Mr. JACKMAN:

I most certainly do agree with that statement, and I agree with it not

Mutual Aid Bill

only as an individual but as a citizen of this country. I hope that the -hon. member who interjected the remark a moment ago along with many others will find reason to agree with that statement when it is applied to a nation as well as to an individual.

If we serviced only our own man-power requirements, what a dislocation of industry and of agriculture would result! What an increase in the enlistments in our armed forces would result!

We have also heard alleged by some that Great Britain sold some of the goods which we sent to her, and it has even been alleged that she did so at a profit. That charge, sir, is too fantastic to be worthy of a denial, but because the belief is sincerely held I think the administration cannot go to too great pains to explain to those who are happy when they can allege fault on the part of Great Britain, how these complicated international transactions come about. If it would add any light on the subject I should like to quote from the Economist of February 20, 1943. This paragraph has reference to a certain policy which is being changed by the present bill, but nevertheless it does carry out some of the informational matter which I wish to bring before certain members of the house. It states:

It should be made clear that no fault is found in Canada with these arrangements, by which Canadian surplus munitions find their way into pools of war supplies under the allocationary control of London and Washington. It is recognized that, in practice, the authority to assign supplies must be centralized and so far no machinery has existed outside the London and Washington assignment boards. Nor is there much demand that Canada should assume a more direct responsibility over the final disposition of its surplus. The sale by the United Kingdom of Canadian funds to other united nations serves to secure wider distribution of Canadian munitions to fronts that need them. The distribution by American lend-lease of supplies purchased in Canada by the United States government serves the same purpose.

Therefore we see that whatever criticism, fantastic as it may be, that can be leveled at Great Britain, can equally be leveled against the United States, and of course once that is done, it is seen how utterly impossible and how utterly baseless such charges are. Is not the real test not only the immeasur-' able sacrifice of life but also the sacrifice measured in dollars? Are we with our much higher per capita wealth in Canada contributing as much as Great Britain? Surely that is the test as to whether one nation or another is making a greater contribution to this war. Of course there may be small matters which require explanation, such as Canadian goods which eventually found their wav to the front in Australia or in the South

Sea islands. Nevertheless the real test smely is, how much per capita is our country spending on the war and how much per capita are other countries spending on the war? Great Britain is spending for war at the rate of $23,000 millions a year. We are spending at the rate of $4,890 millions a year. Reducing that to terms which are more understandable, namely, the per capita expenditure on war, in Great Britain the figure is $500 per capita; in Canada it is $435 per capita; and this is the first time that the Canadian contribution has risen to anywhere near striking distance of the contribution which Great Britain has been making. .

Then, we must not only look at the per capita figures but take into account what the Minister of Finance said earlier this session in regard to how much further a dollar went in Great Britain in connection with the war than it goes in this country. There the rates of pay for the soldiers, sailors and airmen are very small in comparison with that which we pay our boys; and the financial situation in Britain is so hard pressed that, when their soldiers, sailors and airmen are fighting abroad in other countries, they are nevertheless taxed, something which we in this country fortunately have not had to do.

Then again, I should like to point out that the billion dollar gift does not mean more taxes or more expenditure on the part of this country. The minister has well set forth why this is so; but I should like to go even further than he did, and say that the gift of a billion dollars to Britain and the present Mutual Aid bill, instead of costing Canada more, actually cost Canada less; for, as I have said, if we were not producing the war materials and the food supplies in the safety of this great country, in the shadow of the Royal Navy and the protecting powers fighting abroad, we should have more men in the fighting services, and we know that to keep a man in the fighting services is much more expensive than to keep him at home. Not only is there the expense, but there is the loss of life and the sorrow occasioned to our people, and there is the pension bill which goes on for an indefinite number of years. So that these gifts of material things which we are privileged to make, actually, in a whole out war effort, cost this country less than if we were not in a position to give them, but on the other hand had as many men in the services as we could supply with munitions ourselves.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, what should be done? Possibly the -book accounts should be kept open. If, on the other hand, there

Mutual Aid Bill

should be no interallied debts, the slate should be kept clean; and in view of the trouble and world dislocation caused- by war debts after the last war I am inclined to agree with the latter alternative. But why should we, even with the consent of Great Britain, take all and everything we can from that country? What about Russia and China? They have no financial offsets to the contributions which we may make by way of materials and foodstuffs, but certainly their blood- and bravery have kept this country free from invasion, and we are privileged to give them of our production.

