May 10, 1943

LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

There was no abuse.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Vien (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think there were one or two statements made by the hon. member which he should not have made.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

I did not say the hon.

gentleman had been fired; I said he was a gentleman of leisure but was not taking advantage of his leisure to read nice novels or useful information. He takes it very badly. But now his smile has come back. He does not realize how much better he looks when he smiles than when he frowns. My time having now expired I shall have other opportunities to give more information for the benefit of the hon. gentleman if he is kind enough to listen to me.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
IND

Joseph Sasseville Roy

Independent

Mr. J. SASSEVILRE ROY (Gaspe):

Before moving' an amendment to this motion for second reading of this bill I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), upon the light he has been giving the house on Barclays bank and on that scheme of finance which operates in England, France and Italy, if I understood him aright, and in Canada as well. It helps us to understand some of the explanations given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) on this scheme of ours for the granting of $1,000,000,000 worth of goods to England and to the united nations. I could give the house some extracts from one debate which occurred in the parliament at Westminster last October, chiefly from the speeches of Sir Kingsley Wood and Mr. Strauss on the bank for international

settlement at Basle, Switzerland. I think it would help the house to understand what has not been explained by the Minister of Finance with regard to his scheme for this gift of $1,000,000,000 which he has modified and changed to a certain extent since last year, although the principle remains the same.

I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Temiscouata and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) upon the speeches they made last Thursday in this house. I am perfectly in accord with what has been said by these two hon. gentlemen, and if I am permitted to make a resume or to summarize what has been said I will do so in this way.

The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres said that our policy in this war seems to be inspired) by the colonial spirit, and thoroughly lacking in Canadian patriotism, and1 that the thing w'e were doing was done with a view to please England. I think this is quite true. The only explanation as to our policy and attitude in the last few years is that it is a certain sentimental affair rather than a business one inspired by a truly Canadian patriotism. Let me point out a few absurd features of our policy. We are told every day by the government's propaganda that this war is our war. Even last Thursday I think, in the discussion between the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) this was said, that it was not England's war, that it was our war. To a certain extent that may be true, but may I recall what the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres said last Thursday. He said that Canada was not responsible for what led up to the war before it commenced. We were not responsible for anything, but it seems we have the obligation to-day more than other countries of winning the war, as if England and the United States were not as closely concerned with it as we are. I cannot imagine a country which is fighting this war as a sovereign country, a country which has declared war by itself in its own name, a country which according to a statement made by a certain minister on a particular occasion a few weeks ago should walk with its head high after the war, and yet has no national citizenship, because we still continue to call ourselves British subjects. It is said it is Canada's war, although there are no Canadian citizens. We are obliged to make oath to testimony' or in casting our votes on election day that we are British subjects; we are not Canadian subjects. Yet Canada is at war as a sovereign country. That is nonsense. That sovereign country has not yet denied the right of His Majesty the King

Mutual Aid Bill

of disallowance of our laws for two years, and we still have appeals to the privy council. I cannot understand-and that is the worst of all those nonsenses-how we are to walk among the nations after the war with our head high, without having a flag. As I say, we have no flag. Other countries are laughing at us because these conditions remain, despite the fact that we are supposed to be a sovereign country, and despite the passage of the statute of Westminster.

A Canadian Press report appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of Friday, May 7, under a Washington date line is headed, "World may decide old question of flag for Canada", and contains these words:

The first thing Canada knows she will have a flag of her own, despite the inability of parliament to make up its mind whether the dominion wants one. In most public buildings in Washington, in store windows, canteens and recreation centres the flags of the united nations are draped together. Canada, the only united nation without a distinctive flag, is represented by the red ensign bearing the Canadian coat of arms, which, of course, is not an official Canadian flag at all. If this goes on long enough, the rest of the world may decide Canada's flag question for her.

That is the way it is in a country, the people of which devote so much of their time to the war, believing that they are working in Canada's interests, but who forget about straightening out matters which belong yet to the colonial statute.

We are glad, apparently, to be praised for everything we do as long as it is done for England! This is nonsense, and it is proof that I am right in what I say. It is all right to say that this is Canada's war, and that Canada declared war freely, on her own behalf. It is all right to say that she had her king sign the declaration of war independently of England. But when we look at the whole story we find that our patriotism is not moving for Canada, at all. All we have done has been done to be agreeable to England. We have not been caring for our own interests.

I believe it is true that the form of the gift this year will be slightly different from that of last year. From the minister's explanation it would seem that Canada cannot provide for any help to the united nations, unless it is given free. We know the United States has given some help to England and to other united nations, including Russia and China, but these have not been gifts. These aids are given through the lend-lease measure. England is adopting the same procedure with respect to China and Russia. If these countries can operate on a basis

which looks a little more businesslike, why cannot Canada do the same thing? Oh, no, it would not be good enough for good imperialists to do it in that way! It must be done by way of gift, to show ourselves more generous, and more imperialistic! I do not believe these are sound business, principles.

Last year we lent England about $750,000,000 without interest. At a later date we read in the newspapers that England had lent about the same amount to China, but with interest. England is still doing business. A survey of what was said in the British House of Commons last October with respect to the international settlement bank would show that England is still doing business, and would throw a great deal of light on the financial situation as it exists not only among the united nations, but among all nations on earth. This is the most extraordinary scandal ever seen in the world before. There is no name for it.

