1946-04-12

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: I have a .brief motion to make which speaks for itself. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has kindly consented to second it. It reads:
That the speech of His Excellency the Right Honourable Viscount Alexander of Tunis, G.C.B., Governor General of Canada, together with the address of welcome read by the Prime Minister ill the Senate chamber this morning, be printed as an appendix to the official report of debates of the House of Commons, and form part of the permanent record of this parliament.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to second the motion of the Prime Minister. In doing so I might say that I observed in the proceedings this morning that there was no
word of greeting to His Excellency in the French language. In view of the fact that under the British North America Act we have two official languages in this house, I should like to suggest that these proceedings be printed in both languages.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend and to the house that on these matters precedent is followed. All arrangements are made by a committee, of which the chairman usually is the Under-Secretary of State. I have asked Mr. Coleman with respect to the proceedings and he has given me a memorandum in which he says that he had carefully looked into the matter before the arrangements were made and that the records in the department indicate that previous governors general have said a few words in French only on occasions when the installation took place at Quebec. On those occasions addresses of welcome were presented on behalf of the city and tne province, which were in French, and normally the Governor General replied to these by speaking briefly in that language. In the case of Lord Tweedsmuir this occurred. In the case of the Earl of Athlone, who was sworn in in the senate chamber, and the Earl of Bessborough, who was sworn in at Halifax, their addresses in reply were entirely in English. From the above it would appear that the proceedings of this morning were in accordance with precedent.
Of course I am only too prepared to take the responsibility for all the proceedings, and, in particular for the address of welcome having been presented only in English this morning, but I can assure my hon. friend that there was no discourtesy intended either to His Excellency the Governor General or to our friends from the province of Quebec or any other part of' Canada.


John Bracken: There was no suggestion of any discourtesy on the part of anyone to anyone; there was only a suggestion that these proceedings be printed in both languages.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They will as a matter of course. Hansard is printed in both languages.


Mr. POULIOT:: Don't take it too high. Give a calling down to Coleman.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to table, in accordance with chapter 31 of the statutes of 1945 copy of order in council P.C. 1280, of
United Nations

April 5, 1946, authorizing a further advance to Canadian National Railways to enable the company to subscribe for an additional 200,000 shares ($20,000,000) of the capital stock of Trans-Canada Air Lines.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread public discussion at the present time with regard to UNRRA, I thought that the house might be interested in having a brief report regarding the Canadian contribution to UNRRA.
Canada's total contribution to UNRRA up to March 31, 1946, was $154,000,000. Of this amount, ten per cent has been reserved as UNRRA free funds expendable in any part of the world. The balance reserved for expenditure in Canada is, therefore, $138,600,000. As of March 31 of this year, $119,000,000 has been committed by various government departments and agencies leaving approximately $19,000,000 uncommitted, of which it is estimated that ten per cent should be removed for freight storage and handling charges. The exact figure of the balance available for future purchases on March 31 was $17,350,532.87.
Hon. members will be interested to know in greater detail how this $119,000,000 has been committed. A sum of $27,500,000 has been set aside for the purchase of wheat and grain; $16,000,000 for meat and more than $2,500,000 for seeds and milk. The grain has been purchased by the wheat and grain division of this department, and the seeds, meat and milk by the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Munitions and Supply has contracted for $2,300,000 worth of electrical equipment. The Canadian Export Board have made commitments on behalf of UNRRA for $56,500,000 worth of goods under the following headings:
million
Farm machinery	 $ 3-4
Clothing, textiles, footwear	 6-8
Miscellaneous supplies	 7-1
Medical supplies	 3-1
Trucks	 20-5
Miscellaneous food	 1-9
Soap	 4-1
Fish	 9-6
Total	 $56-5
In addition, freight charges will amount to about $13,500,000, of which slightly more than half will be for inland freight. The total Canadian contribution to UNRRA has been paid as of March 31, and has been largely
fMr. Howe.]
expended or committed as outlined above so that only slightly more than $17,000,000 remains available for future purposes.
In addition to Canada's own contribution to UNRRA, we have found it possible to make available for UNRRA purchases, above and beyond the amounts alreadv mentioned, goods to the value of nearly $67,500,000. This amount includes $27,000,000 worth of wheat; approximately $16,000,000 worth of trucks; more than $2,000,000 worth of canned fish; nearly $2,000,000 worth of shoes; more than $1,500,000 worth of metals; about $14,000,000 worth of meat and smaller amounts of other items including some clothing, some surplus textiles, asbestos, ambulances and an allowance of $1,500,000 for ocean freight. Thus it will be seen that nearly $200,000,000 worth of goods have been made available in Canada for UNRRA up to the end of the last fiscal year.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, arising out
of the statement just made by the minister, may I ask two questions? Can the minister advise us whether the other countries contributing to UNRRA have paid their allotments in full, and will he say under what authority this last $67,000,000 was advanced?


James Angus MacKinnon: Answering the latter
question first, there was no special authority necessary. The supplies were available in Canada and were purchased by the Canadian Export board for UNRRA.


John Bracken: These are purchases, not gifts?


James Angus MacKinnon: They were purchases in Canada.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Purchased by UNRRA, or by the countries to which they were being sent?


James Angus MacKinnon: Purchased for UNRRA in Canada.


Mr. MacNICOL:: But paid for out of the money we contributed?


James Angus MacKinnon: Paid for out of UNRRA funds. These purchases in Canada were not necessarily limited to the amount of money contributed by Canada. Answering my hon. friend's other question, I have no idea whether or not all the countries have paid their total commitments to UNRRA. I saw in the press recently that two or three countries had met their commitments, but I have no detailed information on the matter.


John Bracken: Our representative to
UNRRA ought to have the information. I suggest that the minister should get it and let us have it.

Statutory Holidays
With respect to the provision of $154,000,000 by Canada for UNRRA, and this other $67,000,000, I gather that the minister did not mean to leave the impression that we had ourselves contributed over $200,000,000, but that we had provided $154,000,000, and that out of other UNRRA funds $67,000,000 of extra goods had been purchased in Canada.


James Angus MacKinnon: I am sure the leader of the opposition when he looks over my statement in Hansard will see that that is what I said.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should not like to be an intruder, but may I ask the minister if he would be kind enough to give the house a statement later showing the number of automobiles and trucks which have been given to each country as Canada's share?


James Angus MacKinnon: I will take that into consideration.


Mr. GRAYDON:: The minister will perhaps recall that at the meeting of the general assembly in London the whole question of contributions by various countries to UNRRA came up, and a special resolution was passed in one of the committees on which my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) sat. I listened to the debate on that occasion. A number of countries had not made their full contribution, and the purpose of the resolution which was brought forward by Mr. Bloom, representing the United States of America, was to stimulate and encourage various countries to bring their payments up to date. The Secretary of State has a wide knowledge of this matter, and I think he will agree that the parliament of Canada ought to be given a full explanation of the position of other nations so that we can see whether their obligations under the original agreement have been carried out.



STATUTORY HOLIDAYS


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State):: I wish to announce that order in council P.C. 4671 of the 7th June, 1943, was revoked to-day. This order provided that the only statutory holidays which "should be observed by employers and employees" during the war were to be New Year's day, Good Friday, Dominion day, Labour day, Thanksgiving day and Christmas day. The same order similarly restricted the number of statutory holidays to be observed by the public service of Canada and those which were during the period indicated to be legal holidays or non-juridical days within the meaning of the Bills of Exchange Act.
As a result of the action now taken, the definition of "holiday" in the Interpretation Act is again in full effect. The holidays to be observed by the public service are again those enumerated in section 45 of the Civil Service Act, and again are those to be observed as legal holidays or non-juridical days. The result will be that, among others, Easter Monday and Victoria day will be observed as statutory holidays this year.
With regard to Remembrance day, the Minister of Veterans Affairs in particular has been in consultation with the national veterans organizations of the country. It seems desirable that before a definite decision with regard to that day be made, full consultation with veterans organizations should be proceeded with. Some of these organizations are holding annual meetings-one, early in May- and as soon as the veterans have had an opportunity of conferring further with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in particular, a definite policy with regard to that day and,
I may say, a definite decision with regard to holidays generally other than those covered by the present announcement, will be made.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about Boxing day?


Mr. HAZEN:: Is an employee entitled to a holiday with pay on these statutory holidays?


Mr. MITCHELL:: If I may answer that, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of arrangement between the employer and the employee, and that has always been so, notwithstanding the order in council which my hon. friend the Secretary of. State has just mentioned. Where the holidays are enumerated in an agreement between the employer and the employee, that practice has been followed.



WAR EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax) moved that the third report of the special committee on war expenditures and economies, presented on the 10th instant, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Bill No. 18 (Letter I of the Senate) intituled: "An Act for the relief of Juliana Edmonda Isabella Ferdinanda Becquaert de Beaujeu."
Mr. SPEAKER:: No petition hae been presented in respect of this bill; therefore it is out of order.



FIRST READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Margaret Penelope Brown.-Mr. Maybank.
Soldier Settlement Act
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Marion Cruick-shank Isaac.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Malvina Angelina Seguin Gascon..-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Nora Kathleen Loury Cheverton.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Elsie Eisher Armitage.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Florence Mabel McIntosh Simpson.-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Francis Gordon Sullivan.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Minerva Jane Cory.-Mr. Ma3"bank.
Bill No. 15, to amend the criminal code (race meetings).-Mr. Gardiner.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Soldier Settlement Act to provide that a soldier settler within the provisions of the Act who served in world war II who has not abandoned his land and whose agreement has not been terminated, rescinded or assigned, and a soldier settler who did not serve in world war II who has not abandoned his land and whose agreement has not been terminated, rescinded or assigned, shall be charged in the case of the soldier settler of world war II a rate of interest of three and one-half per centum per annum in respect of his agreement made under the act after the standard date in the year 1942 or the date of his enlistment whichever is the earlier and in the case of a soldier who did not serve in world war II a rate of interest of three and one-half per centum per annum after the standard date in the year 1944.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been informed of the subject matter of this resolution., recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Mr. BROOKS:: In connection with this
resolution, when the matter was brought to the attention of the house yesterday the minister asked that it be allowed to stand. My impression at that time was that he was asking that it stand in order that there might be further consideration in the veterans committee. The matter was to be further considered by the veterans committee, and there were other representations to be made, as I understood, by a delegation from the soldier settlers.
I would ask the minister if this should not stand until these representations have been made.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I was quite aware of the point raised hy my hon. friend. The inten-
tion would be that whatever recommendation came from the veterans committee would be considered and then, if approved, introduced by way of amendment at the proper time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to provide that the members of the women's royal naval services and the South African military nhrsing service, shall be entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits enjoyed by Canadians serving in His Majesty's forces other than Canadian forces during world war II under the Veterans Land Act, 1942, the Veterans Insurance Act, the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1946, the reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1942, the Civil Service Act, the Pension Act and the Income War Tax Act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been informed of the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved:: That a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government be appointed to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air- Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys; and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time, and that, notwithstanding Standing Order 63, the said committee consist of Messrs:	Chevrier,
Clark, Coyle, Belzile, Bourget, Emmerson, Gibson (Comox-Alberni), Harkness, Harris (Grey-Bruce), McLure, Hazen, Jackman. LaCroix, Lockhart, Maybank, McCulloch (Pictou), Moore' Mutch, Nicholson, Picard, Pouliot, Reid, Shaw
He said: This notice of motion seeks the establishment of the committee on railways and shipping. To this committee are referred the annual reports of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines. Certain items of the estimates are

War Crimes
taken from the committee of supply and referred to this committee. It is in the same form on the order paper now as it was last year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked me a question yesterday and I said I would give a reply to-day. The question was whether a Canadian representative has been appointed for the trials of Japanese war criminals at Hong Kong which are now proceeding, and when the representative will be dispatched.
In order that hon. members may get a true perspective of the whole matter as it arises out of the question which has been asked by the hon. member, I will give the house a brief review of the arrangements which have been concluded with regard to Canadian participation in the trials of far eastern war criminals generally.
The major war criminals are to be tried by an international tribunal, convened by General MacArthur, to which each state signatory to the Japanese surrender instrument has been invited to name a judge and an associate prosecutor. The Canadian nominee as judge is Mr. Justice E. Stuart McDougall, of the Court of King's Bench, Quebec, and the Canadian nominee as associate prosecutor is Brigadier H. G. Nolan,- C.B.E., M.C., Vice-Judge Advocate General at national defence headquarters. Both Brigadier Nolan and Judge McDougall have been in Tokyo since February.
Canadian participation in the trials of the lesser far eastern war criminals has been complicated by the fact that under existing international arrangements military courts for the trial of such war criminals may only be convened by states now in occupation of areas formerly dominated by Japan. Moreover, under the war crimes regulations (Canada), Canadian military courts can only be convened by senior officers in command of "Canadian forces"; since Canada has had no occupation force in the far east, no such courts could be convened in that area.
However, arrangements have been concluded with the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States pursuant to 63260-52
which a group of Canadian officers are proceeding to Hong Kong and Tokyo to exercise the following powers and duties:
(a)	to assist in the collection and collation of further evidence of atrocities against Canadians;
(b)	to assist in providing the United Kingdom (or United States) authorities with such available evidence from Canadian sources as may be considered of value to them;
(c)	to request the United Kingdom (or United States) military authorities to convene military courts under their respective war crimes regulations for the trial of particular persons within their jurisdiction against whom, in the opinion of the appropriate Canadian military representative, a prima facie case of a war crime against a Canadian has been established;
(d)	to assist in the prosecution of Canadian cases if so authorized by the appropriate United Kingdom (or United States) military authority;
(e)	to act in general liaison with the United Kingdom (or United States) war crimes officers in the far east.
In implementation of these arrangements, four Canadian army officers and four other ranks, with Lieutenant Colonel J. O. H. Orr in charge, are now en route to the far east. These officers will act in both the Hong Kong and Tokyo areas. The officers, all of whom possess legal experience, were drawn largely from the war crimes section at national defence headquarters; two of the other ranks are ex-Hong Kong prisoners of war.
Evidence of far eastern crimes against Canadian citizens and members of the Canadian armed forces has been collected and collated by a war crimes -section at national defence headquarters. The section has reported that there is an accumulation of evidence of atrocities against Canadians both in the areas now occupied by the United Kingdom forces (that is, Hong Kong) and in Japan proper.
Lists and descriptions of "wanted" persons have been transmitted to the appropriate United Kingdom and United States authorities with the request that they be apprehended, or held in cusody if already apprehended.
The war crimes officers en route to the far east have with them the evidence above referred to and will keep in close touch with the war crimes section at national defence headquarters.	<
The United States authorities have requested that an additional officer accompany the officers proceeding to Tokyo and be available to sit as judge on any joint military court convened by General MacArthur for the trial of lesser war criminals whether the victims were

Labour Conditions

Canadians or nationals of other countries. Colonel Thomas Moss, M.C., K.C., of the Judge Advocate General's branch, has been assigned for this purpose and has now left Ottawa en route to Tokyo. It may also be that conversations held by the war crimes officers in Hong Kong will indicate that it would be in order for a judicial officer to be sent to Hong Kong to carry out similar functions.


Mr. FULTON:: I should like to put this in the form of a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Before doing so, if I may be permitted, I should thank the hon. gentleman for the long and informative statement he has made in reply to my question. The Prime Minister said that a group of officers had been appointed to proceed to Hong Kong. I believe he mentioned Colonel Orr. This is ' a restatement of my original question. Will the Prime Minister tell us when those officers will be leaving? I do not think that point was covered.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: Perhaps I may be permitted to reply to that question. Colonel Moss, who was referred to in the Prime Minister's statement, left for Washington on April 11, and will travel by air to Tokyo where I am informed the new tribunal is soon to be convened. Colonel Moss will represent Canada on the lesser tribunal, if I may so describe it, referred to by the Prime Minister in his statement. I understand the others left some time ago.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, notice of which I sent him this morning. I ask it in view of a serious situation at Montreal which requires urgent attention. Were the findings and directives of the regional war labour board for the province of Quebec, made on or about January 3, 1946, in the matter of the employees of certain Montreal breweries, reported to the national war labour board? If so, what action was taken in regard thereto?


Humphrey Mitchell: Of course decisions of the regional board are reported to the national war labour board, and it is only in cases where the decisions themselves show an error that any action is taken by the national board by way of

review. I am informed that in the case in question nothing in the decision received appeared to warrant special review proceedings by the national board. Reviewal procedure should not be confused with the matter of appeal, which is open to either employer or employee; that is to say, any person aggrieved by the decision of a regional board may appeal from that decision to the national board. Appeal proceedings have not yet been taken in any of the cases about which my hon. friend has inquired.
May I say this. There is a good deal of loose talk going on throughout the country-


An hon. MEMBER:: There always is.


Humphrey Mitchell: There is a good deal of loose talk among my hon. friends.


Major James William Coldwell: And by the minister himself, sometimes.


Humphrey Mitchell: Even the minister himself and the leader of the C.C.F. I suggest however that when machinery of this kind is set up, such as the constitution of an employers or employees organization, those in charge being representatives of organized labour and of employers, the best advice that either side can give to their rank and file is to obey the law and not declare that they are going to break the law before they have appeared before the tribunal with respect to the creation of which they were consulted. I think that needs to be said at the moment.


