1942-06-11

UNITED KINGDOM-U.S.S.R. TREATY ALLIANCE IN WAR AGAINST HITLERITE GERMANY AND COLLABORATION AND MUTUAL ASSISTANCE THEREAFTER

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I wish to lay on the table a copy of the treaty between the U.S.S.R. and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of alliance in the war against Hitlerite Germany and her associates in Europe and of collaboration and mutual assistance thereafter.
A copy of this treaty was to-day, I believe, tabled in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. The government of Canada has sent the following message, through myself, to Mr. Churchill, the Prime Minister of Great Britain:

The Canadian government are very much pleased that the negotiations which have been proceeding between the governments of the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. have reached a successful conclusion. We believe that the new treaty will greatly contribute to the successful prosecution of the war and to the realization after the war of the principles of the Atlantic charter.



POOLING OF RESOURCES


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I promised my hon. friend the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) that I would give him a brief statement to-day with respect to closer coordination of United Kingdom and United States production programmes, to which he made reference yesterday.
The Canadian government cordially welcomes the new arrangements for the closer coordination of the United Kingdom and United States production programmes, which were announced in Washington on June 9. The United Kingdom-United States combined production and resources board and combined food board should help greatly in the vitally important task of integrating, for war purposes, the productive capacities of both countries.
The Canadian food production programme has been geared to the needs of the war situation for two years now. From the outset of the war we have been proceeding on the policy that the entire food resources of Canada and the United Kingdom were in a common pool, about which the fullest information has been exchanged. We have, for example, been working for more than two years on a programme of increasing our bacon and cheese production to meet the United Kingdom's war requirements, and have been cutting down our domestic consumption of such essential products to make sure that the basic requirements of the United Kingdom were met. More recently, through the medium of the Canada-United States joint economic committees, the two governments have been working out a war-time agricultural programme under which each country can devote its energies to expanding the production of those farm products which it is best equipped to contribute to the common cause.
Similarly, in the field of industrial war production, Canadian capacity has been expanded and developed in the closest possible cooperation, first with the United Kingdom and now with the United States as well. Through the operations of the Canada-United

Questions
States joint war production committee and of War Supplies Limited, the efficient integration for war purposes of Canadian-American productive capacity has been making satisfactory progress. The new direct arrangements for formalizing a similar United Kingdom-United States relationship should help greatly in organizing the war effort of the united nations as a whole.
The task of working out suitable working arrangements for the effective cooperation of the united nations in the job of winning the war is still incomplete. The creation of the new boards announced this week marks a long step forward in the problem of organization. Through what agencies and representatives our existing cooperation with both the United Kingdom and the United States can most effectively be coordinated with the new United Kingdom-United States boards is receiving the consideration of the government.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: With the early part of the statement of the Prime Minister I am in agreement. But inasmuch as our food and munitions production in Canada has advanced from the low gear to the second gear stage-we hope that we are now working on all eight cylinders, and in high gear-are we to be left, with respect to these joint boards, with representation by a citizen of the United States, no matter how eminent or capable he may be? Surely Canada has arrived at the stature of a nation, and if there is to be representation it should be by a representative of this government. I am sure the Prime Minister will agree with that and insist upon that position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I certainly do not take any exception to what my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said. All I would point out is that the agreement just concluded between the United States and the United Kingdom was reached within the past day or two. I have no doubt, having regard to our position and to the relationships that we have had both with the British government and with the United States government, that we shall be able to effect some arrangement in connection with food production along the line indicated by my [DOT]hon. friend.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What steps are being taken by the government to improve the roadway leading to Malton air plant?
2.	What contribution did the city of Toronto and the government make to the erection of the air plants at (a) Malton, (b) Toronto island?
3.	What use is being made of these plants in connection with the war?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The construction and maintenance of roads to Malton airport is not within the jurisdiction of the Dominion government. A grant of $25,000, however, was made towards the construction of better highway connections with the city of Toronto by the Department of Transport.
2.	The total capital expenditures on the Malton and Island airports are as follows: Expenditure by the city, $986,000; grant from province of Ontario, $450,000; expenditure by Department of Transport, $690,345; expenditure by Trans-Canada Air Lines for hangar, $135,000.
3.	The following use is made of Malton airport:	1. Normal civil air transport services
by Trans-Canada Air Lines and American airlines; 2. No. 1, air observer school, and No. 2 elementary flying training school, under the joint air training plan; 3. Testing of aircraft manufactured in the adjoining factories.
The following use is made of Toronto Island airport:
1.	The training activities of the Royal Norwegian Air Force.
2.	The communications section of the Royal Canadian Air Force for transporting their own personnel.
3.	Non-scheduled operations by seaplane and landplane operators.


SASKATCHEWAN COMMUNITY PASTURES
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many community pastures were established in the province of Saskatchewan during the year 1941?
2.	What was the cost of each, (a) acquiring of property or land, (b) fencing, showing average rate per mile?
3.	Was any fencing done by contract?
4.	If so, what are the names of the contractors and what was the average rate per mile?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Nine.
2.	(a) Nil.
(b)	Masefield, L.I.D. No. 17, $16,295.55, average $388.00; Lone Tree, No. 18, $21,929.30, average $395.12; Lomond, No. 37, $14,270.85, average $328.07; Val Marie extension, $39,818.50, average $355.72; Shamrock, No. 134, $17,350.80, average $301.75; Big Stick, No. 141, $14,544.98, average $309.47; Spy Hill,
Questions

No. 152, S10,546.35, average $357.50; Beaver Hills, No. 152, $30,121.13, average $327.40; Monet, No. 257, No. 2, $13,850.75, average $364.49.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


SASKATCHEWAN WATER CONSERVATION PROJECTS
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many dugouts were contracted for and completed in each constituency in the province of Saskatchewan during the year 1941, and what was the average cost of same?
2.	How many water projects, other than small dams, were undertaken and completed during the year 1941 in the province of Saskatchewan?
3.	What water conservation projects are contemplated in the province of Saskatchewan during the year 1942, other than small dams?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.		Average
Constituency	Number	CostAssiniboia 	... 77	$103 80Weyburn 	... 158	Wood Mountain 	... 25	Maple Creek 	... 19	Qu'Appelle 	... 188	Moose Jaw 	.. 112	Swift Current 	... 91	Melville 	.. 449	Lake Centre 	.. 127	Rosetown-Biggar ....	... 50	Kindersley 	... 55	Yorkton 	.. 237	McKenzie 	... 335	Rosthern 	.. 69	The Battlefords 	... 67	North Battleford ....	Prince Albert 	.. 2	Humboldt 	.. 69	2. Eight.	3. Six:	1. Completion of	Duncairn	dam andreservoir.	2. Completion of	Highfield	dam andreservoir.	3. Comletion of drainage canal	from Rush
lake to Reed lake.
4.	Completion of Echo lake dam.
5.	Completion of Last Mountain lake creek
dredging.
6. Completion of Cypress lake inlet and outlet canal improvements.


NOVA SCOTIA DAIRY PRODUCTS
Mr. PURDY:: Have arrangements as yet been made adjusting the inequalities in the prices authorized for fluid milk and other dairy products in Nova Scotia?
[Mr. Gardiner.}


Mr. ILSLEY:: Order 124 of the wartime
prices and trade board, passed on the 7th day of April, established maximum prices which permit adjustment of inequalities upon recommendation of the provincial board. Whether inequalities exist, having regard to varying circumstances and conditions, is a matter of opinion, making a more definite answer to the question impossible.