One tries fo make us believe we cannot help the united nations unless we do so by way of gift. We try to make people believe that England has no currency, and that a too heavy debt by England to Canada might hurt our trade after the war. All this is nonsense. What we are doing can be explained only in one way, namely, that we want to show ourselves as being generous. We compete in trying to see which one is to be more imperialistic. That is all there is to it. If we look into the situation we must see that England is still doing business, and I do not blame her for it. She has more sense in her policy than we have in ours. Any country so proud of itself that it considers the whole war is its responsibility should act first for itself, instead of devoting all its love and ambitions toward any other country, and should1 be proud and serious enough to do business on principles we were taught by England herself.

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion):

That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that this parliament has received no mandate permitting it to enact a measure which involves the principle of making gifts of goods or money to other countries and that, therefore, such action on its behalf would be contrary to the sound principles of democracy.

With respect to the first gift made last year, I said I could not refrain from objecting to such a measure, because I had not received a mandate from my constituents to make a gift amounting to about $4,500,000 for each county. Despite my stand in the matter, the gift was granted by the House of Commons.

Mutual Aid Bill

I asked that the principle I set out be safeguarded, but I was not listened to. However, at a later time we heard the criticism from Australia that our gift had benefited England. This year the minister has changed1 his measure slightly, but the principle is the same, and for tha same reason I oppose it.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
IND

Lionel Bertrand

Independent Liberal

Mr. LIONEL BERTRAND (Terrebonne) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, we are now

discussing a hill recommending an expenditure of $1,000,000,000 so that war supplies may be made available to the united nations. My speech will be very brief. I am opposed to this measure. I will vote against it, for the following reasons: Last year, Canada made a gift of $1,000,000,000 to Great Britain. Furthermore, she granted to Great Britain an interest-free loan of $750,000,000 without any maturity date being set. Considering the small population of Canada and the inadequacy of her protection, the action taken in both cases was against the interest of this country and if was detrimental to national security.

In February last, parliament voted $858,000,000 to enable the government to meet expenditures up to April 1. That was nearly $1,000,000,000. This included a sum of $200,000,000 for the purchase of interests held by Great Britain in some war industries of Canada. I may say in passing, that I fail to understand why Great Britain, in return for the gift of $1,000,000,000, should not have seen fit to give those interests to this country, thereby showing at least some gratitude.

At the beginning of the war.-that is in September, 1939-Canada's debt amounted to $3,152,000,000. Let us- face the facts. That debt had resulted from seventy-two years of confederation and it included1 the cost of the last war. On April 1, 1943, the debt amounts to $7,861,000,000. After less than four years of war,, that is after exactly 43 months of war, our debt has increased by $4,709,000,000.

Our expenditures for the fiscal year 1943-44 will reach $5,500,000,000, of which a sum, $4,890,000,000 is directly connected with the war. A deficit of nearly $3,000,000,000 is expected, so that on April 1, 1944, Canada's debt will amount to $10,000,000,000, or about $900 per capita.

Who will pay that debt? Certainly not the other nations. Before the war, in 1939 for instance, our yearly expenditures amounted to $550,000,000. Our people thought that this was a staggering sum. After the war, that debt will have to be paid. Is it realized that a sum of $200,000,000 will have ,to be paid out every year for interest, if the war comes to an end during this fiscal year. But if it

should last one or two years longer, and if our expenditures should continue at the same rate, what staggering sums shall we have to pay for the interest on our debt? Taxation will not end with the close of hostilities. Taxes are now weighing heavily upon the shoulders of the Canadian ratepayers. Our income tax, heavier than in Great Britain and in the United States, has now become not only the taxation of income but also a levy on capital and savings. The middle classes find it impossible to save anything. The taxes now being levied are cutting into the capital of those people who have a fixed income; they are cutting into the capital of manufacturers, especially those in the lower and middle brackets, who must meet obligations incurred before the war. One of our best economists, who is, besides, a prominent banker, recently said:

Many industrial companies, whose equipment is depreciating all the more rapidly because it is being used at an accelerated rate, find themselves, after they have paid their taxes, without funds for keeping their plants up to date. When peace returns, how can the normal economic activity that is so essential to social order be resumed if the great or small industrial ventures in this country are not on a sound financial basis?

The $1,000,000,000 of 1942 and the same amount to be provided in 1943 increase by that much the debt of our country. We are told that this is war. War has become an easy pretext for everything. From 1930 to 1939, the governments were refusing to provide a few million dollars for the relief of unemployment. Instead of creating something- anything-which would1 have been an asset for this country, they were handing out unemployment doles. Nothing was done during the depression with a view to alleviating the distress and raising the morale of the workers who wanted work, not charity. In 1939 war came. Immediately it was possible to find millions and even billions of dollars, and for the last four years the orgy of expenditure has been going on, unchecked and dismaying.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill gives unlimited powers to the government. A sum of $1,000,000,000 is being askedi for the purpose of making war supplies available to the united nations. What are those nations? The United States? I do not think so. Is it Great Britain? Well, what are those nations? We are not told. What nation will have the major part of those supplies? What procedure will be followed? Will the supplies be given or loaned? No explanation is given in this connection. As the governor in council may determine conditions and terms as he sees fit, he may loan them but he may also give them if he deems it proper to do so.

