April 13, 1945

CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

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

~War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply

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

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

Did you get any buildings yet?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
?

Thomas Miller Bell

Mr. COLD WELL:

No. I believe the council and the school board recently went back to look at the airport buildings at Davidson, and at another airport, to see if they could get some of them-, but as the hon. member has said it is a long process. While I am on this particular topic I have in mind that there is much other equipment, in the way of kitchen utensils, beds, hospital supplies and so on, that could be used in a good many of our small hospitals and even in- our schools for cafeteria purposes, and so on. Instead of this equipment being turned over to some private organization for resale, I think public bodies who are interested should be appraised of the possibility of getting such equipment and encouraged to obtain it, because it would be of great use in many communities, in hospitals, schools and elsewhere. I hope this point will be given some attention by War Assets corporation. I do not think it is proper to turn any material or equipment over to business organizations, who will sell it again and make some profit out of it. We have paid for it; the nation owns it, and it should be made available for socially useful purposes. I hope a policy of that kind will be worked out.

May I just comment, too, on what the hon. member for Lake Centre said with regard to the agreement which was reached among the leaders of the trade unions in the United States and the chairman of the chamber of commerce. I am not going into that matter very fully this afternoon except to say that for a long time I have thought the United States might still become a sort of capitalist island in a world moving in an entirely different direction. If we have studied the history of modern social evolution we find that nearly all nations have gone through certain evolutionary processes. And this very statement illustrates that, I think, to a degree, because my recollection goes back to the early 1900's, when you found groups of

miners, and so on, agreeing with certain organizations in Great Britain to do very much the same kind of thing as is now suggested by these people in the United States of America.

But what I was going to add was this, that the evolution of society goes on. It matters not how much an attempt may be made to hold back the progress of the world in any one community, ultimately what happens throughout the world will influence every part of the world. At the moment we find Great Britain, we find European countries, through statements by de Gaulle and other leaders over there, we find our sister nations of the British commonwealth moving, because of economic development, in the direction of greater public ownership and greater social control. It seems to me that in the United States at least, if I may put it in this way, they have not the political outlets for the common people's opinions and aspirations that we have built up-whether we are right or wrong-in countries like Canada, the other British nations, and in European countries.

The rigidity of the United States system is of such a nature that we may find in the course of the next ten, fifteen or twenty years a serious development, because of the brittle nature of the political machinery there. But I am not going into that this afternoon, because one has to develop the whole argument in order to place one's point of view comprehensively either before the house or before a public gathering. But I am convinced of this, that they may try once again, as they did in the thirties, as we did in this country when we pinned our faith to so-called private enterprise-which in modern times is monopoly enterprise; and we shall find that we have very much the same results in a few years' time as we had in the hungry thirties. If we dare risk that, or if they dare risk that in the United States-and apparently they are going to do it-then, whatever the consequences may be, when they have fifteen or twenty million men and women unemployed, perhaps with a depressed price level and no well-organized political instrument-well, let us hope that Canada may escape the consequences which will accrue within such an economic situation at that time.

I, too, was very much interested in the white paper, and that is the only reason I wanted to offer a word this afternoon. I believe that white paper, as was said by the hon. member for Lake Centre, from the point of view of those who wrote it is a very fine piece of work. I do not agree with that

860^ COMMONS

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply

point of view. I believe it is written from the wrong point of view at the present time. But while I say that, I recognize it as a document worth studying, and I say we should have had it before us long ago. We should have had a longer session, and we should have gone into this white paper very thoroughly and fully in order that we may know what we are talking about.

I say that' because, inevitably, it is an election document. It is going to be an election document, and it will be discussed. Those of us in the party to which I belong in this chamber are in the position that we are the only party which takes a view opposite to that expressed in the white paper. We do not believe in private enterprise in the sense in which my hon. friends use the term. I believe in private enterprise-but in another sense, a sense that is wider, probably, for many hundreds of thousands of young men and women in this country were, at least from 1930 to 1940, denied any chance of real private enterprise in the economic field. Their only initiative could be exercised in searching for the work they could not find from one end of the country to the other.