Mr. MacINNIS:: May I ask a supplementary question? The minister stated quite correctly that there was provision in the national labour code for appeal. I understand that there was an appeal in this instance, but to the regional board which made the first finding and directive. Is there any provision for that in the labour code?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know. My hon. friend probably knows as much about the circumstances as I do, and perhaps more. There has been some difficulty in connection with the position of the board arising out of differences of opinion between one of the members of the board and the Canadian Congress of Labour of which he was the nominee. I still maintain, however, that the appeal should have been made to the national board, and I say so in a kindly way without being critical. The proper method of procedure should have been an appeal from the regional board to the national board by the organization concerned.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister has misunderstood the question.

Indian Act


James Horace King: Order.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: The original decision was in favour of the employees,-


James Horace King: Order.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: -And the employers appealed to the regional war labour board.


James Horace King: Order.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Does the first decision stand?


James Horace King: I would impress upon the hon. member the importance of the rule which requires a member to resume his seat when the Speaker rises and asks for order.


Major James William Coldwell: I am sorry I transgressed, Mr. Speaker, but I just did not see you.


James Horace King: There is no motion 'before
the house, consequently there can be no debate. A question was asked by the member for Rosetown-Biggar, and the Minister of Labour replied. An answer given by a minister is, under the circumstances, not debatable. I permitted another question, but I cannot permit a debate, because that would be against the rules.



INQUIRY AS TO DIRECTING OP VETERANS TO BREWERY INDUSTRY FOR EMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton. South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I did not send him notice of this question, because it arises out of an exchange between the minister and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and a telegram. Has the minister been advised that the Department of Veterans Affairs employment agency in Montreal has been directing veterans to the brewery industry where a dispute is in progress?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): No, I have not yet been so advised.


Clarence Gillis: Will the minister check on it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: I shall send him the telegram.



REGIONAL WAR LABOUR BOARD FOR QUEBEC- J. M. BEDARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: On Monday last the Minister of Labour, in reply to a question, said that Mr. Bedard was to be appointed to the regional war labour 63260-52i
board for Quebec. Has an order in council
been passed to make the appointment effective?


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is no, not yet.



AVAILABILITY OF PRISONERS OF WAR TO SUGAR BEET GROWERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT McCUBBIN (Middlesex West):: Having been interested in the securing of farm labour for western Ontario, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the statement true that we see in our Ontario daily newspapers, that 850 German prisoners of war will be available for sugar beet growers in western Ontario?


Humphrey Mitchell: In reply to the hon. member for Middlesex West and to inform the hon. member for Provencher, and the hon. member for Lake Centre, who are also interested, may I say at the moment consultations are proceeding with the British government with respect to the retention of a certain number of prisoners of war to take part particularly in the sugar beet harvesting in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario during the coming season. I hope that when the reply is received I shall be able to tell the house about it, probably in the course of the next few days.



INDIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. DECHENE (Athabaska):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources. On October 24 last the minister stated in the house that he hoped it would be possible to introduce at this session a bill to revise the Indian Act, and that it would be sent to a committee of the house for consideration. What are the governpaent's plans in the matter?


Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources):: I am glad to be able to inform the hon. member for Athabaska that since I made the statement to which he refers the matter has been considered further by the government and it is proposed to set up a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to examine and consider the Indian Act and the suggested revision and to investigate and report upon Indian administration in general. It is my intention immediately after the Easter recess to introduce the resolution for the appointment of a committee.
Loan to United Kingdom



FARM IMPLEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: May I ask a question, of the Minister of Finance? For the purpose of accelerating' the production of much needed foodstuffs, what steps are being taken by the government to reduce or remove the tariffs on farm machinery, trucks and harvesting machinery, and thus reduce the cost of production?


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Tariff changes are not announced until the budget is introduced. It would be impossible for me to make a premature statement.



LOAN TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of bill No. 28, respecting the financial agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom signed on the sixth day of March, 1946.
^ Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle): Speaking in this house on March 22 last on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I reserved my judgment on the subject matter now before the house, namely, the loan to Britain. I think it is my duty to-day to ask the indulgence of the house in giving my personal views on this matter, and the reasons why I approve this piece of legislation and shall vote in favour of it.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I have made a careful compilation of the views expressed both by those who are in favour of the loan and by those who oppose it. I have come to the conclusion that, by reason of the uncontrollable circumstances connected with this loan, we have no alternative but to vote for this financial arrangement.
I noticed that most of those who are against the proposal-1 say most of them, because there are noteworthy exceptions-base their argument on a matter of sentiment and revive, in support of their claims, old race squabbles. The government have announced their intention of lending nearly 250 million dollars to France. Have any protests been voiced by nationalists? Not to my knowledge. They have kept silent because they have no other protests to advance about the loan to England than arguments based on race squabbles. This is clearly evidenced by a letter I have

received from a Social Credit supporter, and from which I wish to quote some significant excerpts:
March 28, 1946.
Mr. Maurice Lalonde, M.P., for Labelle.
Sir,
I have read the statement you have made about the Social Credit in the province of Quebec. I believe that you are not well informed on this country's economic problems.
Alberta is in favour of the loan to England because the majority in that province is of English descent. Here in the province of Quebec, the people oppose the loan because the majority is French.
J. B. Bureau,
37 St. Bernard Street,
St. Malo, Que.
(Text):
I am giving that for the prime consideration of hon. members across the way.
James Horace King: I would ask hon. members not to make so much noise. It is nearly impossible to hear the hon. member who has the floor.


Mr. LALONDE (Translation):: This individual unknowingly puts in concrete form the opinions of nationalists and dissenting Liberals, whose good faith and intent I respect. However, protests always have and always will come from a noisy minority which does not speak for the majority, in my province. The last federal elections have amply proven that the majority of my fellow'-citizens can distinguish between constructive Liberal policies and a demagogic and impassioned appeal by a group of Quebec nationalists.
The hon. members for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Ra3rmond) and Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) remember their experience of June last, when, after having been elected as Liberals for many years by large majorities, they only succeeded in retaining their seats by very small margins. In his speech to the house, yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Populaire did not give adequate proof in support of his statement to the effect that we were granting interest-free loans to Great Britain, while that country collected interest on her advances to others. But the hon. member thought fit not to say what countries he had in mind, nor did he mention the amounts involved, as we might then have been in a position to say whether he were right or wrong-. Indeed it is customary for our nationalists to make such statements without offering any evidence.
I have therefore examined the bill strictly from a business standpoint, leaving to idealists the difficult task of convincing the people that we must build up the future by drinking at the bitter spring of ancient persecutions. It is certainly not without some reluctance that I find myself compelled to approve this policy of assistance, but in view of the irre-

Loan to United Kingdom
sistible influence of world events and happenings, the inevitable effect of the political evolution of the world, the indisputable interdependence of democratic and free peoples, the universality of economic interests linking all the so-called free nations of the globe,
I am compelled to admit that international isolationism will in future be a monstrous utopia, and |hat the Canadian people who have emerged from the crucible of war bruised but grown in stature, must comply, like any other entity living under the sun, with the unyielding laws that govern the progress towards maturity. The proposal must therefore be examined from the standpoint of national interest. And that is what I have tried to do.
Canadians will enjoy prosperity only if they have an adequate income. Therefore, if the national income is maintained on a high level, our entire nation will be prosperous. The shrinking and freezing of capital are the source of economic depressions. Our experiences from 1930 to 1935 should not be soon forgotten. In order to maintain the national income at a high level, it is necessary that the purchasing power in the hands of the taxpayer be also on a high level to enable him to meet taxation and high prices. In other words, it is essential to have a sound monetary unit in free circulation, creating profits and prosperity. Eisler in his book entitled "Stable Money", pages 16 and 17, reviews the situation as follows:
(Text):
The purchasing power of the consumer is obviously measured by the total amount of cash and credit available to him for spending at any moment on goods and services for immediate consumption. As the monetary unit will buy a varying quantity of goods according to whether the average price of goods-the so-called "general price level"-is high or low, the consumers' real capacity for acquiring goods will be measured by the sum total of their nominal monetary incomings for a given period, minus their savings, multiplied by the reciprocal value of the index of retail prices, i.e., by the purchase power of the monetary unit.
If goods are to flow steadily from the producer to the ultimate consumer, the real purchasing power of the consumer must be equivalent to the total money value of the goods destined for immediate consumption offered by the producers during the same period. And this state of affairs may be described as the ideal or normal equilibrium of the national or world market.	.
Should the consumers' purchasing power . . . be greater at a given period than the capacity of industry and agriculture to produce directly consumable goods, prices will rise and the owners of capital will be spurred by the prospect of profit to increasing their producing capacity by installing new machinery and by engaging more labour, thereby further increasing the purchasing power of the consumers. If, however, the sum total of money available for spending on commodities is less than the total money value of sucli goods offered by their producers, prices will fall.
production will be reduced and producers will refrain from increasing their plant or staff, thus further restricting the consumers' purchasing power. Consequently the situation on the market for producers' goods is always entirely dependent on the situation on th'e market for consumers' goods. Both markets must stagnate and employment of every kind must shrink if too little money flows to the second of the two.
(Translation):
Which means that scarcity of capital brings on unemployment, by the fact that it decreases the purchasing power of the consumer.
Now, how is the active circulation of money to be promoted in Canada? How is the worker to be'guaranteed a reasonable income? How are we to prevent the stoppage of the trade cycle? By what measures are we to maintain the rotation of the wheel which the artificial prosperity of the war period has caused to turn at a great speed? The answer will be found in the internal economic conditions of our country.
Canada, being a highly productive nation, forced to export 40 per cent of its goods, must enact and apply measures compatible with the inflexible standards dictated by her position as an exporting country. Not a single Nationalist, not even a single pure-bred imperialist, were he prostrate before the Empire's altar, like my friend from Broadview (Mr. Church), could afford to challenge this truism. A brief, prepared by Mr. Gilbert Jackson, states that for each unit of $380 of national revenue, we must export goods to an amount of $100. In other words, if we are to maintain a national revenue of approximately $7,000,000,000 we must export goods worth $1,800,000,000. This expert has gone even further. He has prepared a table of the relative importance of our possible national revenue for the period 1950 to 1961, together with the corresponding imports that wrould be necessary. I should like to have it placed on the record, with the permission of the house: Anticipated national Corresponding
	income returns on	exports antici-
	the assumption of	pated for our
	an 11 per cent	goods and our
Year	deficiency	bullion gold1950 . ...	. . $5,489	$1,3111951 ....	.. 5,598	1 3381952 . ...	.. 5.712	1,3641953 ....	.. 5.825	1,3901954 . ...	. . 5.936	1,4171955 . ...	.. 6,049	1,4431956 . ...	. . 6,161	1,4691957 . ...	... 6.274	1,4961958 ....	.. 6,388	1.5211959 . ...	,. . 6.497	1,5471960 ....	. .. 6.605	1.5721961 ....	, .. 6,711	1,596
We can therefore repeat what we have said time and again: namely, that prosperity in Canada is dependent on our exports. We have

19.000.	000 125,000,000
15.000.	000
13.000.	000 3,000,000

10,000,000	10,000,009	7,500,000

Loan to United Kingdom
Balance out-
Temporary advances under	standing Feb-
Section 3 of War Appropriation ruary 28, Acts	1946
Australia	,[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
Belgium	
Czechoslovakia	
France	
Greece	
India	
Netherlands	
Newfoundland	
New Zealand	
Norway	
Poland	:.
Portugal	
Union of South Africa	
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics	
United States

And have we heard protests from the hon. members who are opposed to the resolution? No, Mr. Speaker. Such silence is sufficient proof of their intentions. You may draw your own conclusions.
I hope that by causing money to circulate a lot more in our country, the loan will create employment to the benefit of all classes. Manufacturing for export will create employment and I wonder if the government's critics on this score can afford to shoulder the tremendous responsibility of refusing their support to a bill which may create more jobs, simply, in some cases, because of political anglophobia? Can they suggest a better way of solving unemployment, which is getting more acute every day? I would gladly hear them put forward some constructive suggestion instead of their destructive criticisms. Public administration in Canada would benefit by such a display of true Canadianism.
Some critics contend that the loan is further proof of our British colonialism. I would not go that far. Our neighbours to the south have lent nearly 5 billions on similar terms, and yet we could hardly accuse them of British colonialism. Our loans to Prance and Belgium did1 not mean that we are their colony. I say rather that Canada must pay to reconquer her foreign markets and that Great Britain is one market we cannot afford to lose. Everyone knows that colonial ties still bind Canada to Great Britain; Westminster has not yet accomplished the miracle of granting us complete independence. At least, that is my personal opinion. But to come 'to the conclusion that any financial transaction between Canada and England constitutes a gesture of colonial dependency seems somewhat radical. We might discuss at great length the methods resorted to by the British to restore their economy. We are all entitled to our own opinions
on the matter; however, the fact remains that Canada must have access to the world markets and accept such satisfactory compromises as are required in the gigantic struggle which is actually being waged in our confused world.
Those remarks will explain clearly my stand in regard to the loan to England. I have examined the facts purely from the standpoint of a business transaction leaving sentimentality out of the picture.
I trust that those remarks will not offend anyone; I have made them in good faith and in a spirit of fairness. I am sure that this loan to England, will be approved by a great majority of the Canadian people, for the war has taught us a grim lesson and has convinced us that isolationism is out of the question, that the trend of world's public opinion cannot be disregarded and that we, in Canada, must go hand in hand with the great trading nations of the world. This entails obligations, Mr. Speaker, and I am convinced that the house is fully aware of that, but we must not shirk our national obligations and it is the bounden duty of each, and everyone of us to endorse proposals which now or later will provide our workers with jobs and with an adequate income.
It is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I will approve the loan unreservedly, leaving it to the government to carry out those proposals and to my constituents to pass judgment upon me at the opportune moment. Indeed, during the last federal election, my constituents were of the opinion that the policy of the present government in such matters is a sound one, for as stated by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Belzile) yesterday, the campaign in the constituency of Labelle as well as in his own riding hinged upon the gifts or loans to England. I had supported such gifts or loans at the time and I support the present loan, for I am convinced that the, constituency of Labelle, as all the other constituencies of the country, will derive benefits from this sound legislation.


Mr. PAUL EDMOND GAGNON (Chicoutimi) :: Mr. Speaker, I shall preface my remarks on the bill now under discussion with an excerpt from a speech which the Right Hon. Prime Minister made in the house on March 30, 1930, during the debate on foreign policy. The leader of the Liberal party said:
We have tremendous tasks to do at home, in housing the people, in caring for the aged and helpless, in relieving drought and unemployment, in building roads, in meeting our heavy burden of debt, in making provision for Canada's defence, and in bringing our standards of living and civilization to the levels our knowledge now makes possible. There is no great margin of realizable wealth for this purpose; we must,
Loan to United Kingdom

would be more beneficial to the country than the surrender of claims amountaing to a few million dollars.
I know some seasonal workers, such as stevedores, lumbermen, railway employees, who would be pleased to enjoy unemployment benefits, either non-existent or inadequate at the present time; an improvement in the condition-of these people who comprise the greatest part of our population would increase the general well-being of Canada in permitting a greater expansion of our wealth and a fairer distribution of our public funds.
Since I have had the privilege of holding a seat in this house, I have heard almost daily, hon. members making various requests: for the building of a railway line or a seaport, for an increase in the old age pension or the pension to the blind. One would request that researches for a cancer cure be not hindered by the lack of necessary funds; another, that a benefit system be inaugurated for the crippled without income or revenue; and there are also the requests for bridges, post offices and other public buildings. Another member would ask air mail for his district. Hardly a speech that does not refer to an old or a new request
Should we not, Mr. Speaker, first grant all reasonable requests, either by lending the amount required or granting the sums asked for, before giving additional millions of dollars to an Empire whose wealth is incredible? What we want for Canada, is a sane legislation and a conservative financial management; this is more important than entering the international race with millions and billions of dollars. All the arguments advanced or to be advanced in favour of the agreement between Canada and Great Britain which is submitted to us at the present time, do not and will not alter the fact that when one has not enough money to meet his obligations, one is ill-advised to make additional debts in order to make a loan to one's neighbour.
"A deep and prevailing national feeling is not a luxury for Canada, it is a necessity", such were the words used in 1939, by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and this is why I am willing to vote billions of dollars for the care, protection and future welfare of my Canadian fellow-citizens, while refusing to support this agreement. As the hon. member for Gharlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) stated, on March 26 last:
Before paying millions every year on account of the loan made to another country, our leaders should show the people that they are ready to undertake the public works which are sorely needed.
tMr. Gagnon.]


