February 19, 1941

NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

If it is idle, that is not much to boast about.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Munitions and Supply)

Liberal

Mr. HOWE:

The naval guns are complete guns.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I said I had been told. I read it in the public press. I do not know whether this high-powered board down here in the Department of National War Services slipped again. They did once with regard to this very matter. Take any of the more important items- naval guns, aircraft production, tank production. We were promised all these things, but the results have been most discouraging.

There are several things that are needed in order that we may have a total effort. Right in the very forefront I put the need of a master war plan; and to draft a master war plan we need a war cabinet, composed of the best men in the country, freed from the confining detail of departmental administration and departmental duties.

Recently in a public address I advocated that the immediate duty of the hour is to strengthen the government. I repeat that assertion. There is weakness in the high political command. It is recognized everywhere. If it is to continue on the party basis, it must be strengthened on that basis, but it should be strengthened regardless of party affiliation; and this, because of the need of greater national morale, and the gigantic task at hand.

The fact is that, until quite recently at least, the war and its responsibilities were not taken seriously enough by the government. Canada should have a war cabinet, adequate in size for war purposes, composed of the ablest administrators available, and with no partisan tinge. It seems to me that this is elementary, and nothing else should be tolerated.

There are those who believe that the war effort of the government, being of such a mushroom growth, has reached a state of, shall I say, chaos, and that the record of the past eighteen months stands at an alltime high in futility. With the possible exception of the production of motor units

and that sort of equipment, everything has gone wrong except the courage and capacity of our fighting forces, and the willingness of labour and industry to work and produce, if properly directed.

From the very beginning the present state of war production was inevitable. When war threatened, the government did nothing to prepare for war, although it knew that Canada was defenceless. When war came, the government did nothing to ensure the rapid and effective mobilization of the nation. The government embarked upon a policy of minimum, at least moderate, participation and not maximum cooperation. The measure of this country's contribution was governed by political expediency. To-day we are reaping the harvest of the government's default. The situation is so bad that the people are now aroused to it, and relentless criticism of the government is nationwide.

In peace time, it would be the right and opportunity of the opposition to take advantage of the failure of the government to serve the nation according to its needs, but in this time of war we dare not permit the government of Canada to be discredited. England is looking to Canada for help. The United States is looking to Canada to see what is the measure of our effort; and we must close our ranks. We must present a united front. We must lay friendly hands upon this government and help it forward. The interest of the nation and of the empire puts that obligation upon all good Canadians.

Therefore his majesty's loyal opposition, speaking through myself as a humble instrument, declares that its present purpose is not to indict the government for past failures but to help the government to present and future achievements. Pursuant to that purpose, I as leader of the opposition in this House of Commons recently rededieated this party to the service of the state, and I now come again to the government and say, "What can we do to help?"

I have already indicated my belief that the immediate duty of the hour is to strengthen the government, and that Canada should have a war cabinet adequate for war purposes and without any partisan tinge. No appeal to the nation for concerted action looking to victory will bring a full national response until the nation sees that the Prime Minister's solemn renunciation of partisanship in time of war-made not once only-has become a matter of deeds and not mere words. It is true that on more than one occasion he has renounced partisanship. He has said it must not be. But he does not make his followers realize that until they also renounce partisanship his renunciation is valueless. And, there-

838 COMMONS

War Appropriation-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)

fore, we should have an announcement from the Prime Minister of the accomplishment of such renunciation. That should be coupled with an announcement that his cabinet is to be reorganized and strengthened with men especially qualified to serve the national interest with all their hearts and with all their vigour.

I believe that the people of Canada would be delighted and greatly encouraged if the Prime Minister would say to-day: "At this time of crisis, the Liberal government renounces the principle of partisan government. Pursuant to that principle, we now intend to form a government composed of the best men Canada can supply. Party considerations shall be forgotten. We will bring these men from agriculture, from industry, from labour, from finance. This government will guarantee unity even as it will guarantee efficiency; for in it there shall be leaders of every class and section of the nation. It will be the new model for effective democratic leadership in time of war."