I was going to say this, that even this white paper, and even the speech of Mr. Winston Churchill, quoted by the hon. member, recognize that private enterprise, as it is defended in this country, has passed away. Thus this paper admits, as Winston Churchill says, that certain controls will have to be maintained. Let me add this, that you can have controls from two points of view. You can have a control which will help the people, and you can have a control which will help the corporations. Where you have a partnership between government and big business, there you have not democracy but you have fascism, if I may use the term now applied to that form of economic development and control.

But the white paper and Winston Churchill both admit that in the post-war period there must be a considerable control, at least for a considerable time. At page 20 the white paper says this:

In addition, the maintenance of certain controls will aid in meeting the more urgent requirements of reconstruction, including the first steps in industrial reconversion, the provision of more housing, and the development of export markets of a peace-time character.

That is a recognition that the controls .which we now have, and which have assisted during war, must be carried into the peace-time period-something which a few months ago was an anathema to the great corporations of this country.

Then the white paper says something which I hope our United States friends who believe in free enterprise will remember. We find this at page 6:

For its part, the government is prepared, as rapidly as circumstances permit, to facilitate, through its war-time controls and otherwise, the reestablishment of peace-time markets-

Then the sentence ends: "for Canadian exports".

May I just say this, that when we talk about improving our employment situation, when we talk about being able to make free enterprise work in this country, or in the United States, we must remember that it is not only exports in which we have to become interested. We have to become interested in imports, too.

As has often been said, and as I heard the appropriate United Kingdom minister, the president of the board of trade, say last September at the time of a conference I attended, after this war Great Britain will have to export from fifty to sixty per cent more than she exported before the war, in order to get the raw materials and foods she requires. This white paper says that we have to export in monetary terms, or in terms of goods and services, fifty or sixty, as the case may be, higher percentage than we exported before the war.

In other words we are all thinking of exports. And, in the world in which we are going to live, we cannot export unless we import; that is, unless we are prepared to continue indefinitely some forms of mutual aid. As I heard it stated last night by a commentator over the radio, I believe the whole policy in this white paper is a gamble, a real gamble on the ability of private enterprise to meet the needs of the Canadian people.

We do not believe that private enterprise, in the manner in which we speak about it in this house, can possibly do the job that is to be done. I say the governmnet has no right to engage in a gamble with the living standards of the Canadian people, and with their employment-unless, of course, it is prepared at the same time to assume the obligation for the maintenance of either full employment or the kind of a standard of living the people would get if they were to be in full employment.

This white paper states clearly-and I might have some question about this figure, because I believe it to be low, although I am going to accept it now-that if 900,000 new jobs do not materialize the government will then resort to public enterprise and industrial controls in the same manner as it has during the war. Waiting for the event to determine what we

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply

shall do is a policy that is entirely wrong and likely to bring ill effects upon the whole Canadian economy and upon the common people of this country. The white paper is an expression of hope; it is an expression of intention, but it definitely is not any kind of blueprint for the sort of post-war economy of full employment and wide distribution of goods which the people of this country have a right to expect.

I contend that the white paper fails to take into account the necessity of maintaining imports in order to improve the standards of living. It relies upon the encouragement of exports, first by the continuance of mutual aid. That is good. We have to give aid to the suffering people of Europe and of the world, but we have to give nutrition and aid to the suffering people of our own country too. After that has been done there is a proposal for the extension of credits. Credit implies that some day it will be retired. I venture to say that the only way whereby that credit can be retired, unless we are prepared to write it off and call it mutual aid, is by importing goods or acquiring services from the countries to which we export.

There is a reference in this white paper I was surprised to see. There is an approval of the Bretton Woods agreement. I understood that parliament would have an opportunity to make an exhaustive study of the Bretton Woods agreement before any sort of endorsement was given. Since this white paper has been laid on the table, although it is a document of a government whose life expires in a day or two, it will be looked upon by a good many people in this country as an endorsement by the government, perhaps even by this parliament, of the Bretton Woods agreement.