Mr. RENE HAMEL (St. Maurice-La-fleche):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the measure now under consideration. The tax-paying public does not seem to welcome as readily as do some hon. members of this house the idea of lending $1,250 million to England. I should like to indicate some of the reasons why I feel bound to oppose this measure which, to my mind, borders on extravagance.
My opposition comes, in the first place, from the instructions of my constituents. I have received numerous protests from my electors. I have made a personal investigation and I must say that I have not met one person, of whatever political party, to whom such an utter prodigality has not been a cause of deep resentment.
If the	hon. members of this house
are still the representatives of the people, rather than the tools of a dictatorship, I believe that the opinion of my constituents must influence the stand we have to take on this matter.
I am not against this proposal merely because of the views of my electors, I oppose it on behalf of the 150,000 voters who, in the last election, accepted, as their own the Bloc Populaire's motto "Canada for Canadians". Now, so that no one may'charge me with being an isolationist, I should like to refer to the views that have been voiced throughout the province by prominent journalists and people who are outstanding in the field of economic and political science in our province. Here is what the brilliant parliamentary correspondent of L'Action Catholique had to say in an outspoken article published on March 9, 1946:
It is true that our gifts for this week give us a respite of a couple of years and that they will maintain our economic activity during that limited period. This dubious result is obtained by unnatural means, just as the spark of life is sustained in a dying man through the administration of a drug.
The same writer, had this to say in the same paper on March 12, 1946:
The naked truth is that Greit Britain will in future receive our products and distribute them in order to maintain her trade and her imperial policy, and that the Canadians will have to foot the bill.
I must recall to the house that L'Action Catholique has a circulation of 80.000 to
80,000	in the province of Quebec. The outspoken opinion of that parliamentary correspondent is fully confirmed by experts. I am referring to Mr. Roger Yezina, editor of the financial page in L'Action Catholique, who in the April 2, 1946 issue of that paper expressed the following opinion:

Loan to United Kingdom
In any case, we believe we are justified to claim that, in its present form and extent, the loan which the Canadian government is about to make to England is not a very sound transaction, but rather a take-in which will keep us dependent on the whims of Britain and will therefore prevent us from securing other external markets and from directing our economy in such a way as to give priority to Canadian needs.
I shall now quote Mr. Frangois Albert Angers, professor at the University of Montreal, whom I consider as an expert in that field. I shall read a few excerpts of an article he published in Le Devoir of March 30:
For the future, the loan may therefore result in a decrease of Canada's exports to England.
Let me refer to the following statement made by the Minister of Finance:
In other words Canada (the creditor nation) must increase her imports in order to be paid.
To cut short, I quote further:
But if things keep i-n the trend of the past six years, Mr. Usley will be proven wrong and history will show that no country, in the experience the world, has evinced Canada's gullibility in agreeing blindly to sacrifice the interests ot her producers to those of another nation, England in this case, for the sole purpose of helping that country to squeeze her out of the international market.
One might think this statement came from government opponents. I would like to add to this compelling evidence the opinion of Le Soleil, Quebec's Liberal organ, which cannot be accused of being in any way opposed to the present government. Here is an editorial from Le Soleil of March 11, 1946:
Any reasons or pretexts brought up in favour of new financial sacrifices to the cause of imperialism will not alter the fact that these sacrifices go beyond what can be expected of Canadian democracy.
This from Le Soleil and not from any member of the Bloc Populaire. The editorial goes on:
We need not hesitate to censure the abuse of power instanced by this advance of $1,250,000,000 to Great Britain without the previous approval of parliament whose great mistake was to give a free hand to the executive.
Such has been the effect of the views I have just quoted on public opinion that the Liberal member for Lotbiniere at the Quebec legislative assembly introduced the following motion:
That in the opinion of this house the federal parliament should decline to implement the projected financial agreement between Great Britain and Canada, unless the dominion government establish that this agreement is beneficial from a Canadian point of view.


Maurice Lalonde: Was the motion passed?


René Hamel: from our own. 1 need not go into the details, for they are quite unlike those of our own. The United States' total income amounts to 198 billions, whereas ours barely amounts to 10 billions. The United States have a population of 137 millions, while ours is less than 12 millions. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of going into particulars. I shall merely recall the different way in which news of both loans was received in London, and that while the British house greeted the Canadian loan with frantic applause, it received the: American loan coldly, submissively, and with obvious discontent. Besides, as a compensation for their load, the United States have compelled the United Kingdom to give up imperial preferential tariff, a condition which might have the most serious consequences on our industries by forcing them to compete with American products on the markets of the Commonwealth.
As for the third argument, Mr. Speaker, I shall call it childish at the risk of scandalizing the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde). At a time when we are compelled to ration ourselves; when the world is threatened with starvation; when the demand for agricultural products and raw materials is so superior to the supply as to endanger the very existence of mankind, is it reasonable to claim that such a loan is essential to our exports? If it ensured for the future a protection against unemployment, I would agree. Far from it, the opinion expressed by the two experts I have quoted is the very opposite of that theory and they say that this loan will lead us, within two years, into a period of unemployment. Mr. Speaker, the true reason why England is in such a great need of that advance is to be found in the Gazette of March 20, 1946, and that paper is not an organ of the Bloc Populaire.


Maurice Lalonde: It is not a Liberal paper either.


René Hamel: Here is what the Gazette has to say:
Full importance of the United States loan for British foreign policy is not generally realized
Maintenance of troops in Greece, Indonesia, Egypt and India represents a heavy drain on this country which has emerged seriously impoverished from the war.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to make myself an accomplice of any nation which prevents people from enjoying their independence. For that reason, I shall vote against the motion.
(Text):


Mr. LUDGER DIONNE (Beauce):: action again. I note that the government has lent money to different devastated foreign countries in order that they may buy the necessities of life in the Canadian market, and I congratulate them upon this effort. It is a constructive move to provide additional markets, and I hope no effort will be spared on the part of the government to continue this policy of attracting additional customers to Canada.
As for the citizens of Canada, who are against the loan and who would use this argument for political purposes, I believe the times are too serious to adopt such an attitude. Rather I would ask these people to suggest practical means of coping with the situation. I am in favour of constructive criticism. No national problem has ever been solved by appealing to the passion of the masses through the medium of destructive criticism.
I imagine some people will not appreciate the ideas I have expressed, but I thought it my duty to submit these remarks for the consideration of the government. I would ask my colleagues to remember that it is a much easier job to watch the flock than to be watched by the flock. By this I mean that I could have let the resolution or motion go through without offering my ideas for the consideration of the people of Canada. But the very first act I was called upon to perform upon my entry to the House of Commons was to swear that I would be loyal and faithful to my country, so that I feel under obligation to join in the debate and express my thoughts, even though some people may not share my views. Even if I am wrong, I hope they /will give me credit for being sincere. In other words, if I favour this loan it is because I think it is in the interests of Canada. Even if the failure of England were at stake I would try to help, but not at the expense of Canada. But if England' fails and Canada has to follow the same course, then it becomes too serious to take any chance.


Mr. W. G. CASE (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped there would be a degree of unanimity on this important bill. It did seem to me that those who are charged with the responsibility of viewing the important features of this loan must have given it a great deal of consideration; and for the psychological effect it would have seemed to be in order for us to accept the report of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and give this loan early approval, since indeed it will have much to do with our future prosperity.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Dionne) spoke of Britain driving a hard bargain. Well, there was a time when her bargaining powers were limited; but we who

indeed were her debtors morally were willing [DOT] to accept her decision in the greatest game ever played on an international scale, during the tragic war just concluded. So that for a few moments, if I may, I wish to direct your attention to Britain's position in the days before the war and trace something of the contribution and the tremendous sacrifices she made during that trying period. I do not intend to refer to her bravery or sacrifices on the field of battle, but rather to her economic sacrifices, to her position in world affairs which she was prepared to risk in order to stand forth as the stalwart defender of freedom and civilization.
Annually before the war Britain bought more goods of every kind than any other single country in the world. That is a fact which should not be lost sight of, inasmuch as it indicates the key position she occupied; and I believe world economists recognize to-day that unless she is able to regain some semblance of that position the recovery we are all so anxious to bring about may be hampered. Not only was Britain a large importer of goods; she was also a great exporter. One-fifth of the world's foreign commerce moved through Britain's ports, So that when we think of the position Britain occupied in trading with the whole world, we cannot avoid gaining some conception of how important it will be for us to seek to channel commerce and trade through the same ports which have served the world so well in the past.
What is the position to-daj^? What is known as the sterling bloc accounts for almost one-third of the world's trade. Britain now is indebted to this sterling bloc for goods received during the war to the extent of
814.000	million. If we try a squeeze play, if I might use that term, we may drive Britain to trade within this sterling bloc, to which she will be bound to export her goods in order to satisfy her creditors; and while this huge volume of trade is going on we in the dollar bloc will suffer most. As a matter of fact, in my opinion it would be nothing short of a tragedy were we to allow a competitive situation to develop between these two great trading blocs. The hon. gentleman who preceded me mentioned the hard bargain that Britain drove. Well, when it comes to surviving the bargain would be harder still, because Britain and the whole sterling bloc would be pitted against the dollar bloc and fighting for survival in the most tragic economic war one could possibly imagine.
During the war Britain cut her exports by more than sixty-six per cent, in her all-out effort to stem the tide. Her whole epergy,

Loan to United Kingdom
every fibre and force of her being, was directed in one course. It was to bring about some degree of security to determine that an ideology which had no place among freedom loving people would not gain a dominant position in world affairs.
I come now to the purpose of this loan. As I understand it, this loan has a direct relationship to the loan now pending approval in the United States of America. The best authorities there indicate that the object is to stabilize currency. It is said that with this credit and the credit which will be passed by Washington there will exist a dollar exchange so that this country, whether trading in a sterling area or in a dollar area, will have funds which will be readily convertible into dollars or pounds sterling. It seems to me that this is a move in the right direction which we have sought to make for many long years.
Most people agree that there must be a lowering of tariff barriers, or trade barriers if you will. You are not going to accomplish your purpose if you set up a barrier more difficult to hurdle, a barrier of currency which cannot be exchanged into funds which are acceptable in our own country. I can visualize a tremendous volume of trade from this one and a quarter billion dollar loan which we would otherwise lose. I do not think there is any doubt about that in the minds of those who are present to-day.
We should not charge Britain with being a hard customer to deal with. I think we can adopt a rather selfish attitude with respect to this loan inasmuch as Canada will stand to benefit from it just as much if not more than Great Britain. As a matter of fact, without this loan our agricultural industry and hundreds of our workshops might *have to shut down. If you can visualize the situation resulting from a condition of that nature then I think you will agree that the loan means as much to us as it does to Great Britain. When in the days of the war it was necessary to supply Britain with ammunition and implements of warfare, guns, ships and so on, we never hesitated. We furnished those things which were needed solely for destruction.
It has been said that probably Britain will turn around and lend money to other nations in Europe. I would have no objection to that. I do not think we should seek to follow through. If we supply goods to Britain and she in turn can pass them on to others who are in need, having arranged the necessary credits or exchange, that would seem to me to be good business. It would
be setting up the scheme which we are seeking so hard to set up, world trade, trade throughout the civilized world.
When we read the press comments on the situation in Europe we realize that Europe is on the verge of starvation; Not many people in this country know what it means to be without food, without the necessary nourishment to keep body and soul together. Food is the one thing that probably will save Europe from anarchy or revolution. If the people there face starvation, if their calorific intake is' not sufficient to maintain them, the result will be that disease will run rampant, tuberculosis and other tragedies will wait upon the human race.
If we are to bring about a better world it would seem that this will be achieved through the channels of trade. I have said before that we come to know better the people with whom we do business than we do strangers. This is our opportunity to play our part at an important moment in world history. I doubt if many of us realize just how serious the situation is. Without this loan and the loan now pending approval in the United States we do not know what forces will come into being, seeking in a competitive way, in a hard, cold, clear way, to gain dominance in world trade.
I recall Britain's position after the war. She found herself hopelessly indebted, both in the sterling bloc and in the dollar bloc. The dollar bloc countries have realized already the importance of maintaining Britain's trade position. I think it must be admitted that Britain is the one nation in the world which has been proved in the past to represent the frontier of democratic civilization. We must endeavour to protect our great ally who during the war years was willing to sacrifice all her foreign investments. No sacrifice was too great for her to make, and her foreign investments were sold in order to create credit with which she could purchase the necessary instruments and implements for war.
I hope we do not delay too long in coming to a decision, in making up our minds that this is possibly one of the most important bills to come before the House of Commons. It is our opportunity to indicate, not in a begrudging way but in a wholesome, encouraging way that we still believe in Britain, that we believe she is good credit, that we believe she is the world's best customer, carrying on trade, as she does, with so many other countries.
I leave my hon. friends who will follow me with this thought: This is our opportunity to endorse what has been said by others who
Loan to United Kingaum

have viewed critically the precise position of Great Britain and who believe that this is necessary for her survival. Without her survival there will be nothing but chaos. The result of that will be that we in Canada will suffer hardships which we do not anticipate at the present time. Together with Britain and the United States we can march forward and bring about that world of to-morrow which has been held up to those who have fought so hard for existence. I am sure the result will justify the action we take at this time.


Mr. H. R. ARGUE (Wood Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of this bill I think I shall take my cue from the last member who spoke and make my remarks brief so that we can expedite the business of the house. I expected that this debate would take two or three weeks,, but I heard over the grapevine that it would be wound up before the recess at Easter. For that reason I have to get in on the debate quite early.
The bill we have before us contains more than one principle. One principle is that a large sum of money owed by Great Britain to Canada shall be cancelled. Some hon. members have referred to that as a gift. To me a gift is something that we give now or in the future, whereas this is a debt that was incurred in the past and we are now cancelling it. I am glad that we- are cancelling it.
However, when I think of the amount of this cancellation that we are making to the people of Great Britain I also think of some of the debts and hardships facing certain people of Canada. I have in mind our old age pensioners. It would be a fine gesture on our part if we could see to it that the caveats are removed from the homes and properties of people who receive old age pensions. There are people in Canada, home owners and , farmers, who have secured debts against their properties. Some of those debts have been attached to those properties for twenty or thirty years, and I think this government would be supported in any measure they would bring forward, to cancel those particular debts, and as well the 817,000,000 odd which the soldier settlers of the first great war owe under the Soldier Settlement Act. At this time when we are cancelling $425,000,000 of a debt that is owed to us by Great Britain this government should certainly be able to cancel the $17,000,000 that is owed by the soldier settlers.
Another principle in this bill is that for a number of years the loan shall be interest-free, and after that the rate of interest shall be low. That, too, I think is a very good principle. It is a principle that we have seen developing in

Canada over the past twenty years. The government bonds floated in the first great war paid five per cent interest. Most of the bonds floated by the government in this war paid three per cent interest. The banks used to charge eight and nine per cent interest on loans; they now charge six per cent. I think that is a good thing. I am opposed to interest at any tirhe on anything beyond the amount of interest that is necessary to cover the charges of making the transaction and carrying the debt. It was a revelation in irony to see on the same order paper on which the resolution appeared for cancelling the debt to Great Britain another resolution reducing the rate of interest which the soldier settlers of the first great war have to pay on their debt to three and a half per cent. We are at tins time making a loan to Britain that will carry two per cent interest. Yet at the same time we are asking that the Canadian veterans of the first great war pay three and a half per cent interest, or 150 per cent more interest than we are asking the people of Great Britain to pay. Surely we do not love the people of Great Britain more than we love our own veterans. I suggest that the veterans of both wars be given interest rates not greater in any event than two per cent. I think also that the interest rate charged by the farm loan board might be reduced from five to two per cent and that bank loan interest should be reduced to two per cent. We should take our action on this loan to Great Britain as a criterion of the amount of interest that shall be charged on loans to Canadians. I am opposed to Canadian workers, farmers and small business men paying more than two per cent interest on any type of debt.
We, in this group should examine this proposition, if possible from the point of view of orthodox financial policy. I regret very much that I have not with me a statement to which I can refer closely as did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in the address that he delivered yeserday, and I shall have to attempt to get along by referring to a few heads.
In the past the people of Canada believed and to-day they are being told by people in many quarters that for Canada to prosper we must have large amounts of exports; more than that, that we must have an excess of exports over imports, and to the extent that we have that excess of export over imports we shall have prosperity at home. The argument is a fallacy, but in some ways it worked pretty well in practice under the present economic set-up. If we have an excess of exports over imports the Canadian producers of those exports are not