COAL-JUBILEE COLLIERY, SYDNEY MINES, N.S.
Mr. MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: In view of the announcement that coal is to be rationed this winter, will the government endeavour to have the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company reopen the Jubilee colliery at Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No announcement has been
made that coal will foe rationed this winter. It was stated that if the United States decided to ration coal, Canada would probably find it advisable to do the same.
The problem is one of transportation rather than production, making the opening of additional collieries an inappropriate method of dealing with the situation. The question relates to a matter of future policy as to which no present statement can be made.


CANADIAN FORCES-MARITIME PROVINCES- PURCHASE OF GASOLINE, OIL AND GREASE
Mr. MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1.	Were tenders called for the supplying of gasoline, oil and grease, for army, navy and air force, at Saint John, New Brunswick; Halifax, Pietou, Mulgrave, Nova Scotia; St. John's, Newfoundland, and Cape Breton, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, w'hat oil companies tendered, and who was awarded the contract?
3.	Was any tender sent in by MeColl-Frontenac Oil Company?
4.	To whom are the requisitions made for gasoline, oil and grease in Sydney, North Sydney, Sydney Mines and Reserve?
5.	Has anyone given instructions that all gasoline, oil and grease requisitioned is to be purchased from the Imperial Oil Company?


Mr. HOWE:: (a)	Saint John, N.B.
Army requirements
Tenders were received from the following companies: British American Oil Company Ltd.; Canadian Oil Companies Limited; Imperial Oil Limited; Irving Oil Limited; Provincial Oils Limited; McColl-Frontenac Oil Co., Ltd.; Pennsylvania Oil Products Co.; Tidewater Oil Co., of Canada Ltd.

Questions
Contracts were awarded to Provincial Oils Limited, McColl-Frontenac Oil Company Ltd., and Canadian Oil Companies Ltd.
Navy requirements
Tenders were received from the following companies:	British American Oil Company
Ltd.; Canadian Oil Companies Limited; Imperial Oil Limited; Irving Oil Limited; Provincial Oils Limited; McColl-Frontenac Oil Co., Ltd.
The contract was awarded to British American Oil Company Ltd.
(b)	Halifax, N.S.
Army requirements
Tenders were received from the following companies:	British American Oil Company
Ltd.; Canadian Oil Companies Limited; Imperial Oil Limited; Irving Oil Limited; Provincial Oils Limited; McColl-Frontenac Oil Co., Ltd.
The contract was awarded to Imperial Oil Limited.
Navy requirements
Tenders were received from the following companies:	British American Oil Company
Ltd.; Canadian Oil Companies Limited; Imperial Oil Limited; Irving Oil Limited; Provincial Oils Limited; McColl-Frontenac Oil Co., Ltd.
The contract was awarded to Provincial Oils Limited.
(c)	Mulgrave, N.S.
Army requirements
Tenders were received from the following companies:	British American Oil Company
Ltd.; Canadian Oil Companies Limited; Imperial Oil Limited; Irving Oil Limited; Provincial Oils Limited; McColl-Frontenac Oil Co., Ltd.; Pennsylvania Oil Products Co.; Tidewater Oil Co., of Canada Ltd.
Contracts were awarded to McColl-Frontenac Oil Co., Ltd., and British American Oil Company Ltd.
Navy requirements
Tenders were received from the following companies:	Irving Oil Limited; Provincial
Oils Limited; Imperial Oil Limited; McColl-Frontenac Oil Co., Ltd.
The contract was awarded to Provincial Oils Limited.
(d)	Pictou, N.S.
Navy requirements
Tenders were received from the following companies:	British American Oil Company
Ltd.; Canadian Oil Companies Limited; McColl-Frontenac Oil Co., Ltd.; Imperial Oil Limited; Irving Oil Limited.
The contract was awarded to British American Oil Company Ltd.
(e)	St. John's, Nfld.
Navy requirements
Five firms were requested to tender. One tender only was received, from Imperial Oil Limited, to whom the contract was awarded.
Note.-Army requirements for this point are also being supplied by Imperial Oil Limited, no other firm being in a position to supply.
(f)	Cape Breton, N.S.
Army requirements
Tenders were received from the following companies: British American Oil Company Ltd.; Canadian Oil Companies Limited; Imperial Oil Limited; Irving Oil Limited; Provincial Oils Limited; McColl-Frontenac Oil Co., Ltd.; Pennsylvania Oil Products Co.; Tidewater Oil Co., of Canada Ltd.
Contracts were awarded to the British American Oil Company Ltd. and Canadian Oil Companies Ltd.
Navy requirements
Tenders were received from the following companies: British American Oil Company Ltd.; Canadian Oil Companies Limited; Imperial Oil Limited; Irving Oil Limited; Provincial Oils Limited; McColl-Frontenac Oil Co., Ltd.
The contract was placed with the British American Oil Company Ltd.
4.	Requisitions are made to the Department of Munitions and Supply for army requirements by the director of supply and transport, Department of National Defence, upon request from the district officer commanding, military district No. 6, Halifax, N.S.
Requisitions are made to the Department of Munitions and Supply for navy requirements by the director of naval stores and air force requirements, through the commanding officer, eastern air command.
5.	No.
Note.-Requirements of the Department of National Defence for Air on the east coast are purchased by the local purchasing agents of the Department of Munitions and Supply, in order to ensure better control of deliveries and maintenance of supply. The business is being distributed equally among the six firms in a position to supply.
Questions


PORK PRODUCTS FROM UNITED STATES-DRAWBACK CLAIMS BY PACKERS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Have the meat packers filed claim for drawback on difference in price importation of pork products from United States and amount received by them under export agreement with Great Britain for the year 1940?
2.	If so, what were the sums paid and to whom ?


Mr. GIBSON:: 1.	No drawback claims have been filed on the basis of difference in price importation of pork products from United States and amount received by meat packers under export agreement with Great Britain for the year 1940.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


GEORGE W. TINGLEY
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Is George W. Tingley of Halifax employed in the Department of Munitions and Supply?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	What are his qualifications for this position and who recommended him?
4.	What salary and expenses or other allowance does he receive?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 1 and 2. Yes, for a probationary period of six months, as stores coordinator in the overhaul and repair division of the aircraft production branch.
3.	(a) His qualifications for the position are: Graduate dentist-practised from 1906 to 1917; Canadian army-1917 to 1920; Cadillac franchise-1920 to 1924; Franklin franchise-1924 to 1930; General Motors' dealer-Manager of his own business; 1937-Appointed to dealer council of General Motors-This council to suggest procedures to be followed by General Motors' dealers in the United States and Canada, Member of advisory committee of federation of Canadian auto dealers; 1941- Director of Halifax aero club.
(b) Mr. H. J. Carmichael, director general gun production branch, Department of Munitions and Supply; Mr. Ralph P. Bell, director general aircraft production branch, Department of Munitions and Supply.
4.	Salary at rate of $5,000 per annum plus the usual travelling expenses while on departmental business.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-FLORENCE, N.S., COLLIERY DISPUTE
Mr. MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1.	Has the Department of Labour taken any action to settle the dispute at the Florence colliery, Florence, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, has any decision been arrived at as to the cause of the trouble and where the blame should be placed?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes. On May 7, the dispute as discussed in the Department of Labour with the international board member of the United Mine Workers of America and a resumption of work was expected on the following day. On May 8, another strike occurred at Sydney Mines nearby and the situation was discussed in the Department of Labour with the minister of mines and labour of Nova Scotia. A telegram was sent to the district president of the union that work should be resumed and the disputes referred to the miners' joint adjustment board for authoritative decision. A reply was received that the district president was confident that operations would be resumed on Monday, May 11, in order to permit adjustment board to consider disputes. This was done.
2.	Reports received in the department indicated that the strike was against the suspension of nine miners who had quit work one day before closing time. The question as to blame is involved in the reference to the adjustment board. No report as to the decision has been received.
w. R. FISKE


Mr. MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1.	Is Mr. W. R. Fiske, Saint John, New Brunswick, employed in any capacity by the government?
2.	If so, what are his duties?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Regional officer of timber control office at Saint John, N.B. assistant timber controller for the maritimes and deputy administrator for lumber, millwork and woodenware which come under the authority of the timber controller.