Mutual Aid Bill

In other words, the government asks the members to empower them to spend $1,000,000,000 but they do not tell them to whom or how that money will be allotted. Once the sum of $1,000,000,000 is voted, the governor in council becomes the sole administrator, he has every right and every privilege. Once again, the members are being called1 upon to act as rubber stamps.

This measure also recommends the establishment of a commission to be known as the Canadian Mutual Air board on which five members of the cabinet are to sit. I have no reason to gainsay these gentlemen's qualifications, but did not the Prime Minister state here on February first that ministers were so busy that they were forced to seek the assistance of boards and commissions? Now I don't know that they have any less work to do at the present time. Besides, the bill provides for the appointment of officials who will assume direction of the undertaking. Will these officials be held accountable to the nation? History marches on.

In proportion to its population, Canada is more heavily engaged in this war than any other nation. This may be a world war but all countries are not involved to the same extent. It is a conflict in which Canada has less at stake than the United States and certainly far less than Great Britain. Canada has no colonies to defend, no trade to promote over the whole wide world, no prestige to uphold over the seven seas. And yet, its population of only eleven million has consented to every sacrifice for the sake of the common cause. Eight- hundred thousand of her sons arc now under arms, serving in her volunteer forces in the three arms and on all fronts. We are being subjected to restrictions of all sorts. The country is producing to its maximum capacity. We are drawing heavily and recklessly upon our natural resources, and without regard for our future needs. Our war effort has become so exaggerated as to border on hysteria. Can a country such as this conceivably be considered at one and the same time a granary, an arsenal and a manpower reserve without this triple obligation shaking its financial structure and jeopardizing its political economy? The consequences of such a policy are even now being felt. Our overstrained war effort is daily creating new problems which, because they cannot be solved, will soon take the form of genuine calamities for the whole nation. War effort, indeed, but let the needs of the nation be taken into account; before spending money for the benefit of other countries, it is imperative for the government to see that our needs are provided for. Are they being actually provided

for? It would take too long to mention them all; one should talk about the labour shortage, caused by a mobilization act which does not sufficiently take into account the most legitimate needs of agriculture, lumbering operations and industries of eveiy description. The question of firewood has not as yet been settled; it may develop to-morrow into a national calamity, despite the fact that our country is abounding in forests. Total war effort, they exclaim! Is Canada still perchance within the empire a colony from which any demand may be made and which must give everything without a murmur?

It is all very well to make gifts. I can understand why English language newspapers both from Great Britain and other parts of the empire spoke so highly of the government's intention to contribute another billion dollars. All the countries of the empire claim their share of it: such a booty! In a double column editorial published about the middle of February, the Sydney Telegraph, an Australian newspaper, commented on the Canadian Mutual Aid plan, under the caption: "Canada serious about war debts". Here is the announcement as reported by the Canadian Press:

Both economically and morally, Canada has set an example for the rest of the world in virtually cancelling war debts before they are entered in the books of the debtor countries.

Since Canada understands that the second world war is as much her business as that of any one else and in view of the fact that she realizes the economic stupidity of claiming the refunding of war debts, Canada makes her second war gift of one billion dollars to the united nations. _

Nearly a year has elapsed since the first gift was made to Great Britain. Economists stated at the time that it was not only a fine contribution to the winning of the war but also that it was Canada's first contribution to win the peace.

We have spared nothing to help our allies win this war. But we must also think of the post-war period. Canada will have to maintain her activities-her industries, her trade, her agriculture, her mines, her forests, and all the spheres which constitute the activities of a nation. Will Canada win the peace if, as a result of excessive spending. overreaching the limits of common sense and the very principle of self-preservation, she is to find herself in a deplorable financial situation, and possibly at the mercy of other nations which, having taken advantage of her generosity, will not even acknowledge the services rendered?

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
NAT

John Ritchie MacNicol

National Government

Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):

Mr. Speaker, my remarks on the second reading of the bill will be brief. I have listened to several addresses this afternoon in opposition

Mutual Aid Bill

to the bill, but I am rising to support the bill. I cannot understand the attitude of certain members, and yet they have a perfect right to take any position they like with respect to this bill. What I keep before me all the time is, first, that Canada declared war. It is Canada's war. If Canada lost the war it would not be a question of putting up one billion dollars, because the Germans would either take the whole of Canada or ask us to put up one hundred billion dollars, more likely, than one billion dollars. Therefore I am going to support the bill, knowing that in doing so I am supporting a more vigorous prosecution of the war. I cannot help saying to myself, however, that Canada, in voting as it did one year ago one billion dollars to support the motherland, did materially assist in the winning of the victories in North Africa which have just taken place. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said this afternoon in a good statement, which I was very glad to hear, that Canadian equipment-I presume he meant the whole line of our Canadian equipment, including guns, tanks, motor vehicles of all kinds, as well as the heroic work of Canadian aviators-had a large place in helping to win these victories. While I cannot understand the attitude of certain members of this house, they have a right to take what attitude they like. But whether we like it or not, tve are in this war and have to fight it, and we have to put up the money to win it. There is no doubt where Canada stands. I am one of those who are willing to put up the money that is required, and if I were a younger man I would gladly fight if the government would send me over there. I am all out to support this bill.