Loan to United Kingdom
getting pound sterling or United States dollars for what they produce, but are getting Canadian dollars and deposits in Canadian banks, and because they have those deposits they are able to purchase the things they need. If we are to follow the argument, which I do not agree with, that prosperity in Canada depends on a large export trade over our imports, the government would have been wise in the interests of this system to make this whole loan a gift, because then they would not have to be faced, as they surely will be faced, with the difficulty of having imports come to Canada in large quantities to pay for the loan.
I believe that Britain will pay back or will be prepared to pay back the amount of this loan. We shall be making from now until 1951 a loan to Great Britain of $1,250,000,000, which is a capital export. After 1951 Great Britain will start, to pay back that loan and then there will be an import of capital into Canada, which will accompany the import of goods.
From 1919 to 1928 Canada on the average exported annually capital amounts of from $500,000,000 to $700,000,000 and we had prosperity. We were exporting more than we were importing. We were exporting goods much of which no doubt we could have consumed, but we had prosperity. The years 1929, 1930 and 1931 saw capital exports and capital imports almost balance, and then we had a severe depression on our hands. If, when Great Britain is paying back this loan, we are not able to find other investments for Canadian money, we shall not have a large export of capital and we shall again, I am certain, be faced with a depression.
This loan is different from other investments in that it is made to a government. I believe that the day is past when financial interests in Canada or the United States could invest their money in the natural resources of any country to exploit the people of that country, and the government of every nation in the world is going to watch very carefully in future the amount of foreign capital that is being sent into the country. So that, if we want to export our capital we shall have to do so through government bodies. I do not think governments of other nations will be prepared after a few years to accept our capital exports, and I do not think the people of Canada will be prepared to give them. Therefore, if we are to accept payment for this loan we shall have to import more goods than we are exporting. If we attempt to import more goods than we export I can foresee that a great howl will be set up in Canada by all the financial interests, monopolies and cartels, and thev no doubt will have
an even greater effect in the future than they have had in the past in influencing the budget such as was brought before the house at the last session. If the financial interests are successful in preventing from coming into Canada the imports that are necessary to pay for the British loan-and judging from experience I think under our present system they will be successful-Great Britain will face an adverse balance of payments. Britain, facing an adverse balance of payments, will find the shortage of United States dollars and Canadian dollars very difficult. She will try to increase her exports by any means possible, and there will be a long time of disequilibrium in the balance of payments.
In order to increase her exports Britain will be forced to depreciate her currency. This depreciation will encourage British exports to Canada; it will at the same time discourage Canadian exports to Britain. We saw in September, 1931, the conditions which faced Canada that year, and they faced her also the next year, after Great Britain had devaluated her currency. We saw that the products of Canada, sent to the markets of Great Britain and turned into pounds, brought fewer Canadian dollars to the producers of those products. In November, 1932, we saw the price of wheat on the Winnipeg grain exchange hit an all-time low of forty cents a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William, and the depression was certainly on. We saw few jobs in Canada. There was no effective demand for goods. Canadian boys by the thousand rode the rods. If we are not to have those conditions return we must take full cognizance of the situation which will face us after 1951. There is only one way whereby we can accept more British imports, and that is by having full employment in Canada, having everybody here who is willing and able to work, working and obtaining a decent wage or salary. They will then have the money to buy from Great Britain the imports which will add materially to the welfare of all our people.
There is another thing we shall be forced to do. I believe that never again in the future should the people of Canada acquiesce in the idea that the price they obtain for their products in Canadian dollars shall be governed entirely by the price paid for those products on the world market. Canadian farmers at this time need, shall we say, $1.55 a bushel for their wheat. At this time there is no real relation between anv so-called world market price and the price the farmers receive for their products. But our farmers are enjoying more prosperity than they did in 1932 when their prices were hooked up with world
Loan to United Kingdom

prices. The price the farmer receives for his products should be such that out of an economy of full employment in Canada he shall receive his fair share of the national income; the same with the worker; the same with all classes of people. Surely never again do we want to hook our whole economy to a fluctuating world market price. If anything important is going on in the world to-day in the changes which all governments are making in their outlook respecting the industrial and financial life of their nations, it is that almost everywhere governments are deciding that they must have complete ownership and control of the banking system. If we are to have the full production and full employment which will be necessary to permit Canadians to use the goods which Britain will have to export, we must of necessity socialize the banks so that the government will have available to them at the cost of banking, which is very little, the Canadian dollars that are necessary to pay to the people of Canada as a reward for their labour.
I believe this measure which is before the house will serve a useful purpose to all the people of Canada. We see the government at this time cancelling a $425 million debt of Great Britain, at the same time that we are lending to Great Britain on favourable terms SI,250 million. Surely we shall never again hear in this house what a minister told us the other day, in talking about payments for social security for people who are unable to earn their living, that $100 million is a very large amount. Surely, if we can get $1,250 million to loan to Great Britain we can get $100 million to provide security to these people in Canada who through no fault of their own are disabled and cannot obtain jobs. Surely we shall not again have an answer from the government-or a talking out of a motion, which is even worse-that there is not available $100 million for irrigation in all of the area of western Canada. If the government intends to make the present system work at all, this loan makes it more imperative than ever that we shall have full production, full employment, adequate social security; and these measures, I submit, can be brought about only by socializing the banks, whereby we can make the currency available which is necessary to run the economy of Canada as it is best suited to the needs of the people of Canada.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Speaking upon this bill, I wish to say in the first place that I regard the credit of $1,250 million to Britain simply as an assur-

ance of employment in this country. It is neither more nor less than that. Without extending the credit we shall be poor, because our people will not be employed; if we extend the credit the reverse can be true.
Reference has been made in the debate, both on the resolution and on this motion for second reading, to what has been called good commercial practice. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Maedonnell) spoke of the need a merchant sometimes found of extending credit in his own interest. In respect of this credit I think we can very well liken ourselves to a man of business who has had customers over a number of years who gave him a great deal of business, well-to-do customers who made up about forty per cent of his business, and then these customers became temporarily embarrassed and could not deal with him any longer on a cash basis. Paced with that prospect, any merchant if he were wise would know what to answer. He would certainly say to such customers that they could continue to obtain their needs from him without cash. He would know that if he could hold the business by granting credit he could carry on as before; he could keep his employees employed as before; he could, as they say, maintain his organization, and perhaps he could even expand it. Eventually he would be repaid in full; and altogether he could regard the situation as one which held foi him a good future. Incidentally-but only incidentally in the business view-he would be helping toward a less austere life the people who had been his good customers.
That is exactly our position at the present time; at least it is as near to an exact comparison as we can get in likening an individual's business to a nation's business. Such a comparison can never be quite exact, but I believe it is close enough in this case for us to begin to see clearly the nature of this proposition.
I wish to comment further on the employment and unemployment features which present themselves to me in the consideration of this bill; but before I do so I should like to deal with some of the criticisms that have been made. I noted the objections of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). He thinks this loan is for the grandeur and prestige of England. He looks on it as a prop for the central structure of an empire. This, to him, seems to be colonialism. I regard his approach as a grave mistake. The motives underlying the loan are purely economic and purely Canadian. I am not denying that there is altruism in the country, but the compelling motives are economic and Canadian.

Loan to United Kingdom
What strikes me in listening to charges of subservience to England is that these excessive warnings tend to become ludicrous. I believe if that sort of thing is continued, then, when some real danger does arise, of a kind about which the hon. gentleman, as an elder statesman, might wish to warn us, his vibrant voice will be without authority at all owing to the fact that he has continually and for a long time been trying to make our flesh creep with scare talk about a bogey-man that does not really exist.
As a matter of fact, it seems to me that if we had been warned about being imperialistic it would have been better.
I have always understood that the imperialist lent money in order to bring a nation into thraldom or to keep it in thraldom. Here, we are the lender; not the borrower. It is the borrower that becomes a colonial. If he had warned us against striving to become imperialists by this measure the warning might have been more apt. He ought to warn England, as being in great danger, according to the doctrine usually put forth, of becoming a mere colonial spot in an empire of which this nation is to be the centre. That is the sort of warning that would have been more logical.
I wish to deal also with criticisms of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Just as I have great respect and, indeed, affection for the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres and would be sorry to make him angry with me over any criticism that I might offer of his remarks, so, too, I think the friendliness, the wit and the good humour of the hon. member for Temiscouata are an asset to this chamber. It would be regrettable if we did not long enjoy those attributes. But such feelings are not a sufficient reason for refraining from a critical analysis of the proposals that he puts forward in connection with this bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is what I am asking for.
Mr. MAYBANIv: Very good, and that is what the hon. member is getting. Certainly I am sharply critical over the idea of endeavouring to acquire colonies such as Jamaica and Bermuda-


Jean-François Pouliot: And the United Kingdom.


Ralph Maybank: -yes, and the United Kingdom, in return for any loan we may make. After all, what benefit would it be if some piece of territory could be granted to Canada in return for this loan? We could not exchange a slice of those islands for employment in this country. There would not be any person in Riviere du Loup who
would be employed by reason of our owning Jamaica. You would not even get your rum any cheaper there when you were unemployed.
Something else occurs to me when I think about that. We have gone through this war the one nation in the world of which there was no criticism or suspicion of any sort- never any fear that we were trying to ge* any advantage. Other nations also may have had no ulterior designs, but there was probably no nation except Canada respecting which there was not suspicion. It was believed by some nations that England wanted eventually to get. certain additional territory. Such was the belief in some quarters about the United States, about Australia, and of course, about Russia. Canada alone among all the nations was never criticized or under suspicion in that respect. We alone were accorded the unique motive of desiring only to win the wrar against diabolical doctrines about which we all know so much by now. It is the hon. member for Temiscouata who is the first to suggest that we should change, and that we should get "on the make". I prefer the reputation we have had, and would not trade it for any new territory that might be granted in return for any of our loans. Our reputation is far superior to any material gain that we can get.
I should like to say a few words more about this "colonialism" charge, and I do not now refer particularly to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres or to the hon. member for Temiscouata. But there do come from time to time innuendoes and hints, charges and statements from some hon. members that a great number of us who do not live in the lower province are not Canadians. We hear it every once in a while, or we hear suggestions of it.
Of course I realize how false the charge is. Speaking as I do with other Canadians across the country and with their representatives in this House of Commons, I see how wrong it is. I know that, so far as I am concerned, I am never moved by any considerations that are not purely Canadian. Although I see the incongruity of the charge, it does appear that some people are of the opinion that we who have not that great advantage of the two languages are not Canadians, that we look at all propositions first with the eyes of English and, second, with the eyes of Canadians. I tell the house, frankly, I get very tired of what it seems to me is a sort of frenzy of Canadianism. I think some of those hon. gentlemen who put forth that sort of criticism are sometimes very much like the Pharisee who spent a great deal of his time in thanking

Loan to United- Kingdom
God that he was not as other men. I remember hearing of a man of whom it was said that he used to go to the rain barrel and yell down into it, declaring his own virtues in order that they might be sounded back by echo into his ears; and to him this was as music. Such is the attitude of some bf those who would charge others with being non-Canadian. They smite their breasts extolling their own Canadianism. I submit to you, sir, it is about time that sort of thing stopped. We are all Canadians.
People will approach an economic question of this sort from different directions. Some will be more moved than others over the benefit that may be gained by some place remote from their own country, not because .they love their own country less, but because they think that from the point of view of their own country that gain which would help another country will be best in the long run for their own. I have no hesitation in saying that it has alwaj's been my view that the best way to help your own country is to help another country. I do not believe there is any doctrine as good in an economic sense as the golden rule. It is a fine rule ethically; but speaking quite coldly, it is a good rule in economics too. We shall do well, whenever we can to help another nation, because we have to deal with other nations. If we deal with them in the strength of economic health we can get the benefit of that health. If they are not in economic health we get the dis-benefit of their unhealthy condition. If I view the problem in this way that is not to say that I do not view it as a Canadian; it is not to be said that I view it as an Englander, or as a foreigner. Mine is a Canadian approach.
I sometimes think people who are inclined to make charges of un-Canadianism or less than 100 per cent Canadianism against some other people are really troubled by an inferiority complex which is unworthy of them. Sometimes it is called a persecution complex. If they have not such a complex there is danger of their being thought to be thus afflicted. One does not have to go around hunting Englishmen to spit in their faces in order to be a 100 per cent Canadian. That is not necessary at all. I am not denying that there may be a few people in the country who do not always view matters from a Canadian angle. There probably are some who still have a colonial mind but they are very few in number by now.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


Ralph Maybank: There are a few, but they are hardly worth noticing. One should not even waste the wind that is necessary
TMr. Maybank.]
to say, "Hear, hear", over such people. For example, with respect to any virtue that a person may have, or with respect to any belief that he may have, it is not necessary to be blatant about it. One does not have to be blatant in order to be well-founded in his beliefs. In order to be sure of maintaining one's virtue one does not have to beat his breast about it all the time, and everlastingly point the accusing finger at someone else. It is an entire misconception of virtue in one who feels it necessary to act in that way.
So far as these few colonial people whom I have mentioned are concerned they are really a pathetic people. One should not upbraid them; one should not condemn them or abuse them in any way. They are negligible; they are sick. They are to be pitied; but no person from any part of Canada has any right to judge the generality of English-speaking Canadians by this handful. No person has any right to do that at all.
This credit to Britain is simply for our own welfare and that is the way we ought to look at it. If we extend it we sell goods. If we do not extend it we do not sell goods. Selling goods means selling our work products. If we do not sell goods, we do not sell our work products and that means unemployment. This is a premium on a policy of insurance against unemployment. As a result of this loan we know Britain will spend a certain amount of money in a year. We can take any figure that we like for purposes of illustration. We can think of Britain spending $500 million in a year. That will do for illustration purposes at this moment, although it is quite probable that the purchases will be greater than that. How many hours of labour that will purchase it is hard to say. If the average rate for labour were fixed at $1 an hour it would mean 500 million hours of labour. It might be fair to say that the expenditure would give half a billion hours of work, because we can think of the rate as being fifty cents an hour. However. we have to remember that some of the labour that is bought has already been expended, and is in our country at the present time in the form of machines and other kinds of works. Anybody pursuing the idea of the value of British purchases upon Canadian employment can get much statistical data of interest. Statistical stories over the years tell us that whenever we have had a high level of employment it immediately followed a high level of export trade. Conversely, whenever we had a low level of employment it was consequent on a low level of export trade. For example, we reached the peak of our export volume pre-war in 1928. It was followed in 1929 by the highest level of employment and

Loan to United Kingdom
the highest level of income. Again in 1932 we had the lowest level of export trade, and it was fpllowed in 1933 by the lowest level of employment and income.
Our export trade is largely British. Our net exports to Britain have been greatest by far in the ten years before the war. We sold to her in that period SI,647 million worth of goods more than we bought. That was the net. Incidentally our dealings with the United States were just the opposite, because we bought a billion dollars worth more than we sold. The excess of exports to the United Kingdom were increasing just before the war. The average in ten pre-war years was $164 million of a net; but in the later years it was averaging $240 million.
The question we have to ask ourselves as Canadians is, do we want the employment that comes from that sort of business? If we do not want that kind of employment, then we should not extend the credit. If we do want that kind of employment we should follow the policy of the sensible merchant, to whom I referred a little while ago and extend the credit.
Let us consider for a moment what happens if $1,000,000 is spent on lumber products, for instance. Let us take as a unit of measurement 1,000 board feet of lumber. In my hand I have a graph which shows the amount of labour involved in the various products coming from a log containing that amount of lumber. Apparently the log itself represents one man's work for one day. In sulphite pulp it represents three days' work or, if it is exported, the measure becomes four days' work. If it is in newsprint it represents three days of labour, but if it is exported that figure becomes four days. If it is in bags or cartons the number shown here is nine days; if those products are exported, it becomes eleven days. So that one can follow upon this graph all the products that may result from the cutting down of a tree in the forest. From this we can get some idea of the exact results from the expenditure of $1,000,000 on lumber. That would represent approximately one million hours. In a 300-day year at eight hours a day a man would work 2,400 hours, so that it would take him 417 years to work enough hours at $1 an hour to use up that $1,000,000 or the same as 417 men for one year.
One can look at the industrial picture in this way, not only with respect to lumbering but with respect to every other industry. We might consider the result of spending such a sum of money in some of our mines, perhaps our copper mines. We might estimate the number of hours that would be required for the extraction and exportation of the copper which would be represented by the expenditure
of $1,000,000. Of course, it is not only copper or lumber products that are to be bought; in all probability Britain will buy with these moneys the same sort of things she has bought in the past, when her purchases were very much diversified, and $1,000,000 is only a fraction of what will be spent.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Ralph Maybank: Mr. Speaker, before the house rose at six o'clock I was giving some figures based upon a certain assumption as to the probable employment given by the expenditure of moneys from this loan by Great Britain in Canada. Varying the assumption somewhat, I have attempted to arrive in another way at an approximation of the employment content of these expenditures, assuming that half the proceeds of the loan will be spent in the purchase of non-agricultural products and not considering the length of time in which those purchases will occur.
In 1944 our national production excluding agriculture and excluding payments to the armed services, was registered at $9,110 million. That production was the result of the work of 3,280,000 people. It will be found that that represents an output of $2,770 per person. If we apply that factor to the expenditure of S625 million, one-half the loan, on non-agricultural goods we find that employment will be given to 200,000 persons for a full year.
As every person must realize, this employment will affect a great variety of people in all walks of life, the lumberjack in British Columbia, the miner in Quebec, the factory worker in Ontario, the dock worker in the maritimes, the manufacturer in Toronto and the wholesaler in Montreal. On the basis of four persons to a family, these expenditures will provide a livelihood for 800,000 people in this country for a full year.
I have said that this might very well be regarded as insurance against unemployment. Conversely, I could have said equally well that it is a subsidy for employment. It is a better sort of subsidy for employment than the subsidies for public works of which we sometimes hear. I am not decrying subsidies for public works when the need arises for them. I hope that never again will relief be necessary, but if it is I hope it will never be given except as payment for work. Public works are necessary at certain times, but a subsidy of this sort is of much greater value
Loan to United Kingdom

in the creation of employment. This sort of expenditure means a diversification of the types of work created. Public works cannot employ such a wide variety of people as this type of expenditure. I think I can say with confidence that this sort of subsidy is the best subsidy we could have.
When an international loan is viewed in the way of creation of hours of employment I think we are justified in using an expression such as I have used, that it is a subsidy for employment or insurance against unemployment. Whether such expressions are apt or not, surely it is clear that such a loan is based firmly upon considerations of Canadian welfare. Some people may look upon this as aid to Britain. They have slight justification for taking that view.
It is certainly not a benevolence. We may not preen ourselves upon any altruism in the making of this loan. One may be tempted to say that it is just hard-boiled business, although I do not like the use of the expression "hard-boiled" with reference to it. We are not taking advantage of anybody. Undoubtedly the loan will be a great help to Britain, undoubtedly she is desperately in need of it and she wants it badly. We can be ve?y glad that it will be of help. Just the same it does not seem to me that altruism alone is sufficient ground for the Canadian parliament making this loan. If it were not in our own interests I do not think it would be possible for it to be made.
But I want to interject and say that I like to think of our actions as having some element of altruism and a consideration of other people's welfare in them, as well as a marked consideration of business principles. I said somewhat earlier that the doctrine of the golden rule not only is sound ethically, but is good economics as well. I cannot help being reminded that the whole cost of a war is not paid during the years of a war-the costs go on. During the last war I think we gave to the utmost of our capacity, or at least we approached the limit of our capacity to give. But unlike other nations, we do not have to pay a great cost of the war at the conclusion of the war. We are not paying like Great Britain is paying. The cost of a war is to be seen in the condition in which a country is left after the war. Unquestionably Britain has been left much poorer in 1916 than she was in 1939, but we cannot say that about ourselves. We are not poorer to-day than we were in 1939; we are better off.
Forgetting for a moment ordinary business principles, it does seem to me that one might
[Mr. Maybank.l
with justice favour this loan merely on the ground of fair play in order that we may continue to bear our own costs of the war. There are countries in the world to which we are indebted in a way that we can never repay. We are bound to think of the disaster that would have fallen upon us had Britain succumbed, a disaster from which none of us and none of our children would ever have recovered. We cannot say quite the same about certain other nations, but we are indebted to other nations such as, for example, Greece. I do not wish to make comparisons or to compile a list of those countries to which we are indebted, but there are many countries to which we owe much for the way in which they fought to avert the fate which would otherwise have overtaken the world. It is but fair when considering a measure of this sort to remember that these people are still paying the cost of the war, Great Britain probably in greater measure than any other, and they are all much worse off than they were in 1939. We are not in that position; we are better off. Therefore, while we should look at this loan as a business proposition, we should not overlook these other factors.
Not only is this loan in our own interests as a subsidy to employment; but we should remember that finally it will be paid not by us, but by Britain, so that the end result will be the subsidizing of employment in this country, not by Canadian dollars, for the subsidy will eventually be paid in pounds, shillings and pence.
There is one other thought which gives me a good deal of pleasure, and I wonder if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) may think it is a malicious pleasure. At any rate, may I say that Britain's manner of paying back this loan will be by supplying us with goods. That is the only way in which she can pay it back over the next fifty odd years. She will send us goods and some part of the price of those goods will go into her repayment fund. We have always maintained tariffs and other restrictions against British ^oods and, generally, they were too high. To permit her to pay us back in goods we cannot allow these impediments to continue. We shall have to make it possible for Britain to repay the loan, and so it comes about that all the sound arguments of the past against trade impediments get a strong reinforcement in the fact that we have to allow Britain to repay her debt to us. The logic of our trade position, and the logic of our position as a creditor nation now combine to make British importations easier. This is an aspect of the matter that we should not overlook. It is an aspect of- the matter that, as I say, is pleasing to me,

Loan to United, Kingdom
because I have always been a rebel against restrictions of the sort I have mentioned, and maybe if I live long enough the day will come, as it does with lots of rebels, when they are not called rebels any longer but patriots; for, as hon. members know, when the battle is won a rebel is always a patriot. Such may be the attitude some day toward those of us who have constantly fought against trade impediments. It may come about that all others some day will have the same point of view and that these impediments will in large measure be wiped out in order that we may get our due in the way of interest and principal in the repayment of this loan.


Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bill because I have seen the people who are going to get this money. I cannot discuss this loan in the same manner as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) or the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) because I have not had the financial training to be able to do so. But looking at this loan from the point of view of an ordinary layman, if it will create work and wages in a country where there are so many idle people, I say that that is one good reason why we should support it.
During the last two debates in this house we have heard a lot of people talking about Canadians and Canadianism. I came here twenty-eight years ago and have tried to be a good Canadian ever since I came here. But still everybody says I am a Scotsman. That may be so. But do not ever think I am not a Canadian. I am a Canadian, and I want to be a good Canadian. I may be right down at the foot of the ladder, but I am going to be the best Canadian that ever was. We talk about building a better world. Well, here is our golden opportunity to show that we really mean what we say, by helping our fellow men and our sister women in those lands across the sea which have suffered so much that we might continue to live in a democracy. I was over there; I have seen the-conditions, and they have taken an awful trimming. I am sony that some ministers on the other side of the house have not taken the time to tell this parliament of the actual conditions over there. Anything we can do for' the French or the English or the Scotch people over there will not be nearly enough.


Mr. GRANT:: What about the Irish?


William Scottie Bryce: They can generally look after themselves. I did not rise to take up time but simply to make this earnest appeal to hon. members of this house on behalf of those countries and those men and women who fought that we might live here. They
did a great job. Their factories have been destroyed; their houses have been destroyed; their flesh and blood have been destroyed, and yet we grudge giving them this money! What is money compared with life? Look at what they have suffered for us. I support this bill wholeheartedly, and I hope that every man in this house will support it wholeheartedly because this loan is really needed over there.
(Translation):


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that I rise to take part in a discussion in connection with a gift or a loan of a billion dollars to England. Unlike the two hon. members who have just spoken, I have no intention to make a dissertation on Canadianism. I prefer to give expression to my Canadianism through action rather than words. It is based on my confidence in my country's potentialities in natural, human and intellectual resources. Every time I had an opportunity to express it, I did it., as often as possible, through action. Experience has shown that deeds are much more valuable than words.
As I lay no claim on being a financial expert, I intend, after frankly stating what I believe to be perhaps elementary truths, and I shall nevertheless state them, to stand on a very special ground in order to justify the attitude I am now taking. I consider this matter of a billion dollars loan to England from a point of view probably altogether different from the standpoint of the hon. members who spoke before me. I must first state that although I have unlimited faith in the human and intellectual resources of my country, I believe we must be guided by this principle, which is very dear to me as well as to a large number of Canadians. "Charity begins at home." When I say Canadians, I mean members of every racial group in Canada and not only French or English Canadians. When I use that expression, I mean all those who believe that Canada may one day become a sovereign state, enjoying complete autonomy; a really sovereign state, not autonomy on paper only, but one that has proven by the achievements of its public men, that even if our country is not entirely self-sufficient-since absolute national self-sufficiency is unattainable, as proven by the collapse of Hitler's regime-that it is absolutely free to act as it pleases in all internal administrative matters. I cannot venture to say as much in relation to trading with other nations, whatever they may be, for, as I said before, absolute national selfsufficiency is unattainable and no nation can be sufficient unto itself.

Loan to United Kingdom

To-night I shall discharge a responsibility which I have been forced to assume on another occasion, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not call me to order even if I spend a few minutes in recalling a rather stormy period which, however, has now spent itself. I wish to revert, to-night, to a day in 1940 when; in this house, we were discussing a measure known as the National Resources Mobilization Act. On that occasion, I very naively requested the house to grant me twenty-four hours for the purpose of consulting a few leaders in my constituency so as to be in a position to give an opinion on a matter which had not come up during the election campaign that had just ended. I would not go so far as to say that my request was considered ridiculous, but, nevertheless, I have noticed that many hon. members were then smiling-


Mr.   POTJXJOT@: It was a smile of approbation.


Pierre Gauthier: Not altogether. In some cases, yes; in others, it was a condescending smile. I remember that, the day after, I had to assume my own responsibilities. I also recall that, a few days ago, when we were discussing changing the name of Dominion day to that of Canada day, a delay was asked. Public opinion had to be canvassed to a certain extent. I was not of that opinion because I had not forgotten that, on a similar occasion, I had to discharge my own responsibilities, and, of course, I have been elected to this house for that very purpose.
I would not say that experience incites me to take a positive stand on the question of the billion dollar loan. No; my attitude is due to the fact that, after the general election of June, 1945, I came here with a very clear mandate. After having spent two years in the opposition, I returned to the Liberal fold at the request of my electors, but only after I had made my position clear. "You ask me, in this campaign, to support the present leader of the Liberal party," I told them, "and your wish will be much more explicit if you give me a clear majority over all my opponents." They gave me a clear majority over the other two candidates, and therefore, I am here to support the leader of the Liberal party and his policy. However, on nomination day, I had also stated: "Since it is your wish, I shall go to Ottawa to support the leader of the Liberal party, but I intend to keep on defending the ideas which I have heretofore upheld and which I shall uphold for a long time to come, while attempting to have them accepted by the organized party." To-night again I

speak in order to fulfil onoe more the pledge I have given the electors of Portneuf. Just the same, I shall hot resume my sent without having stated some of the truths to which I referred in my opening remarks.
We are asked to grant a loan of SI,250,000,000 at a very low rate of interest; in fact, too low to suit me. If Canada is to act as a prop not only for the United Kingdom, but for the British empire, it should be allowed some guarantees, as follows: It should be able to count on trade relations, based on fairness and cooperation; it must count on trade with the United Kingdom and the rest of the empire, trade relations that are frank and straightforward. Now let me at once give my reasons for that statement. One day, while looking over the report of a British empire exhibition, I noted that Canada had entered some samples of very fine honey, the world's best no doubt, which however had been labelled "a British empire product" instead of "Canadian honey." Moreover, while chatting recently with a returned man, I was told that he had always had much trouble in finding the Canadian brand, that is the Canadian "stamp" on goods sent abroad from this country during the war. While I am prepared to support this bill, I want to make it plain to the United Kingdom that we shall expect a fair and openhanded treatment; that when our goods are sent over with the label "Canada," they shall still carry that label overseas. We don't want those goods to be re-exported to other countries under any other name, whether they be branded "products of the empire" or otherwise, as we feel entitled to ask whomever we are helping to grant us the cooperation that is our due.
I now repeat what I have previously said in this house, Mr. Speaker, about imperialism, that without the empire, the United Kingdom cannot survive. It is a fact, on account of the many raw materials which the United Kingdom must seek in Canada. It is a point on which I lay special stress inasmuch as we have been shown that in making this billion and a quarter available to Great Britain, she will be in a position, with Canadian dollars, to purchase our raw materials and to manufacture chiefly in order* to rebuild the United Kingdom trade throughout the world.
I am not afraid of using blunt words, and I purposely say "to rebuild the United Kingdom's trade throughout the world". I know by experience that products from the United Kingdom are now on our market while our own supply of some goods is still so short that they cannot be put on the market, biscuits, for instance.

Loan to United Kingdom


Jean-François Pouliot: You could mention scones as an example.


Pierre Gauthier: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have said that I would discuss this matter from a different angle, not becaus'e I fear to deal with it from a financial standpoint, although I do not believe I am qualified to discuss this question from a strictly financial angle. Some have said in this house that the British empire had to be maintained at this time. Such a statement has come not only from members who endorse the loan,to England but also from others who oppose it to a certain extent. I think they are right, in view of the international situation in Europe today; England, Ireland, Portugal and Spain stand against Russian imperialism. There is a strong communist element in France. Besides, Hungary, Bulgaria, Roumania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the part of Germany that is occupied by the Russians have groups that are considerable and quite strong from the standpoint of communism.
You would say, no doubt, at least some would, that going into this aspect of the question is dangerous. I do not think so. Following the close of the war, we have witnessed the rise of a third imperialistic set-up, possibly more powerful than the other two; in other words, Russian or, I would rather say, Slav imperialism, induces us, at a great cost, to contribute to the maintenance of the British empire, at the present time. I claim that were the British empire to fall, were the nations of the commonwealth to go their separate ways, the American empire would be left alone to face this European and more particularly Asiatic power. I do not think we have the right to run the risk of giving these two empires the opportunity of coming to grips, first in the economic field and eventually in the military field. It behooves us rather to assume our respective responsibilities and endeavour to stabilize the international situation.
I have often given proofs, Mr. Speaker, that I am not an imperialist and that I will never be; I have also demonstrated that I do not flinch at stating hard truths. That is what I have done to-night; I again give expression to my opposition to any tendency originating in Canada, no matter what racial group may be its promoters, to allow the interests of an empire, British or other, to supersede purely Canadian interests.
It is all very well to state that imperialism exists only since the last war, that the British empire might be threatened and that its destruction might be detrimental to the American empire, but we require some proof that will bring out the mentality of those 63260-53
whose extraordinary power is alarming not only for the Anglo-Saxon coalition, as it has been called, but also for the Latin countries.
I shall quote from a book by Henri Massis, a member of the French Academy, to show, Mr. Speaker, that the Slavonic empire is no myth and that it has been wielding its power for quite a long time. Listen to what Lenin had to say:
It is but a matter of expediency, said Lenin, a few months before the October revolution. I am a pacifist if I can thus injure the capitalist states.
We are the capitalists.
But if I should come to power in Russia, then I shall be anything but a pacifist. Under a bolshevist regime, we, as Russian patriots, will not hesitate to take up arms against our neighbours should it be necessary in the interest of our country and the revolution! Let us not forget that war is queen of the universe.
Listen now to another communist, Tiochev, who proferred the following words when speaking of the philosophical and historical antagonism between Russia and Europe, I* quote:
Between her and ourselves there can be no negotiations, no armistice. The life of one is the death of the other.
That is clear. Let us listen now to another bolshevist theorist, Zinoviev, whom I have already quoted in this house. Speaking at the Baku Congress in 1920, he said:
Russia extends her hand to Asia not because she adopts her ideals, not because she shares her social ideas, but because she needs the eight hundred million people of Asia to crush European imperialism and capitalism.
And Lenin had said before him:
Let us turn towards Asia, we shall vanquish the West with the help of the East.
American experts who went to Russia admitted that the productive capacity of the U.S.S.R. already greatly exceeded that of the best equipped countries of Europe, and that Russia's iron, manganese and even oil production was equal to that of the largest producers of the whole world.
Now let us listen to another bolshevist theorist, Dostoevski, who said:
Russia's destiny is pan-European. To be real Russians we must stand upon the meeting grounds of all the European enmities.
And Soloviev added:
Our intellectual and civilizing forces leave much to be desired, whereas our political strength is quite definite, absolutely firm and tremendous.
Let us heed this, Mr. Speaker. This is exactly what has just taken place in Iran.

Loan to United Kingdom

They had foreseen this move, they had prepared for it. It was their normal march towards the conquest of Asia and Europe.
I quote:
We must destroy Turkey, crush Austria, overwhelm Germany, take Constantinople and, if possible, India.
Imperialism is the thing we have to overcome. In taking my stand to-night in favour of a billion and a quarter loan to Great Britain, I take the view that we cannot afford to risk leaving American imperialism alone to face Slavonic imperialism. In 1930, the French ambassador, speaking in Moscow, was saying:
As at the time of religious wars, it is a propaganda which challenges reason and which, from this very fact, derives its variety and its strength.
And he gave instances. Again I quote:
In Germany, it speculates upon the desire for revenge and in France upon the need for peace. It contends against the white race among the blacks of Africa and of the United States, but champions the European outlook among the Mohammedans of central Asia. In Palestine, it has just taken on an Arabian character by declaring itself antisemitic.
Let me now quote Lenin, founder of bolshevism, and father of the revolution of 1917:
Never mind! The wood is being split; let the chips fly. Even if ten million human bodies were required to build up communism, there would still remain enough to people our land.
Such were the words of the leader of communism. As for Stalin, when he was being reproached with spreading sufferings in order forcibly to industrialize Russia, he replied:
We are sometimes asked if we could not slow down the pace, and check our progess. No, the pace cannot be slowed down; on the contrary, it must be speeded up. Compared to progressive countries, we are fifty to a hundred years behind; and we have only ten years to fill the gap. Either we shall succeed, or we shall be crushed.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, they are firmly determined to keep on the march, a march which started not only with the appearance of bolshevism in Russia, through the revolution of 1917, but a march that was going on at the time of the czars. Czarism has merely taken on another name; to-day it is known as bolshevism. An so, as ever, panslavism marches on.


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but are not his remarks on communism a bit too lengthy and his views on the measure before the house too brief?


Pierre Gauthier: But, Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: The bill under review has to do with a loan to Great Britain.


Pierre Gauthier: I was merely proving my statement and pointing out the reason why I endorse the loan to England. Now, if I am not in order, I shall simply resume my seat. However. I believe I owe it to the house to prove what I state and to justify my stand. That is why you find my remarks somewhat protracted.


James Horace King: I regret to have to interrupt the honourable member, but he will admit that a well known rule of this house provides that on the second reading of a bill the discussion must bear only on the principle of the measure. I understand what the honourable member wishes to prove, but I wonder whether I should' let him continue to quote many more pages to explain what are the views of the communist party now that we are considering a bill providing for an agreement between the Canadian and the British governments in connection with a loan. Concerning the hon. member for Portneuf I am compelled to take a stand similar to the one I took with respect to other hon. members, when the second reading of other bills was before the house, and I deem it my duty to do so as far as this bill is concerned.


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember what stand you took on other matters, but I shall refrain from discussing that point. However, I believe that a financial principle is involved in this loan to England if, as we have been told, the object is to make work available for our people, for those who produce, and to increase or at least preserve our trade with the British empire.
I believe that there is another principle at stake in this loan; those who do not completely share the bankers' views on this question, even though they may not consider the financial side of the matter, have a right to examine it from the no less important point of view of the ideas and the moral danger involved for the other nations of the commonwealth to which we belong.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is high metaphysics.


Pierre Gauthier: Possibly. If I must resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I think that I have said enough to make it known to you and to the house that I am in favour of the loan to England for the reasons I have given, but I repeat...


Some MEMBERS:: Continue.


Jean-François Pouliot: Continue.


Pierre Gauthier: But I repeat that we have the right to warn the United Kingdom that in return for the sacrifices we

Loan to United Kingdom
are making to help it survive, we expect cooperation and candour in our commercial relations.


Mr. MICHAUD:: 'Juite right! "


Pierre Gauthier: I am sorry I cannot make my point, Mr. Speaker, but I abide by your decision and resume my seat, though I may perhaps expound my thesis again some other time.


James Horace King: I do not wish the hon. member to think for one moment that I will not allow him to prove the argument he has put forth in the house, but may I say this to him: it is one thing to quote a few pages, one or two for instance, from a work to build up his case; but it is quite another matter to prove one's point by reading to the house quotations from a book on communism in support of his statements. The hon. member is giving to the house the impression that the debate centres on communist policy, a matter which is not under discussion at present, rather than on the bill now before the house.
The hon. member may go on developing arguments without taking .up the time of the house by reading a book on communism.


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if we agree-


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: It does not seem so.


