired; it is a ease of the war effort being completely frustrated and sabotaged.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree entirely with what my colleague the Minister of Finance has said. There is no specific amount mentioned in the amendment which would be a reduction of the vote. I suggest, therefore, that the whole thing is completely out of order.
amendment is in order. I have so ruled. The question now before the house is that bill No. 3, for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security, be read a second time, to which the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has moved:
That all the words after the word "that" in the present motion be deleted and substituted by the following words: "this house is of the opinion that no money should be spent for the enforcement of the National Resources Mobilization Act, as well as the order in council 8891, and that the above act, chapter 13, IV, Geo. VI, and also the above order in council be repealed at once.
Perhaps I should have said, when some exception was taken by the Minister of Veterans' Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) to the effect that it would mean that no money was being granted, that there is in my judgment relevancy in reducing the resolution therein contained as sanctioned and authorized by the governor general. But if it had been to increase, it would have been different.
However, the amendment is that the house is "of the opinion that no money should be spent". The question is on the amendment.


Thomas Vien: I have listened with care to what has been said regarding the amendment before the house. When I looked at the amendment I came to the conclusion that it was in order. There was one doubt in my mind with regard to the last part of it, namely "and also the above order in council be repealed at once". I had some doubt in my mind regarding that; but the Clerk has now shown me an amendment moved on May 23, 1918, where-
Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved, in amendment thereto, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, that all the words in the motion after "that" be left out, and the following substituted therefor: "In the opinion of this house the War-time Elections Act should be repealed".
The amendment was declared in order and a recorded vote was taken.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With all due respect to Your Honour, it was entirely different.


Thomas Vien: There is no difference in the question now before us, because at the end the amendment says, "and also the above order in council be repealed at once".
So far as the merits of the amendment are concerned, it will be understood of course that the Chair cannot give any direction to the house. Hon. members know the effect of the amendment, without its being pointed out by the Chair. I can rule only as to whether the 32283-55}


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: On division.
Main motion agreed to, on division, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Mr. Chairman, I have not a copy of the bill.


The CHAIRMAN:: It is exactly the same as the resolution. There is no change.


Mr. HOMUTH:: But this is not the resolution, Mr. Chairman; this is the bill and it has not been distributed. My hon. friend has just received a copy now.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The bill is exactly the same as the resolution.


Mr. POWER:: I do object, Mr. Chairman. I have sat in this house for a long time and I have some respect for the usages and privi-

leges of parliament. This is the last evening, almost the last minute of a parliament and I object to our railroading this bill through when the members have not had a chance to look at it. That has not been the custom in the past and I hope that it will not be in the future.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The bill is the same
as the resolution.


Charles Gavan Power: That has nothing to do with it, Mr. Chairman. This committee is required to pass on a certain bill and, with all deference, this committee should have the bill read section by section. I certainly would not consent to the passage of this bill as it is being attempted to be passed now.


Mr. GILLIS:: I have no desire to pursue
the discussion, but there were some questions on which I wish to have an answer from the Minister of Munitions and Supply before this bill is passed. I should like the minister to make a statement as to P.C. 1952, passed March 22, regarding steel subsidies. The minister also made a statement in Halifax recently regarding the strait of Canso causeway. Perhaps he would elaborate on these two matters.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Regarding the subsidy agreement with Dosco, the previous agreement had to do with residual deficits. In other words, the company was to operate as efficiently as possible and the government would see that the company would not incur a loss on the year's operation. That was found to be unsatisfactory and a new subsidy form was drawn up based on incentive. That is to say, the company must operate better than it has in the past in order to break even, and if it can operate still better, they have a chance to make a profit. The plate mill has been engaged in rolling steel plates for government orders. The operation of that mill is dependent on the ship building programme, which in turn is dependent on export orders. Rolling plate is not a normal operation in the Sydney production. Therefore it was thought that it is not fair to make the tonnage depend upon an output which included plate; therefore the proviso that if the plate mill was operating on government orders, the subsidy would be one figure, and if it was not operating on government orders, the subsidy would be a higher figure. We were not putting a premium on not operating the plate mill, but simply recognizing the fact that the only plate ever rolled there was plate rolled for government orders, and we did not want to undertake that the mill will run to capacity with government orders.

War Appropriation


Clarence Gillis: I understand that there is no intention of continuing the operation of that mill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not say that.


Clarence Gillis: Without government orders
it does not operate; it does not fit into the private enterprise picture.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government should not
order plate simply to order plate. We will order if we have a use for it. Otherwise the government can scarcely order plate from any mill.


Clarence Gillis: That puts the mill out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it does, it does.
As to the strait of Canso a preliminary report was obtained on the causeway, and it seemed to me that the economics justified further exploration. In fact I thought that the preliminary report was quite promising as to the economics of either a bridge or a causeway over the strait of Canso. The result is that a survey party is now in the field, and designs will be prepared so that a more accurate study can be made than has been made, with a view of including it in the post-war programme.


George Hugh Castleden: Under the preparations in the Department of Munitions and Supply there is, I understand, a scheme whereby the government enters into a certain oil field1 area and does some research work in drilling and finding out whether oil is obtainable. In some cases they themselves sink wells, and, I understand, if a well is found to be productive the government takes out sufficient oil to pay for the cost of the operation and hands the thing over. In the Kamsack area of Saskatchewan they have drilled some shallow wells and have obtained sufficient natural gas to heat the town; and there is every evidence of oil being available deeper down. The people of that area would like to know what the possibilities are that the government will investigate that field and take some action by way of drilling to see whether or not oil is there; and they would like to know what steps they should take if that plan is to be continued this year under these estimates.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was not a plan of general application. The situation was that in the Turner valley are certain marginal areas known to contain oil but of doubtful value as commercial propositions. In other words, it was a risky operation from a business viewpoint to get that oil. However, to the government, the obtaining of that additional oil was important; it was oil which we knew we had; we were subsidizing the importation
of oil; and therefore the government itself undertook to drill out that particular area, which was, I believe, on the west flank of the Turner valley. The operation was confined to that district. The results were much as we expected. It would look as though the sales would just about reimburse the government for its investment. It was never the intention of the government to make that a rule of general application; the action was simply confined to that one area and one operation. We have no policy which calls for the government wild-catting in other areas.