Having said that, I hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), if he speaks again on the second reading, will try to clear my thoughts in one connection. I am wondering why the government did not adopt the same procedure as was followed last year. I quite appreciate that for any contribution which Canada makes to any other country we should get the credit, if that is what we wish, and personally I see no reason why we should not get the credit. But I cannot help feeling that if this bill had called for a direct contribution to Britain as the bill last year did, we should still be given the credit, and it would be more in line with my thoughts to make this contribution direct. However, the minister advanced some reason for not making a direct contribution as was done last year, but I would ask him to explain that a little further because I keep saying to myself: Is this method being taken this year to please certain men in the house and others outside who talk as if they

were in favour of separatism instead of united support of Britain in this war? I certainly am not a separatist. I am in favour of closer connection, if there could be any, with the rest of the British empire. I am opposed to any attempt to take Canada out of the empire.

In the preamble there are a few words which I should like to have seen left out of the bill. I believe the bill would be stronger if they were left out. In the fourth last line of the preamble appear these words: "or lead to the imposition of trade restrictions". I cannot see why these words were inserted. Certainly no one knows better than the minister himself that there will have to be some trade restrictions after the war, for no country can exist without certain trade restrictions. When the war ends there will be many, many thousands of men laid off work immediately. I was talking on Saturday last to a man who is in charge of a plant employing 4,500 men and women, and he said, "Mr. MacNieol, the day after the war ends, unless the government will take over the direction of these 4,500 men and women or provide work for them in some other line than our present production, I shall be compelled to lay them off". The government may determine to provide other lines of industry to keep the plant in operation, and if it does, certain trade restrictions will be required. Therefore I cannot understand just why these words,, "or lead to the imposition of trade restrictions", are necessary in this bill. The bill is for the purpose of contributing one billion dollars to Great Britain and to our allies, and I do not see that trade really enters into the bill at all.

As one who has long been associated with working men, I am proud of what the Canadian working men in industry have done in this war, and they have done it under provocation by those who would like to see them go out on strike. But the vast number of our Canadian working men, after listening to those who would provoke a strike, have stayed on at work, and even in those plants where there have been strikes the men have gladly returned to work at the first opportunity. Canadian men and Canadian women working in our industrial war plants ever since the war broke out have through their efforts played a large part in the splendid victories in North Africa within the last few days, and also, we hope, in the victories which are in the offing. Their work has, in my judgment, materially assisted, to end the war more speedily, and end it victoriously.

Mutual Aid Bill

I reiterate in conclusion that Canada declared war; she is in the war, and if we lose it Canada will be one of the greatest sufferers. Therefore I should like this house to show unanimity for the successful prosecution of the war and, in assisting that end, through the voting of this thousand million dollars. I am sorry to see that the motion for the second reading of this bill is not to be adopted unanimously. I am wholly against the amendment and I am for the bill.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
CCF

Angus MacInnis

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

Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):

My remarks on the second reading of this bill will be very brief. As the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has just said, I regret very much that this measure has not the unanimous approval of the house. There is only one assumption on which I can conclude that any hon. member opposes the bill, namely that he is opposed to the war in its entirety. To suppose that we can support the war, that we can stand up as we did to-day and congratulate the nations, the leaders and the men who were concerned in the victory in North Africa, while opposing a measure of this kind to help Canada to contribute her share in supporting the common war effort, is completely beyond my comprehension.

It was stated in the house the other day, when the bill was in the resolution stage, that Canada had nothing to gain materially from this war. Well, I did not know that this war was being fought for material gain. I thought we were fighting it for more than material ends. I had supposed that Hitler was fighting the war for material gains, but that the united nations were not. I thought that what Canada had to gain from this war was freedom; and I want to say something now which possibly I have never said before in this chamber, that I argued and urged that our party favour participation in this war from the very beginning. I did so because, first of all, I was opposed to nazism and fascism from their very inception. I deplore the attitude our country took in regard to Spain, where there was a rehearsal going on for this war, which anybody could see coming. It amazed me at the time that men like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and other members of the cabinet in those years should have stood for such a policy.

While I favoured Canada going into this war, I realized that it could not be fought without young Canadians losing their lives. I realized at the same time that I was beyond military age and that I would not be asked to give my life in this war, and you could not look in' a young man's face and say that you were prepared to sacrifice him except for some great and compelling reason. The reason, with

me, why I could support a war wherein young men would have to give their lives was that even the sacrifice of their lives would be less terrible than what Hitler had done to the minds and the souls of the youth of Germany. That must have been the motive force actuating anyone who favored participation in this war. We are not in it for material advantage, we are in it for freedom, and we must be most careful to see to it that when the military victory is won, the freedom for which our young men fought and died will be attained. The only thing which worries me is that we are not yet convinced of the economic, social and ideological reasons behind this war, and we may not be prepared to make sure that economic and social conditions in the countries concerned will be such that there will be no more war.