Pierre Gauthier: -if we coit-sider the question from the same angle; but I claim that, to prove that Pan-slavism is dangerous, it must first be demonstrated that it exists. Furthermore, if I approve the loan because I feel that- we must help the United Kingdom to stabilize the world economy, I must also prove that these people are1 aiming at universal supremacy. Now, and I do not want to abuse the kindness of the house, and I hope I have said enough to show that these friends of the Slavs are aiming at universal supremacy. Although they have been our allies during the war, they have given away their play and they still are doing it, not only by words but also by deeds.
If any further proof of my claim is expected as to Pan-slavism having been active since the time of the czars, we have but to open the 1945 soviet calendar. It contains two pictures, one of Peter the Great and the other of Catherine of Russia. Now, Peter the Great advocated the same doctrine as the bolshevists are now propounding, namely the necessity of promoting Pan-slavism in Europe.
In conclusion, I may add that if I support the loan to England it is because I am confident that the government will compel those with whom we will trade, either the United Kingdom or other countries, to whom we make loans at a very low interest rate, to respect 63260-53J
the word "Canada" so that the goods that we will ship to them are not disguised but will remain Canadian goods overseas, even if they are re-exported from the United Kingdom to be sold and consumed' in other countries.


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, we are asked to approve an agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, under which we would make both a direct gift and an indirect gift, the latter in the form of an interest-free loan. The Right Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and others have told us that this was a straight business transaction which, to be fully appreciated, must be studied in the light of our future economic interests, as was done in the United States. I intend looking into the matter from that angle, taking into account all facts, past and present.
The bill calls for an outright gift of 8425 million to the United Kingdom. Not much was said, during the last two days, of this outright gift to Great Britain, as hon. members spoke mostly of the interest-free loan, which is really an indirect gift. But we should particularly bring out in their true light the gifts to be made under the agreement reached between Canada and Great Britain. We are giving $425 million to a country that can afford to grant profitable loans to others. At the same time, we settle for $150 million a debt the exact amount of which we do not. know, but we have reason to believe that it is much more than $150 million, so that I do. ' not exaggerate when I say that the outright, gift to Great Britain represents much more than these S425 millions.
Can anyone seriously suggest that this will be a profitable business transaction? That amount will only be added to the billions we have already given. First, we made an outright gift of one billion; then, we gave a billion and a half by way of mutual aid, which was really a gift in disguise and was finally recognized as such. It is interesting to know how that money was used, because it came out of the pockets of people who are already very heavily taxed. I have before me a clipping taken from the Star of November 27, 1942. I quote:
(Text):
Australians take a shot at Canada and also at Britain for Canada's $1,000,000,000 gift to Britain and how the fund is handled in London.
Canada put up the money to enable Britain to continue to buy Canadian products but, in effect, Britain lends part of it to the other dominions and asks repayment in sterling.
(Translation):
So that the money given to Great Britain was used to do business with Australia; the goods sent to Great Britain were sold to Australia and paid for in sterling.
\

Loan to United, Kingdom
Now then, what will be achieved by this new gift to Britain? She will lend money to other countries at a fairly high rate of interest. Allow me to quote from the New York Times a few lines reporting a member's question in the British House of Commons, on the subject of a proposed loan to Greece:
(Text):
D. L. Lipson, independent, said it was unfortunate the loan should be made when Britain herself was seeking a loan from the United States, because opponents of the loan to Britain may pick on that as a sign we have money to spare.
(Translation):
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have always been and I am more than ever opposed to making gifts to a country which uses them to extend mterest-bearing loans to other countries, as is the case here. Great Britain has also *offered a fairly substantial loan to Russia. I read in Le Canada of March' 9 last, that Great Britain had offered to lend 30 million pounds, that is $133,500,000 at 1\ per cent interest to Russia while we were making gifts to her and extending to her a loan free of interest. Well, if the object were to help starving countries, I would agree. It would then be a matter of humanity. In the past we have supplied Great Britain with considerable quantities of foodstuffs, although she was not the only nation to suffer from hunger. On the contrary, she suffered less than other nations. In this connection, may . I be permitted to quote an excerpt from a speech delivered by Mr. Attlee on February 27 last, with respect to consumption in England:
(Text):
There is a better distribution to-day than there was in 1938. The poorest people in prewar unemployment areas are certainly consuming more than they did in 1938.
(Translation):
According to the New York Times of last April 6, Mr. Hoover, former president of the United States, who has just toured Europe to size up the food situation in the various countries which are at present suffering from a want of food, is reported to have said:
(Text):
The former president spoke at a press conference of the current efforts of the American people to supply additional bread grains to the hungry peoples of Europe and Asia. He also firmly but definitely told the British people that though their record of subsisting under difficult conditions during the war was good, their food position was not too bad.
'Your health statistics," he said, "do not *support the conclusion that Britain is suffering from famine."
| Mr. M. Raymond.1
He refused to place Britain among the "hungry countries." He also pointed out that the United States' per capita consumption of wheat was lower than the British consumption by nearly one-third-[DOT]
(Translation):
Let us give to the needy. Since charity begins at home, let us first look after our own and then think of the most unfortunate, since our motive is humanitarian.
I have with me statistics tabled in the house during the last session which show that nearly all the foodstuffs we exported since last June 1 were shipped to Great Britain: wheat, salmon, fish, flour, bacon, cheese were all sent under mutual aid, that is, as a gift. I will , say no more on this matter. I maintain, however, that when the people of our country endure hardships and are rationed, and when some are even without a roof, we should think of our own before handing out presents to others.
With respect to the loan, why such a difference between the terms arrived at with Great Britain and the far more exacting conditions imposed by Canada on other countries before granting them an advance? The Right Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) listed these loans and I noticed that the interest exacted on loans to Belgium. China. Czechoslovakia, France, the Netherlands, the Dutch East Indies, Norway and Russia varied from 2 per cent to 3 per cent and a little over.
Further, refunds are set to begin in 1947. If, as we are told, this is simply a business proposition designed to export our products and keep our workers employed, are France, Belgium, Norway and the other countries not presenting the same advantages as England? Is it not in our interest to lend them money on equally favourable terms? Let us, as some suggest, put aside all sentiment and look into this bill purely from the business angle, but comparing the terms imposed on other countries with the conditions enjoyed by Great Britain I cannot bring myself to believe that economic consideration rather than sentimental considerations prompted the loan to Great Britain.
The Right Hon. Minister of Finance has stated that the loan granted by Canada to Great Britain was on the same basis as that subscribed by the United States to the United Kingdom. The agreement negotiated between Canada and the United Kingdom and the one arrived at between the United States and the United Kingdom display striking differences.
If we compare our national revenue to that of the United States, our neighbours should have lent six times more than Canada because their national income is six times larger

Loan to United Kingdom
than ours. As the Americans are reputed to be far-seeing businessmen, they would surely have lent more if they had looked upon it as a profitable venture. Then, section 6 contains a provision which we do not find in the American agreement, which reads as follows:
Section 6 of the American agreement contains the following provision:
It is agreed that the United Kingdom will use other funds than the credit now granted in order to meet her obligations outstanding in other countries on the date on which this agreement becomes effective.
This means that the United Kingdom will not have the right to use those funds except for purchasing goods from the United States. Such is not the case with the agreement concluded between Canada and the United Kingdom, for section 2 of the financial agreement entered into between Canada and the United Kingdom provides:
Purpose of the Credit. The purpose of the credit is to facilitate purchases by the United Kingdom of goods and services in Canada and to assist in making it possible for the United Kingdom to meet transitional post-war deficits in its current balance of payments, to maintain adequate reserves of gold and dollars and to assume the obligations of multilateral trade.
Nowhere is it stipulated that the United Kingdom agrees to use the proceeds of the loan for the purchase of Canadian goods. Nowhere is this stipulated, whereas the agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and the United States included the special provision that I have quoted.
On March 5, 1946, the Secretary of the Treasury made the following statement in the American senate:
(Text):
The loan was in exchange of American dollars for empire trade preferences.
(Translation):
This means that the United States will enter into negotiations with the United Kingdom in order to obtain certain imperial preferences, and,- as it happened in the past, they will be granted at our expense.
We are told that the purpose of the loan is to assist in marketing our products and provide employment for our workers. For the present, this contention does not hold water. We do not produce sufficiently to satisfy the local demand. Rationing had to be resorted to because we do not produce sufficiently to meet the local consumption and at the same time ship foodstuffs and other goods overseas. So it was not necessary to make a gift to England nor to grant her an interest-free loan to stimulate Canadian export trade. Furthermore, the part we ship to England could be sold to other friendly countries, as the minister of
Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) stated last January. I quote a dispatch from London, as reported in the Gazette of January 16 last:
Stating that Canada had the firm intention of strongly relying on the economic future of Great. Britain, Mr. James MacKinnon, Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce, said today, in London, that "Canada is now selling here, at less than world prices and on credit, large quantities of wheat, in spite of the heavy demand for this same product on the part of Latin American countries, who settle their accounts on a cash basis in dollars.
When local markets are not fully supplied, there is no need for exports at the present time, we have shortages in. building materials, domestic articles, etc.
Our people are without shelter and clothing, food, is rationed and there are scarcities of all kinds of goods. Could it be that the purchasing power is insufficient? No. But we export these things to foreign countries. By this bill we reduce our purchasing power. We lend money to England, without interest, so that she may buy the things we could use. Our best market is still the local market, why not supply it adequately?
How does Great Britain intend to use this loan? According to the Financial Post of March 16, 1946, here is how Great Britain intends to utilize it:	[DOT]
(Text):
The British came to Ottawa February 4, seeking an interest-free loan of $1-25 billions and cancellation of an additional $1-1 billions of outstanding war claims and indebtedness. They based their case on "economic and financial necessity."
As reported elsewhere in this edition, the British have set aside an estimated $30 millions as the amount they will spend in Canada during the next twelve months on "manufactured goods"
. . . against $115 to $130 millions of recorded exports of fully manufactured goods from Canada in pre-war years.
(Translation):
The Right Hon. Minister of Justice claims that the loan to England will have the effect of keeping our industry active and ensure work to our people, he is contradicted by the declaration I have just quoted. According to that statement from those who have come here to negotiate the loan, a sum of 30 million dollars only will be used for the importation of manufactured goods, whereas before the war our exports of those goods from Canada represented from 115 to 130 million dollars. Surely it is not by exporting 30 million dollars forth of manufactured goods to England that we are going to ensure work for our people, and prevent unemployment, as is claimed. Our exports will consist mainly of foodstuffs and raw materials, but only of a small quantity of manufactured goods.
Loan to United Kingdom


James Horace King: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has already gone beyond the forty minutes he is allowed.


Maxime Raymond: I am not in the habit of taking up too much time in the house, so perhaps I might be granted a few more minutes-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carry on.


Maxime Raymond: Instead of giving away our money or lending it without interest, let us develop our natural resources, our oil fields, our coal mines and so on. Let us build houses for our people and enhance the beauty of our country.
Before the war, we lacked funds to spend on public works, but we found billions of dollars for destruction. We keep on lending and giving millions to foreigners while depriv-'ing the provinces of revenue so sorely needed for social security.
Before resuming my seat, I wish to quote from a statement made by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on March 30, 1938. Those words hold as much truth to-day as they did at that time. Here is what hg said:
It is said that Canada's powers are not unlimited and that we are not in a position to sustain indefinitely a great effort. We have a tremendous task to accomplish in our own country; we must build houses for Canadians: care for the aged and the crippled; alleviate the distress caused by unemployment and drought; build highways; shoulder the responsibilities of an enormous national debt

Our national debt had not even reached three billion dollars.
-prepare for the defence of Canada and raise our standard of living and of civilization in keeping with our present knowledge. Our own resources will hardly suffice; so that we shall have to choose to a certain extent between looking after our own affairs and trying to save Europe and Asia.
(Text):
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that, apart from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), no private member representing a constituency in the maritime provinces has taken part in this debate, I felt that I should briefly express the views which are held in that part of Canada. I certainly consider I can speak for Nova Scotia and say that the

Loan to United Kingdom
people of that province, as well as, I believe, the people of the maritimes generally, together with the great majority of the Canadian people, approve this measure.
I was particularly interested in the definite, plain and comprehensive explanation given by the Minister of Finahce when he introduced the resolution. I was also impressed, from a business point of view, with the manner in which the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell) presented his views. With the financial background that he has, he was able to sum up the benefits of the agreement in a way which would, I believe, appeal to anyone at all interested in business or who has followed a business career. I was indeed pleased, therefore, to find so high an authority definitely placing himself on record as approving the agreement.
It must have been gratifying to the Minister of Finance, who introduced the resolution, to know that he had the support of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, of the1 members of the C.C.F., of the Social Credit party and of the great majority of the members sitting on the government side. It is true that there is a very small representation from one particular quarter of the dominion who apparently are opposed to the measure. From a business point of view, I do not understand why any hon. member should take such an attitude. This measure will bring about what we are all working for, greater employment, greater production and a market for a large amount of our goods. When one considers that we are just following along the course that a good businessman would take if placed in a similar position it is difficult to understand how any hon. member could oppose this bill. We are dealing with Great Britain which has been one of our outstanding customers over a long period of years. Manufacturers to-day and for years have had to face a similar situation in so far as jobbers and wholesalers are concerned. Jobbers and wholesalers have had to deal with retailers in the same way. It is not uncommon for a wholesaler or a manufacturer to find himself in a situation at some time or another during his business career where he needs financial assistance. After a long period of years a manufacturer is able to size up the situation and extend credit over a long period or, if necessary, advance cash in order to put his customer in a position to continue to be a good customer and thus help the employees in that particular manufacturing concern.
I look upon this agreement in very much the same light. As I see it, it is a good business arrangement for both the buyer and the seller. From a sense of loyalty Canada should do what the finance minister proposes. From

the point of view of common decency, which has [DOT] already been mentioned by one hon. member, there is no other course left open for Canada than to grant this credit.
I shall now deal with the export business of Canada. Other hon. members have already mentioned this but I think it will bear repeating. In 1938 our export business amounted to $837 million. In 1939 there was an increase to $924 million. In 1940 there was a further increase to $1,179 million, and in 1941 it amounted to $1,621 million. There was a further increase in 1942 until in 1943 it reached the huge amount of $2,971 million. Of this total the United States took $1,149 million, or 38-7 per cent, and Great Britain took $1,033 million, or 34-8 per cent of the total exports of Canada. Thus it will be seen that the two countries together took a total of 73-5 per cent of our entire export business.
I believe that hon. members and Canada as a whole recognize the fact that we are doing business with one of our largest and best customers. My purpose in rising to take part in this debate was to put these views of mine briefly on the record so that the rest of Canada and the house in particular would know that we in the eastern maritimes approve this measure which I hope will be passed by the house with an overwhelming majority. If we should not do so it would have a bad effect not alone on our own standing in the eyes of the United States but on their decision with respect to the loan that is pending, which I feel sure will have the approval of the people of the United-States just as this loan will have the general approval of the citizens of Canada.
Again I come back to the question of production. This measure is bound to create greater production. If it creates greater production, then we must have a market for that production if we are to benefit from it. In our production we are creating a new market or a continuous market for our products. Thus the question of employment enters into the picture in a definite manner because a new market brings about employment. With the employment comes increased spending power, and out of that increased spending power comes a higher standard of living. We are all striving to maintain that high standard of living which we in Canada are so fortunate to enjoy at the present time.
I have briefly outlined the reasons why I support the bill. From an economic point of view I do not see hbw any hon. member can do other than support this measure. Loans have been made to other countries on

Loan to United Kingdom
a sound business basis. They have already been placed on the record. A total of $642 million has already been lent. The loan under discussion amounts to $1,250 million at an interest rate of two per cent, payable over a period of fifty-five years. To me it is a sound business proposition, and from the point of view of common decency I do not see how we can do other than give our wholehearted support to it.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, after all the fine
speeches that have been delivered in the last two weeks each one of us should be entitled to several honorary degrees of universal learning. International finance also reminds me of children who ask for more cake to finish their jam and more jam to finish their cake. There is no end to it.
We are told that some hon. members have been very generous in admonishing the big powers that this is the last time that they will vote for a measure of this kind; nevertheless, they will vote for it. What does England, Russia, France and China care about any admonition from members of the parliament of Canada when the government of Canada pays no attention to it themselves?
I have a certain fear, and it is this. Although everybody is in earnest at the present time no one can tell that no political party will play politics with it in the future. If I start from your left, Mr. Speaker, I find there are several seats that- are now empty, but on the other hand there are seats which are occupied by prominent members of the Progressive Conservative party. I wonder which one of the Conservative members had a power of attorney from the party to replace the leader of the party in expressing the views of the party on this great matter. Was it the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Maedon-nell)? Perhaps. Was it the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church)? Perhaps. Was it the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Case)? Perhaps. Since I have never been in the councils of the Tory party, I cannot say which one it was. However, I am greatly surprised that on this matter, which represents an expenditure of a billion and a quarter and taxation on the Canadian people, the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bracken), the loyal opposition of His Majesty, has not risen in his place to speak with authority as the leader of a great party. Instead of that, he has gone to Montreal to speak of the kingdom of Canada. When it comes to such a huge expenditure he leaves it to others to express the views of his party. I have great respect for my hon. friend personally, but I cannot understand it.