Mr. PAIR:: About twenty-six years ago we finished a war, we believed successfully, and in the very near future we hope to conclude successfully another war. During past sessions of this parliament quite a lot of legislation has been placed on the statute books for the rehabilitation of men and women who come back from this war, but we have at the present time a number who returned from the first great war who are not in very happy circumstances. I refer to the soldier settlers. On various occasions recently we have asked that clear titles to their land be issued to these old soldier settlers. To-night we have in the house three ministers from whom I should like to have a statement in connection with the matter. We have the Minister of Veterans' Affairs, who, I believe, is sympathetic to these men, and under whose administration they are now being placed. We have also the Minister of Mines and Resources, under whose department the soldier settlement board has been fixed for a number of years, although neither I nor anyone else can tell why. The minister, I believe, is opposed to the granting of clear titles. He is also a member of the treasury board. Then we have in the house the Minister of Finance, another member of the treasury board and one who has pretty close control of the national pursestrings. Not very many days ago I suggested that between seven and eight million dollars, which is no more than the cost of one half day of this war, be set aside to provide these old soldier settlers with clear titles, but the proposal was rejected. To-night, in the dying days of this parliament, and before many of our new veterans are settled on land, I should like to have the three ministers I have mentioned give statements and then that I might have an opportunity of answering the arguments they put up in favour of further persecuting these old veterans of world war one. I believe that the success of much of the legislation which is now being enacted for the younger veterans

War Appropriation

depends on the treatment of these old veterans, who have been subjected to persecution during the past twenty-five or twenty-six years.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Battle River has been consistent and strenuous in his advocacy of the case of these soldier settlers. The matter came up in committee or in the house some weeks ago; and I informed my hon. friend that on August 25 last year the government, after due consideration of the claim, had rejected them as such. Since then my hon. friend accompanied a delegation of western settlers to my office and, I believe, to other offices and made an able appeal with regard to these soldier settlers. The government considered the situation a second time, and the appeal which had been launched was again rejected. Since then, however, there have been brought to the attention of the administration alternative suggestions which have not yet been fully or finally considered.
May I tell the committee in a word or two some of the figures of the last year with regard to these fine old soldier settlers. The amount of current instalments due in the first eleven months of the fiscal year which began April 1, 1944, was $642,704. The amount actually paid upon current instalments and arrears was $785,662. The amount prepaid-I want the committee to appreciate this-during the year was $761,252. That is, Mr. Chairman, the instalments due were $642,000, and the amounts paid were $1,546,000. Or, expressed in another way: the number of settlers with payments due in the last year was 5,322. The number who, in the first eleven months had made payments, was 89'4 per cent of the total, and the number of settlers who made prepayments in advance of their obligation was 2,630. These soldier settlers are my comrades, and they have the consideration and good feeling of every man in this house. They made prepayments in advance of their obligation in 2,630 cases; that is, exactly one-half of the total number of soldier settlers made prepayments upon their holdings.
Representations have been made, and made in a spirit of deep sincerity, by the hon. member for Battle River for further assistance to these soldier settlers. He has been especially active in this matter, and I commend him for it because I know he is sincere. It is contended, quite justly, that the Veterans' Land Act, which is for the veterans of this war who are going to settle on land, is a better act than the old Soldier Settlement Act, and that veterans of the old war should be given equal consideration with the veterans of the new

war. With that principle, I may tell my hon. friend, I am fully in accord. The Veterans' Land Act provides under certain conditions for a free grant of a portion of the cost of each settlement enterprise. The Soldier Settlement Act contained no such provision. It was found that the burden of debt placed upon the old settlers was too great and, by a series of measures enacted by this parliament from year to year, that burden was reduced.
When we were considering the New Veterans' Land Act in 1942 in an able committee of this parliament the government, as a result of the recommendations of that committee and of an able committee of departmental men with practical farming assistance and experience from outside this city, introduced into this house the present Veterans' Land Act. The free grant is an acceptance by the government in advance of the situation that developed under the Soldier Settlement Act, under which a part of the original liability had to be written off. Thus, Mr. Chairman, we sought to bring the two measures broadly into line with regard to the repayment obligations assumed by the settler.
The hon. member for Battle River-and I am not at all critical-has urged that the government should go still farther and wipe out all remaining indebtedness by issuing clear title to soldier settlers who have not yet completed their payments. Up to the present time the government has not found it possible to accede fully to this request, for reasons which the hon. member stated quite fairly in this house the other day, even though he did not agree with the conclusions we have reached.
There is one conspicuous difference between the Soldier Settlement Act and the Veterans' Land Act which the government had decided to remove and did remove. The Soldier Settlement Act called for the payment of interest at five per cent. The rate under the Veterans' Land Act is 3i per cent. During the present session we decided that the rate of interest for all soldier settlers should be reduced from five per cent to 3i per cent.
That briefly is the story. As I said a while ago, there is quite a lot of good sentiment behind the advocacy of the case advanced in this house by the hon. member for Battle River. Upon the facts as submitted to me and the prepayments made-which I think are in advance of any commercial enterprise in Canada-in the last year by the old soldier settlers of Canada, and reminding him that in the last few days alternative proposals have been submitted to the government but not yet decided upon in regard to the possible meeting

War Appropriation
of the situation. I say at the present time we have done everything we could have in regard to all the proposals submitted to us.


Mr. PERLEY:: I am pleased to hear the statement of the minister, but he might give us a little more information. He said that 2,360 have made prepayments. How are they distributed throughout the dominion? I have associated myself with the hon. member for Battle River in his request since he first made it, but I should like to point out this further fact. In 1937 when the minister's estimates were before the committee I suggested that the debt be written off and that these settlers be given clear title to their land. At that time I gave figures to show that the cost of administering the act and collecting the money and so on was almost as great as the amount the government would eventually receive. I just wish to make clear that that was the position I took as early as 1937. Since that time we have had the hon. member for Battle River take up the case, and I have been pleased to support him. I think the minister's statement was an interesting one, but I should like to point out that in the last couple of years we have had two good crops in western Canada and that they have resulted in a lot of these prepayments being made. I should also like to say that many of these old veterans have been working under difficult circumstances. I know some in my district who have two sons in this war. They have carried on under great difficulties and made the payments. I am pleased, however, to know that the situation is clearing up and I certainly wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Battle River.


Robert Fair: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the minister very sincerely for the statement he has made to-night in connection with the concessions that the government, through the minister, intends to make to these old soldier settlers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With deference may I correct that statement. I said that since we had considered the matter two or three weeks ago there have been given to the government alternative proposals which we have not yet been able to consider.


Robert Fair: I take it that it all means the same thing anyway. I thank the minister, and I think the government in its wisdom, possibly against the will of some of the powerful members, and perhaps in their own interest, decided to consider these questions favourably in the very near future.
It is more than twenty years since we thought we had won the old war successfully. I was not able to write as fast as the minister spoke and I did not get all his figures. I did get enough to convince me that several prepayments have been made during the eleven months of the last fiscal year. What I am concerned with, however, is the principle involved. I am a practical farmer, and I have gone through exactly the same hardships as those old soldier settlers with the exception that I did not have the bailiff at the door every time I could not make my payment. It was not my fault; as one of my hon. friends here suggested, I have better land than many of these old soldier settlers have; I knew a little more about land than they did and perhaps I had a little better break than they had. However, as I said, there is a principle involved, and it would seem to be the policy of the government or of the soldier settlement board to get money regardless of whence it comes. It is their intention to get it and clear up all these old debts. I think that is not good enough.
We have kept these old soldier settlers working and trying to pay off their debts on a quarter-section of land for twenty years, land that in many cases was not worth one thousand dollars if figured on a business basis. I do not think two per cent of the members of this house would ever try to go out and make these payments. These old soldier settlers are not asking anything from this or any other government, because after suffering all they have gone through they have paid for their land time and time again. When they bought the land wheat was close to $3 a bushel and in 1932 it went down to 19i cents a bushel for the best wheat in the world. I know that to my sorrow, for I sold thousands of bushels that year for 12J cents a bushel after paying eleven cents a bushel for threshing. Now we have a business administration, and I ask them to use some common sense in dealing with these old soldier settlers. A number of these old soldier settlers are making prepayments this year for very good reasons. Not very long ago, through a return to a question of mine, information was brought to me which showed that in the years from 1930 to 1943 inclusive, a fourteen-year period, we had almost three thousand of these soldier settlers either sign quit claim deeds or forced to get off the land on being served with a thirty day notice. That is one very good reason for these fellows paying up; because if you look at the record you will find that since the war broke out a particular drive
War Appropriation