PROPOSALS FOR ENTRY' OF NEWFOUNDLAND INTO CANADIAN CONFEDERATION
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	Have overtures been made either to or by Newfoundland regarding entering the confederation?
2.	What would Newfoundland's representation in the House of Commons and the Senate be based on the representation of, (a) Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, (b) Prince Edward Island,
(c)	Quebec, (d) Manitoba or Saskatchewan, after revision?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	In view of the answer to No. 1, the second question does not arise.

Questions as Orders jor Returns
status of "o Canada"
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	Has the defence council reached a decision regarding the status of the national anthem 0 Canada?
2.	If so, what conclusion?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


Mr. CHURCH:: There is only one national anthem-God Save the King.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many people, by provinces, have been prosecuted in the law courts for not carrying out the orders in council and instructions, rules and regulations and directions of various boards and controllers and dollar-a-year men, including the wartime prices and trade board, and various non-legislative bodies?
2.	What lawyers, by provinces, have been retained, and what are their fees?
3.	Does the Department of Justice provide counsel to enforce federal law for the wartime prices and trade board and other federal boards?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I had expected that the hon. member would modify this question and perhaps make it clearer. I understood from him that he was particularly interested in the prosecutions in connection with the regulations of the wartime prices and trade board. If it is satisfactory to the hon. member, perhaps this question could stand as an order for return in respect to the wartime prices and trade board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a little wider than that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member wishes more information, a further application can be made; but I understood from him that he was particularly interested in those prosecutions.
"Canada's battle of the Atlantic"-"royal CANADIAN navy"


Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many copies of the publications, "Canada's Battle of the Atlantic" and "Royal Canadian Navy" were printed?
2.	Was the printing done by contract? If so, who submitted tenders, stating amounts?
3.	If not by tender, in what manner was the contract let and to whom?
4.	What was the total cost and how were these publications distributed?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to issue securities not exceeding $22,360,000 in principal amount to provide the moneys necessary to meet capital expenditures made or capital indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1942; to make provision for the purchase or refunding of capital obligations of the company, or of any company comprised of the Canadian National Railways system, during the said calendar year and for the issue of substituted securities for such purpose; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal, interest and sinking funds of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the making of temporary loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $22,360,000 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures anil indebtedness; with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. TURGEON (Cariboo):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence, based upon a statement by the Japanese imperial command that Japanese soldiers have taken possession of some of the Aleutian islands. I know there will be much uneasiness in British Columbia, Alberta and other parts of Canada about this report and I should be glad to have the minister make a statement.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: No information whatever has been received by the Department of National Defence regarding an attempt to land troops on the Aleutian islands. We have had considerable information with regard to relevant matters, but nothing of that kind. I would direct my hon. friend's attention to the statement made yesterday by a United States naval spokesman to the effect that none of the Alaskan areas or rocks are troubled with
Farm, Loans-British Columbia

uninvited guests. The statement was again denied at ten o'clock last night in a CBC broadcast, when it was stated that no Japanese forces of any kind had landed on any rock or island of Alaskan territory.



FARM LOANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Some few days ago I placed on the order paper three questions asking for information in connection with farm loans in British Columbia granted by the farm loan board. The return that was brought down by the minister yesterday in answer to those questions is, I think, an evasion of the questions I put on the order paper. My first question was:
What was the number of applications for loans under the Canadian farm loan board in the province of British Columbia in each month since January 1, 1939, to May 30, 1912?
And I asked two following questions. The answer that was brought down was given to the minister, I presume, by the chairman of the farm loan board. In connection with the figures given it is stated :
'The statistical records of the board are kept on a yearly basis.
I claim that is a straight evasion of the questions I asked. I was not speaking of statistical records. I wanted the figures for each month since January 1, 1939, to May 30, 1942. I think a member of parliament is entitled to have that information, and I am asking the Minister of Finance now to have it brought down.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall look into the matter and see whether the information is available on the basis asked for. I suggest to my hon. friend that if he had spoken to me first, instead of publicly accusing the officials of evasion, he would probably have achieved the same end.



CANADIANS IN JAPAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, on the orders of the day on June 9 I directed a question to the Prime Minister concerning a press report as to arrangements for exchanging Canadian and

Japanese nationals. The Prime Minister was not in the house that afternoon, but the Minister of Mines and Resources undertook to bring the question to his attention. It will be found at page 3171 of Hansard. Would it be possible to have a reply to-day, or if not to-day, to-morrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will try to give my hon. friend a reply to-morrow.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940.
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the people of this country are anxious for a total war effort, including the compulsory mobilization of all our resources, both human and material. But total war must mean total war for everything and not only for human life. [DOT]
It is our view that political considerations have distorted the issues before the people and have unnecessarily divided our country. No section of our people, neither English nor French-speaking, has been told in clear and definite terms what we are fighting for, what the needs of the war are. Unreal and partisan political discussion has unfortunately made the question of conscription for overseas service the main issue. For some English-speaking Canadians it has become the symbol of total war; for most of our fellow-Canadians of the French language it has become the symbol of a surviving colonialism and an effort at domination to which they object. Thus, when unity in our country is a matter of life and death, we are rent by dissension and ill-will. More than that, not only the war but the post-war period is endangered by this disunity.
A large share of the responsibility for the present dissension lies squarely on the shoulders of the government. In time of acute crisis the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been and still is pursuing his well known technique of procrastination in the hope that time will solve problems that cry for immediate solution. The result has been confusion and distrust, instead of understanding and confidence.
Even now the issue is being confused by the government. The people arq being told that the amendment before us does not introduce