I was amazed the other day to hear an hon. member, I believe the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), say that we did not get anything out of the last war as other countries did, and that for our contribution to the present war we should receive Newfoundland and Jamaica and Nassau and Bermuda. Let me tell the hon. member for Temiscouata that the people whom I represent in this house, the workers of Vancouver East, are not asking for any rewards of that kind out of the war. They are asking for freedom, for the right of access to the means of life and for the abundance which they believe can be achieved once the restrictions placed upon production by the greed of private interests have been removed. Those are the things we are asking for, and that is what we hope we shall get.

To make the contradiction still less understandable, the hon. member for Temiscouata remarked that he wanted Canada to remain in the British empire. Well, if Canada remains in the empire, and Newfoundland, Bermuda, Jamaica, the Bahamas and the rest are also part of the empire, what difference does it make whether they belong to Canada or to some other section of the empire? Personally I am not particularly fond of empires; I would much rather remain in the British commonwealth, and I hope that some day we shall be able completely to displace "empire" by "commonwealth", that we shall all be in that commonwealth on equal terms, and that no nation will exploit another or hold it as a colony for purposes of exploitation. These are the things for which we are fighting the war, and we should be quite clear about them.

The nazi powers went into this war for world conquest. Canada could not avoid participating in it any more than the United States could. It was folly to suppose that

Mutual Aid Bill

Germany could not cross the Atlantic ocean. I remember when I was returning to Vancouver after the 1939 war session a friend asked me, "Angus, how can you believe that Germany can invade this country?" "Well," I said, " I cannot explain it; I have no understanding of military strategy; but I believe I have some understanding of the mentality behind nazism, and I have noticed during the years from 1933 to 1939, when Hitler was making one aggression after another, every time he had a success the enthusiasm of nazi-minded people everywhere was raised, and if that went on much longer Germany would not have to invade the North American continent in order to impose nazism on us; there would ' be enough nazis here to do the job." I realized the same thing on a short visit to Europe in 1936. For goodness sake, let us realize what is at stake. We either win this war or we lose freedom, and that does not mean freedom for the countries now occupied by Germany; it means freedom for every human being on earth. Therefore, either we have to win freedom, freedom for all, or all will lose freedom.

Mr. EMMANUEL d'ANJOU (Rimouski) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the government request hon. members of the house to vote a one-billiion-doUar gift to the united nations, that is, Great Britain, China and Soviet Russia. During the last session, the government obtained the consent of the majority of members to the billion-dollar gift to Great Britain. I have fought this inconceivable measure at the time and I have voted against it. At the present session, my vote against the budget submitted to parliament by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) was a condemnation of the gift which is presently being discussed, since the huge sum hon. members are now requested to vote formed an integral part of the proposition presented by our great financial expert.

However, I shall not stop at that, Mr. Speaker, and I shall further emphasize my stand by fighting this measure with the utmost energy and by voting against it with eagerness being sincerely convinced that I thereby discharge my trust in its entirety.

While, last year, the Canadian parliament was paying tribute to England to the tune of one billion dollars, Great Britain was lending fabulous sums to China at a remunerative rate of interest. It was simply carrying coal to Newcastle. The greater part of the Canadian people strongly condemn the scandalous gift the government request the members of this house to approve.

How is it. Mr. Speaker, that the government can find money to present gifts to

FMr. Maclnnis.]

Great Britain, while they could1 not make any sums available to our people during the long depression that preceded the present war? While unemployment was at its highest level in Canada, while numerous cases of dire want were to be found in all parts of the country, the government claimed they were unable to control these conditions for lack of the necessary money. In my constituency, there are many settlements in great need of necessities, where settlers and their families suffer from hunger and lack of clothing. Instead of sending gifts to Great Britain, the government should assist those who, in Canada, do not enjoy the bare necessities of life.

I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) and, Mr. Speaker, I shall support his amendment. Whatever views may have been uttered by certain members of this house who are stauncher imperialists than the king himself, I shall stand by the opinions I expressed last year when I protested against the billion-dollar gift to England. I shall further state, Mr. Speaker, that the government has no mandate to ask the house to vote this million-dollar gift to Great Britain. In the course of the 1940 election campaign, have the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), or the Right Hon. Minister of Justice, the late Mr. Lapointe, ever stated in public that, provided they were returned to power, they would not only per-< severe in their immoderate participation in the world conflict, but would also make to England, on two successive years, a gift of one billion dollars each, while the latter, as I said before, is lending money at a good rate of interest.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Gaspe, because I consider it both reasonable and opportune. I hope all the members on this side of the house entertain the same views and will also vote for this amendment.

Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I

have listened caref-ully to the speech in which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said, a few minutes ago, that we have seen a spectacular repetition of the events which led to the Spanish war. In an efficient statement which the hon. member has made with much vigour and eloquence and with a breeziness which I take pleasure in acknowledging, he has told us that we had then witnessed premonitory signs of what was to happen when Hitler should decide to open the hostilities.