John Bracken: If the hon. member really wishes to know where I stand on this matter, I stated my position very clearly in my address on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes, I appreciate what my hon. friend has said. He read a pastoral letter at the beginning of the session, and it is good for five years. How is it that other hon. members rise to expound the policy of the party? It is because the policy of the Progressive Conservative party is like the two faces of Janus, and their utterances can be read forward and backward. They can be read like those written in Arabic type and those published in Chinese characters; they are read forward and they are read backward. The hon. members who are here are no minor quantity; they are heavyweights of the party. I start with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and in a moment I will tell him why he has not yet spoken on this matter. I challenge him to rise and express a definite view o'n it. He will not, because the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said as much against the loan as he said for it, and his conclusion is that he must support it. The plates of the scale were even. It was only his last word that decided that the plate in favour of it should become a little heavier and go down.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. gentleman will go on and explain what he meant by that. I may be a very stupid man, but I thought I had spent some thirty minutes of the time of my hon. friend and1 others yesterday in making it very clear-at least I tried to make it very clear-that I was in favour of the loan. So that if the hon. gentleman would be good enough to explain what he meant by that I should be grateful.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will explain it in a
moment. In the first place I do not call my hon. friend stupid ; he calls himself stupid and he is wrong. If his explanation was so clear I was the stupid one not to understand it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I must interrupt my hon. friend' again to say there are none so blind as those who will not see.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not only stupid in
the opinion of my hon. friend, I am also blind. The next time I shall be deaf and afterwards I diall have one eye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dumb.


Jean-François Pouliot: Or I shall be dead. But
that is not all. There is the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure), the nearest to your

Loan to United Kingdom

left, Mr. Speaker. He has the gift of speech, bu't he has not said a word,. There is the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), a former minister in Mr. Bennett's cabinet, the only one now in the front row. He has had experience in the cabinet; he is a wise man; he commands the respect of the house. He has not spoken a word. There is my very dear friend the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green).


Mr. GREEN:: You talk so much there is no time for anybody else.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps so; but if my
hon. friend is ready to speak he will have an opportunity later, and his words are always so full of wisdom. He knows that himself; otherwise he would not ask so many questions on the estimates. But he has not said a word. There is my hon. friend the member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), who surely would have risen if the refusal! of this loan had meant any danger to the empire.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But I am for the loan.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is there
with his genial smile, but he has not said a word.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But I am for the loan.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not enough. You should tell me why,'in order to convert me to your views. Then there is the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), a colonel in the army, a man of experience and an old member. He has not said anything. Mum's the word. There is the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser). He is neither deaf nor dumb. He can express himself with great fluency, but he has not said a word. I say nothing offensive to him; I pay him a tribute, because I like him personally.,


Mr. FRASER:: May I say a word?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am in favour of this loan, and the reason I am in favour of it is that I believe the British government will pay it back. If you look at British Hansard for February 19 you will see that at- that date they had 8,897,000 people working on export trade. That means they will be able to pay back the loan.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, and it means so many less people in Canada will work. But that is a point of view. I have performed a miracle;
I have succeeded in having these hon. gentlemen who have not said a word since the beginning of the debate rise in their places and give what I might call short speeches.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This is the second time the hon. gentleman has spoken. He should give somebody else a chance.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, and this is the second time my hon. friend has spoken, so that I have performed a double miracle.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: And you have not said anything yet.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is my hon. friend the commander, the member for Trinity (Mr. Skey), who can speak very well also, but the password has been "silence." He has not said a word. There is the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), a genial gentleman with university training. Not a word. There is the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Mc-Master), a brilliant lawyer. Not a word. There is the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Bradshaw), a brilliant man. Not a word. I do not want to make any mistakes. There is the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy). Not a word. I see my hon. friend the member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Hazen), who has authority in this house and is respected by all. Not a word. They have abdicated their personalities for this time and have left it to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, who is one of the most gifted speakers in the house, to give the pros and cons, to endeavour to interest the whole house and yet not compromise the Progressive Conservative party. Well, now, there is something to-night. After a few months the Conservative party, which is more loyal than the king and queen put together, will say, "We have warned the country about what is going on. There is more and more unemployment; there is more and more dissatisfaction, but we warned the government through our spokesman not to be too quick, to be careful about it." That will be good political propaganda, but since it is unnoticed now by the Liberal party I tell them to watch their step because they are on dangerous ground.
Yesterday I expressed a certain opinion regarding this measure. Not so long ago a doctrine was enunciated in this house which makes one think seriously about the future of this country if such financing goes on any longer. This is what was said:
I am sure that hon. members can recall the grave international problems and difficulties which arose in the nineteen-twenties and nineteen-thirties from the huge international war debts which had grown up during and immediately following the last great war.
And again:
International debts, on the other hand, can be settled only by the transfer of goods and services from the debtor country to the creditor country.

Loan to United Kingdom
Such transfers eau be made, only if and to the extent that the creditor country is prepared to accept goods and services from the debtor country for not only principal payments but also annual interest charges. In other words, the creditor country must be prepared to see an increase in its imports or a decrease in its exports, or both.
That is horse sense; that is very well said.
Experience has shown that countries will accept these payments in the form of imports only to a limited extent on balance, if at all. To do so, of course, exposes their producers to more intense competition from abroad, and the excess of imports serves as a deflationary influence which appears to be unwelcome in normal peace times. On the other hand, the inability of debtor nations to make payment when the creditor nation will not readily accept imported goods and services in payment, is bound to lead to international misunderstandings and frictions. Consequently, there is a practical limit to the amount of international debt which can be satisfactorily carried and repaid, particularly when such debt arises from the economically wasteful processes of war. The experiences of the last twenty-five years are too well known for me to labour this point at greater length.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the hon. member tell us what he is reading from?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. In the first place, it is not from a speech given by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser). It is not from a speech given by any Progressive Conservative member. It is not from a speech given by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). It is not from a speech given by the leader of the Bloc Populaire (Mr. Raymond). It is not from a speech given by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe).


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Page Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, no. Those words were uttered on March 18, 1942, and we read them on pages 1420 and 1421 of Hansard. Who said it? It was said by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) who was responsible for the commitments made by the Acting Minister of Finance, the then Minister of National Defence, army. Hon. members will find out that what I have said is more prophetic than anything that Keynes has said. Here we are. What is the limit of financing for a country? There are limits for an individual and there must be limits for a country. It was said that there was a limit.
I remember the time when Mr. Bennett was Prime Minister of Canada and he said, "We cannot borrow any more; we have reached our limit; we have only our home markets." At that time there was no rationing. Mr. Bennett was only a child. He was a powerful and rich man but he had not reached the 63260-54J
astronomical figures that we have reached to-day. That was said in 1942, four years ago, and it is on record in Hansard. It is because of what was said by the Minister of Finance on March 18, 1942, that I am in duty bound to vote against the second reading of this bill. If the Minister of Finance had not spoken as he did on that occasion I would have had a certain doubt and I would have given the government the benefit of that doubt. But he was explicit, he expressed a profound truth. I do not blame him for that; I cannot congratulate him, but he has my sympathies for many reasons. He said:
Consequently, there is a practical limit to the amount of international debt which can be satisfactorily carried and repaid, particularly when such debt arises from the economically wasteful processes of war.
I ask him now: What is the demarcation line? Are we within it or without it? Are we outside it? Did we go any farther and, if so, how much? Who established that line?


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I ask a question? Was I not speaking about international debt there? In this case it is the debt that Great Britain could carry in relation to Canada. Is that hot what I was speaking about there?


Jean-François Pouliot: Here is the quotation for the minister himself to see.
Mr. ILSLEY.: I find that I was right. I said:
Consequently, there is a practical limit to the amount of international debt which can be satisfactorily carried and repaid, particularly when such debt arises from the economically wasteful processes of war.
That is precisely wdiat I have said in this debate. If this loan were made at a high rate of interest with no waiver of interest in the earlier years, and if we were to insist on trying to collect the full amount owing on the air training plan and so forth, we would be pushing the United- Kingdom beyond the limit of her capacity to carry this international debt because, as I said then, there is a limit to the amount of international debt which can be satisfactorily carried and1 repaid, particularly when such debt arises from the economically wasteful processes of war. Canada and the United States have both considered that question, and it was not because they were foolish that they provided these terms calling for a waiver of interest, but because they took into account and appraised as closely as they could the capacity of the United Kingdom to pay.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister, and I think he is a great sport for admitting that I quoted him accurately. If it had been Arthur Meighen he would have said that I misquoted him.
Loan to United Kingdom

What is an international debt? A debt of Canada to Great Britain is an international debt, and a debt from Great Britain to Canada is an international debt? If that were not so, it would mean that the government of this country is perfectly non-existent, that we are governed by Great Britain. Our financial relations with Great Britain cannot be otherwise than international. Otherwise we might as well put the padlock on the parliament buildings in Ottawa and say that it is no use trying to do something for the government of this country, that we are all under Westminster.
Who decides about the limit? Precisely those agencies of the Old Lady of Thread-needle street and Wellington street - the experts in robber banks, robber banks of currency. They fix the limit that they want. That is their dictum and it cannot be changed, because it has been decided by those who know-the experts! Things go on like that; these experts have received their training from the small group of international finance leaders, and now they control the destinies of this nation as they want to control the destinies of the world. As a liberal I strongly object to that. I think it is a crime to threaten the humble folk, the underdog, those earning small salaries, putting out the temporary employees and leaving in the service those who bring this country to ruin. The cleaning-up should not be downward to the lower grades but upward, and we should dispense with a lot of useless branches all over the civil service. It will not be done because there are some pets and friends who are in there and they are considered more important that the members of parliament.
But I want to afford my colleagues an opportunity to think of so serious a matter as that of ministerial responsibility. I want them to remember what is their duty and to remember the trust and confidence their electors expressed in them when they honoured them by voting for them. These people deserve some consideration, and we are here ' to perform a duty which is often unpleasant but which nevertheless has to be done, without fear or favour, not only for those who are now citizens of Canada but for future generations, to prevent this country from being engulfed in the neighbour state, the United States of America. We are going toward it, and we do not know what will happen if this government has not the power that once it had in a free country, the power and the duty to act in accordance with the constitution and in accordance with the old principle of British pailiamentary traditions,
[Mr. Pouliot.J
which are so often forgotten. It is a strange country where everything is known except fundamentals, where everything is remembered except the essentials, where one pays more attention to detail than to vital facts. I am sorry to-night that a larger number of my colleagues have not risen to express their views and those of their constituents on a matter of such magnitude. I have said repeatedly, and I must say it again, that the atmosphere of Ottawa is pernicious to the members of parliament because when they are here they are disposed to forget what are the views of their own people back home.
If one says that the British people deserve sympathy I agree entirely, and if we can help them, all right. I have as much respect for the poor people of Whitechapel as for the rich. But at the present time it is not a question alone of sympathy for Great Britain; it is a question also of sympathy and a question of duty to our own Canadian people. Matters are going from bad to worse. Some members think only of catering to the views of those who have controlled the policy of Canada for so long, since the time of Macdonald; I mean those who have nothing Canadian about them except perhaps the name they give to themselves occasionally as a surname, those who have no Canadian aspirations and who do not think of those who are close to them but only of those who are far away, and the farther away they are the more they must be suffering-that is what I hear all the time.
I respect the views of everybody, but I am not to be lectured by any Right Reverend and hon. gentleman like the member fof Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank). He gave us a combination which was half sermon and half business course. Well, he may call his colleagues "Pharisees"

an expression I never used-or tell us in circumlocution that those who do not think as he does are crazy. It does not make any impression on me. But I will tell him one thing which will astound hon. members; he knows nothing about the demon rum. For instance, we now have to pay $5 for a 26-ounce bottle of third rate rum-is it not a shame?-and it is precisely because we belong to the sterling area. If we were out of it, it would be easy to have rum from the American plantations.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: How much is it over there?


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not know, but I know it is cheaper. He said something else, and with this I will conclude. He said Canada was the unique country that wanted only to win the

Loan to United Kingdom
war without expecting anything besides winning the war; that Canada desired no material gain; and he gave a special word of honour to our country on account of that disposition. Well, if Canada is alone in doing a thing does that mean that she is right to do it? All other countries are looking for something as a compensation for their losses and sacrifices in the war. Canada is above that. Canada has the spirit of sacrifice for other nations. It does not pay. Who will pay for it? All of us will pay for it. The Canadian people will pay for it, and they will not stand for it very long. At the present time there are various parties which fight each other at election time and discuss in this house .matters of national interest. We have relative peace in this country. But there is an underground trend which is dangerous, and very little will be needed to arouse the feelings of the people of this country, as has happened somewhere else. I say that as a warning. It is dangerous to create in the minds of the people a distrust of parliamentary institutions. At the present time parliamentary institutions do not enjoy the respect which they did years ago. It is not a complaint against one member in particular, which would be normal. Sometimes people are dissatisfied with a member of parliament; they complain about him; they vote for another candidate at the following election and the matter is settled.
But now we hear everywhere and at all times discussions about parliament itself, and people are losing confidence in parliament. We have had some examples of this; I will not refer to it any more now, because the hour is late; but I want the government to think of it seriously. The only way to keep the confidence of the people is to take into their fconfidence those who represent the people and who are in touch with them. Any back-bencher has a superiority in this respect over any minister who sits on the treasury benches. None of these hon. gentlemen has the contact with the people that we private members have when we go home or when, even here in .Ottawa, we meet people, listen to them, and try to make them understand that there are difficulties, that it is hard to settle certain things, and that the ministers should be given a chance.
But there is inevitably an end to this. I have tried to be as patient as possible. I have tried to make people understand the difficulties of the government. I have told them that the members of the cabinet meant well, that they had not the opportunities of other members to meet the Canadian people individually. But they are not satisfied with these
explanations. This piece of financing will do-more to promote communism in this country than all the propaganda of those who have been arrested, put together. It is a serious matter. I wanted to say this to-night; I have said it, and I want hon. members to think about it. I may be wrong, but I have spoken earnestly and with sincerity, and I want hon. members, and I want the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to think of what I have said. This measure is a provocation to all those who are in need and receive no help. It is a provocation to all those- who suffer and receive no consideration. It is not an intelligent attitude to require us to wait until the next dominion-provincial conference 'for an adjustment and for us to be told, "We will see what can be done some time later." The answer is, "Lf you have enough money to give a billion and a quarter dollars to another country whether she deserves it or not, I want it and I want it right now. If you have enough to give all this to another country, give it to me; I am a Canadian and I want it."


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


Mr. J. H. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) speaking to this house, because his speeches are informative and inspirational.
I am sorry -that my knowledge of tfu-French language is not anything to write home-about, -but I was trying to follow as closely' as I could the remarks of the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie '(Mr. Raymond) a little while ago. If I caught the trend of his speech it was to this effect, that the people of Great Britain are not nearly as hungry as they make out they are, and that in some insidious way they are trying to put something over on Canada. It brings to my mind a remark we used to hear over the radio some years ago-


Maxime Raymond: Would the hon. member permit me?


James Herbert Matthews: Certainly.


Maxime Raymond: I quoted the words of Mr. Hoover.


James Herbert Matthews: We used to hear the remark over the radio, "Vas you there, Sharley?" I happen to be one of those who
Loan to United Kingdom

were fortunate enough to come here from the United Kingdom, forty-one years ago. and with many others here to-night I pride myself on being a good Canadian; but I cannot forget that in the home land I have a mother still living, and by the grace of God she is now enjoying her ninety-third year of life. I want to tell this house to-night that my mother in all her ninety-three years has never known such conditions in Great Britain as exist this night as a result of the war through which they have passed. We have been told repeatedly that the people of Great Britain have had to draw in their belts, and I for one do not think for one minute they are doing that and imposing on themselves certain restrictions in order to put anything over on Canada. I feel proud tonight that Canada is able and willing to step into the breach in this, Great Britain's decisive hour, to the extent of the loan she is now prepared to make.
Certain members have spoken in opposition to the loan. Even so, they must have known how ineffective their opposition would be. I know that when we speak in this house from time to time we are apt to express our own personal convictions and opinions, but I am convinced to-night that 'in speaking in support of this loan I am voicing the views of the largest percentage of the people of my constituency. I believe they are 100 per cent behind the loan, and I believe that because I know they have been following the trend of events. They know what Great Britain has suffered and they know that wre in Canada have been exceedingly fortunate; for we have not been asked to make the sacrifices which the people over there have been called upon to make.
I am therefore heartily in accord with the proposed loan which is now before us. Yet I cannot help having a feeling of regret over the action taken in this house on Wednesday afternoon when we 'had before us that resolution which sought to give our aged citizens, our old age pensioners, a more adequate income in their old age. That proposal was talked out just because the government is not prepared at this time to do anything for those people. I know that all across this dominion there is a sense of disappointment and frustration in the minds of those old people.
It is not so long ago that, in the first flush of victory, we were expressing our rejoicings and were glad when the. boys were coming back from overseas, and on almost every railway station throughout the dominion

mone could see the sign, "Welcome home, boys; **you have done a good job". Canada sought **to express her gratitude to the men who had I*done so nobly overseas. But the time has ilTcome when Canada should publicly recognize T her indebtedness to those men and women ,who were the pioneers of this country and who made Canada what she is.
Canada, I believe, is an exceedingly wealthy nation. We are demonstrating that by the very fact that we are willing to lend billions to nations in their need. But, as the hon. member for Temiscouata said a few moments ago, though he may not have used these express words, charity begins at home. I would not say one word against making this loan, but I believe that Canada should exert greater efforts on behalf of our aged citizens in their declining years. Let us try to bring something of comfort, peace and well-being to those people.