has been put on either to get the soldier settler to pay up or get off. If you treat your new veterans in that way you may look for chaos, and plenty of it, in Canada because the new veterans will not take the treatment handed out to the old ones, and so far as I am concerned I hope to do my share to see that the new men receive better treatment.
The minister might have pointed out some other benefits that have been extended in connection with these lands, but I think we have successful answers to any arguments he may advance. I would point out that thirty-nine per cent of the credit extended to the new veterans will be given as a grant if for the first ten years they keep up their payments. At the end of March, 1944, the old settlers owed only twenty-nine per cent of their original average debt. Why in the world can we not square that off and give them a clear sheet? At the present time the average age of these settlers is close to sixty, and I have had letters from several who are over eighty. I have not pointed out that recently the government sent out to these people forms on which they might make application to have their loans renewed or the period of payment extended for up to another twenty years. Can one imagine a man eighty, eighty-five or eighty-eight years of age signing a contract which will oblige him to keep on paying for his quarter-section of land until he is over a hundred years old? Again I ask for a good business administration to take these matters into consideration.
As has been pointed out by the minister, under the Veterans' Land Act the rate of interest is 3J per cent. Let us not forget that under the old soldier settlement board the interest on the current debt was five per cent, and as soon as they went into arrears they paid seven per cent. I say again that if the reduction in interest had been made retroactive these old settlers would have been paid up years ago and would not have had to come to the government here, as they did last year, asking for clear title.
Some persons have an idea that they are asking for something for nothing. This is not a matter of my own interests. I am not a soldier settler; all the land I have I bought. In the interests of Canada; in the interests of the success of the Veterans' Land Act, and in the interests of our own veterans, the government still has time before dissolution to pass the necessary order in council-they have passed thousands already-to give these men clear title. If the Minister of Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance will give

us their arguments in opposition I think we can take care of them because I do not think they have a leg to stand on. They cannot get blood out of a stone. Let me point out to anyone opposed to the granting of these titles that we are taking money from these old settlers, while in many cases their wives and families need medical, hospital, dental or other care. Do not forget the malnutrition that has prevailed in many of these families, as in many others, during the years these men have been on this land. I know many of us in this house have never seen any hard times. When we go out around the country we live at the best hotels, at the expense of the country. The old soldier settler, however, is trying to make a living off the land, and for heaven's sake, before this parliament dissolves, give him the clear title for which he has been asking on so many occasions.


George Hugh Castleden: Since first entering
this house this group has consistently supported this request. The minister's statement this evening proves quite conclusively the sincerity and good will of those people who are still on the land. They would have paid everything if the opportunity had been given them. They have been more than willing to fulfil their obligations, and the government should recognize that fact. During the three years from 1939 to 1941 the actions of this government worked a great hardship on these men and aroused a great deal of resentment. In view of the past contribution of these returned soldiers, who fought in the last war and who now face the declining years of their lives, surely this government, without loss to itself or to the people of Canada, could give them clear title to their land. I am sure this group would give full support to the action of the government in so doing.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Just before we leave that subject I should like to add a word to the discussion. I hope the minister will not think we are indulging in any loose sentiments, as he expressed it a while ago I do not intend to repeat the arguments which have been put forward by the hon. member for Battle River, who, I think, presented a sound case. However, it seems to me that the government should go a little farther in the new Veterans' Land Act. I quite agree with everything said by the hon. member for Battle River in regard to the old soldier settlers getting clear title to their land. Let us remember that Alberta has passed legislation to give the returned men of this war who had residence in that province a half-section of land, with clear title

War Appropriation
in ten years. When the province can go so far as to grant clear title in ten years, with no encumbrance whatever, not even taxes, surely this federal government can do a little better than it has promised to do for our veterans of this war, as well as the veterans of world war No. 1. The provincial government has not the money the federal government has, nor has it, thanks to this government, the ways of raising money that are open to the federal authority. Not only has Alberta agreed to give the returned men of that province who desire it a half-section of land, free of all taxes and other encumbrances at the end of ten years; it desires to go a little further than that. If the federal government will cooperate a little in the interests of the returned men Alberta is prepared to give each veteran forty acres of land broken and cleared. All the province asks is that the federal government pay half the cost. I do not think that is loose sentiment at all, but something to which these men are entitled. Surely, if Alberta can do that it is not being sentimental. Not at all; it is doing so because it is good business.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but has he had an opportunity of reading the order in council tabled this afternoon in regard to provincial crown lands?


Charles Edward Johnston: I have not, but am I to understand that the federal government is agreeing with the province of Alberta-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The federal government had a conference with officials of the province of Alberta, among others, and as a result of careful consideration an order in council was prepared and tabled in this house this afternoon, dealing with this very question of provincial crown lands;


Charles Edward Johnston: I am very glad an order in council has been passed, but we have not had a chance to look at it. Would the minister tell us the contents of the order in council?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry I have not the order in council before me at the moment, but we had a conference with representatives of the western provinces, and, I think, some of the eastern provinces as well. The discussion lasted for two or three days; certain principles were agreed upon, which were submitted to the government, and finally an order in council was drawn up providing for cooperation with
the provincial authorities in order to make it easier to place soldier settlers upon crown land.


Charles Edward Johnston: Does the order in council provide for the federal government sharing the cost of clearing and breaking forty acres?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: I believe the federal government should give that suggestion a great deal of consideration. As I was pointing out, the government of Alberta is not doing this from a sentimental point of view.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think my hon. friend will find that this order in council will be of great benefit to settlers in Alberta.


Charles Edward Johnston: I hope it will be. Perhaps, as an hon. member suggests, this is a death-bed repentance on the part of the federal government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; it is the promise of the dawn.