May I quote .an article which appeared in the Spectator early this year; I refer to the issue of January 22. The final paragraph is as follows:

On top of the Indian and South African loan call-ups

That is the redemption of them.

-the requisitioning and , redemption operation covering India's railway stocks gives a fresh fillip to markets. It also completes a process by which India has paid off the whole of her obligations in London.

I do hope that some United States critics of British administration in India will realize that India has now been able to pay off all the debts in sterling which were contracted with Great Britain for the railways, the great irrigation developments and other benefits which -were derived through the expenditure of that money.

So far as one can judge, India is still accumulating sterling credits as a result of the war. What will she do now that there are no more loans to redeem?

And this is the important part, Mr. Speaker:

Surely the time has come to review the interempire war financing arrangements as a whole. As they stand they bear little relation to the principle of equality of sacrifice.

As reported in Hansard, at page 2448, the minister said to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell):

Does not the hon. gentleman think his position is a little too much like this, that England's extremity is Canada's opportunity?

What I suggest is that the Minister of Finance has thought of the invidious situation in which this country is placed, but has thought of it a little too late. As Sir Kingsley Wood, Chancellor of the British Exchequer, said:

It rests upon the principle that in a common war all shall give all that they can to the common task.

We had some discussion in the house this afternoon about whether there had ever been any thought of material gain in entering this war. We did not enter this war for material

[Mr. Jackman.1

gain, not even gain from the enemy. This war was forced upon us. I hope that no country among the allies will be better off at the expense of one of the common partners, particularly the partner who has kept open at her own sacrifice the opportunity for us as well as herself to maintain our own way of living, an opportunity which is happily now on the way to realization. We of the united nations are common partners in the cause of freedom and liberty.

Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to say a few words in support of this bill for the appropriation of a billion dollars for the production and transferring of war supplies to the united nations' mutual aid, and against the amendment proposed this afternoon by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy). It was advanced by the hon. member for Gaspe in bringing forward his amendment that it is a wrong thing for Canada to have to maintain her present status among the nations of the world. He wished to see Canada an independent nation. It is not so much that I quarrel with that particular idea; it is that I wholeheartedly disagree with that idea -being propounded at the present time. It seems to me quite true that we should stand on our own feet as a nation, particularly in the years to come, more than we have done. But for anyone to use that argument now, causing national disunity as well as strife between ourselves and Britain on the colonial question, and to use it to deny help to the united nations, is to jeopardize our chance of survival at all except as a colony of Germany and a part of their great slave empire. Is it not better to survive as we are at present than to survive, as a colony of Germany?

It is perfectly evident that at this very time Hitler would use anything that might come to his hand as a monkey-wrench to throw into the war machinery of the united nations, anything that he could use to upset the gear of the mighty war machine which he knows will soon be rolling against his armies, any single thing that he could make use of anywhere to delay or impede or hold back the great new offensive of the allies. He tried a trick quite recently, thinking he was going to pull an ace from his sleeve, when he tried to use the quisling elements among the Polish government in exile, together with such of the old Munich pro-nazi forces as he could find in Britain, to create strife between the united nations and to isolate the Soviet Union from them. It was only by reason of the realistic attitude taken by the Soviet Union; it was only because they exposed the filthy intrigue which was being

Mutual Aid Bill

carried on; it was only because they had the courage to shoot the spies who would have destroyed them if those spies themselves had not been destroyed, that Hitler's plans were set at naught. He was prevented in his scheme of setting up a federation of the smaller nations in Europe as he would have designed and would like to have accomplished. It was a fortunate thing that the Soviet Union upheld the Atlantic charter, one clause of which has guaranteed that the free peoples of the world shall have the right to choose their own governments.

I would say, therefore, that if there are in Canada any who have designs or wishes that Canada shall have a different status after the war is over, we can wait until at the peace table we have an opportunity for the discussion of these matters, and then we can vote for what our status shall be.

I must confess that I have been surprised that no one has yet replied to the speech made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) on Thursday of last week when the bill was in the resolution stage. Here we are nearing the completion of a war loan in which the slogan of the whole country has been "Back the Attack." As we agreed this afternoon by resolution wholeheartedly, we have come very happily to the successful conclusion of the African campaign, and now we await the opening of a greater and vaster allied offensive. At such a time, in my opinion, the speech made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres was the most destructive speech that could ever have come from a member of this house. It was a speech destructive to the morale of our boys not only here but overseas. It was a speech destructive to our national unity. In fact, Mr. Speaker, to be honest with you, I must say that in my opinion it was a subversive speech of the first order.