I have read a great deal on the Bretton Woods agreement and I find that the opponents of that agreement are of two entirely opposite types or groups. You find the international bankers in New York are all for the international bank but are opposed to the stabilization fund. You find that the progressive groups in Great Britain, the Labour party and so on, are opposed to many ideas behind the establishment of the international bank but look with favour upon the stabilization fund. This country has had no opportunity to study this agreement, and neither the government nor this parliament nor this country should be committed to that agreement until we have really had an opportunity of studying it and making up our minds about it.

In my opinion there are certain weaknesses in this agreement. The principal one which I should like to place upon record is the separation of the financial problem from the economic and social aspects of the whole world problem. I think that is fallacious. Finance cannot be separated from production and distribution. When we attempt to consider finance apart from production and distribution we get into the clouds and begin to believe, as some people do believe, that money is all that matters. Money does not matter at all. Anything can be money. The main things are the goods and services that support money values.

In my opinion international agreements of this type cannot be efficient or effective so long as there are economic rivalries between nations. You must tackle these economic rivalries first and then you may be able to settle your financial problems. The Bretton Woods agreement attempts to do something with regard to finance but omits altogether the more important features, the economic rivalries and the economic problems of the distribution of raw materials and living standards.

No financial agreement can be successful unless a solution is found for the distribution of the real wealth of the world across the world, and for raising the standards of living everywhere in the world. This world cannot remain at peace; this world cannot remain free as we call it free if one-half of the world is underfed, underclothed, underhoused and. indeed, underprivileged in any respect.

So I say that the real task which we ought to be considering in this house before we give any endorsement to an agreement of this type is the economic problem of production and distribution. That problem should precede and, indeed, exceed the financial arrangements that may be made in almost any field or in any respect. The Bretton Woods agreement is too limited in scope. It fails to provide also for representation in the actual councils of the people who are primarily concerned; that is, the actual producers and consumers of wealth.

Apart from this the technical arrangements of the Bretton Woods agreement seem to me to be full of imperfections. The international bank seems to be imperfect in several respects. I should like to give the committee what in my opinion is the most imperfect part of the proposed international banking system. It proposes, once again, not altogether but to a very large extent, to tie the world down to a single and scarce commodity as a standard; that is, gold. I think we should go into that very carefully before we adopt such a proposal. We should remember what happened in the 1930's and the three or four years that preceded 1930 when Great Britain and this country went back to the gold standard.

S62 COMMONS

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply

This Bretton Woods agreement gives tremendous power to two or three of the large states, to one state in particular which controls the bulk of the gold in the world. Conversely, it places the devastated areas and the more impoverished areas in an inferior and difficult, if perhaps not a hopeless position.

What I have said in these few brief words regarding this agreement does not imply for one moment that I think the Bretton Woods agreement has no merit as a basis of discussion. I think it has. I believe it contains a good many features which could form a basis of discussion, but since approval of the agreement is given on page 7 of the white paper I wanted to place myself on record before this house rises. The government may know more about it thani the rest of us, but certainly it should not be implied in any way that this house endorses the white paper's endorsement in that respect.

As I said at the outset with regard to the main proposals in this white paper, it seems to me that the government is wagering that private enterprise will be able to meet the demands of the post-war period. In my opinion the issue is far too grave to be the subject of what in effect is a huge bet. I do not believe that the white paper offers a winning policy at least for the Canadian people, whatever it may do for some powerful interests in Canada.

There are a number of other matters which I intended to discuss this afternoon but I shall refrain from doing se. There is no time to go into the multiude of things that one would like to discuss, and I shall leave them for the present. We shall have an opportunity not only on the hustings but when the new House of Commons meets-at least I hope that some of us will be here; I hope I shall be here myself, to be perfectly frank about it-to discuss these matters when the new parliament is assembled. But as we leave these problems to-day, now that we are approaching the time that we are to give approval to the appropriation bill, I must repeat what I said earlier this afternoon, that it is regrettable that the house should be placed in the position in which it finds itself of not having time to discuss matters which ought to have been discussed. The house should have been called earlier so that we were not rushed in this manner at the end. But that is the responsibility of the government, and the government must assume that responsibility.