Charles Edward Johnston: As I was
pointing out a moment ago, the government of Alberta is not doing this from any sentimental point of view. I think experience has shown that if the federal government at the end of the last war had granted clear title to every one of the soldier settlers who wanted that land, it would have been dollars ahead, because of the tremendous overhead in administration. Even if they were to grant clear titles to those soldiers who got land under the soldier settlement board, I am quite positive the federal government would, in the long run, be dollars ahead.
The provincial government have gone into this matter carefully and have come to the conclusion that it is cheaper for them as a provincial government to give the soldiers one-half section of land, absolutely free at the end of ten years. It has been cheaper, they consider, to give the soldiers clear title, without one penny owing, than it would be to set up a tremendous administration to carry on the work of administration for years to come. That is not sentimentality; it is good logic and good business.
Surely, if one of the prairie provinces, one of the poorest provinces of the dominion, can be so generous to the soldiers, the federal government could loosen up a bit. There would be no great difficulty in the federal government's financing such a proposition, and
War Appropriation

saying to these soldiers-not only those of the first world war, but those of this war who desire to take up land-that once they have proven their intention of staying on the land, and have shown their good faith by staying there for ten years, that the federal government would give them clear title. I hope that the government will take a saner view, and do that very thing.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Would the Minister of Veterans' Affairs give us a statement as to the factors which determine the eligibility of a veteran to receive aid under this act for the purchase of small acreages adjoining a city or town? There appears to be some confusion in that regard.
I know of one man who applied and was refused aid on the ground that the job he held in the city was not permanent, and there was some doubt as to whether he would be able to keep up his payments. In another instance I got a letter from the minister saying the reason this man was refused was that he had not had any farming experience for about twenty years and, consequently, they did not think he could make a living on the acreage.
It was my understanding when the bill was before the house that the purpose of helping people to get acreages nearer cities was so that they could work in the city during those seasons when work was available, and also have some assistance from small acreages, such as those on which they would keep chickens or grow berries. What are the factors which determine eligibility?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Some time ago the hon. member for York South raised the same question. He asked what qualifications should be possessed by a veteran seeking to establish himself on a small holding under the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act.
Just now he mentioned the case of a Toronto workman whose application- was refused when he asked for a small holding. The hon. member was good enough to furnish the name privately, and since then a report has been obtained by myself ini regard to that particular case.
I have indicated1 that the director had to go slow in authorizing settlements up to the present time. It is not in the interests of any veteran that he be encouraged to enter into a contract involving the repayment of a loan unless and until the necessary home, farm buildings, tools and equipment are available, so that he has the means of earning the money to pay his instalments.
Knowing the limitations in this regard, the administration has sought to allocate avail-

able materials among applicants considered to have the greatest need. This, frankly speaking, is a discretionary process, and inevitably it gives rise to disappointment in some cases. The policy of the department is to study as many as possible of those cases; but the hard fact remains that until materials, equipment and labour are more easily available we shall probably not be able to settle all applicants on small holdings.
These are the reasons, I may tell my hon. friend, why the veterans referred to by him and by others have experienced delay. There are several aspects to the qualifications mentioned by my hon. friend. The applicant must have the service record laid down in the act. I understand there is no difficulty on that score, in the case of the veteran mentioned by the hon. member. Either in farming, or in the case of most small holdings, it is contemplated that the veteran has to make at least some part of his living by cultivating the soil, some part of his living through some branch of agriculture or horticulture. Whatever it is, the veteran has to show that he has some experience and background related to the project for which he applies, whether it be a full farming acreage, or the keeping of poultry, the growing of vegetables or beekeeping.
In the case of small holdings there must also be some assurance that the veteran has reasonable prospects of some other means of livelihood

the condition referred to by my hon. friend. That is, he must have reasonable prospects of some personal livelihood-a job or a skill which will ensure him a reasonable prospect of getting a job in the vicinity of his home.
A directive recently issued to regional offices on January 2 shows that the policy is to take a reasonable view of those requirements, along practical lines. Another qualification which, of course, is necessary in every case, has to do with character and steadiness. With some men there is little prospect of reestablishment by tying them up, or trying to tie them up with a hard and fast contract for fifteen years.
Here again the policy is not to be too strict, and account is taken of reasonable probabilities. Decisions on those points are not made arbitrarily by civil servants. Qualification is a process requiring interview by an advisory board consisting of farmers, business men, and veterans from the applicant's locality, men who know local conditions, and who are good judges of the person in question. Great care has been taken in the selection of these advisory boards to see that they will have the confidence of the veteran, and of the community in which he dwells.

War Appropriation
In the case of the veteran to whom the hon. *member referred the other day, a report has been furnished, and it appears that the reasons for refusal were not quite as my hon. friend -understands them to be. This veteran, who was about fifty years of age, proposed to make his living from an orchard, and the production *of small fruits from one and a half acres of quite good land, equipped with a small three-roomed frame house. The applicant was found to have had little or no association with agriculture for the past twenty-four years. He is employed, as I understand, as a metal polisher in Toronto. The officers of the department, and the advisory board, seriously questioned this man's prospects of success in an occupation for which he lacked training and [DOT] experience.
However, I may assure my hon. friend that one refusal is not final. The officers of the board are trying to find a type of reestablishment which will fit more closely with this man's present employment, and offer him greater prospects of success.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I understood the minister to say that a committee of local farmers and 'business men, and I presume legionnaires and ex-veterans, sit as a committee in respect of small holdings. If that is so, why is it not done in the Fraser Valley? I understood the minister to say, further, that he presumed a veteran would have a reasonable chance of making a partial living, or of gaining partial employment in some other line of farming. In my riding this is what has happened, particularly in the vicinity of Chilliwack. I should like to know if local people who know conditions will be consulted before these men are settled.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Definitely, yes. I understand that in the case referred to the advisory committee consisted of only two gentlemen. They were estimable gentlemen but they were not necessarily in touch with all the local conditions. There is no objection whatever to enlarging these local committees and giving representation to the Canadian Legion and local councils or to practical farmers. We want the advice of those who know local conditions and we are only too glad to have it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Will such a committee be consulted before any settlement is made ?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly


Robert Fair: I invited the Minister of Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance to put up an argument to-night, but they have walked out without doing so. I had hoped
that before going to the home for the aged the Minister of Mines and Resources would have cleared his conscience of at least some of the sins he has committed against these old soldier settlers. I do not want those sins to haunt him in the happier days that lie ahead.


Clarence Gillis: When the national defence estimates were being considered I endeavoured to get a clarification of the status of the members of the voluntary nursing aid detachment serving with the Canadian Army, particularly in connection with gratuities. I did not get an answer and I was wondering if the Minister of Veterans' Affairs is in a position to give some information. Doubt was expressed before as to whether the members of the St. John ambulance corps were members of the army. I have in my hand several orders in council that definitely tie them in with the Canadian Army in connection with rations, discipline, orders and everything else.
There is an appendix to general order 156 of 1942. This is quite lengthy and all through it we find that these girls are definitely under the regulations pertaining to the army medical corps. During the last few weeks these girls were ordered to take off the1 service1 ribbons they had been wearing for the past fifteen months. Evidently since this discussion' as to their eligibility for gratuity came up in the house there has been some action behind the scene to relegate them to a category where they will not be entitled to gratuities.
I am not going to read these orders and no doubt the minister can check them with the Department of National Defence. I think an injustice is being done to this particular ser- ' vice. They are prohibited from marrying; they get the same leave as officers; they get the same transportation rights and are under the same discipline as the nursing sisters. Has the minister any information?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am afraid I have not. My hon. friend was kind enough to approach me personally with reference to these eases, and several other people have done the same thing in the last week or two. I do not know whether they have a definite form of enlistment for service ' for the duration of the war, but I think there is a lot of merit in the contention of my hon. friend. Without committing myself I shall certainly be most happy-it does not come under my jurisdiction-to look into the situation. Perhaps my hon. friend will be kind enough to send me copies of the documents he showed me this afternoon and then I shall be happy to bring them to the attention of my colleagues.
War Appropriation