In the name of Canada's duty to the empire, in the name of Canada's efficient conduct of the war, I urge the Prime Minister, in this hour of the empire's need, to make this announcement to the Canadian people. In the name of the freedom of the individual and of those institutions which freedom has given us, I urge this policy upon the Prime Minister.

The War Measures Act and the National Resources Mobilization Act are now the law of Canada. Those acts, in the hands of party government, are bound to grow into instruments of dictatorship unless they are controlled by a really non-partisan government. If, with the aid of the War Measures Act and the National Resources Mobilization Act, the government should seek to build a fortress for the Liberal party, I warn them that they will in fact be building a prison house for all the rights and privileges of the Canadian people; they will be setting the stage for fascism.

Let the Prime Minister look well into the English-speaking world and tell this house the reason why he should not do as other empire governments have done. It cannot be because the Prime Minister believes himself to be endowed with greater wisdom than that of a Churchill or of a Roosevelt or of a Menzies. It cannot be because the Prime Minister thinks that his government's conduct of the war is more effective than that of the other governments to which I have referred. How do we compare with Australia? The question answers itself. It cannot be that the Prime Minister thinks that such a course will harm the prestige and power of the Liberal party.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My hon. friend asked about a comparison wfith Australia. Will he tell us what comparison he wishes to make?

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

It is a

rhetorical question; the Prime Minister can answer later if he wants to. The fact is that Australia is on the field of battle, and Canada is not.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I deny that

absolutely. Canada is very much on the field of battle.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Tell that to the marines! The people of Canada know that we are not in Libya. We have a few airmen in England; we have men in training in England.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

No

politics.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

It cannot be that the Prime Minister fears that such a government might drive the war effort of Canada beyond the limit fixed by the Liberal party.

If the Prime Minister will not do this, then I prophesy that it will not be long before he will bitterly regret his rejection of an honest appeal made by me in the name, as I believe, not only of more than a million Conservative voters in Canada but of every Liberal who puts his country before his party; for Liberals know, as well as we do, that this government has failed.

Canadians are slow to anger. We are a patient people; but we are patriots as well. We realize at last that empire democracy needs all that Canada has to give, namely, maximum cooperation upon the highest level of service and of sacrifice. We realize also that Canada is not giving to the empire all she has to give.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do not threaten the Prime Minister; I appeal to him. In this crisis of civilization Canada must play a mighty part. The hour calls for dominant statesmanship. Let the Prime Minister rise to the need of the hour, and this country will rise also and stand behind him.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
?

Thomas Miller Bell

Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) yesterday introduced the resolution now before us I am sure that everyone in the chamber was struck by the stupendous amount requested for his majesty at this time. For a country of between eleven and twelve million people the amount asked is indeed a staggering sum. But staggering though it may be, I am confident that the people of

War Appropriation-Mr. Coldwell

Canada will realize that in the struggle in which we are now engaged, and which has taken on more definitely than ever before the character of a struggle between the democratic way of life and the totalitarian way of life, the Canadian people are prepared to support the government in raising the amount requested.

Having regard, however, to the enormous size of this vote there are some things that I believe ought to be said by members of this house. The appropriation asked for

covers a very wide range:

(a) the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada;

(b) the conduct of naval, military and air operations in or beyond Canada;

(c) promoting the continuance of trade, industry and business communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against war risk or in any other manner whatsoever; and

(d) the carrying out of any measure deemed necessary or advisable by the governor in council in consequence of the existence of a state of war.

It includes, therefore, efforts beyond those which are usually viewed as war efforts.

Last May we passed an appropriation bill providing for rather more than half the amount now requested, and so far parliament has had no opportunity of inquiring fully into the manner of its expenditure. I do not suggest that we should delay the passage of this resolution or of the bill that will follow. But I insist that it is the duty of this house to exercise more care than we are exercising as to the manner in which such grants to his majesty are disposed of.