And so, Mr. Chairman, I am going to leave these other problems that I should have liked to discuss had there been time, until a future occasion when I hope and believe that I shall have an opportunity of discussing them here.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
NAT

Percy Chapman Black

National Government

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):

Mr. Chairman, the sands of this session and of this parliament are running very low. Indeed, the leader of our party has given the undertaking that we shall not, unless some new matters are introduced, take up any more time after six o'clock, which is only fifteen minutes away.

The Department of Munitions and Supply and the Department of Reconstruction are two departments in which the people of my part of Canada are greatly interested. I believe, with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and many others who have spoken in this discussion, that we should have been given a much longer time to deal with these departments and many other matters that should come before this parliament.

Before making observations with respect to the Department of Munitions and Supply. I should like to pay my tribute to my fellow-townsman. the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Ralston) whose intention, I understand, is to retire from public life. I do so from the point of view of his friends and admirers in his home town and county, Cumberland. Colonel Ralston has had a notable career in his profession, in the provincial legislature and in the federal parliament. He had an outstanding record in the last war, and he has never spared himself in this war. He was at the head of the Department of National Defence during the critical years when problems of administration and enlistments were being dealt with, and he never spared himself day or night. To-day he must feel like applying to himself the words of Cardinal Wolsey in Henry the VIII;

Had I hut served my God with half the zeal

I served my king, he would not in mine age

Have left me naked to mine enemies.

Colonel Ralston might well feel that he has been left naked. But he has the admiration and the love, I believe, of everybody in the armed services who faces the enemy. He can be assured that when he goes back to his native county of Cumberland and his native province he will have the respect and esteem of his fellow townsmen and his fellow Nova Scotians.

The matters which are before the committee and which have been referred to by the Minister of Munitions and Supply are matters that require the serious consideration of all the members of the house. He reported that his department had spent $13,900,000,000 during the war, and that last year his department had expended $2,206,000,000. He also placed before the committee the expenditures for the current year, and only yesterday he placed before the . house a "white paper" dealing with the post-

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply

war period. These are important matters, involving long term policies and enormous expenditures, affecting the welfare of our people for long years. But we have only a few hours in which to give them consideration.

The people in the town of Amherst are largely dependent upon industry. They have enlisted in as large a percentage for any theatre as have the people of any section of Canada. They have not been able to get all the work they would like to have had. They feel that they would have got more if there had been a fairer distribution of the war work to eastern Canada. But there has been little complaint. They have accepted the situation as it existed. They have sent delegations to Ottawa, representatives of labour and other citizens, to interview the Minister of Munitions and Supply and members of the government as well as the heads of industry in Montreal. The reception they received was different from the reception which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre described a delegation from his constituency as receiving. The committees were received by the minister, who explained the situation to them as it existed. It may not have been as favourable as they would have liked it to be, but they accepted it. There has been a curtailment of work in the Canadian Car and Foundry company's plant at Amherst from about three thousand to about twelve hundred workers at the present time, with prospects of a further curtailment. Quite a number of the employees have had to leave their home community and go to central Canada, to seek work. There will be some heart-burnings in the east when they read the statement which the minister made in presenting his estimates:

The latest figures at hand show a total of 675,000 men and women employed on the manufacture of war equipment as of January 1, 1945.

That is engaged on production under his department. He goes on:

There has been a substantial decrease since January 1, 1944, but, despite this, there is every indication that our greatest labour shortage will occur in the next six months.