Mr. QUELCH:: There is one further point I should like to refer to in connection with the matter raised by the hon. member for Battle River. The argument has often been used that the government would not be justified in giving clear title to these soldiers because the taxpayers' money was used in buying the land. Even if that were true I would not agree altogether with the argument, but it is not a true statement of fact. In many cases the land sold to the soldier settlers cost the government absolutely nothing and it was sold at fairly high prices. In other words, the soldier settlers were exploited and there was profiteering at their expense. I should like to read from a return made to the house last year in connection with the cost of some of these lands. This return was made May 23, 1944. I asked this question:
What was the cost to the dominion government of the following lands that were sold to soldier settlers in 1920: sections 6, 13, 14. 15, EJ, 10. 22, 23, 24, of range 18. township 33, west of 4 and sections 32, 30 NE J 26, 23, 22. Wf, 19, 18. 17, 16, 15 and NE I 13, of range 18, township 32, west of 4?
The reply was "nil". It did not cost the government a cent. Then my next question was:
What was the average price per acre?
The answer given was $16.38. In the same area civilians were buying South African scrip from the government for S3 an acre; yet the government were charging the soldier settlers $16.38 an acre for land that did not cost them a cent. I have continually contended that . since it did not cost the government anything to obtain this land they should be prepared to sell it at the same price as they were selling South African scrip, $3 an acre. My next question was:
What is the total debt of soldier settlers or members of veterans guard still resident on these lands?
The answer was, "$35,448.30". I then asked:
How many soldiers originally settled on these lands?
The answer given was, 40. I then asked:
How many have paid for their land in full?
The answer was, 3. Out of a total of forty who settled in 'that area we find that at the end of twenty-five years only three have been able to pay for their land in full. This is owing to the fact that the price charged was exorbitant, and even with the prices that prevail to-day we find that land is being sold for far less than $16 an acre. I can say that because

not long ago I bought some land in that area for a price away below $16 an acre. My next question was:
How many have abandoned their land?
The answer was, 17. Out of a total of forty, seventeen have had to abandon their land. The next questions and answers were:
8.	How many are still resident? 13.
9.	How many are in the veterans guard but still hold their land? 4.
It is all right for the minister to say that, many soldier settlers are making their payments. The thing that interests me is not how many settlers are making their payments but how many are still down and out to-day. Unfortunately there are a great many in that position. I know of settlers who have had pressure put upon them to leave the land because it is claimed they are not farming in an efficient manner.
I know of one case of an old fellow who was refused an adjustment on his land upon the ground that he is not able to farm efficiently. He is getting too old and they are trying to put him off the land. He is an old Irishman and he told me that he would have to get a shot-gun if they bothered him any more. That is the kind of spirit I am glad to see in these soldier settlers who have suffered such hardship. The superintendent of soldier settlement knows very well the land to which I am referring and I urge the minister to give consideration to this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Included in the appropriation of $2,000,000,000 which is now before us there is a substantial amount for old1 age pensions and I should like to speak briefly on this matter. I refer the Minister of Finance in particular to the discussion that took place in the house last year early in June during the course of which a number of suggestions as to changes that might be made in the old age pension regulations were offered to the government from all sides of the house. The minister showed great interest in the suggestions that were made and acceded to our request to have them compiled and studied by the officials of his department in charge of the matter. Later in the session, on August 14, I had occasion to ask the minister whether any progress had yet been made in connection with the implementing of these suggestions. The minister replied that a study had been made and an excellent memorandum prepared, but that nothing further was possible at that stage.
The minister knows that this is a subject in which I am greatly interested, and there is a good deal I could say but I am going to refrain from any lengthy remarks under present

War Appropriation
circumstances. I should like however, to point out to him and to the government that the people who are on the old age pension and those in later years who ought to be receiving it but wrho are denied the pension for one reason or another find it difficult to understand the long delay that seems to have to take place before satisfactory amendments can be made to the Old Age Pension Act or to the regulations. They are not critical of the pieces of social legislation which have been introduced and passed, particularly during the session of last year, but they find it hard to understand how huge sums of money can be found for other desirable pieces of social legislation and yet for it not be possible to make any substantial increase in the amount of the old age pension. In particular they cannot understand why it has not been found possible to abolish what for the sake of brevity I shall refer to as the means test provisions in the act and in the regulations. It is because of that feeling on the part of old people that I would ask the Minister of Finance to make a brief statement on behalf of the government, and if he will do so there are two questions to which I should like him to direct his attention. The first is this. Has any progress been made in connection with implementing the suggestions made to thp minister on June 2 and June 5 of last year? My second question is this. Now that the date of the election has been announced, has the government any announcement to make as to its intention with regard to' old age pensions? That is giving the minister a golden opportunity. I do so because I speak not only for myself but, I am sure, for private members in all parts of this house when I say that we are keenly interested in something being done as quickly as possible to improve the lot of our old age pensioners.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not anticipate that
this subject would come up to-night and I have not any documents or any officials with me. The hon. gentleman asks whether any progress has been made in procuring amendments to the present old age pension regulations and says that it is hard to understand why it takes so long to get these amendments made. If he were in the position of administering the Ottawa end of the Old Age Pension Act he would very soon find out what are the reasons for delay in having amendments made to these regulations.
I had a long list compiled of the suggestions that were made in the house last summer. I do not know that I would approve all of them myself; I never undertook to approve them or to try to have the suggested amendments made. But there was one-I cannot remember at the moment what
it was-which I regarded as desirable, and in December or January we started in to try to have that amendment made. We have been corresponding with the provinces ever since and we have not yet reached agreements with the provinces. It is almost impossible to obtain amendments to the regulations because one has to get agreements with the nine provinces. What happens is 'that you write to a province, and the province comes back with a counter suggestion. You say: No; let us stick to the original suggestion; you have the same thing going on with one province after another, and that goes on and on ad infinitum. I do not think any effective step can be taken to deal with our old age pension system without a dominion-provincial conference.
The hon. gentleman says, why is not something done to raise the old age pension? I have repeatedly stated in this house that we regard that as a provincial responsibility. As the hon. gentleman knows, we have enormous demands upon the dominion treasury, in the fields which are our responsibility, and we are by no means niggardly in response to the requests of member after member of this house to loosen up. We loosen up sometimes more often than I approve. But I realize that in pleading the cause of the general taxpayer I am pleading an unpopular cause here when I listen to members of this house saying: Spend, spend, spend. I realize that this is probably the wish of the members of the house.
But in this matter of old age pensions I have made it quite clear that we regard it as primarily a provincial responsibility. The provinces all have heavy surpluses and are infinitely more prosperous, governmentally speaking, than the dominion, and there is nothing to prevent any province from raising the old age pension to thirty-five or forty or fifty dollars a month if they see fit to do so. Some provinces regard a higher rate as more appropriate than do other provinces. It depends on the feeling of the people of the particular section of the dominion affected.
All I can say about old age pensions is this. I have made the statement here in the house in the past. I said two or three years ago that if the provinces thought the rate ought to be higher and all made that request, we would give consideration to making the rate higher, and we finally did that. They requested that it be raised from twenty to twenty-five dollars. We did that. Later I suggested that if the provinces were of the view that we should lower the age to sixty-