Mobilization Act-Mr. Caldwell
conscription but merely frees the government's hands. Of course, I realize that the mere amending of the act does not of itself automatically abolish the voluntary system, but of what importance is that as compared with the paramount fact that this is the last opportunity which parliament has of declaring itself on the subject? If this amendment is passed, every restriction on the government will have been removed and the government will be free to impose conscription for overseas service at any time, on any terms it sees fit, and without any further reference to parliament. This is contrary to all the assurances of the Prime Minister that parliament would decide this issue.
I submit that nothing is gained and much harm is done by this new confusion. For who is satisfied by the government's interpretation of this amendment? No one. Those who want conscription are incensed by this policy. Those who are opposed to conscription do not believe it. And the result is still further confusion, further argument and discussion, prolonged controversy and increasing bitterness. This -lack of leadership, this policy of drift cannot be tolerated any longer. As I said in my broadcast during the plebiscite campaign, the "yes" vote was another indication that the people of Canada want a war policy which places all of the nation's resources at the service of the nation's cause-without profits, without special privilege, and without the evils of monopoly control. Amd, what is more, I am profoundly convinced that such a policy would greatly reduce the opposition to conscription for overseas service.
We deplore that conscription of man-power for overseas service has been allowed to take on such importance and to divide our people. For it is not the most vital issue facing this country to-day-and it certainly ought not to be a political issue. In our view, the problem of conscription for overseas service should not be dealt with on the basis of past prejudices and divisions. It is purely a question of strategy and should be considered exclusively on the basis of how we can make our best and most effective contribution to the defeat of the Hitler axis. We should think about it only in terms of our national interest and that of our allies, whose existence and freedom-as well as our own-depend upon the outcome of this war.
The Prime Minister yesterday asked parliament to free the government's hands so that it might by order in council adopt any policy which the war situation may make necessary. No man has more frequently assured this country that such policies would be decided
by parliament than the Prime Minister. Surely the government realizes that at no time since the outbreak of war has the situation been more critical than now. Everyone agrees that the campaigns of this year will decide the war. What should be done ought to be done now, with and by the consent and approval of this parliament. We have no right to give a blank cheque to the government to do nothing, or to make regulations for the conscription of man-power, which may be no better understood or more equitably administered than the regulations already in effect and about the meaning of which there is no general agreement by the Department of National War Services which is charged with their administration. Under the circumstances my colleagues and I do not propose to give the government a blank cheque to do by order in council what this parliament alone should do.
In my broadcast of April 21, I said of the issue of conscription: "The issue will be decided by parliament when and if the government presents it for discussion", and I insist that parliament and not the governor general in council shall decide the issue. The significant thing we have to face is that the controversy over the narrow issue now before the house has deeply-rooted causes-causes much deeper than the mere question of conscription for overseas. The divisions in our country to-day are the result of twenty-five years of political manoeuvring, and, added to this, the fact that throughout this period, in war as well as in peace, Canada has never pursued a foreign policy based on independent thought and judgment as befits a sovereign country. They arise from the fact that at no time has the government made clear to the people that we are in this war for our own survival and that we intend to play our proper part in the conduct of the war jointly with all other united nations, and not merely to be the appendix of any stronger power. They arise also from the fact that we have never stated clearly and unequivocally that so far as we are concerned and so far as the free peoples everywhere are concerned this is not an imperialist war, but on the contrary Canada stands now, and will stand when peace comes, to fight for [DOT]freedom for all the subject peoples, whether it be in India, Asia, Africa, Europe or elsewhere. We should state clearly our determination, in the words of the Vice-President of the United States Mr. Henry R. Wallace, that "no nation will have the God-given right to exploit other nations". There must be neither military nor economic imperialism.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Coldwell
Finally I believe that the opposition to overseas conscription is due, in part at least, to the evidence everywhere of gross inequality of sacrifice, to the fact that the wide powers which were given the government in the National Resources Mobilization Act have so far been used mainly to conscript labour, to freeze agriculture, and to conscript manpower for home defence. They have not been used to impose equal sacrifices on the privileged and to harness industry and wealth to an all out war effort according to a national war production plan and without strengthening the hold of private monopoly over the life of our country.
These, I believe, are the real causes of the differences existing in Canada to-day. If we are to achieve unity, both for an effective war effort and for successful reconstruction afterwards, we must introduce now a new and dynamic policy along the lines I have just indicated. Conscription for overseas service alone will not meet the requirements of our contribution, nor. I must add. will mere opposition to conscription serve the cause of unity and freedom. Every experience in this war- our successes as well as our reverses-has underlined the correctness and, if I may say so, the far-sightedness of the position which we took in this regard at the beginning of the war. It has always been clear that Canada's vital contribution in this war must be the supplying of implements of war and of foodstuffs, in view of our small population, our industrial and agricultural resources, and the comparative safety of our manufacturing units from destruction by the enemy. This does not mean that I am suggesting that Canada should not make her proper contribution in man-power to meet the enemy wherever it is strategically important to fight him. On the contrary, we are convinced that Canada should make her proper contribution on the battle front in the same way as on the industrial front. But I condemn as thoughtless and irresponsible demagogues those people who speak of this war only or mainly in terms of soldiers and more soldiers. I would lay it down as an axiom for our country that any policy which would tend to increase our fighting services at the expense of our industrial effort, at the cost of reducing the production of war materials, would be a wrong policy. What we need, what we have lacked and still lack, is a comprehensive plan of selective service for our material resources as well as for our man-power.
Almost two years ago the people of Canada submitted to a national registration. But it is an open secret to-day that a new inventory of Canada's labour power must be taken. The 
director of national selective service is still at work gathering information upon which to base any positive system for the allocation of man-power. The registration of two years ago is apparently of no value whatever except for calling up men for military service. This is an outrageous example of the total lack of planning which has dogged our war effort at every step. To-day, after almost three years of war, there are still unemployed, and layoffs in key industries. Only last Friday my colleagues the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) brought to the attention of the government lay-offs in a Montreal plant producing tanks, and in the Associated Aircraft plant at Malton. There are still instances of lack of equipment in our training camps. We are still in the dark as to the man-power capacity of Canada, and, at the same time that hundreds of trained and semi-trained mechanics are doing guard duty or drilling in the army, the director of national service warned us, on Monday, June 1, that we are already faced with a serious shortage of skilled labour.
I repeat what we of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have said many times m this house and elsewhere: a complete allout war effort is essential to victory. This involves much more than conscription of manpower for military service, whether for home defence or for overseas. Not only justice but efficiency, not only morality but cold-blooded reality, demand conscription of war industry, of accumulated wealth and of financial institutions even more, much more urgently than the conscription of human life. The important thing to remember is that two years ago almost to a day the National Resources Mobilization Act, which the government now seeks to amend, was passed. At the insistence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) parliament made dramatic haste and in three days the bill went through all its stages. Hon. members will remember that the Prime Minister scolded the house for taking even this short time to discuss a bill which gave the government sweeping, one might almost say dictatorial, powers. Listening to him at that time, a gullible person might have got the impression that one hour after the passage of the bill the whole machinery of the government would go into action to mobilize the country for total war. Such* gullibility perhaps deserved the disappointment which it later suffered. For this act could more properly have been called the human resources mobilization act. Apparently only human life is considered a national resource. Industry and *wealth remain private resources to be hired at a profit or borrowed at interest.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Coldwell
I want to make it clear that I do not desire for one moment to belittle what has been done. Obviously we are producing vast quantities of war supplies, and compared with the first months of the war we have made great strides, but it is my conviction that we can accomplish much more than we have done hitherto, and we cannot afford to lose any more time. It is our duty not only to help win the war some time but to help win it as soon as possible. Every month cut off the war means the saving of many thousands of human lives. From this point of view, therefore, what we have failed to do is scandalous, although what we have managed to do is substantial, and our failures have in my view been due to the fact that the powers given the government under the mobilization act have so far been used mainly for the regimentation of oui human resources.
Look at the record. We have conscripted men for home defence. We have frozen wages without placing any floor under them, so that industrial wages as low as 30 cents or 35 cents an hour are still being paid in many parts of Canada, particularly in the province of Quebec, and frozen at that level for the duration of the war. We have frozen farm labour without providing the farmer with the means of paying his labourer a decent wage. We have introduced measures which in effect almost- note, I say almost-prohibit strikes; yet we have done nothing to guarantee the workers the right to organize and bargain collectively. We have frozen prices, which is in principle a very good thing; but we have done almost nothing to protect the primary producer under the scheme. We have set up machinery for the regimentation of labour under the National Resources Mobilization Act, but without prior consultation with the workers.
Against this record on the human side, set up the profits still being made by corporations, the extent to which the economic effort is controlled by representatives of monopoly interests, the great luxuries still possible to those with wealth, the increasing power and resources being concentrated in the hands of a few, and you have some of the fundamental reasons why there is so much discontent and suspicion in the country to-day. As I have already said, we need a new and comprehensive policy, a policy which would utilize every resource for victory, which would plan our war production with a view to achieving the greatest possible output, without any regard for private interests, and which would provide a minimum standard of living and a scheme of social security for all our people. Such a policy would inspire our people with a vision
of the new world for which we are fighting this war. For this reason I move in amendment:
That all the words after "that" in the said motion, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this bill be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that provision for the introduction of conscription of man-power for overseas service without specific proposals for the immediate use of the power conferred by section 2 of the act, to conscript war industry, financial institutions and accumulated wealth, does not meet the urgent need for total war, imposes further inequality of sacrifice, and is, therefore, contrary to the peace, order and good government of Canada."
There has been a widespread demand that we define exactly what we mean when we speak of conscription of industry and wealth. I shall endeavour to give the house a detailed outline of the immediate proposals we have in mind. Before doing so, however, there are one or two preliminary observations I should like to make.
I know that in many instances the question of what we mean by conscription of industry and wealth is asked honestly by people who really want to know the concrete proposals intended by this policy; but I also know that in some cases the question is asked by agencies which know perfectly well what is meant and which are trying to belittle the policy by confusing the simple issue with which it deals. It is significant that in almost every one of the many editorials written by newspapers on the subject recently, they say first that they do not know what conscription of wealth means, and then immediately go on to state that wealth has already been conscripted. They do not know what it means but it is already being done. I do not think I need point out further the obvious dishonesty of such criticism. I should like to make it clear that the proposals I am about to discuss are not exhaustive. They are the main, immediate steps which in our view are essential to an all-out war effort and to any policy approaching equality of sacrifice. The proposals we place before the government, parliament and the people are half a dozen concrete measures which I outlined in my speech to this house on January 26 of this year. I will enumerate them first and1 then deal with each one in turn. They are as follows:
1.	Nationalization of financial institutions, so that without inflation or accumulating debt we can finance our war effort.
2.	Compulsory, interest-free loans levied according to ability to contribute, as one of the means of war financing.
Mobilization Act-Mr. Coldwell