It was a startling thing to think that any hon. member, any person in Canada to-day, could say that we have not the same interest or the same advantages as the other nations in this war. If ever a speech gave comfort to the enemy, that speech most assuredly must have done so. The hon. member complained about the load of taxes, as if we were not already aware of this load. There is hardly a person in the country whom the tax structure has not hit and hit very hard. Is it not better for us to bear a load of that kind than to bear the load of blood and destruction which others of the allied nations have had to bear? Is it not to our advantage, whoever we are, whatever our views may be in this country, to destroy the enemy before he can invade us? Is it not to our advantage to save our civilians

from the horror, the tortures and the merciless terrors of the blitz? Is it not to our advantage to save our people from the starvation and brutality which are being suffered by the peoples of the conquered nations?

Hitler wants world domination, not just the domination of Europe. Let us never forget that. The united nations have all the same interest, and the primary interest of each is to save itself. So far, we have been luckier than the rest on account of our geographic position, but it would be foolish to think that this may always save us.

The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres also complained that other nations were more responsible than we are for the war itself. Perhaps in a discussion of war guilt it would be wiser for every person to say, "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone." I doubt if many of us would be in that position. At the present time, however, what purpose can be served by discussing war guilt? The thing to be discussed is how the war is to be won and how speedily this can be accomplished. It does not help the position of the hon. member to remind us that he supported the war in the beginning. He admits that he supported it in the beginning when we were following the policy of collaboration with Germany as instigated by Chamberlain, until Chamberlain was put out of power by democratic opinion in Britain; and now when we are really fighting wholeheartedly against Germany the same hon. member says he does not want Canadian boys to lead the attack. At least we can say the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres is consistent in what he says and what he supports. Indeed, it must warm the heart of Hitler to listen to statements of this kind. He knows at least that some of those who befriended and helped him in the beginning are still of the same mind as they used to be and are not afraid to say so.

It is true that many of the French-speaking members of this house have mentioned their love of this country and their right to speak of their ancestors. I for one admire them and congratulate them upon that sentiment. Love of their own country is a thing greatly to be commended. But perhaps it would be just as well if we remembered that the Frenchspeaking people here are not the native people of this country. The American Indians were the native people. They have suffered from two main invasions, one of the French people and one of the English people. If we are not obsessed with our own sense of guilt when we think of the Indian's place in our national life to-day we should be. I would say that the American Indian on this continent, particularly in this country, is a living

Mutual Aid Bill

testimony to our own. ruthlessness, our own barbarity, our own ignorance, our own racial discrimination, and the guilt must be shared equally between the French-speaking and the English-speaking peoples.

What I would remind French-speaking people of is this. Were we ever to suffer a third invasion of this country, an invasion from the east by Germans and from1 the west by Japanese, dividing the loot of the spoils of this nation between the two great spheres of their influence, we would be lucky if we were to survive as long as the Indians have survived since the French and English took over this country. I wonder whether these things have occurred to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, that such a life would be the common lot of all Canadians under the heel of the herrenvolk unless it would be personally possible for him to collaborate with the new rulers of Canada and so escape the common lot of those forced to submit to the new rulers.

The hon. member is not anxious to see the spearhead made by Canadian boys on the continent of Europe; he says that if it were delayed it would be better. Three cheers from Goebbels and Company. These are the very things they themselves will advocate and try to gain if at all possible. I say to my hon. friends very honestly that it would be too good to be true that we in Canada should have no_ quislings. Seldom have I heard anyone voice anything more in favour of the axis than the opinions that have been declared by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres in that most infamous speech.

Canada's armies overseas are now prepared for a great offensive. Nothing we can do to back that attack is too much. Thousands of our brave lads over there speak the same tongue as the hon. member, but they do not hold the same views as that hon. member holds. They are prepared, even if it means their death, to preserve the Canadian people from death and from a living death that would be worse. These boys overseas I dare say are better representatives of the Frenchspeaking people of this country than the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres.