War Appropriation
five, we would give consideration to that. But only a few provinces have made any such request.
The dominion is in this position, that we cannot get a good old age pension system in this country without a dominion-provincial conference and getting the pension on a contributory basis. I never heard of a system where the means test was abolished if the system was not a contributory one. I do not believe the people of this country would stand for our paying forty or fifty dollars a month to millionaires over sixty-five or seventy years of age unless they had done something to pay for that pension; in other words, unless it had been contributory. If you abolish the means test, you must have the contributory system. Otherwise it will strike the ordinary taxpayer or member of parliament, no matter how generous he is with the taxpayers' funds, as ridiculous.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the difficulties to which the minister has referred in connection with dealings between the federal government and the provinces. I know, for example, the difficulty that we have in my own province of Manitoba in persuading the provincial government there to take certain desirable steps that are long overdue. One that I will mention particularly is this. About a year ago the federal government, after we had asked some questions about the matter, advised the provinces that as from that date they could cease filing liens against the property of old age pensioners up to the value of $2,000. The change which the federal government made at that time was to make permissive rather than mandatory the filing of liens up to that figure. Since that time some of the provinces have taken advantage of that provision which the federal government made. In my own province strenuous efforts have been made by public bodies and by members of the legislature to persuade the provincial government to make that very minor change, but they have not seen fit to do so. I quote that in part to express regret that this has not been done and in part to support what the minister has said, that there are these problems in dealing with the provinces.
However, in connection with the statement that the responsibility for increasing the amount should be put on the provinces, I want not only to take strong exception to the minister's stand but to point out that the total amount of money which it would cost to take care of the present old age pensions entirely from the federal treasury is not very large compared with some other sums which
TMr. Ilsley.]
are now being provided. Like the minister,. I have no figures in front of me, but my recollection is that it is about thirty-eight to-forty million dollars a year that it costs the federal government, and about twelve million, dollars is borne by the provinces; I may be out a few millions, but that is fairly close.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is a little high. I think the federal contribution is slightly over thirty million dollars.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So much the worse, but it. is in that region. In other words, the total cost of old age pensions to the federal government, the provincial governments and the-municipalities-for in some provinces a portion of the obligation is passed on down-is in the-region of fifty to fifty-five million dollars a. year.
I wish to make a comparison, and in doing so I would make it clear that we of this group supported the family allowance measure which is to come into effect very soon. But if it is possible for us to find $200 million a year for that desirable provision, only fifty or fifty-five millions a year to assist those at the other end of life is not good enough. My colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South who is sitting beside me frequently says, when we are dealing with these matters, that there are two groups of people for whom social legislation should make the first provision- the aged and the young. I am glad that the step has been taken with respect to the family allowance measure, even though it requires certain improvements. But I feel that progress should be made in connection with old age pensions without delay.
I mention the family allowance measure for another reason. When the government brought that measure in they did not suggest that it should be the responsibility of the provinces; they felt that the effort to assist children and family life in this country should be put on a national basis, that it should not be possible to have differences as between the various provinces. Accordingly I would say that, commendable as it is that a number of the provinces have made additions to the amount which the federal government is paying, one of the undesirable features which is developing at the present time is the variations in the old age benefits in the various parts of the country. I think it would contribute a great deal to the sense of national unity in this country if old age pensions were put on a dominion-wide national basis similar to that of the family allowance measure, and in doing so let us make the best possible provision for our old people throughout this dominion. I

War Appropriation
hope that the present government while it lasts and whatever government succeeds it will give further consideration to the case of our old people; and I urge particularly that we keep away from the thought that this matter is a provincial responsibility. We must recognize it as a national responsibility. I urge, too, that we look squarely at the total amount of money which old age pensions are costing us, and ask ourselves if the really small amount we are providing for this purpose is good enough for our old people, in the light of our present national economy.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks with respect to the Department of Reconstruction. I had intended to speak briefly on this matter when the minister's portion of the appropriation was before the committee; but time interfered. Yesterday the minister tabled a pamphlet entitled "Employment and Income." I have read this pamphlet through. After the great amount of advance advertising which it and the work of the Department of Reconstruction received from the minister himself and from other ministers, I had been led to believe that in this pamphlet we were going to have something really epoch-making. I thought possibly we would really be given an idea as to how we could emerge from the old order into a new order. But I must say that reading this pamphlet through greatly disillusioned me. I was utterly disappointed. There is in this pamphlet no evidence whatsoever of any new heaven or any new earth. There is no indication of any real appreciation of the causes of the economic ills which afflict the world at the present time, and there is no sign of any knowledge how to remove those causes. That is an exceedingly serious matter.
I spoke on March 23 about the international conference at San Francisco, and I found the same fault with the general set-up there. They seem disposed to talk about everything but the causes of the trouble and how to remove those causes.
Now, the causes of the trouble which we face to-day are briefly these: that we have developed great machines of astonishing efficiency; we have perfected highly efficient technological skills, as a result of all of which we are able to produce abundantly and largely without the use of men, the result being that the purchasing power in the hands of the people as related to the amount of goods and services which are coming on the market is gradually decreasing, with the result that we have an inability on the part of those who produce to sell their product at a reasonable price, and an inability on the part of the people generally to buy the goods; the result
being that we have poverty in the midst of plenty and general consternation and dismay, with the tendency for the producers to combine in greater combines and cartels, international organizations, and a tendency on the part of the labouring men to combine in a similar way to combat the power of money, with the result that there is an urge everywhere apparently to centralization of power and the destruction of democracy. Not only is this to be observed within the nation but it is a world phenomenon. We shall never overcome this difficulty; we shall never be able to protect democracy unless we discover the fundamental causes of the trend of our day and set about remedying those causes.
With respect to this white paper, the Social Credit group has not had time fully to study the government's employment and income scheme, but we are convinced from the study we have made that the white paper does not contain any effective cure for the economic disturbances which ended in the world catastrophe of 1939. Rather, controls are to be increased to make effective -resistance by nations to economic ills more difficult, if not impossible. Further, it is clear that disarmament and similar proposals are not advanced in whole or even mainly in the interests of peace through international good will, but rather to prevent national resistance to economic conquest by means of an international gold standard. These are hard things to say about the minister's general proposal, but the mere fact that the whole plan centres around the Bretton Woods agreement indicates that what I have said is not an unjust criticism.
I have several suggestions to offer the minister in connection with the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Canada. As he will agree, we must increase production and consumption or distribution in Canada. Only by these two processes can the standard of living of the Canadian people be raised to where it should be and maintained there. The ordinary socialist takes the stand generally, I gather, that private enterprise will not produce abundance. That, I maintain, is the most flagrant nonsense because private enterprises are producing so much goods that we find it utterly impossible to sell them all. Therefore our difficulty is by no means production. We can produce if we could only enable private enterprise to sell. The problem is, therefore, to enable them to sell and at reasonable prices. I am not going to deal now with how that is to be done except to hint, but I intend to approach the problem of rehabilitation from the practical point of view in a general way, a thing which the minister will, I think, readily understand.