3.	Government ownership or complete control of all essential war industries so that every plant can take its place as a unit in a comprehensive national plan of war production.
4.	Replacing all dollar-a-year men by fulltime national administrators paid only by the state and working in conjunction with war boards on which labour and farm organizations are properly represented.
5.	A 100 per cent tax on all profits in excess of 4 per cent on capital actually invested, as has been suggested in our sister dominion of Australia.
6.	The establishment of a fair maximum-minimum income, a steeply graduated tax on incomes between the minimum and maximum, and a 100 per cent tax on all incomes above the maximum.
The proposals are complementary one to the other and should be taken as parts of a whole plan. In our view this is the only way in which we could in this country achieve the three simple objectives which the Hon. Walter Nash, former minister of finance of the New Zealand Labour government, placed before the select committee on reconstruction and reestablishment the other day. You will recall he emphasized three things:
1.	That no one who goes away from his country to fight ought to be worse off because he goes away to fight.
2.	That nobody ought to be better off because he stays at home.
. 3- That no one in the present world situation should at any time expect a profit from the supply of essential things associated with the war.
Since the government is seeking power for the final step in the conscription of man-power for overseas, now is the time to demand that these principles be put into effect. Moreover, the Prime Minister has lectured the house se\ eral times this session on the necessity of public men and political parties honouring their pledges and living up to their promises. On April 21 I appealed to the Canadian people to support the affirmative vote in the plebiscite.
* In making the plea I said:
I want to make it clear beyond the slightest chance of misunderstanding that we of the C.C.P. will not only continue hut will intensify our demand for the conscription of war industry, accumulated wealth and the financial institutions, on the same basis and at the same time as the compulsory mobilization of human power. To us, the value of the plebiscite lies only in the opportunity it gives our people of clearing away the underbrush of irrelevant argument. Once that is cleared away, the path to a total and just war policy will be open. We shall 
accept an overwhelming and united "yes" vote next Monday as another indication that the people of Canada are anxious for a war policy which places all the nation's resources at the service of the nation's cause-without profits, without special privilege, and without the evils of monopoly control.
Now let me deal with the relevance and meaning of each one of the proposals I have enumerated.
The first deals with the nationalization of the chartered banks. We of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have always contended that the financial system should be publicly owned and operated for the common good. Hon. members will have noticed that one of the first controls which the government found it necessary to impose in this war was the control of foreign exchange. Banks are instruments of financial and investment policy. It is absurd to leave any portion of this policy in private hands during a crisis such as the present. I am not speaking of the profits made by the banks, although the nine chartered banks in 1941 recorded a total profit of over $13,000,000. The more important thing, however, is the control of policy, which should be exclusively in the hands of the government. Only in this way could we pursue a monetary policy which would be in harmony with the needs of war production and investment. In this way, too, we would have the full information about the monetary situation which is necessary for an intelligent policy.
But there is one additional reason why the public ownership of the chartered banks and government control of financial and investment policy is of great interest at the present time. Everyone is aware of the important part which these factors played in the prewar years. These factors will be equally crucial in the reconstruction period after the war. It will be necessary for the country as a whole collectively to control and direct investment and to finance huge schemes of public enterprise.
Some time ago the Prime Minister correctly stated in a public address that unless we lay the foundations of the new world order during the war we may look for it in vain. The right hon. gentleman was right. I now call upon him to implement his words, since he and he alone has the full power to direct the policy.
One final word on the question of banks. I hope no one will raise the bogey about such a step as I am urging disrupting our war effort. Banks do not produce anything. They could not produce a contraption which would shoot a pea at Hitler, let alone a gun, a tank or a plane. They might however harm our war effort by anti-social policies.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Coldwell
The second proposal we make is that when it is necessary for the state to borrow money from individuals and corporations it should be by means of interest-free loans to be levied on a graduated scale according to ability to subscribe. This is of crucial importance. Hon. gentleman will recall during the twenty years between the two wars the public treasury paid millions of dollars in interest charges. According to the figures published in appendix "A" to the Sirois report, page 41, the net annual debt charges of the dominion grew from $12,213,000 in 1913 to $152,488,000 in 1921, an increase of more than 1,200 per cent as a result of loans made in the last war. The loans which we have made in this war are already tremendously larger than those of the last war, although the rate of interest is lower. And we are not finished yet. What will this mean when the war is won? The same thing that it meant in the past: public works, programmes of social service, the needs of our people for education, for homes, for safeguarding health and providing for their old age-all will suffer because the cry will be raised that contractual obligations are sacred. Consequently the major share of the national revenue will be paid out in interest.
I declare that this is immoral. Do we promise interest in perpetuity to our young men whom we send to give their lives for this country and for the cause of freedom? Early in this war the President of the United States had the wisdom and generosity to introduce the lease-lend arrangement so as to avoid crippling the post-war period through international debts. We ourselves have made a free gift of 81,000,000,000 to Britain. Yet when we need the financial resources lying unused in Canada we pay interest on them now and forever more. "Profitable patriotism," the late Mr. Lapointe called it. Unpatriotic extortion would be more nearly correct.
There is a bogey in connection with this proposal which should be laid immediately. We are asked: Are you threatening to take the savings of the poor widow and the orphan? I wish many of them had savings; I am certain they would be among the first to offer them to our cause in this war. No; we are threatening no such thing. You will have noticed that we say that compulsory interest-free loans should be levied on a graduated scale according to ability to subscribe. The small savings of individuals which are meant for a rainy day, for possible ill-health or similar needs, should be exempt.
Then we are asked: What about the subscriptions of such institutions as life insurance companies, whose earnings are widely distributed among small policyholders? I am
certain every Canadian would gladly forego the small sum which he receives in dividends on his policy each year if by doing so he could be guaranteed social insurance against unemployment, bad housing and chaos after the war. This is precisely what in part the elimination of interest payments on war loans would mean.
The third proposal we make is either government ownership or, where that is not feasible, complete government control of all war industry. Tied in directly with this is the next proposal, that dollar-a-year men should be replaced by national administrators paid exclusively by the state, and that labour and farm organizations be given a proper share in the control of war production. I discuss these points together, since they concern one subject.
Production is still our main job in this war. Upon our success in this field depends our main contribution to victory. On many previous occasions my colleagues and I have pointed out the shortcomings in our war production and the utter lack of over-all planning. In fact it is true to say that the Department of Munitions and Supply has so far been merely a procurement department- It has sought to fill orders requisitioned by our own service departments or those of our allies. There has been no evidence of comprehensive planning to expand our war production to the maximum of our resources without affecting the health, efficiency and morale of our people. "Cost plus" contracts have been entered into. I understand that several hundred have been made. Private business has been allowed to bargain and haggle, to hinder necessary expansion, to continue to produce luxury articles requiring indispensable war materials, to influence our whole production policy by competitive considerations. Look at the record. Only a few months ago did we stop the production of pleasure automobiles, and it is not very much longer since we stopped production of other luxury articles, such as radios and refrigerators. Now we are short of rubber and steel and other materials which went into the manufacture of these articles during more than two years since the war began. In fact the years 1940 and 1941 were banner years for the automobile industry. Yet they were years during which France fell and Britain was on the brink of defeat, years during which the war became a world conflict and the cause of freedom became more and more dependent on contributions of this continent.
Some of the evils of the first two years have been corrected through the pressure of events. But we still have far too much "business as