These boys if they return will expect a chance to live with full rights and privileges, and it is up to you and me and all who share in making the legislation of this country to see to it that there is equality of opportunity for all our people and that there is no discrimination in the province of Quebec or any other part of this dominion. The hon. member who now makes so much fuss about those who are going to have to give their lives I do not think

has been noticeable through the years gone by as one of those who led the campaign for better standards of living or higher wages, shorter hours or better health conditions for the people of his province. Perhaps, if he had a record like that, some of these boys might think more of what he says to-day. These boys are going to fight, and they will be right over the top because they know that unless they take the offensive it is impossible to hope to win the war. They will give their lives if they have to in order to save the old men and old women of Canada who are filled with the ripeness of age, even as the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. They will give their lives to save the aged people of this country from having a spade put into their hands and being made to measure their length on the cold, hard earth before digging their own graves, being shot and falling into them. These boys will give their lives, if needs be, to save their wives and sisters and children from being raped and burnt and murdered and buried alive. These things they will do to save the wholesale slaughter of Canadians and the destruction of our country, and to save us from the living death which many of us would have to endure if the axis should succeed. The cry of our brave boys overseas at this very time is that we back them, and with their deeds and their lives they will refute the words of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres.

Mr. Speaker, I am against the amendment, and I am in complete agreement with the principles of this bill.

Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):

Mutual Aid Bill

report proposals for setting up the economic basis of a new Europe after the war. That, I think is very serious. It suggests to the German people that there is some form of collaboration between the nazis and the allies whom they are supposed to be fighting.

Thjs is enough to show that before passing the bill we should keep cool enough to analyse the situation especially when, as I explained the other day, we are charging each worker in the country with a debt which will prevent him from living a decent life for the rest of his days.

Mr. ILSLEY:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr. SPEAKER:

If the Minister of Finance speaks now, he will close the debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had not anticipated that the debate would close as quickly as this, but there are some observations I should like to make before proceeding to the next stage. In the first place an amendment has been moved by the bon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy), in the following words:

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.

My recollection of the types of amendments moved on second reading is that they challenge the principles of bills, but ordinarily suggest some other method of dealing with a problem. The amendment before us does not do that, but simply states that parliament has no mandate permitting it to enact a measure at this time.

I say, Mr. Speaker, this parliament has the clearest mandate to do everything necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion at the earliest possible moment, and it has the clearest possible mandate to take such steps as are found necessary for that purpose. Surely this measure comes within the terms of that mandate. As certain hon. member^ have so well pointed out, without the measure our war effort would be very seriously retarded; the whole character of our effort would- have to be changed. If we did not make provision for the largest possible production of munitions and supplies, and for the sending of those munitions and supplies to those of our allies who require them for war purposes, our war effort would slow down, and we would be false to the mandate which we received from the electors in 1940, and which to-day we have, by virtue of the undoubted public opinion of this country. If we did not take all necessary steps to see to it that we produced to the

greatest extent of which we are capable, and made the best possible use of our production, we would be false to our trust.

Mr. SLAGHT:

The amendment means that we should welsh.

Mr. ILSLEY:

private securities by British investors. This is confirmed in the case of India by a statement made by the Hon. Mr. Amery, Secretary of State for India, on March 30 last, when he said:

It is not known to what extent, if at all, non-governmental concerns operating in India may have repatriated their sterling indebtedness, but the amount is not likely to be significant.

This process of private sale has gone on, not only in the case of India and South Africa but also in the case of Canada. As I intimated to the house on Thursday last, we estimate the total of such sales to Canada at about $100,000,000. In addition, of course, we should not forget that the $700,000,000 loan really offsets and counterbalances about two-thirds of the remaining private Canadian securities held in Britain.

With regard to the repatriation of securities, I simply repeat what I said on the resolution. I said it then more by way of interruption than in the speech with which I introduced the resolution. In view of our relations with the great neighbour beside whom we live, and having regard to the extreme importance of those relations, and that the United States long ago went off the cash-on-the-barrel-head basis, it would be unthinkable for this country at this stage of the war, in this year 1943, to revert to the cash-on-the-barrel-head basis. It would be unthinkable that a nation like Canada, the oldest dominion, the most important dominion, a country rapidly rising in the councils of the nations of the world and in the respect of the peoples of the world, should revert to that method of making a contribution to the carrying on of a common war, a war which is our own as well as that of the mother country.