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: I wish briefly to express my unqualified support of the bill and to say how much I enjoyed the lucid manner in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) presented the subject to the house. I have listened to arguments against, and for the bill. I have listened to what I consider rather unusual speeches. I listened to a few' members ns they spent thirty-nine minutes and forty seconds in pulling the bill to pieces and then telling the house in the last few seconds that they intended to support it.
I have listened also very carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), and I think he is entirely out of perspective when he talks about dealing with the sufferings of our own people in the terms he did in relation to the people of Europe at the present time. Regardless of the things that have to be done in Canada, the things that require to be done in the near future, I say that with the exception of those who have lost loved ones, and the men who went overseas, there is not a portion of the world to-day that is as fortunate as we are in Canada.
When the hon. member for Temiscouata was speaking, his arguments reminded me of the story of the church janitor who found the parson's notes od Monday morning as he was clearfing the church. He picked t,hem up. The parson had made various notations in his manuscript, and at one point he had, "Argument weak; raise your voice." At another point he had, "Argument very weak; wave your arms"; and at still another point he had, "Argument terribly weak; wave your arms and yell like hell".

Loan to United Kingdom
I think the arguments in favour of the bill have in some cases over-emphasized the economic advantages. I know we have to consider the matter from that point of view. But I am rising to express my support of the bill on the ground that we have a moral obligation to assist those who have suffered in the defence of democracy. We had to pool our resources to win the war, and I am quite sure that we shall have to pool our resources to win the peace. I look upon the bill, with its period of no interest and with its lower interest rates, as a step in the right direction. Because of that I support the bill unqualifiedly.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: I do not expect to take a great deal of time, as the two previous speakers have indicated the importance of this bill, and if there are no other speakers I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we can pass the bill to-night. I do wish, however, to make a few observations because I believe that there are important principles involved in this measure.
I have listened to arguments pro and con and I am not going to say that the argument is all on one side. There are arguments for both sides, although at the outset I wish to say that I support the bill. The bill provides for two separate amounts of money. One part of the bill provides for the cancellation of apy debt that the United Kingdom may ewe us in respect of the commonwealth air training plan; the other part provides for the extension of credits to the extent of one and a quarter billion dollars in order that Great Britain may purchase goods from Canada. The first item of $425,000,000, which is the United Kingdom's share in the commonwealth air training plan, will constitute, I take it, a direct gift to Great Britain, not from now on, because the gift has already been made.
May I suggest that we must have had to borrow the money in order to pay Great Britain's share in this commonwealth air training plan and our borrowings therefore have been used. They have been spent for the purpose of that plan. In other words, we have borne Britain's share of that plan to the extent of $425,000,000. This money has to be paid back. I cannot tell where this particular money came from because we have been raising billions of dollars throughout the war years by means of victory loans. I imagine that a large part of the $425 million is now owed' the chartered banks of Canada. I believe I am right, even though it may be a guess, that a good deal of the $425 million constitutes expanded credit which the banks now hold as a
debt against the Canadian people. It can be paid back only by taxation. The people of Canada should realize this. There is one painful cry that goes up from the people of Canada to-day, namely, the cry of the pain of over-burdening taxation.
It is all very well to talk about extending credits and cancelling debt, but the people of Canada should know that every time we cancel a foreign debt there is a corresponding debt here in Canada which has to be paid, and it can be paid only by taxation; of course, as the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlymika) reminds me, under the present system. That is what we are operating under, the management of this system by the Liberal administration of this country. Suppose, instead of giving the loan to Britain we should ask the people of Canada whether they are ready to foot the bill to the tune of $425 million by taxation. If we did that it would put a little different complexion on this question in the minds of the people of Canada. I will make this observation. The government does not seem much alarmed at the cancellation and the eventual payment of debt to the tune of $425 million. That is strange to me, because a few years ago when we had plenty of goods for everyone in Canada and asked the government for a few paltry dollars they could not supply the money.


James Lorimer Ilsley: May I just ask the hon.
gentleman a question? How does the can- . cellation of $425 million of debt add to the taxes of the people of Canada if the debt is beyond the capacity of the debtor to pay?


Jean-François Pouliot: That is a good admission.


Ernest George Hansell: I will answer, and I do not propose now to match my economic brains with those of the Minister of Finance; but I think he will agree that any debt that exists is a debt that is caused by the expansion of credits, and any expansion of credit is a debt to the banking institutions of Canada. To that extent it must be paid by the people of Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was incurred years ago.


Ernest George Hansell: It might have been incurred years ago, but it is still here and is perhaps a little bigger now by the addition of accrued interest.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman has not answered the question.


Ernest George Hansell: I may not have answered the question to the satisfaction of the Minister of Finance, but that is my answer and it is satisfactory to me.
Loan to United, Kingdom

Let me ask the finance minister a question. Why is it that Canada can now provide $1,250 million of credit to Britain when she could not provide much less than that for the people of Canada a few years ago? I have paused, and the minister has not answered.
There are two ways of approaching the argument in respect of this loan. Many of the speakers in favour of the loan have spoken of it on the basis that it is good business. A second argument is that there is a moral obligation. I wish to ask hon. members if they think the extension of these credits to Britain to the extent of $1,250 million is good business? Let us look at that because a previous speaker said that there would be greater employment, greater production and greater export trade. It is true that for the time being there will be greater employment. But let us remember this, that greater employment here on goods to be exported means greater unemployment to the importing country. I know we are not living in normal times economically to-day. There is a disequilibrium in our economic set-up in these years because Of the war and so forth, but I am talking now of whether the loan is good business. Exports mean that you are exporting your unemployment. To the extent that export trade increases employment in one country, generally speaking it means corresponding unemployment in another country. I ask, is that good business? It may be for 'us and only for a time.
I come now to the matter of greater production. It will mean greater production, but let us remember that the greater production is to go out of. the country. What we are really doing is shipping our real wealth out of our own country. We may be provided with a certain amount of money through increased employment, but the real wealth is gone. I ask, is that good business? Perhaps some of the orthodox minds would say that it is. Some person will say that it is good business because it means greater exports. It just so happens that at the present time we need the goods. Is it good business to ship out the goods when we need them here? Let me follow that up. When a credit is paid by the importing country it is paid by that country importing goods. When Great Britain pays the money back she pays us by sending us goods. Therefore the position that we are placed in is that we are shipping out goods now when we need them, but we shall be taking them back when we do not need them.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Is the hon. member opposed to shipping them out now?
[Mr. Hansell.l


Ernest George Hansell: No. I suppose this is the crucial time, anyway, for Great Britain certainly needs them now. I am not talking against the bill; I do not want my hom friends to misunderstand me. What I am trying to make clear is that there are two ways of looking at it. One is from the point of view of whether or not it is good business; the other is whether there is a moral obligation. I am not supporting the bill because it is good business. I think it is the business of lunatics. I am supporting the bill because we have a moral obligation toward the people of Great Britain.
While we are talking about whether or not it is good business, let me dwell for a moment on this matter of inflation. Oh, how the cry used to go up some years ago when we wanted a few extra dollars. The same hon. gentlemen now sitting on the treasury benches replied, "Oh, that would be inflation." We dared not talk in terms of $100,000,000 without its being called inflation, but now here is $1,250 million. When we proposed a little extra money there were plenty of goods to correspond with any such increase, but the cry went up that it would be inflation, and we could not have that. Now, however, we can supply a billion and a quarter of money when we have no goods behind it. From the point of view of business it is not good business, because this will aggravate inflation, the very thing we want to prevent. I say, then, that from the point of view of whether or not it is good business, I do not believe it is. We have a shortage of goods here, perhaps more shortages than we know about. I went to buy a pair of socks to-day. Since the Minister of Finance asked me a question I should like to ask him where I can buy a pair of socks. I have darned the ones I have until I cannot darn them any more, darn it, and I should like to know where I can get socks.
The only reason remaining for the loan, as far as I can see, is from the moral aspect. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Matthews) has expressed it as adequately as anyone could in a few minutes. I too, have an aged mother there, and we feel very much concerned about this thing. The fact is that Great Britain has suffered; she has been in the front line alone throughout the war. Her real wealth is gone. Her machinery is worn out. The present scarcity in the United Kingdom is such that they are almost at the point of starvation; at least they are at the point where the government is now talking of rationing bread. This is so in spite of the fact that a few years ago we reduced our production of wheat and paid our farmers

Loan to United Kingdom
&19
not to grow it. That was the policy of the present government. If hon. members do not think this a lunatic policy I do not know what we can be thinking about. You see, the Lord was so good to us, but we thought he did not know his business. He sent us so much sunshine and so much rain that we had too much, so that the government went the Lord one better; they knew a little more. They said, "Well, we cannot very well reach up into the sky and turn off the rain. We cannot very well reach up and pull down the blind so that the sun will not shine, but we know what we can do. We can take this asinine financial system and pay our men not to produce, when the good Lord gives us the opportunity to do so." I did not like to say this when the legislation was brought down, but I feel like saying it now, that I had to choose between Gardiner and God.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my hon. friend permit me to interrupt for a moment? He was kind enough to say he did not think he would be speaking until eleven o'clock, and I imagine that all hon. members are anxious to have this bill go through its present stage to-night. This is Friday night, and it is unusual to see so many hon. members remaining until this hour. If the house would agree I should like to move that standing order 7, which provides that we adjourn at eleVen o'clock, be suspended in order that the house may sit after eleven o'clock this evening.


Ernest George Hansell: I shall be through in one minute.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my hon. friend would allow the motion to be put.


John Bracken: Is there no limit of time on this motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rather
gathered it was not likely there would be many more speakers. If my hon. friend would wish a twelve o'clock limit fixed, well and good; I think that should be safe.


John Bracken: I take it we shall not be asked to stay here after twelve o'clock?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No,
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to.


Ernest George Hansell: I thank the Prime Minister for his motion, but I shall take only a minute or two. I was saying there was a time when we could have produced more, but the policy of the government was to pay people not to produce. Well, now the chickens are coming home to roost, and we have scarcity. That is the result of what I would call the blundering financial and agricultural policy of this administration.
There is one other point, with which the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) dealt just before he sat down. I believe he made the point that this bill would do more than anything else to promote communism in Canada. I believe that was an unfortunate observation. Personally I doubt whether he really meant what he said, but in any event he said it. The fact of the matter is that it is not the loan that will cause any trouble in respect of communism. It will be the financial policy of the country-and I am not talking about loans now but about the policy with respect to debt and taxation-that will do more than anything else to make people in Canada dissatisfied. I would say to the hon. member for Temiseouata and those hon. members from Quebec who haye spoken against the loan that I appreciate their position. They are fine men; they have convictions, but if I could leave one message with them to-night it would be that the democracies of the world must stand together. They must reciprocate one with the other in the common interest of all. If they do not do that I am afraid communism will take over. That is something to be considered. We must live together or we shall die separately.
Once' again I wish to emphasize-ahd I think I am speaking for my group, or in any event for some of them-that we support this bill on moral grounds. If we were in power, perhaps we would assist Great Britain even to a greater extent, but our financial policy would not be the one that the present government has. We support the bill because of a moral obligation and we trust, indeed we know that there will always be an England.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division; bill read the second time and the house went into. committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-short title.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the house.
He said: With regard to Monday's business we shall continue with bill No. 28, which we have been discussing this evening. If that measure is concluded, we shall continue with bill No. 7, relating to citizenship. Then there is the second reading of bill No. 9 and the second reading of bill No. 10. Probably that will be enough; if it is not, we can fill in the time with estimates.
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Installation of Governor General

[Stage Direction]
Address oj Welcome to His Excellency The Governor General By The Prime Minister oj Canada
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was with great pleasure and no small measure of pride that the people of Canada learned some months ago that the King had appointed Your Excellency to succeed the Earl of Athlone as His Majesty's representative in Canada.
We were all delighted at the word of your safe arrival at Halifax. We rejoice at your presence to-day in Canada's capital.
On behalf of the government and the people of Canada, I have the honour to extend to you and Lady Alexander the warmest of welcomes to our country, We in Canada have sought to make the family and the home the foundation of our national life. In Your Excellencies and your children, we recognize and welcome a happy family.
As Prime Minister it is my privilege to express to Your Excellency the satisfaction felt by members of the government, and by all Canadians that you have now entered upon the duties of your high office.
In welcoming Your Excellencies to Canada, we are reminded of the visit some years ago of the King and Queen. The fortitude and steadfastness displayed by Their Majesties throughout the Tong and cruel years of war are also much in our thoughts at this time. We should like our first word to Your Excellency to be one of assurance of Canada's fidelity to the crown, and of the devotion and affection of the Canadian people for Their Majesties.
We welcome you to Canada with especial warmth because of your close association with Canada's armed forces, as Commander-inChief of the Allied Armies in Italy, and, later, as Supreme Allied Commander in the Mediterranean. The Canadian veterans who served in the Mediterranean theatres, on land, at sea or in the air, are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to express anew the respect and affection you inspired in them.

It is our hope that, during your sojourn in Canada, Your Excellencies may have many opportunities to visit all parts of our country. You will find, wherever you go, a welcome in the homes, and a place in the hearts, of the Canadian people.
We are all proud to recognize in Your Excellency one of the grea^t military leaders in world history.
It is of interest to recall today that in the war of 1014-18 you gave early signs of the military genius and leadership which in the recent world war you displayed in such exceptional measure. The power to anticipate developments and the capacity to inspire confidence have been outstanding characteristics of your career.
The free nations have reason to be grateful for the manner in which, in the years between the wars, you devoted yourself to preparation and training for high responsibilities. In those years you acquired a wide command of languages and extensive first-hand knowledge of geography. Your varied experiences contributed to that generous understanding of men which enabled you to lead, in the greatest harmony, the forces of many nations. .This achievement in itself inspired new hope in the hearts of men and women of many lands.
It has been well said that your career touched both the depths and the peaks of the war. In the chances and changes of war, you have been neither discouraged by defeat nor unduly elated by victory. We recall your resourcefulness and gallantry on the beaches of Dunkirk; your part in rebuilding the British army in the dark days of 1940; the stubborn rearguard action you fought in the jungles of Burma; the calm courage with which, at a moment when Egypt seemed all but lost, you assumed command in the Middle East. From

Installation oj Governor General
that moment, from El Alamein to Tunis, from Sicily to the Alps, the forces you organized and directed moved forward, steadily and relentlessly, to final victory. Your suocess in welding together the fighting forces of many nations is evidence of the highest qualities of statesmanship.
During the years of war, Your Excellency commanded the confidence of armies of many nations. As a trusted servant of the crown, vou also enjoyed, in full measure, the confidence of their parliaments. That confidence was shared by none more than by the parliament and people of Canada. It is with equal confidence that, today, members of both houses of parliament welcome Your Excellency in your new capacity as the representative, in Canada, of His Majesty The King.
ADDliESS OF HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL
I	am deeply touched by the warm welcome which you have extended to me and my wife on our arrival in Canada, and I thank you also for the generous tribute which you have paid to me personally.
In honouring me by this splendid welcome, Canada, upholding the traditions of two great races, has shown her feelings of loyalty and devotion to our King, whose personal representative I have the honour to be, and it will be my duty and pleasure to convey to His Majesty your sentiments of attachment to him and his Throne.
It is very moving and inspiring to witness, as I have in two world wars, the way the members of our empire family have rallied together in the cause of freedom. And of all the peoples of the British commonwealth, none have played1 their part more nobly or given more generously than Canada.
Your contribution to the common effort has been both remarkable and outstanding-worthy of your great position in the world, and typical of the great heart of your people. You have sent the riches of Canada in the form of vast quantities of food and material of all sorts and huge sums of money, and above all you have sent in no small measure your richest asset-your men and women.
During the fighting days it was my privilege to have under my command your magnificent soldiers, sailors and airmen, who took such a distinguished part in our victories in the Mediterranean. Canadian troops were in the vain during the capture of Sicily, when the first breach was made in the nazi-held Fortress of Europe. Canadian troops broke the Hitler line at Ponte Corvo, where, as the spearhead
of the 8th Army, they opened the way to the capture of Rome, and Canadian troops were again in the forefront of the battle when that great defensive position in the Appenines known as the Gothic line, the last German fortress covering the valley of the Po, was pierced at Rimini on the Adriatic coast.
It was not only a sad occasion for me, but a grievous loss to my armies, when this great Canadian Corps was transferred from Italy to the western front, where they went to join their own countrymen, there to gain fresh laurels for Canadian arms in the last great battles of .the war, which led to the collapse of the nazis in Europe.
Canada may well be proud of her sons and and of the magnificent part they have played in final victory.
Can you doubt, then, that I and my wife are proud and happy to come here with our children, to make our home and to live amongst you?
Mr. Prime Minister, in your address of welcome to us, you used a phrase which strikes a very responsive chord in my own heart, when you said that you in Canada have sought to make the family and home the foundation of your national life. I believe as you do that the family and home are the very basis of a healthy, happy and prosperous people.
You have a grand country, but it has been made by the character of its people, who are blessed with enterprise, initiative, imagination and energy-four great qualities which make for success.
To-day we find the world restless and disorganized by six years of war, and consequently we face many grave and difficult problems. This, I think, is inevitable when we consider the magnitude of the struggle we have all been through, so we must not be unduly discouraged. I am convinced that we can surmount all our difficulties as successfully as we did in the fighting days, provided we stand firm in upholding those principles we have fought for and tackle the future with sober optimism and energy.
Although I have now said "Farewell to Arms", this does not mean rest and relaxation; on the contrary, there is lots of splendid constructive work to be done, and it will be my aim and privilege to devote myself wholeheartedly to the duties of my office, which will allow me to watch with sympathy and interest the progress, happiness and growing prosperity of the Canadian people, who have earned for themselves, by their own endeavours, the great position they hold in the world to-day.
Farm Implements

Monday, April 15, 1946.