Mobilization Act-Mr. Coldwell
usual," far too much tenderness towards private interests; still no plan based on a full inventory of our resources. I have already referred to layoffs which have occurred in Hamilton and Malton. The other day I drew the attention of the house to the possibility of oil deposits on Manitoulin island. These possible deposits of one of the most valuable resources needed for war are not even being investigated, because in 1909 a private lease was granted to an individual and corporation. In war at least such resources must belong to the people, to the nation, to the allied cause; private interests must not stand in the way of the national objective of victory.
As I speak, the Dumart packing plant in Kitchener is shut down. For almost four weeks the plant has kept the workers locked out, because they walked out for one hour in protest over the unfair dismissal of two of their fellow workers. The federal labour department and the provincial minister of labour have sought a settlement. The company says no; it will open the plant only on its own conditions, namely, that they take back whomsoever they like, and fire the most active unionists. The union has sent a brief to the Prime Minister asking him to send a controller to the plant, but that the government refuses to do. Think of it. In spite of the great need for bacon and similar meat products in Great Britain. In spite of the beef shortage at home, a private meat packing company is at liberty to shut down its plant for four weeks, to keep about three hundred men and women idle and in want- all because of the determination to block the union. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) does not act.


Mr. MITCHELL:: At the moment, as the hon. member speaks, a conference is going on in the Department of Labour. The plant is operating.


Major James William Coldwell: But after four weeks, though.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows it is an illegal strike.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: It was not an illegal lockout, though.


Major James William Coldwell: Was it an illegal walkout?


Humphrey Mitchell: It was an illegal strike.


Major James William Coldwell: I could cite many more examples of the past and present. It is a simple statement of fact that our conversion to war production has been slow and tardy; that it has been impeded by considerations of the competitive position of private monopolies 
both now and after the war; that private business has been and still is allowed to control the effort within wide limits; that we have not had any comprehesive plan of war production based on the compulsory selective use of all our resources. And this in a war in which supplies and equipment mean the difference between victory and defeat. The united nations do not lack men. They do need, and need urgently, more and ever more equipment and supplies. To the extent that any private consideration is allowed to stand in the way of war production, to that extent do we betray our sacred obligations to our country and to our allies in this war.
Therefore we say that all war industry should be fully conscripted immediately. It would probably be difficult to acquire immediate public ownership of some industries without interrupting production, and we recognize that production must not be interrupted. But it is possible, without any difficulty, to say to private industry that for the duration of the war, its plants, its policies, its management are completely at the disposal of the nation, precisely in the same way as we have, without hesitation, said to the men and women of Canada that certain of them must place their lives at the service of the country; that others must for the duration of the war work where they are told, at a wage which may not be increased.
Another reason why our economic controls have not worked satisfactorily is that they have been in the hands of men who exclusively represent big business and continue to draw their salary and incomes from the corporations in which they have an interest. It is an accepted principle, though sometimes evaded in practice, that one who becomes a minister of the crown should thereupon sever whatever connections he may have had with private corporations. But our dollar-a-year men have almost as much legal power and a great deal more economic power than members of the cabinet, and should be subject to the same rule. Even if our big industrialists and financiers were angels-and the social history of our country show's some of them to have been far removed from the incorruptible inhabitants of heaven-they would still be the victims of divided loyalties and of the pressures of long-established ties and habits. Therefore we say that dollar-a-year men should be replaced by administrators who are employed by the state at a salary, and who are forbidden to receive any remuneration from private corporations.
Finally, on this question of production and control, it is absolutely essential that labour and farm organizations be properly represented

Mobilization Act-Mr. Coldwell
on all war boards. This is a war for democracy. The workers have no axe to grind other than the one needed to destroy Hitler and Hitlerism. Their zeal, their intelligence, their daily experience should be harnessed through giving them a share in the responsibility of planning and controlling production. In this way greater efficiency could be achieved, a feeling of confidence, selfrespect and responsibility instilled into our people, and a measure of democracy introduced into our war effort. Ernest Bevin has wisely said:
This talk of winning the war means you have to call for the utmost ingenuity you can get from the people, for every ounce of ability they have, for the willingness and courage to take decisions, to make them indifferent to enemy action and carry on. I do not believe you can do that with orders from the top.
In Canada we have taken no account of this important fact. It is only after almost three years of continuous pressure by us and by the labour unions that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) has at last condescended to favour labour-management committees. Much more than that is needed. At the bottom there must be union recognition and collective bargaining, and then organized labour should be represented in the top councils as well as in plant committees.
The fifth proposal I enumerated earlier is to limit net profits to 4 per cent on capital actually invested. There is no reason why such a policy should not become immediately the law in Canada. It may well be argued that even 4 per cent is far too generous; that in a war such as the present, with so much at stake, no profits whatever should be made out of the production of war supplies. Again we are prepared to recognize the compromise which may be necessary in order to maintain continuous production. But 4 per cent is an adequate return. No business should demand more in this crisis.
An attempt has been made to foster the idea that the excess profits tax has really eliminated profits. I am quite prepared to admit that it has prevented the kind of profiteering which was known in the last war. But huge profits are still being made. The Financial Post for May 30 carries an analysis of the profits made by 146 selected companies. The final showing is that the 1941 net profits of these companies was 8-1 per cent higher than those of 1940 and 2-8 per cent higher than those of 1939. The Financial Post, as may be expected, draws the smug conclusion that this shows that profits are reasonable. Such a conclusion is without foundation. For any increase 44561-206
whatever over 1939 and 1940 is scandalous. The 1939 profits were for all industry, with the exception of the railways, among the highest since the last war. To allow in the second year of this war net profits-after all taxes greatly increased depreciation, inventory and other reserves-greater than those of one of the most profitable pre-war years is to make a mockery of the principle of equality of sacrifice. In fact, if the Financial Post had, as it should have, compared the 1941 profits with the average made in 1936-39-the basic period under the Excess Profits Tax Act-the 1941 increase would have been very substantially greater.
I have in my hand two tables: one of twenty-three companies which in 1941 made profits up to 30 per cent higher than the average made by the same companies for the basic period 1936-39; the other listing twenty-six companies whose 1941 increase over 193639 was 30 per cent or over. The aggregate increase in the first instance was 14 per cent over 1936-39 and 9 per cent over 1940. The aggregate increase in the second group was 62 per cent over 1936-39 and 29 per cent over 1940. I do not propose to take time to read them, but if it is desired, I shall be glad to place these tables on Hansard.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member is proposing to limit the profit to 4 per cent. Would that carry a guarantee of profits of 4 per cent?