Mutual Aid Bill

Well, Mr. Speaker, who are those responsible, what government is responsible for the establishment of nazism in Europe, who are the people responsible for the establishment of the ideology against which we are now fighting and to which we are opposed? The responsibility lies on those who prevented France from keeping her troops on the Rhine, at a time when war could still be staved off. Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, who were the people who kept aloof from the war in Spain, a conflict which was the forerunner of the war in Europe. Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, who were the people who said to Russia at the time, of the Munich agreement: "We do not want you to become embroiled in this quarrel". Who were the people who prevented Russia from helping Czechoslovakia when the government of that country requested the aid of Russia in order to fight German aggression?

We are all opposed to nazism and fascism, Mr. Speaker. But let me say that in the case of a country like Canada, which has done so well since the beginning of the war, it should not be forgotten that Canada could at the very beginning have taken the same stand as Ireland, and remain neutral as she could have done by right. We had our independence and the statute of Westminster to protect our neutrality. I only repeat now what I said at the beginning of hostilities.

I understand that since war has been declared, we must win it. That is my belief. We must win the war but we have no right to lose the peace for Canada later on.

You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that last year the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) included in the budget of 1943 the sum of $1,000,000,000 which we gave away without the slightest restriction. That is what brought the taxes on wage-earners to their present high level. The further sum of $1,000,000,000 which we are giving this year will be reflected in the budget of 1944 and we shall then witness a constant increase of the taxes on wage-earners, on the people in the lower and middle income brackets. Where will such a system lead us? You have heard honourable members of this house state that taxes are higher here than in England or in the United States. Is it right that we should do more than England and the United States? Remember, Mr. Speaker, that our country has a population of only 11,000,000 with an area as large as Europe. Can we rightly lay on the shoulders of Canadian ratepayers a load from

which they will never be able to free themselves after the war? We have no right to do that. Of course, I fully admit that we must win the war, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) on that point. But we have no right to plunge this country, after the war, into a depression from which recovery will be utterly impossible. We have fought in 1914-18. What advantage or benefit has Canada derived therefrom? None at all. We must avoid throwing Canada into a rut as will happen after this war if we continue to follow our present policy. From the standpoint of Canadian interests, the policy which we are now following verges on madness. We are bent on doing more and better than anyone else. We have the testimony of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill. We have the testimony of Mr. Eden, who stated that we had done more than any other country in the world. Well, is it not for us the height of folly to do more than any other country in the world when our population is only 11,000,000 and when our possibilities are distinctly limited.

Of course, we must win the war, but our effort should remain within the bounds of common sense, instead of verging on madness as it now does. Otherwise, what will happen after the war, Mr. Speaker? I wish I were mistaken, but I am afraid that we shall witness the depreciation of our securities, although I may say, in passing, that the hon. the Minister of Finance is now making a tremendous effort to prevent that, but will the situation remain within his control? We will be confronted with a problem that will put this country in a situation where we shall lack the necessary funds and where our possibilities will not be sufficient to enable us to meet the post-war problems. Our capacity to solve those post-war problems will determine whether we have truly won the peace. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is why I shall vote against this appropriation of $1,000,000,000. I have many other reasons for voting against it. Has not the government of Great Britain, last year, sold to Australia goods that were included in the $1,000,000,000 we had given, and this without consulting us? Great Britain used that money for trade purposes. She was at liberty to do it, because it was a gift from us. No one could blame her for having done so, but I say that we cannot but oppose in this house such a measure, which verges on the squandering of public funds.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

Mutual Aid Bill

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. HARRY R. JACKMAN (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Mutual Aid bill, as far as it goes; but I cannot support it as wholeheartedly as I could if it, and the previous measure of which it is the 1943 edition, measured up to the conduct which befits a great country. It is quite true that the point of view to which I shall give expression has not found the support I might have expected among those who usually think as I do. Nevertheless I believe the opinions I shall express do represent the true view, although perhaps they may be ahead of public opinion. On reflection, I hope I shall have the support of many hon. members in the house, as well as many of the public at large.

If I read correctly what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) said when introducing the resolution upon which the bill is based, he stated, much more forcibly than I can hope to state them, many of the reasons I shall advance. I differ, however, from the minister in his approach to the Mutual Aid bill. I see no reason whatsoever for being in the least apologetic in an explanation of it. Perhaps it was not the minister's intention to be in the slightest degree apologetic when he made his observations, but when he first mentioned the bill in February he also adopted'-maybe unconsciously-the manner of an apologist. If there is any apology to make for Canada, it is that Canada is to-day and has been in a position to charge for part of the aid she has contributed to the common cause.

The Mutual Aid bill, following the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942, has met with not only the high approval but with the thanks and the gratitude of the British government, and the thanks of private members of the British House of Commons. Endorsing Sir Kingsley Wood's tribute to Canada during the budget debate, Sir Arthur Gridly, the Conservative member from Stockport, made the statement:

We cannot overstress the great help given by Canada and the United States. It is most important that the good feeling betwen us, gathering momentum, should be carried forward so that we can cooperate more wholeheartedly on the problems which have to be faced after the war.