Lately I have been looking over a very interesting and authoritative work on parliamentary grants. I have it beside me here- "Parliamentary Grants," by Durell. I wish more hon. members would read this book. At page 3 Durell states:

It is one of the old standing principles of our constitution that the House of Commons should control the finances of the country. That is the right, privilege and duty of the house. It has been achieved by means of struggles lasting through centuries. . . . Upon this fundamental principle, laid down at the very outset of English parliamentary history and secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict with the crown and peaceful growth, is grounded the whole law of finance and, consequently, the whole British constitution.

And he goes on to say:

Appropriation alone is, however, of little avail if no provision is made for securing compliance with it. The right of appropriation must be accompanied by the right of parliament to satisfy itself as to the expenditure of the money on the services for which it has been voted.

It is true that we have an annual statement of the auditor general laid before this house, but that is only an assurance that the money

has been expended for the purposes for which we intended it. We have no assurance that it has been economically expended, or expended in a manner which would serve the maximum public interest.

It will be argued, of course, that at this time to reveal how this money is being spent might give information to the enemy. If that is so the House of Commons might well follow another British precedent and discuss some of these matters in closed session-in camera. During the last war the British public accounts committee-which, as its name denotes, was a public committee-sat at Westminster in camera, in 1916, in order to consider certain of the accounts connected with the war. Our whole parliamentary system is based on that of Britain. Our rules of debate, our procedure, are modelled on British parliamentary practice and British custom and precedents. At the moment, I say, this country and this parliament alike are largely ignorant of what is going on in relation to a large part of our war effort. Rumours are rampant; criticism is rife, and these dampen the ardour of our people for the support and conduct of the war. Some things must remain confidential, but parliament is responsible to the people and the cabinet is responsible to parliament; there should be a closer bond of confidence between the cabinet and the House of Commons at the present time. It is for this house to decide, and this house alone, what financial matters ought to be kept confidential; for none other is the supreme power in deciding what, how, why and when expenditures should be made.

Except when some particular problem has arisen our public accounts committee has seldom met. I read again in Durell that the British public accounts committee exercises great influence over all the departments of government. Here it has exercised no influence, because it has seldom met. How many members of this house know how the appropriation made last May has been spent? I venture to say none except the members of the government, and someone suggests that probably they do not know either. In any event this house has no information of the sort it ought to have regarding these expenditures. Questions placed on the order paper in the early part of this session last November asking for statements with regard to government expenditures, particularly in relation to contracts, brought forth replies that can be summarized in these words: "not in the public interest". It seems to me that if we are to have a war effort that will win the imagination and the support of the vast majority of the people of Canada, and if we are to ask them

War Appropriation-Mr. Coldwell

to subscribe money to various war loans and to pay heavy taxes, we have an obligation to those people to see that the money is properly spent.

Durell, whom I am going to quote for the last time, states:

The supreme control of the Commons over public grants, as already mentioned, necessarily demands the complete right of control over the manner in which the grants are spent. This second right must be inseparable from the first if the control over the grants is to be effective, but it is a right which was not claimed nor enforced by the House of Commons until long after the right of control over supply had been established.

Then, in these words he quotes Gladstone, in the British House of Commons:

It is undoubtedly the business of the House of Commons to be responsible not only for the inception of all public expenditure, but also to follow the money raised by taxation until the last farthing is accounted for.

To achieve this end this house has two methods, the auditor general and the public accounts committee. As I said just now, in Britain the public accounts committee performs that function. In our country the public accounts committee has seldom met. I was glad to learn to-day that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) intends to introduce a motion to appoint a special committee to follow our war expenditures through. That is a step in the right direction. A similar committee, with similar power, was appointed in Great Britain early in the war, some fourteen or fifteen months ago. It was supplementary to the public accounts committee, and has been sitting continuously since that time. We are taking the same step some fourteen or fifteen months after it should have been taken.

It seems to me that in the important particulars to which I have referred we in this house have departed from the elementary right of this house to complete control over expenditures. Let me repeat that information may be and indeed ought to be withheld publicly for military reasons, but I submit that there is no precedent anywhere for withholding from the members of this house the provisions of important government and commercial contracts. Surely that is something new, something we ought not to tolerate lest we lose the only real power we possess over the executive arm of government.