Major James William Coldwell: No, it would not carry a guarantee of 4 per cent. I know it will be said that it would not be possible with a 4 per cent return for an industry to build up a reserve to meet post-war conditions, but if everybody was limited to 4 per cent after allowing fair depreciation for different types of industry, I think that would be fair.
The apologists for the monopoly interests and big business point to the increased production and increased capital investment as justification for the increased profits. But what is responsible for the present production and who laid out the added capital expenditure? What right has private monopoly to extort a return on production for which it does not even have to advertise, production which is caused by a world calamity? And do not let us forget .that well over half a billion dollars have been invested by our government and that of Britain in the capital expansion made necessary by the war.
The important point in all this is not only the amount of money involved; it is the distortion of the purposes of this war which the situation reveals. It is the suspicion which



Mobilization Act-Mr. Coldwell
is engendered in people's minds. It is the principle of the thing, the injustice and inequality of sacrifice. If we ask young Canadians to submit to another step in the total conscription of their lives, then profits should at least be limited, if not eliminated.
Finally we propose the setting up of a minimum and maximum income and a tax beginning with the minimum and graduated steeply until it is 100 per cent for everything above the maximum. The minimum suggested is that of our present income tax law- $750 for a single man and $1,500 for a married person. As for the maximum I would suggest an amount between $12,000 and $15,000. The President of the United States suggested $25,000 for that country. In New Zealand they have established a maximum of $12,000. Fifteen thousand dollars would therefore seem to be a proportionate amount for Canada. I want to make it clear that the maximum would not be net, but would remain subject to income tax. Now that this parliament has exclusive powers in the income tax field, such a proposal can be conveniently carried out.
It is scandalous and inhuman that we should refuse to increase the miserly benefit now being paid the aged, that we should refuse even to give them the cost of living bonus. It is equally scandalous that we should, even now with maximum employment, have thousands of people living in slums and in bad health.
Our treatment of soldiers' dependents is equally deplorable. Many of them are partly dependent on the generosity of private organizations. Imagine the morale which can be instilled into these people whose breadwinners have gone to give their lives for their country; yet they must depend on private charity to live in decency. Faith in the war, unity among our people for victory, zeal in production-all these indispensable assets of a people at war in a righteous cause, depend upon just and humane treatment of the masses of the people. We must give them something to defend and fight for. And we must show them that in this war no one in the land is allowed an income of excessive luxury.
. These are the concrete proposals which we have in mind under a policy of conscription of industry and wealth. I have dealt with them in considerable detail so that no one can hereafter say that they do not know what is meant. I appeal to hon. members to consider this policy on its merits. The time is overdue when we should attain a real total war effort and begin to lay the outlines of the just Canada which we should build after victory.
It is my conviction that such a policy would fire the imagination of all our people, would

make clear our objectives in the war and would win the unqualified support of every section of our people for any and every service which may be necessary. Remember the profound homely truth which the VicePresident of the United States enunciated recently:
The object of this war is to make sure that everybody in the world has the privilege of drinking a quart of milk a day.
Let us plan for this objective in our own country now. If an effective policy of conscription of industry and wealth were introduced now, we believe any restriction on military conscription could justly be removed and we would support it. But the government is not doing anything of the sort. In all respects it will continue the disastrous policy which it pursued until now. It only asks to be free to continue one step further the conscription of human life. The demands of the workers, the pleading of the farmers, the entreaties of the aged, the veterans, the sick and the dependents of the nation's heroes cannot move the government one inch towards greater democracy or justice or total economic conscription. But the shouts of reactionary super-patriotism for human conscription are immediately answered. We cannot and will not agree to giving of further powers for human conscription without concrete measures for the conscription of material resources.
This war, with everything which is at slake in it, with the heroism of whole peoples to inspire us, should have been the occasion for building a deeper unity in our own nation than we have ever known. That the contrary should face us now is a condemnation of the leadership and policies which have guided us since the outbreak of hostilities. I believe the policies which I have outlined could win back that unity, could build this nation into a powerful instrument for victory in the war and for a people's peace afterwards. That is why we urge them at this time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The question is on the amendment. If any hon. member wishes to speak to the relevancy of the amendment, he should do so at this time.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I rise to discuss one point only. I refer Your Honour to page 391 of May, thirteenth edition, which reads:
Nor may such an amendment deal with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee, nor attach conditions to the second reading of the bill.
I suggest that the amendment is out of order. There are other points also that could be raised.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Coldwell


Major James William Coldwell: I would refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 217, standing order 75, citation 755, which reads:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
I would submit that under the citation the amendment which I have just moved is clearly in order, because it expresses opinions as to the circumstances connected with the introduction of the bill, and it contains a resolution declaratory of some principle differing from the policy of the bill. I would also direct Your Honour's attention to page 321, where the second readings of bills and amendments thereto is discussed. I direct particular attention to the last paragraph, which reads:
The question being proposed "that Bill No. 133, the Wartime Elections Act, be now read a second time."
Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved in amendment thereto, seconded by Mr. Pugsley: "That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that the abridgement by this parliament of the electoral franchise now enjoyed in any province of the dominion by any class of His Majesty's subjects would be contrary to the peace, order and good government of Canada."
This refers specifically to the point raised by the Minister of Pensions and National Health. That was an amendment with a declaratory resolution referring specifically to the bill and it was voted upon by the house in 1917. I contend therefore that both under this precedent of the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier-and who in this house will say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not set an example in parliamentary procedure which we might well follow?-and under the citation I have made, the amendment I have just moved is in order.


Georges Parent: What the hon. member quoted from Beauchesne, paragraph 755, is contained in May, thirteenth edition, at pages 390 and 391, and the hon. member has read the citation as contained in Beauchesne. But May at page 391 also states:
Nor may such an amendment deal with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee, nor attach conditions to the second reading of the bill.
It is upon this quotation I should like to have the observations of the hon. member.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not refer to the provisions of the bill, nor do I attach any conditions to the second reading of the bill. I suggest that in what I am actually doing I am entirely within my rights in doing as a member of this house- and that is, moving that the bill be not now read a second time; and then I go on to declare why the bill should not be read a second time, thus guiding the government and the house in their subsequent deliberations and actions. I suggest that both under the citation from May and the practice of this house, as indicated by my reference to the Wartime Elections Act of 1917 and Sir Wilfrid Laurier's amendment thereto, the amendment I have moved is in order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point to which I was going to draw Your Honour's attention arose out of a remark of my hon. friend that the amendment which had been moved by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to a certain bill paralleled his amendment or that his paralleled Sir Wilfrid Laurier's. May I say that the difference between the two is just that to which Your Honour has directed the attention of the hon. member. I do not think there will be found in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's amendment any words which could have been moved in committee as a possible amendment to a clause of the bill, and that is the point on which I think His Honour will rule the present motion of my hon. friend as being out of order. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's amendment was in the nature of a motion of want of confidence in the government, but it did not go the length of setting forth certain provisions which might be moved as amendments in committee, which is what my hon. friend's amendment does. He is anticipating amendments which might possibly be made to the bill when it is in committee. That he cannot do on the second reading of any bill.