Those who oppose this bill would be the first to protest against the throwing of people out of employment which would take place unless we made proper provision along the lines of this bill. They would be the first to protest at the disappearance of markets for our farm products, our lumber, our metals and our munitions. We have to make it possible for the United Kingdom and Russia and China to buy our munitions, our foodstuffs and our raw materials.

But, Mr. Speaker, I do not put this measure on that basis. I put it on the simple basis that we are in this war and that we ought to do our part in it, that we should contribute to this war everything that we can throw into it, and ' that wTe should not go looking around and making sure that we get a little pay from it from one of our partners as a condition of putting what we have into it. I do not think

I can add to what I have said. I believe the bill has the support of the house and the support of the country.

Mr. SPEAKER:

When I stated that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) would close the debate I overlooked that he was speaking to the amendment. The debate is still open, and any hon. member who wishes to speak now has the opportunity.

Question.

Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the word "now" be left out, and the words "this day six months" added at the end of the question.

My chief intention is to discuss thoroughly the first paragraph of this resolution. Does the economic and financial position of our country justify such generosity? I do not think so. The most elementary principles of political economy indicate that we cannot afford another squandering of public funds. Can the state print paper money indefinitely when our gold reserves in 1935 amounted to less than $108,000,000? That was the time when the Bank of Canada was beginning, its operations after hoarding all the gold reserves of the chartered banks and the reserves of the dominion. The figures I have just quoted are official, since the government gave them to me on April 5 last in answer to questions on the orders of the day.

Mr. Speaker, these successive gifts of $1,000,000,000 to powerful countries who are a hundred times wealthier than we, will inevitably lead us to inflation and bankruptcy. What is the par value of money if not its gold content? As a matter of fact, when the gold reserves decrease, the value of paper money also goes down, and I do not hesitate to assert that a country like Canada, which, has a gold reserve of only $108,000,000, to face an actual debt of over $15,000,000,000 including the debt of the country, the provinces and the municipalities, cannot afford thus to sacrifice its whole economy by granting blamable liberalities and gifts such as this new billion dollars

to a nation that owns the wealth and the resources of more than half the world.

After all, the Bank of Canada is nothing other than a branch of the Bank of England. And who is this British financier, with the title of Lord, who went to Brazil in 1923 in order to found a national bank? If I am not mistaken, he is Sir Josiah Stamp. The Bank of Brazil was founded, and the par value of Brazilian money, which was 0-56 cents in 1923, is now a little more than five cents. I know that certain men who know about finance may from time to time raise the par value of money. In many instances this occasions an excellent but false impression. To illustrate,

I will compare this action with that of a merchant or a manufacturer who puts a false label on his merchandise or product. Instead of the government giving away this billion dollars, I should like it to bring back into Canada all the gold which was produced by our mines during the last thirty-five years only. I request it to fulfil this duty before it gives away gifts which can be afforded only by those who pay their debts. For many years Canada has been recognized as a country with a favourable commercial balance. During the last thirty-five or forty years our mines have produced billions of dollars in gold, but we now have a reserve of only $108,000,000. Where did the difference go? I fear that it was spent in gifts and presents, and this situation has existed for so many years that the preceding generations were shamefully exploited, while we are being scorched alive.

I said a little while ago that only those who pay their debts can afford gifts and presents. Are we paying our debts? Are we loyal toward the population who lent their savings to the state from 1914 to ,1918 and who are still lending them now? What have we paid in this country on the capital of the debt incurred during the last war? We have impoverished the country by paying hundreds of millions in interest alone.

Our economic and financial position makes it imperative that we should reject this new billion dollar gift proposal, which I condemn just as I condemned this policy of prodigalities, gifts and wasting. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are heading toward complete inflation. From the economic point of view the importance of a country is proportionate to the value of its money. It may be answered that inflation is prevented by the ceiling on all prices; everything has been foreseen. But that remains to be seen. We are not deriving any benefit from this price ceiling. It is not profitable to the farmer, the labourer,

Mutual Aid Bill

the merchant or the manufacturer. It is profitable to foreign countries. The best proof thereof is the tremendous increase in the cost of various foods here in Canada, which is a producing country, an agricultural country, in which the rationing of the first necessities of life is spreading continually.