To-day we are discussing the largest appropriation ever requested from this House of Commons. How do we propose to raise that money?-evidently largely by borrowing at rates of interest. Can we allow another war to provide the means for a comparatively small number of people to obtain a per-

manent lien on the future production of our people?-for that is what the payment of interest over a long term will inevitably mean.

It is true that we are asking the small men to save and to lend. Indeed a considerable amount of compulsion is being exercised in some industries to obtain contributions from the employees. And we should remember that many of those employees have been unemployed for a very considerable period of time. To-day many of the expenditures they are foregoing are expenditures upon necessities in their homes and for their families. I am not objecting to the making of appeals for voluntary aid from all classes of our citizens. I think they should be so made at this time. People who save now are being told that they are providing for the inevitable slump that will follow the war. That, too, is something worth considering.

But let me point this out: At the close of this war those small people will have to cash in on their war bonds, just as they did following the great war in connection with the victory bonds they bought at that time. All these gilt-edged securities we are issuing in large quantities and at a fairly attractive rate of interest will tend to get into the hands of those who have accumulated wealth either prior to or during the war days.

Let me repeat: I am not saying we should not encourage the sale of war bonds to the small investor. I believe we should encourage those sales. I realize that this is important, too, from an entirely different point of view; for we have to transfer productive and skilled labour from luxury industries to war industries. This is one method of achieving that objective. It is an important phase of our war savings campaign. But are we really achieving this? Not altogether, I think. Some people are denying themselves necessities. Others invest in war bonds, but deny themselves nothing. We believe that if we are to raise such huge sums now and in the future we shall have to devise new ways and means of raising at least a large part of the money required. It may be necessary for us to say eventually that we must adopt a maximum income standard as well as a minimum standard of life, and tax in full every dollar beyond the maximum standard upon which the country decides.

Meantime however let us use the instruments at our hand-and we have some instruments we could use to a greater extent than we are using them to-day. In view of the various monetary proposals which have been made lately I want to put our position, the position of this group, clearly on record. I

War Appropriation-Mr. Coldwell

may therefore be pardoned for quoting a portion of a speech I delivered in Winnipeg last October, and which my colleagues have requested me to quote. It was made before our national convention, prior to the new monetary controversy which has recently arisen, and is in these words:

The C.C.F. has always placed in the forefront of its economic policy the public ownership and control of the financial system so that money and credit could be made instruments of national policy. Proposals to this end have been met by opposition from all other groups in parliament. There are those who talk vaguely about monetary reform and advocate the issue of "debt-free" money but who fail to recognize that neither the one nor the other can be achieved as long as banks are privately-owned institutions operated for the profit of their shareholders. The C.C.F. urges parliament to make finance the servant of the people instead of allowing it to continue to be the master. Some people fail to realize that money is only a medium of exchange and a symbol. To suppose that a multiplication of symbols will win a war or cure our domestic ailments is clearly a delusion and a snare. Monetary and financial reform must be considered and instituted as part of a general and wide programme of economic reform. It is a means, not an end in itself.

Dorothy Thompson, in an article entitled, "An Ideology That Cannot Win," put the matter well when she wrote:

"The Germans did not vote themselves four billion money units for defence. They voted- had voted for them-thirty thousand planes, so and so many guns, so and so many thousand tons of reserves of oil and raw materials. The German economy is an economy of things and men; the allied economy is an economy of symbols; money. The German economy recognizes that all wealth is in goods, particularly in capital goods, and that these are not created by money, which is only the medium of exchange, but by the application of labour to materials.

The Allies had money, but failed to produce goods. The Germans had no money, but did produce them."

Thus this doughty and bitter opponent of nazism places her finger on the strength of the German programme and upon our own weakness. Hitler has prostituted a fundamental truth of socialist philosophy for a diabolical purpose even as Satan is said to be able to quote scripture to serve his ends. To win the war, to meet the needs of the post-war period we must deliver ourselves from the delusion that money is wealth, and turn to the realistic truth, that all wealth is in goods, created by the application of labour power to material things. This is the Alpha and Omega of the C.C.F. economic philosophy; this is the truth which a new government in Britain is bringing to the attention of the English-speaking world.