War Appropriation

I am going to refer to my own constituency. In my constituency there are several rather unusual possibilities for increasing production and consumption. One of those is coal. In Alberta we have extensive deposits of high quality bituminous coal and quite a large percentage of it is in the Lethbridge riding of Alberta. Up to the present time we have done very little in Canada by way of utilizing our coal for the production of desirable means toward improving our standard of living. For example, very little is done with respect to processing coal to obtain power for rural electrification and the like. There is a great need for rural electrification and consequently a great opening for the use of coal to produce power for that purpose. Almost nothing has been done in Canada with respect to processing our coal for petroleum. The minister pointed out this afternoon, and has pointed out previously in his speeches in this house, that Canada is dependent largely on outside sources for her petroleum, oils, gasoline and the like. With the tremendous deposits of coal which we have in Canada I maintain, that it is a reflection on our intelligence to have to be importing our oil from outside when nations such as Germany, Italy and Britain have been producing their oil needs in such large measure from coal. We have such tremendous quantities of coal. I am told that the amount of gasoline and oil products which we need in Canada could be produced from about twenty million tons a year. This would add greatly to the prosperity of the coal mining areas in our country and would add greatly to our own security and self-sufficiency in time of stress.
Much has been done in other countries in the way of processing coal to get certain chemicals. Very little is being done in Canada. Men process coal in order to get plastics, explosives and solvents of one kind and another. All of these are possibilities of the future; I submit to the minister that he should take into the most careful consideration the possibility of processing our coal deposits in order to produce those very desirable commodities in our country. I am told that in Britain and in Germany they have used coal to obtain coal tar for the building of highways. We need highways in Canada very, very badly. We have much difficulty in getting highways that will stand up to our weather. It ought to be a sound proposal to obtain coal tar from our coal deposits and with it to build highways.
I should like to refer the minister to a good brief which has recently been submitted to the royal commission on coal that has been sitting across Canada. This brief was submitted by the Lethbridge board of trade. It is called

"A Fuller Utilization of Coal Deposits." If he will read that brief he will obtain some ideas which I think will help him to avoid too much study in the matter.
May I turn from our coal deposits to the possibilities of irrigation. Every gallon of water that runs down the slopes toward Hudson bay should be carefully stored and beneficially used on the thirsty soils of the west. We have all too little water in western Canada, and of that which we have a great amount, in fact by far the major portion, is being allowed to run to waste year after year with nothing being done about the matter. May I particularly draw the attention of the committee to the project for the utilization of water in my own constituency, called the Lethbridge southeast water conservation project, or the St. Mary's and Milk rivers conservation project. In this project it is proposed to take the waters that run in four rivers flowing through southwestern Alberta and store them in ten reservoirs, the combined capacities of which will be 738,700 acre feet; then to distribute that water over 345,000 acres of land in the federal ridings of Lethbridge and Medicine Hat, the total cost being $15,178,430. The land upon which it is proposed to put the water is choice soil. It has been semi-arid for centuries; consequently it is very rich. The climate there is unusually fine and the location with respect to transportation and markets is good. By utilizing the land and water we can add greatly to the stock raising capacity of Alberta and the west, the dairy producing capacity, the capacity to cam goods and the capacity to produce sugar. Sugar beets particularly grow very well with high yields and a high percentage of sugar content. Up to the present time the people of Canada and particularly the present government of Canada have greatly neglected the possibilities Of producing beet sugar in Canada. It is an amazing thing to me; nevertheless it is obviously true.
Beet sugar is one of the most important commodities which we can produce in Canada. During this war we have had to go short of sugar. During a future war-let us not forget that a future war is a possibility-we might not be able to get the meagre supplies that we have been able to get from abroad. It is only the part of ordinary common sense to put ourselves in a position where we can produce our own sugar, and we can do that successfully in Canada.
May I return to the water conservation project? I would suggest to the minister that he read the report of the committee

War Appropriation
which was appointed under the name of the St. Mary's and Milk rivers conservation committee to examine into the possibilities of the project about which I have been speaking. This committee submitted a report to the Minister of Mines and Resources in February, 1942. On page 12 of the report the committee pointed out that they believed this project was a desirable one for post-war rehabilitation in Canada; and in the report they pointed out the serious danger of Canada losing her share of the waters of the St. Mary's and Milk rivers because they are international streams, since that share was awarded by the treaty dated January 11, 1909, and stipulated by official order of the international joint commission dated October 4, 1921. I specially urge that the government proceed immediately with the St. Mary's dam of a capacity of 270,000 acre feet. This would cost roughly $4 million. It would provide plenty of water to make up for the shortage which now exists in the irrigation districts in the Lethbridge area comprising 120,000 acres, and it would provide water for 94,000 acres of new land. These are very important matters. Therefore I commend to the minister's most careful consideration the Lethbridge southeast water conservation project.
I referred a moment ago to the beet sugar industry. May I turn the attention of the committee to that again for a minute or two? Any nation that does not or cannot produce its own sugar needs cannot be really free. Sugar is likely to become more important as the generations pass. Canada could easily produce her own sugar. One beet sugar factory like the one at Raymond, Alberta, in my constituency, can produce one-twentieth of Canada's annual requirements of sugar. Canada could produce all the sugar she needs in southern Alberta, south of Calgary. The beet sugar industry should, I maintain, be encouraged. I urge upon the minister that he bring influence to bear upon his colleagues in the cabinet to the end that this may be done. As I said a moment ago, the present government has been unsympathetic to the beet sugar industry, and has hurt that industry in Canada.
May I now turn for a few moments to agriculture in Canada, as it is affected by the rehabilitation programme. If agriculture is to be rehabilitated in Canada three things must be done. First, the farmer must have parity prices. This means the bonusing or subsidizing upward of the prices the farmer gets, and the bonusing or subsidizing downward of the prices of the commodities he has to buy. The subsidizing process should be 32283-56
carried to the point at which every farm family would be able to have a modern home and a cultured, educated family free from financial worries. This should be the ideal. Anything short of that is unworthy of any government whatsoever that might have power in Canada. Second, the farmer needs full markets; markets in Canada to the limit of the capacity of Canadians to consume the goods, andi markets abroad for all our surpluses, either through trade or through mutual aid so financed as to avoid increasing taxation or debt. The third need is generous credit facilities. If the minister will provide these three requisites to the farming population of Canada, he will have no need to worry about rehabilitating them, for they will take care of the rehabilitation themselves from there on.
I now turn to the question of housing. Some attention has been given to that matter up to the present during the debate. I maintain that the present housing programme of the government is altogether inadequate. The proposed assistance is not available to the very people who need housing assistance most. Money for housing must be made much more widely available so that the poor man, working for a low and uncertain income, may be able to possess his own home. Interest rates must be much lower than are now proposed, not more than perhaps two per cent. The repayment of the loan should be on the basis of the income of the householder. If he pays a moderate percentage of his income for a period of, say twenty years he should be guaranteed clear title to his home. Every family must have an opportunity of possessing its own home.
Canada exists for the sake of the people of Canada. Without plenty of patriotic, healthy and prosperous people, Canada will never grow. The people must come first. Measures must be taken to encourage an increase in the Canadian birthrate, and suitable housing provision would be one such measure.
Some people will say it sounds foolish to argue that if the householder has paid a certain percentage of his income for twenty years he should have possession of his home. May I just point out to hon. members that the administration in Alberta is proceeding on just such a basis. When they turn over, we will say a half-section of land to a returned man they say to him, "Now, if you give us a certain percentage of the produce of your land for a certain number of years, perhaps ten or fifteen years, you can have the land." I believe eight per cent is all that is called for.