We have to face a situation that is different from that portrayed by the minister the other day. The committees that interviewed the minister returned home and they carried out the minister's request. They explained the situation to their associates, the people of the town, and they set up what they call a "procurement committee" to work out plans for the remainder of the war years and to make preparations for the post-war years. They enlisted the wholehearted support of their members, the heads of the company, the

mayor and town council, service organizations, patriotic and benevolent organizations, in order that there might be a definite and clear understanding of what they might expect during the war and in the post-war years. Only yesterday I had a telegram from Chignecto lodge No. 11, Knights of Pythias, stating that the lodge "joins with and supports all other organization in Amherst in connection with the brief submitted by the Amherst works procurement committee"-which was first instituted by the representatives of the labour organizations.

The town of Amherst has made over the years, what is perhaps the biggest sacrifice of any industrial community in Canada. They saw their industries submerged, absorbed by other industries, driven out of business, during the last forty or fifty years. They now want to know, and it is proper that they should know, what is to be expected in the post-war years. There is in the town of Amherst a rolling mill which is, since the closing of the plant at Trenton, the only rolling mill in Nova Scotia. The question arises whether that mill will be modernized. Although an expenditure of $1,000,000 or more is involved, the company is prepared to proceed, provided that there is reasonable encouragement and assistance from the.federal and provincial governments and if they can get power at a competitive rate. The company which generates electric power has given them to understand that if there is a firm contract they will supply power on a competitive basis, provided that they are not taxed as private enterprise is taxed in comparison with tax-free publicly generated electrical energy'. As I have said in this chamber before, the people of Cumberland are taxed in an amount of $150,000, which communities elsewhere in Canada are able to avoid, because their electric current is generated-provincially.

There is also the question of the wheel foundry' and other industries which operate at a disadvantage. There should be special post-war industries. It is unfortunate that the opportunity was not taken of establishing them during the w&r, with prospects of postwar continuation. In order to keep operating rolling mills and wheel foundries it is necessary that special consideration be given to transportation costs, both of raw materials and of the finished products.

Nova Scotia and the town of Amherst made great contributions to Canada at the time of confederation and since. Amherst is the birthplace of four of the fathers of confederation. One of these, Sir Charles Tupper, was one

864 COMMONS

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply

of the fathers of the national policy, a policy under which industrial Canada developed. If this policy had not been put into effect in this country, it would not have been possible for the minister to have brought before this house the record of industrial accomplishments which he has been able to report. So that a tribute of gratitude is due from this parliament to the memory of Sir Charles Tupper and those associated with him, to the people of Nova Scotia, and to the citizens of Amherst, who built .up their industries in confederation and have seen them fade away from causes over which they have no control. I say to the minister and to the members of this committee, if there is to be fairness, justice and contentment in this country, if we are to have a united Canada with equality of opportunity, something must be done to distribute, with some approach to equality, manufacturing and industrial opportunities. I am sorry we have not more time to discuss this matter, but it is my duty to put our position before the committee.

One other subject to which I wish to refer is a complaint which I have received from a labour organization in Amherst. That organization has given the minister and the company where its members are employed the very best service and cooperation, equal to any in Canada. The minister arranged for certain wartime housing in Amherst, for which our labourmen and citizens are grateful. In that wartime housing was included a staff house which is being closed. The executive of the labour organization in question, lodge No. 771, International Association of Machinists, wrote me through their secretary, Mr. R. C. Pettis, under date of March 28, enclosing copy of a letter from Wartime Housing Limited, signed by W. H. Nugent, mlan-ager administration department, dated March 26, addressed to the lodge, which reads in part as follows:

Attention: Mr. R. C. Fettis Re: Closing of Amherst Staff House Dear Sir:

We beg to acknowledge receipt of your night letter of March 23, relative to the closing of our men's staff house at Amherst.

We would point out that our tenants have every opportunity of registering their objections, if any, through their respective employers, or direct to this company. Any intermediary is unnecessary.

I will not read the rest of the letter.

I have a complaint from the executive of lodge No. 771, from whose letter of March 28 I will read one or two paragraphs only:

Enclosed you will find a copy of letter received from Mr. W. H. Nugent re staff house closing, which is self-explanatory.

We draw your attention particularly to the second paragraph, which questions the right of lodge 771 in taking up this matter for the workers.