I quote that because I believe it summarizes the point of view we have expressed from time to time in this chamber. To-day many people are under the delusion that money is wealth, when, as I said a moment ago, it is merely a symbol, a system of accountancy, if you like, in our economic structure.

Holding these views I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) the following amendment:

That all the words after "that" in paragraph 2 of the resolution be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"the governor in council be empowered to raise, under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931,

1. by way of compulsory, interest-free loans to be levied according to ability to subscribe, and

2. by the public ownership and control and the planned use of the entire financial system, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $1,300,000,000, as may be required for the purpose of defraying such expenses or making such advances or loans, the principal of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund."

Surely we have a right to ask and to expect that when we call upon our men to fight, and perchance to lay down their lives, we should at the same time call upon accumulated wealth to place itself at our disposal. When the budget is before us we shall urge again the elimination of private profit from our war effort, but in the discussion on this bill we deem it our duty to urge the principle of compulsory interest-free loans and the public ownership and control of our financial institutions.

The publicly owned Bank of Canada has proven itself to be a most useful instrument in the control of foreign exchange and the relating of expanding currency to expanding production. Few realize when they talk of using large volumes of printed money that since July, 1939, the active circulating currency in Canada has been expanded by some fifty per cent.

When low price levels prevailed before the present war broke out, when there was unemployment and business stagnation, we advocated the issue of more money to provide more credit, to increase employment, to accelerate consumer demand and raise the price level. That was a measure of reflation which at that time we believed to be both justifiable and necessary. But the situation has changed. With an expanding war effort, with the distributing of new purchasing power in greater volume, with a lessened production of consumer goods, care must be exercised lest we bring about the disaster of inflation. In our opinion both deflation and inflation are evils which we should endeavour to circumscribe whenever it is possible to do so.

To-day inflation would not benefit agriculture whose wheat and other products are unsalable. Many of our agricultural people think that because during the great war

War Appropriation-Mr. Coldwell

inflationary period they were able to reap more dollars for their products, the same thing might happen now. However, the situation to-day is different from that which existed in 1919, 1920 and 1921. Then there was a scarcity of wheat and foodstuffs throughout a great part of the world which had been devastated by war; there was a demand and the scarcity enabled agricultural produce to rise in price.

But to-day we face an entirely different situation. We have in Canada hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat which are yet unsold. Many people have gone into the hog raising industry, and that industry is being threatened with a surplus. When that happens we shall have people going into the live stock industry, and the same thing will happen there. To-day an inflationary period would have an exactly opposite effect upon the agricultural producer to what occurred in the years following the great war. He would have to pay high prices for all the consumer goods which he uses and he would receive relatively lower prices, lower even than those which now prevail, for his commodity. As my hon. friend suggests, he would be cleaned right out, the last remaining shreds would be picked from his already pretty thin body.

Then rising prices would cause distress among those who must live on a fixed income, on relief, or a pension. It would immediately bring about a demand in industry for increased wages. In some industries increased wages are justified to-day by the already increased cost of living, but the increased wages would never catch up with the increased cost of living. We would have industrial unrest which would interfere seriously with our war effort. To my mind the only people who would benefit from such a condition would be the speculators, for whom some of our politicians apparently care more than they do for the welfare of the common people of their own provinces.

We submit that only a planned democratic control of our economy will meet this situation and the situation which we will have to face in the next several years. The days of drift, the old days of laissez-faire, have gone. Whether we like it or whether we dislike it, we have to face the hard fact that to-day we are dealing with a situation which requires organization, planning and new methods. To the extent that democracy is able to plan, to the extent that democracy through its democratic institutions is able to direct, to that extent democracy will live. We dare not allow democracy to fall and ourselves to pass under the heel of some form of totalitarian dictatorship.