A population of eleven and a half million people cannot afford each year gifts of one billion and more. When will this war end? Nobody knows yet. This should be a very good reason to act with great caution. The public treasury is so badly depleted that our economic position is becoming dangerous. That is the opinion of the best economists. Unlimited participation is gravely impoverishing the country. The mobilization of our human, industrial and- economic resources and of our munitions and supply is intended for foreign adventures more than for the defence of Canada. We are constantly asking that the government withdraw from the army all the farmers who have joined up, and definitely send them back to their farms. The government persistently refuses this request. However, everybody is aware that agriculture is our first line of defence. Instead of giving billions to one of the united nations, let us organize the defence of Canada, our country, before all.

Where are all the guns, the planes, the tanks which we have manufactured? Some twenty of our ships have been sunk, and this near the shores of the St. Lawrence. This does not seem to affect the government. More than ever we need our munitions, our money and our revenues. This is why, with all the means in my power, I am opposing this resolution which provides for a gift of $1,000,000,000 to the detriment of our own national defence.

(Translation): Mr. Speaker, Canada's war effort is out of all proportion to its means.

There is a limit to the borrowing power of our country. However, paragraph 4 of this resolution states that the government will obtain this additional billion dollars through loans. Of necessity, loans mean more taxes. Of all united nations, Canada is the most heavily taxed. Is it reasonable to add this new burden to the sacrifices we have already willingly accepted? No, Mr. Speaker. I therefore oppose with all my strength both the principle of this resolution and the method contemplated for carrying it out. It is not the act of a sovereign power, of a country which flatters itself with the thought that it is administering its own affairs. This measure is steeped in colonialism, as the hon.

member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) justly stated in this house a few days ago. It is a calamitous measure as it bears the virus of shameless waste which is a dishonour to our country. It constitutes another direct blow to our own defence. This resolution tends to deprive us once more of the valuable munitions that are so urgently needed for the protection of our shores.

My right-hand colleague, the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen), criticized, a few moments ago, the speech made last week, in this house, by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. She claimed that it contained nothing of a constructive nature, but that, on the contrary, it was rather subversive in its tenor. With all due respect for the hon. member for North Battleford, I must state that, for us, the word "country" has mot the meaning it has for her. The only country that we consider it is our duty to defend is Canada.

With the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, we do not wish to endanger our own defence by depriving ourselves of ships, aircraft, tanks, guns and even of our last citizens for the sake of promoting undertakings which lead us directly to bankruptcy.

We have never been and shall never be satisfied colonials in spite of what my right-hand colleague might say or think. The glorious and heroic past of my province, its attachment to the Canadian soil, its oft-tested patriotism can very well do without the lessons in colonialism given by our newer citizens who, most of the time, are Canadians in name only.

Mr. Speaker, when the smoke of battle has disappeared, when peace has returned to the world, the unprejudiced historian who judiciously allots responsibilities will be in a position to separate the wheat from the tares. The Canadian people will assume the allimportant task of once for all eradicating the weed of colonialism which threatens us more than ever in order to grow the wholesome crop of patriotism and Canadianism.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Mr. ROY:

On division.

Mr. CARDIN:

On the same division.

Mr. GRAYDON:

I recall that an inquiry was made of the Minister of Finance with respect to the disposition of the vote made last year for the United Kingdom. When we were discussing this matter in the resolution stage the Minister of Finance intimated that he might give some information, subject of course to the censorship regulations. There was considerable discussion in committee in connection with this particular point, the lend-lease act in the United States being referred to, and the operations of that act were brought to the attention of the minister and the government. I think the minister should give the committee a statement of the disposition of the vote made last year for the United Kingdom. I suggest that when he is giving that statement, he should also give us some idea of what disposition will be made of the present vote. I think we should have a statement on both points before the committee .commences work on the details of the bill.

Mr. ILSLEY:

With regard to the disposition of the money voted last year, I must say that I am not yet in a position to know just how much I should tell the committee. This matter has been taken up with the censorship authorities and with the intelligence officers of the defence department. I shall know just what I can give by to-morrow afternoon. The committee will understand1 that we must not go too far with this thing.

Mr. GRAYDON:

The minister has not gone any distance at all.

Mr. ILSLEY:

Oh, yes, I have.

Mr. GRAYDON:

He has not given us any particulars.

Mr. ILSLEY:

If the hon. member will refer to the speech I made on the resolution, he will find that I broke it down into main categories, but the objection was that those classes were too broad. I took fairly seriously the request to make them as broad as possible, but I do not know just how far I can go.