We feel that a man in Mr. Nugent's position should be given to understand that labour organizations represent "workers" and have every right to intercede for their membership in any matters of this nature that affect their welfare.

I ask you, Mr. Chairman, how can this government expect cooperation from labour organizations when they are given rebuffs such as they received in this case? I brought this matter to the attention of Mr. John A. Marsh, special assistant to the minister; and he expressed regret that it had occurred and suggested that it would not occur again.

There is much more I could say, but it is six o'clock.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

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

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
NAT

Thomas Langton Church

National Government

Mr. CHURCH:

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

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

I shall be very glad to do so either now or on the committee stage of the bill, whichever my hon. friend prefers.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

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

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. KNOWLES:

Will it be possible to ask questions at that time?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

When the bills are in committee.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 3, for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Mr. ILSLEY moved the second reading of the bill.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

I take it that this is the time we rise?

War Appropriation

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Let us get it into committee.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
IND

Frédéric Dorion

Independent

Mr. DORION:

I understand there is a motion for second reading of the bill. Before the motion is carried I have a few remarks to make, and I would ask you, sir, to call it six o'clock.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
IND

Frédéric Dorion

Independent

Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):

Mr. Speaker, as I said at six o'clock, I have just a few words to say on this motion for second reading of the bill, and at the end of' my remarks I shall move an amendment.

According to the latest declarations made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott), on the eve of a general election the government is endeavouring to convince the people that there will not be compulsory service in the war against Japan. The hon. member for Westmount went on to say that after the war in Europe was over the mobilization act would be repealed. Such promises are not altogether new to the people of the province of Quebec. During the course of the last twenty-five years we have been told the same thing at every federal election, as well as at provincial and even municipal elections. We were called upon to give our support and confidence to the Liberal party. We were assured that by so doing we would be saved from going into any future war. Unfortunately for the Liberal party, however, when world war No. 2 was declared it was a Liberal government that was ruling Canada. Then all previous engagements taken and promises made to the province of Quebec suddenly vanished. They had gone with the wind. Now that we are about to venture upon another political campaign the Liberal party thinks the same old hackneyed story still stands. I am sure, and the by-elections held during these last few years have abundantly shown, that the Liberal party has lost the confidence of the old Liberal province of Quebec. The motto of Quebec is "Je me souviens" or "I remember." Hence, on the next polling day, before casting their votes citizens of Quebec will remember and tell themselves:

I remember 1917 when you told me, you Liberal members, that I must condemn those who, even if they have not made any promises, 32283-55

had declared war against Germany; those who imposed conscription; those who had chased my sons whether they were farmers or sons of farmers.

I remember 1921, when you Liberal members asked me to vote confidence in [DOT] you because my sons had been gaoled by the Union government for failing to report to the military authorities during the war. You told me that, even if my sons were defaulters, they should not have been prosecuted.

I remember 1925 and 1926, when you came back to my province and told me that I should not forget the hardships of 1917 and 1918, as imposed by the Union government. I remember the cartoons which appeared at the time in le Soleil, the official Liberal newspaper in Quebec, showing the leader of the Union government with blood-stained hands offering Canada to the imperialists.

I remember 1930, when you came back to my province and advised me that if I voted for the Conservative party my sons would be dispatched at once to European battlefields. I remember the day preceding the 1930 election, when you published in le Soleil and la Presse a false telegram entitled "London, the Tories and the War," reading as follows:

In Great Britain it is hoped that the Conservatives shall triumph in Canada, so that war may be waged in Egypt and India.

I remember 1935, when you told me that Hitler was becoming dangerous in Europe and that I should vote for the Liberal party in order to prevent Canada from becoming engaged in a second world war.

I remember 1938, when the late minister of justice stated in Quebec city, as reported at the time in le Soleil:

Instead of going to war in foreign lands, we shall stay home to defend the Canada we love.

I remember 1939, when in the course of a provincial election you told me that even if you had declared war, nevertheless you stood as a bulwark against conscription and against every form of compulsion.

I remember 1940, when you told me that if the Liberal party was returned to power we should have a moderate, voluntary and free war effort.