That is why we place to-day complete public control, which we believe involves the ownership, of our financial system in the forefront of the proposals that we would make to this house. After all, the financial system is the means;, not only by which we account for our productive activities but by which we save. When we say that we save money, let us remember that we save goods. When we do not spend a dollar, we do not demand a dollars' worth of goods. Our financial system is the means whereby we save, whereby we invest and whereby we direct production into its various channels. Only a completely publicly controlled financial system will fill the bill at the present time. More and more the government will have to tell our people what production they require; more and more they will have to tell the people what things they ought to forego.

I heard the Minister of Finance over the radio, I think it was from Windsor, a short time ago, and if I heard him aright he said that within the next year we may require 300,000 new workers in industry in order to maintain our war efforts in the new industrial organizations which we are building at the present time. That, in addition to the men normally engaged in the industries which we cannot do without-transportation, electric power, and so on-will not only absorb all the employable unemployed, but will demand the changing over of large numbers of people from one type of industry to another. This being the case, we have to go in for more planning than we have ever gone in for before. I know that before the war I used to say that, when war comes, planning become inevitable, and that is being borne out more and more to-day. Now, we can either have a planning from the top down, autocratic, totalitarian planning, or we can have planning through our democratic institutions by the representatives of the people for the people and for the common good. That is the choice, it seems to me, which Ides before the democratic countries.

In time of war there is only one thing to do, and that is to direct all our energies to the one end, victory over the enemy. But in doing that we have to beware lest we make errors which will snatch from us the fruits of victory when the war is over. We of this group, in placing these suggestions before the house, are putting them forward not in any dogmatic way, but because we believe that they are worthy of consideration. At this time, no matter how widely our views on many things differ, we ought to have one common interest, and that is the preservation of our democratic institutions, so that in the days to come we and those who come after us shall be able to make ordered and orderly progress to a newer and a better day.

War Appropriation-Mr. Quelch

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
LIB

Georges Parent (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Mr. Coldwell moves,

seconded by Mr. Maclnnis:

That all the words after "that" in paragraph 2 of the resolution be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"the governor in council be empowered to raise, under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931,

1. by way of compulsory, interest-free loans to be levied according to ability to subscribe, and

2. by the public ownership and control and the planned use of the entire financial system, such sum or sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of $1,300,000,000, as may be required for the purpose of defraying such expenses or making such advances or loans, the principal of any such loan to be a charge upon and payable out of the consolidated revenue fund."

I would point out to the hon. member that the amendment is dealing with a resolution which has been recommended by His Excellency the Governor General for the consideration of the house. The motion before the house is that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole. Therefore this amendment is not in order.

That does not, of course, preclude the hon. member from moving his amendment if he so desires when the house is in committee of the whole; but meanwhile it is not in order.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
SC

Victor Quelch

Social Credit

Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):

First

of all, I wish to make a few comments regarding the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and also one or two observations regarding the speech made by the house leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell).

I was somewhat puzzled by a statement made by the leader of the opposition to the effect that, while he would be definitely opposed to inflation at this time, he thought possibly it might be justified at a later date.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I did not say that.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
SC

Victor Quelch

Social Credit

Mr. QUELCH:

Well, words to that effect.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I never

said it would be justified. I said we might have to consider it at a later date.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
SC

Victor Quelch

Social Credit

Mr. QUELCH:

The hon. gentleman

thought we might have to consider it at a later date. I believe most people will admit that, in times when we have unemployment and undeveloped resources, monetary expansion is occasionally necessary. As a matter of fact, we maintain that it is necessary, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), in his speech in September, 1939, admitted that for the purpose of providing fuller employment and greater production, monetary expansion

would be desirable. But I cannot understand anyone suggesting that it might be more desirable at a later date after full production had been reached.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I never

said that either.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

He did not say that

at all.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
SC

Victor Quelch

Social Credit

Mr. QUELCH:

I think Hansard will show that is what he did say.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I did not say it was desirable; I said that we might have to consider it later on.

Topic:   WAR APPROPRIATION BILL
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR GRANTING TO HIS MAJESTY AID FOR NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Permalink

February 19, 1941