Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):

I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if to-morrow he would be good enough to facilitate the answering of questions and the passing of formal motions for the production of papers, as he did a week ago.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I think it can be arranged for to-morrow.

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):

May I direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), who unfortunately is not here at the moment, to the danger, to pedestrians passing along the

esplanade in front of these buildings, from, shall I say, thoughtless motorists. I had an experience of this kind to-day, and I have heard of others. If it is necessary to put a policeman on that esplanade to prevent people from driving too fast, let us do it; but I think something will have to be done. One of the senators was seriously injured the other evening, though at that time of course visibility was very poor. The incident to-day, however, was in broad daylight and I am not as agile as I once was. I should like to ask the minister if he will do something about this.

Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

During the course of the debate yesterday at page 379, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) drew attention to an item appearing in the Edmonton Bulletin with regard to the recruiting of constables for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, containing these words:

Applicants must be single, of British racial origin.

Since this matter already has been commented upon by a section of the press I desire to make a statement concerning it.

Section 34 of the rules and regulations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police reads as follows:

All candidates must be British subjects.

I desire to state that any British subject who has the other necessary qualifications may be enlisted in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, whatever may have been the racial characteristics of his forefathers. The commissioner, whose attention has been called to this item, is investigating as to who is responsible for the phraseology which appeared in the newspaper, which certainly is equivocal.

I may add that regulation 34, which requires that applicants must be British subjects, has been in the regulations since the inception of the force.

Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-West-mount):

Mr. Speaker, it is now some two

weeks since we listened to the speeches of the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Already they have received well-merited congratulations from all sides of the house, but for two reasons I should like to add my word of congratulation as well.

The first reason is that both speeches were of an exceptionally high order. The second reason is a more personal one. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton), who moved the address, is an old personal friend of mine and a former classmate at McGill University. We were both members of what we at any rate considered the famous class of law 1921; and in addition to some other outstanding characteristics; over three-quarters of that class consisted of men who had just returned from serving in the last war. Hon. members may not be aware of the fact that the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George was the only member of our class who held the Distinguished Conduct Medal, awarded to him for gallantry' while serving overseas. In addition to providing two new members for this House of Commons that class had a further distinction, in that it furnished the first governor of the Bank of Canada in the person of Mr. Graham Towers. I would hasten to add that even twenty years ago Mr. Towers showed the sound judgment which has characterized his subsequent career when he decided at the end of his first year in law to abandon the hurly-burly of the legal profession for the more dignified calling of banking and finance.

As hon. members are aware I represent a constituency which is predominantly Englishspeaking. I should like to associate myself with the views expressed so eloquently by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George in respect to the attitude of the province of Quebec in the present war. I have lived in Quebec all my life. My father, my grandfather and my great grandfather lived there before me. I think I know the people of that province, and I could not do better than echo the words of my hon. friend when he said that there is no group in Canada who are more loyal Canadians, no group in Canada more loyal British subjects than the people of French Canada.

During the course of his remarks he touched briefly upon some of the problems of war finance, and it is with that subject I should like to deal briefly to-day.

In his admirable - speech last Thursday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) outlined the principles of war finance of the present government. He said that those principles

had received the overwhelming approval of the Canadian people, so far as there can be said to exist a public opinion on principles of war finance. I feel that this is an exceedingly important question, and one concerning which there should be discussion. In the last few days various hon. members have dealt with the subject. I shall deal with it from a viewpoint perhaps slightly different from that of hon. members who sit in the far corner of the house.

We all realize that money does not win wars. Wars are won by men and by the production of materials, and in modern warfare, while men are no less important than they ever were, I think it is fair to say that materials and machinery have become more important. War machines are not created by money; they are created by the joint application of labour and capital, in this instance represented by plant and equipment, applied to raw material.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Without money?

Mr. ABBOTT:

I said that money did not create them. I was going on to say that if men and materials do not exist no amount of money in the world can bring them into existence. So that it follows, if I am correct in my reasoning, that money and finance must take second place to men and materials.

Nevertheless, 'while finance must take second place, it plays a very important part in the productive process upon which the effective prosecution of a war depends. If it is clumsily or unwisely handled it can seriously impair that productive process, and set up strains not only during war days but after the war is over. The problem therefore of war finance is not that of winning the war but rather that of seeing to it that the war is paid for by methods which cause a minimum of disruption and distress both during and after the war.

At various places in the press and elsewhere I have noticed references to the policy of pas'-as-you-go, and one would be led to believe that that policy was deliberately chosen and that there was an alternative. Mr. Speaker, except to the extent that we may have foreign assets on which we may realize ' or obtain foreign credits, we must pay as we go. It is entirely automatic. The choice which we have lies only in the way in which the burden is imposed and distributed among the different groups of the community. The choice therefore between methods of war finance is not a choice between a greater or a lesser burden of sacrifice on the nation as a whole. That burden is fixed-not by finance, but by the number of men and the quantity of material required to fight the war.

The Address-Mr. Abbott

In spite of all that has been said by hon. members in the far corner of the house, I believe, in fact I am certain, that the total output of a nation necessarily has a limit. Of course that output may be increased by improved organization and efficiency; nevertheless the limit exists. In peace time we are accustomed to a level of production which is below capacity. We all recognize that, and we have seen it over the last ten years. It is difficult to adjust our views now to a different situation. I assume however that in war time we will raise our production to the maximum which our resources and our organization will permit. We will export all we can spare, and we will import what we must have. Then if from our total production and the amount of our imports we take away our exports and the requirements for war purposes, it is obvious that what is left is the amount available for civilian consumption.

Therefore as I see it the problem is one of apportioning the available things, and the labour to make them, between war needs and civilian needs. And our war effort should never be described as a maximum effort so long as we are taking it easy on the civilian side. If we are to divert to war purposes the maximum amount of our production we must cut down civilian consumption. That seems to me unanswerable. It is just as clear as the case of a man who spends a substantial part of his income to build an air raid shelter. He may save his life and that of his family, but he must do without the comforts and luxuries he might otherwise have.

Mr. NICHOLSON:

Will the hon. member permit a question?