Remembering all these things, how can I have any confidence in this party after what has been going on during these last five years? War was declared by the Liberal government. Mobilization of all the national resources was imposed by the Liberal government. Total conscription for service anywhere was forced upon us by the Liberal government, notwithstanding prior engagements taken or promises

War Appropriation

made. Our sons are conscripted and fighting on European battlefields, and now you have the courage to tell me that if any other party were to gain power, things would be worse. My answer is: they cannot be worse. Furthermore, if I have been misled by the Conservatives, I have been equally misled by the Liberals; and, having no confidence in the C.C.F. party, there is only one choice left. I must have representatives in the House of Commons who will not be tied up by party machinery or political partisanship, who will really represent my interests rather than be the tools of a political party.

In view of what I have just said and in order to give a chance to the Liberal government, particularly the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Westmount, to be believed by the population of the province, of Quebec, I ask them to take, before the next election, a definite stand by voting for the following amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), that all the words after the word "that" in the present motion be deleted and substituted by the following words:

this house is of the opinion that no money should be spent for the enforcement of the National Resources Mobilization Act, as well as order in council 8891, and that the above act chapter 13, IV, Geo. VI. and also the above order in council be repealed at once.

Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata) : I have just a word to add to what has been said. This motion is clear; it speaks for itself. It is not at all in opposition to the bill. It simply gives a direction to the government, which is a committee of the house, in regard to the spending of money; and that direction comes from parliament. The meaning of this amendment is that no money' shall be spent for conscription after the statements made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence, and by other leading members of the government. I support this amendment on account of the statement made by the Prime Minister on the first day of March over the radio, when he used this one sentence at the end of the second paragraph:

The reinforcement pools overseas are more than amply filled to meet the needs anticipated by the field commanders.

This is the statement of the Prime Minister, and I am sure he does not speak through his high hat, as some of his colleagues do. He must be well informed, well acquainted with the war situation, and he could not make such a statement without being sure of his facts.

Taking it for granted that the Prime Minister informed himself before making that

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

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Question.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Vien (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Does anyone wish to speak on the amendment? I am of the opinion that the amendment is in order. Therefore the question is that bill No. 3, for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security, be read a second time, to which the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay has moved that-

All the words after the word "that" in the present motion be deleted and substituted by the following words: "this house is of the

opinion that no money should be spent for the enforcement of the National Resources Mobilization Act, as well as order in council 8891, and that the above act, chapter 13, IV, Geo. VI, and also the above order in council be repealed at once.

Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE: (Minister of Veterans' Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I am in order, but I wish to point out that if this amendment carries it means that the whole war effort of Canada is retarded and impaired. Under the circumstances it is a most serious amendment to contemplate.

I understand Your Honour has ruled it to be in order, but with all respect and deference to Your Honour's ruling, I have some doubts that it is in order. However, in view of your ruling, I have nothing further to say.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Vien (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am willing to hear your argument regarding it.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

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

War Appropriation

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

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):

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

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

I agree entirely with what my colleague the Minister of Finance has said. There is no specific amount mentioned in the amendment which would be a reduction of the vote. I suggest, therefore, that the whole thing is completely out of order.

amendment is in order. I have so ruled. The question now before the house is that bill No. 3, for granting to His Majesty aid for national defence and security, be read a second time, to which the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has moved:

That all the words after the word "that" in the present motion be deleted and substituted by the following words: "this house is of the opinion that no money should be spent for the enforcement of the National Resources Mobilization Act, as well as the order in council 8891, and that the above act, chapter 13, IV, Geo. VI, and also the above order in council be repealed at once.

Perhaps I should have said, when some exception was taken by the Minister of Veterans' Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) to the effect that it would mean that no money was being granted, that there is in my judgment relevancy in reducing the resolution therein contained as sanctioned and authorized by the governor general. But if it had been to increase, it would have been different.

However, the amendment is that the house is "of the opinion that no money should be spent". The question is on the amendment.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY
Permalink

April 13, 1945