Then the Right Hon. Pethwick-Lawrence, the Labour member from Edinburgh, also paid tribute to Canada for its action in giving a billion dollars worth of goods to the united nations, and also to the United States for its

Iease-lend assistance. He said he hoped' these far-sighted decisions formed a precedent for the post-war behaviour among the nations.

But let us consider, Mr. Speaker,' what Canada has done, and in this I am not considering our general contribution to the war, although our troops have seen less action than those of any other member of the British commonwealth of nations. At the moment I am concerned only with our financial relations vis-a-vis Great Britain. To finance the shipments of war materials and foodstuffs from Canada to Great Britain we took all the Canadian assets, or the pledge of those assets, which Great Britain had obtained in the days prior to the war. To quote the Minister of Finance, the fruits of their useful and constructive business investments in this country, and its various subdivisions, made during the period of our development, were taken by us in payment for goods which we sent to Great Britain. In addition, we took 8250,000,000 in gold. To list the other securities we took, we received from Great Britain Canadian government and government-guaranteed securities to the value of $695,000,000. We took securities which were privately owned and which represent the interests in private concerns in this country, held by people in Great Britain, to the extent of $126,000,000. Then we took a pledge of virtually all the securities held by Britishers in Canadian enterprises, and gave a loan of $700,000,000, which loan was interest-free for the duration.

There was a total, therefore, of $1,071,000,000 in gold and securities taken by our government from Great Britain in exchange, or as an offset against a part of our material contribution to the common war effort. There was nothing left, by way of Canadian securities of any size, in the hands of Britishers. And I ask the minister this question: If there had been more Canadian securities held by Great Britain, would we have taken them also? Why did we stop just where we did? We took practically all Great Britain had by way of investments in this country. And when we took credit to ourselves last year for the billion dollar gift to Great Britain we did not mention that Great Britain had paid for our boys in the Royal Canadian Air Force, with the exception of a very few squadrons which were maintained directly by Canada. The extent of that contribution by Great Britain to the war effort, and the extent of the payments to our Canadian boys of the Royal Canadian Air Force, including those assigned to the Royal Air Force, as well as what it cost to service those men in machines and bombs for their trips to Germany, one does not know. I put the ques-

Mutual Aid Bill

tion to the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), and his only reply was that it would take a generation of accountants to figure it out. All he felt assured of was that with regard to the billion dollar gift there was no question that Canada was on the right side, financially. Even under the new agreement with Great Britain covering the payment of R.C.A.F. personnel overseas, there is still no undertaking on our part that we shall pay for the pensions of men who have met with disaster or of the relatives of those who may lose their lives. If there is any undertaking at all, it has to do only with that part of the pension which is in excess of the British rate, because we pay a higher pension than they do in the old country.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Pensions and National Health)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

Would my hon. friend mind repeating what he said about pensions, because I did not catch what he said.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
NAT

Harry Rutherford Jackman

National Government

Mr. JACKMAN:

I understand that under the new arrangement with Great Britain with regard to the R.C.A.F, this country has not obligated itself to pay the pensions of relatives of men who are killed overseas.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Pensions and National Health)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

In every case the rates of pension are augmented to the Canadian rates.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
NAT

Harry Rutherford Jackman

National Government

Mr. JACKMAN:

If the Canadian government is undertaking any obligation, it is only with respect to the difference between the British level and the higher Canadian level. We are still not assuming our just burden in connection with the R.C.A.F. overseas. Great Britain has assumed this, and it is properly an offset against any financial contribution in any form which we may make to Great Britain. I should like to quote the Minister of Finance, as he is reported on page 2440 of Hansard, as follows:

A fourth advantage of this plan, and I should say the most important in many respects, is that it enables us to treat our allies fairly and reasonably rather than harshly and in a shortsighted manner. The transfer of war supplies to those who are fighting beside us is not charity. It is part of the war effort of this country and in providing these supplies we are doing no more than is rightfully our share in the war. If we did not have some means of assuming these proper burdens ourselves, we would be forced into treating our allies in a way which would inevitably and reasonably be considered as harsh. It would be harsh, for example, to force Britain to liquidate all the remaining Canadian assets owned by British residents. As it is, they have sold back to us or-

I insert the word "we".

have redeemed all British holdings of Canadian government securities and Canadian

National Railway securities. They have sold to us all their wartime investments in war plants in Canada which were made on behalf of the British by the Department of Munitions and Supply. In addition, the British have sold their holdings of a number of Canadian securities which were most readily marketable in Canada. The total value of these securities officially repatriated or privately sold back to Canadian investors is approximately $800 millions. The $700 million obligation of Britain to Canada now counterbalances and offsets the bulk of the remaining British holdings of Canadian securities.

Just where the Minister of Finance or the present government can draw the line of fair dealing is questionable. Why do they draw it where they do when the remaining assets are almost negligible? Why did they not draw the line of fair dealing at the beginning before we took over any of these pre-war securities? Having exhausted that source, we now have taken over these war factories representing an investment of about $200 million. Certainly if it is fair to leave Great Britain wuth the small investments she still has, it would have been fair to leave her with the bulk of the investments she previously had in this country.