8S2
War Appropriation

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



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved that a sum not exceeding $148,S45,-000.59, being five-twelfths of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1946, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, and in addition thereto the sum of $437,749.83, being one-twelfth of the amount of items 10. 23. 24. 27, 141, 146. 148. 151. 152, 171 and 267, and the sum of $862,958.33. being one-sixth of the amount of items 29, 133. 134. 142. 153, 158, 160, 161, 162, 269, 270. 271, 276. 277. 278, 279, 280, 282, 283. 286. 287, 289 and 290 as set forth in the several schedules to The Appropriation Act No. 1, 1945, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal juar ending 31st March, 1946.


Mr. HAZEN:: Would the minister explain
what this proceeding is? What is the Chairman reading from?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The Chairman has just read a resolution of the committee of supply providing the sum of S148,845,000.59-


Douglas King Hazen: Where is it found?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is not found anywhere; it has just been read. This is the usual procedure in committee of supply, but I had better explain to the committee just what the government is asking it to do.
The resolution is passed by the committee of supply, and then a subsequent resolution by the committee of ways and means, preparatory to the introduction of a bill, which will be an appropriation bill. That appropriation bill is to provide (a) five-twelfths of all the items to be voted in the main estimates for the fiscal year 1945-46; (b) an additional one-twelfth for certain services detailed in schedule A to the bill; (c) an additional one-sixth for certain other services detailed in schedule B to the bill, and (d) borrowing power to raise sums required for redeeming loans or obligations maturing or callable during the new fiscal year.
The proportion of five-twelfths for all services is intended to provide for ordinary requirements to the end of August.
The additional proportions requested for certain special items are necessary on account of the seasonal nature of the services affected,
Interim, Supply Bill

such as certain, agricultural services; surveys and other activities of the Department of Mines and Resources, and certain public works projects including dredging and completion of contracts already under way.
The proposed procedure is the same as that followed each year with respect to interim supply; the passing of the bill to be founded on the resolution will not in any way prejudice the rights and privileges of members to criticize and discuss any item in the estimates which will come up for discussion at the next session, and as far as this government is concerned, the usual undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way as a result of the passing of this measure.
The form of the bill differs from that passed at the beginning of the last fiscal year. At that time, on account of the short period covered, it was not necessary to ask for additional proportions on special services. At this time we are asking for five months' supply, and this involves additional proportions for certain specified services which are covered in sections 3 and 4 and supported by the schedules to the bill. The form of the present bill in this respect is the same as that followed in the past where such additional proportions were necessary.
In fact, I think it is usual in interim supply bills to secure a somewhat larger proportion for certain special services than the proportion asked for respecting the main estimates as a whole. Very often the Minister of Finance has come into the house and asked for one month's supply or two month's supply applying to all the main estimates, and then he might ask for an additional two month's supply for a few services. That is the case here. We are asking for five-twelfths applicable to all, and for a few services we are asking for an additional one-twelfth and for a few other services an additional one-sixth. These special amounts are not large in amount. The five-twelfth amounts to $148,845,000.59; the additional one-twelfth amounts to $437,749.83 and the additional one-sixth amounts to $862,958.33.
Section 5 of the bill is new. It is to authorize the refunding of Dominion of Canada securities maturing or callable in the current year. At present the only authority available for refunding purposes is the Loan Act, 1944, of which only $10,298,387.45 remains unborrowed and negotiable.


Grote Stirling: Am I right in believing
that the five-twelfths plus the one-sixth plus the one-twelfth, plus the items that have been

passed already, bear a distinct relation to the total estimates of over $1,000,000,000? I should have thought that as we were proposing to vote five-twelfths of the amount required for the civil estimates there would be an exact relation between that sum and this total of $1,023,621,597.


James Lorimer Ilsley: A large number of items are statutory and do not have to be voted by the house. They are included in the main estimates simply for purposes of record and to provide a complete picture.


Grote Stirling: That would be a proportion of $301,138,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is five-twelfths of the nonstatutory items, which I presume is the figure the hon. gentleman has stated. Then the one-sixth and the one-twelfth would be in addition to that.


Grote Stirling: What about the items
that were passed some weeks ago in committee of supply?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Those were supplementary
estimates for the fiscal year now passed, the fiscal year ended March 31, 1945.
Resolution reported and read the first time.
Mr. ILSLEY moved that the resolution be read the second time and concurred in.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before this resolution is
carried I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been impossible to reach this stage of the proceedings on the eighteenth day of this session if you had not shown a spirit of justice and fairness to all members of this house. In 1940 I said to you that you were honouring the Chair and five years afterward it is my duty to say the same thing. Your difficulties have been great at certain times but you have shown wisdom and fairness; at all times you have followed the true parliamentary traditions of Westminster. Being Speaker during five years of war is a most strenuous task but you have accomplished that in a marvellous way. I cannot congratulate you, but I can tell you of my admiration and gratitude.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Prorogation
Resolved that a sum not exceeding $148,845,000.59, being five-twelfths of the amount of each of the several items to be voted as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1946, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, and in addition thereto the sum of $437,749.83, being one-twelfth of the amount of items 10, 23, 24, 27, 141, 146, 148. 151, 152, 171 and 267, and the sum of $862,958.33, being one-sixth of the amount of items 29, 133, 134, 142, 153, 158. 160, 161. 162, 269, 270, 271, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 286, 287, 289 and 290 as set forth in the several schedules to The Appropriation Act, No. 1, 1945, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1946.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 4, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1946.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair. Section 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to. Schedules A and B agreed to.
On the preamble.
Grote Stirling: I just want to record the fact that while we give acquiescence readily to the passage of this bill we look upon it as interim supply and we do not thereby give acquiescence to either the policy or the amounts covered by this measure.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Johnston (London) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the bills have gone from this house to the other, and I assume they will be passed by the other house
as they are supply bills. According to the announcement made this afternoon His Excellency will be prepared to have royal assent given to the measures on Monday afternoon at three o'clock. Word will come from His Excellency to that effect at any time and I think it might be well for the sitting to be suspended pending the receipt of that message. That does not mean that all hon. members will have to wait in their seats until that hour, but it would be well I think that the word should come from His Excellency this evening and be read by the Speaker so that hon. members will be prepared for royal assent on Monday afternoon at three o'clock. I accordingly move that the sitting of the house be now suspended during pleasure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At 10.35 p.m. the sitting was suspended during pleasure.
The house resumed at 10.50 p.m.

Thomas Vien: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, April 13, 1945.
Dear Sir:-I have the honour to inform you that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber on Monday, April 16, at three p.m., for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, April 16, 1945