Possibly we shall again have the need in Canada of importing capital for the development of our great natural resources and the providing of employment for our people, particularly in the post-war period. Let me suggest to the minister a possible corollary of this type of what I consider to be unethical dealing. Canada has a virtual monopoly of nickel, and our ally the United States has great need of this particular metal. Why should we not raise the price of nickel and receive from the United States, by reason of their extreme necessity, sufficient money to discharge the debt which this country owes to our friendly neighbour to the south?

May I suggest to the house that if the fighting had not been in Great Britain and over the air of Europe; if on the other hand it had been in Canada against the Japanese, we should have had here, by virtue of the Royal Navy, great forces of British soldiers. The flow of goods and munitions would not 'have been from the east to the west. It would have been from the west to the east; would we have expected that whatever small or large investments Canadians had in Great Britain would be taken from us, or that after the fighting was over and victory was assured we would be presented with a bill for the contribution which Great Britain had made in preserving our soil from foreign aggression? The present situation where the flow of men and goods is from the west to the east has been possible only because of the Royal Navy. As

Mutual Aid Bill

the Minister of Finance has said, we have been able to do these things on account of our relative safety from attack.

What then is the situation, and what is the true picture? I understand that two-thirds of our industrial war production is not used by our own sailors, soldiers and airmen but is sent to our allies in the various united nations. Here I would say to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), who represents a point of view in regard to our war contribution which fortunately is not held by many Canadians, what I would term a "less than our share" point of view, that if I were a member of his group or espoused the same cause I should say, "make this gift to the united nations, not one billion' but five billion dollars."

What does it mean? As the Minister of Finance has so well said, monej' is merely the counterpart of the goods, materials, and foodstuffs which are sent to the other united nations. It is the measure of our man-power effort in this country. If we sent five billion dollars worth instead of one billion dollars worth, it would mean that we would have to keep at home many times the man-power that is required to-day. That, of course, would be a situation most dishonourable to this country. Nevertheless it must be apparent to those who oppose this bill that this is the type of thing which they should advocate if they are trying to keep men at home to make a war contribution rather than have them make a war conn tribution through fighting. As the Minister of Finance said when he introduced the resolution, we would not dream of charging for the contribution which our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen are making. That would be unthinkable to every right-minded person in this house and in this country. Nevertheless, by reason of the fact that we are protected by the Royal Navy and by our own troops overseas, but to a greater extent, particularly in the early days of the war, by the troops of Great Britain and the other united nations, we in Canada are left free to manufacture the goods and to raise the foodstuffs required in this war, and now in place of giving these to the united nations as we have done in the past, we are presenting them with a bill which is paid by our redeeming the securities which they owned and which were debts owed by this country. If we did not manufacture the goods and produce the foodstuffs for our allies, we would be producing only sufficient to service our own military requirements. That would be from the industrial point of view only one-third of the production to-day, and many of our men would have had to be released from production. If we are waging a full-out

war, as every member of this house advocates and as certainly the government has advocated from time to time, we should have those men either in khaki or in navy blue or in air force blue and, as the minister said, we should not dream of charging for their services.

Nor do I blame the small group of my countrymen who suggest that perhaps we should not make such a large contribution to the war. They are not entirely to blame, because they were told when we entered the war, and at various times subsequently to that, that we were going to wage a free, moderate and voluntary war. That was told to them by supporters of the Liberal administration.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
LIB

Ralph Maybank

Liberal

Mr. MAYBANK:

Who said that?

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
NAT

Harry Rutherford Jackman

National Government

Mr. JACKMAN:

I am very glad that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has asked that question. That was said when the national resources mobilization bill was introduced into the house.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. CRUICICSHANK:

It was said by the committee of two hundred.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
NAT

Harry Rutherford Jackman

National Government

Mr. JACKMAN:

That is not the correct answer. A free, moderate and voluntary effort was the phrase used by a number of members in this house belonging to the government side, and there has never been any refutation of that whatsoever.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
LIB

Ralph Maybank

Liberal

Mr. MAYBANK:

My question was, who said it, not when or where?

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
NAT

Harry Rutherford Jackman

National Government

Mr. JACKMAN:

If the hon. member will Tefer to Hansard of July, 1941, to the debate on the first or second reading of the national resources mobilization bill, he will find for himself who among his own party used the words I quoted.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
LIB

Ralph Maybank

Liberal

Mr. MAYBANK:

The hon. member is making the allegation.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
NAT

Harry Rutherford Jackman

National Government

Mr. JACKMAN:

I have answered the allegation as specifically as I care to answer it, and if the hon. member will trouble himself to look where I said he will find those words.

We have heard, Mr. Speaker, and everyone has received the statement with acclaim, that no one should profit by reason of the war. That philosophy has pervaded our own legislation in regard to our own people in this country. I have heard my hon. friends to my left as well as other members of the house advocate, in the words of Mr. Nash of New Zealand, that no one should profit by reason of the war.

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink
SC

Charles Edward Johnston

Social Credit

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

Does the hon. member not agree with that?

Topic:   UNITED NATIONS MUTUAL AID
Subtopic:   PROVISION FOR APPROPRIATION OF $1,000,000,000 FOR PRODUCTION AND TRANSFER OF WAR SUPPLIES
Permalink

May 10, 1943