Major James William Coldwell: My allusion to what
should be done under this bill had reference to the bill already enacted. The Prime Minister said yesterday that power was in the hands of the government to do all the things that I am suggesting, by the declaratory section of the amendment, ought to be done. It is not that something shall be done, or that the bill shall be amended in committee. There is no need to amend the bill in committee because the power I refer to is already in the act; consequently in my opinion the argument of the Prime Minister on that point falls to the ground.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Coldwell


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the citation from May, at page 391, is referred to in "Beauehesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms," in paragraph 760.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I was going to ask the
Prime Minister what particular proposals were in the amendment which could be moved when the bill was in committee. I submit that if any such proposals were moved in committee they would be declared out of order as not being within the competence of a private member to move. Such amendments would be to section 2 of the act. I submit that paragraph 755, under standing order 75, places this amendment in order. It reads in part:
It is also competent for a member who desires to place on record any special reasons-
All the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is doing in moving his amendment is to place on the record special reasons; therefore I submit that his amendment comes within this wording and is in order.


Georges Parent: May I also ask the hon.
member to look at citation 760, dealing with an amendment.


Angus MacInnis: Paragraph 760 says:
The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every proposed resolution, which must, therefore, "strictly relate to the bill which the house, by its order, has resolved upon considering," and must not include in its scope other bills then standing for consideration by the house.
I submit that the amendment does not include within its scope any other bill that is now standing for consideration. The paragraph goes on:
Nor may such an amendment deal with the provisions'of the bill upon which it is moved-
My hon. friend's amendment does not do that.	.
-nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee.
The proposals he makes could not be moved in committee. I am satisfied that his amendment does not anticipate any amendment which could possibly be moved in committee, and therefore I submit that the citation from May cannot be quoted in opposition to the moving of this amendment.


Mr. SLAGHT:: The hon. member who proposes the amendment has just informed the house, as I understood him, that everything contained in his proposed amendment is already covered by section 2 of the existing law. If he is right in that, surely this parliament does not permit amendments merely to

parrot and reiterate a section of the law in the bill he proposes to amend. It would seem to me that that is a complete answer, and makes his present amendment out of order.


Major James William Coldwell: In fairness, may I be allowed to reply? I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was that the Prime Minister in his speech of yesterday contended that section 2 of the act, section 3 of which the present bill will amend, gave the government power to do these things. The declaratory portion of the resolution complains that the government has not used that power, if it exists, and in any event is not bringing before the house any proposal to implement any power it alleges it has, and therefore the amendment is moved in the terms in which it has been moved.


Georges Parent: I think that the question respecting the amendment requires some consideration, and I will give my opinion at eight o'clock.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not call attention to this during the course of the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), but I now call Your Honour's attention to what are the strict rules of this house; and if they are departed from, there is no reason why the leaders of a half-a-dozen so-called parties in this house may not claim the privilege too.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I point out that if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was in order, he was entitled to speak as long as he desired; if it was not in order, he was not so entitled.


Georges Parent: I assume that the leader of the opposition refers to standing order 37, and also to what I said yesterday in regard to the reading of speeches and to the application of the forty-minute rule. It has been the sentiment of the house, whether actually stated or not, that the leaders of the different parties were entitled, or if not entitled were permitted to exceed forty minutes, for the reason that they were the exponents of the party whose policy they were putting before the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not a party in the legal sense.


Georges Parent: If that was the sense of the house and was agreed to unanimously, the leaders were permitted to speak beyond forty minutes. But where exception is taken to

Mobilization Act-Mr. Blackmore
the leaders of these parties exceeding forty minutes I must of course apply the rule as it stands. Standing order 37 states:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government-
I am not aware that the terms of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar are to be considered a motion of "no confidence", but if the amendment is so considered he is entitled to speak at length. -and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
If it is the sense of the house that the rule should be strictly applied, I of course shall have to apply it, and hon. members will have to follow it.


Major James William Coldwell: May I just express my thanks to the house. I quite realize that I was transgressing the rule, but I think the house will agree that I seldom use even the forty minutes that is allowed to me. I want to thank the house for the great courtesy extended to me, and the leader of the opposition for not interrupting when I was speaking.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Simply in order that the house may understand exactly what the rule is, I had in my mind much the same intention as that to which the leader of the opposition has just given expression, namely, to direct Your Honour's attention to what was said by Your Honour yesterday which would suggest that the house had as a matter of practice allowed two leaders other than the leader of the opposition and myself, and members of the government, a longer period than forty minutes in which to speak. That question came up, as I recall it, at the first or second session of this parliament, and at the time attention was drawn to the fact that the leader of the opposition is in a very different position from leaders of other groups, in that he is an officer of parliament itself. His appointment is under statute; he is in the same position in many particulars as ministers of the crown, and has a special duty, and for that reason is entitled to a special privilege. But it is equally clear that no one other than ministers of the crown and the leader of the opposition has as a matter of right the privilege of speaking more than forty minutes.
I had not intended to raise the question until after the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the leader of the Social 44561-207
Credit party had spoken, not wishing to interrupt either of them in the course of their remarks. But I do not think, now that the question has been raised, that-


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about the other two?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just been reminded that there are supposed to be two other parties. They are hardly sufficiently grown-up even to claim the recognition that might be claimed for the others. However, I do think it should be understood that the rule will be followed. If as a matter of privilege and courtesy some special wish is expressed, then the house might consider it in the light of the circumstances, but otherwise I think, if I may say so, Your Honour should direct hon. members to recognize the rule.


Georges Parent: I need hardly add that I assumed that consent was given by the house and that therefore the privilege was extended. But it has now been brought to a definite conclusion in the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition; there is objection to any hon. members other than the Prime Minister, ministers of the crown moving government orders, and the Leader of the Opposition exceeding the forty-minute period, and I shall therefore be obliged to apply the rule as it stands. All hon. members will obey the forty-minute rule.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: As a parliament we are in this debate especially confronted with the problem of how Canada should proceed in order most effectively to mobilize her resources, first, in order that she may win this war, and second, in order that she may win the ensuing peace.
Social credit since its inception has consistently advocated the complete mobilization of Canada's resources for the defence of the Canadian people whether in peace or in war.
This government has conspicuously failed to mobilize completely Canada's national resources, notwithstanding the sweeping and all-comprehensive powers which this parliament unreservedly conferred upon it by the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940.
In the first place, land resources are far from being fully utilized. In 1941, 6,011,020 acres of wheat land lay idle in summer-fallow, under the wheat acreage reduction regulations of last year. S24,044,080 were paid from the dominion treasury to keep them idle. How could anyone possibly argue that this immense natural resource has been mobilized?
Again, the mineral resources of Canada are, in the light of this war situation, still tragically



Mobilization Act-Mr. Blackmore
idle. On April 12, according to a Canadian Press dispatch, Dr. E. H. Boomer of the university of Alberta, chemical department, said that he had discovered that an average of 150 gallons of gasoline could be extracted from one ton of Alberta coal. On this basis it was estimated that there could be extracted from coal in Alberta 160,894,110 million gallons of gasoline. The coal in Alberta is estimated at 1,072,627,400 thousand tons. In any country which is already regulating and restricting the use of gasoline and is now talking of a coal shortage, such a situation as this must appear to any thinking mind as grotesque. For any man to rise in this parliament and pretend that the resources of Canada have been mobilized is for him to make himself ridiculous in the eyes of any fact-facing person. There are vast resources of iron in Canada which have never been touched, great resources of many other minerals which can be exploited, mobilized and brought to bear on the problem of winning the war.
Not only are these material resources being neglected, but the human resources of Canada are being utilized in a most wasteful manner. There are tremendous spare-time energies of people which in large measure are being neglected. As an illustration of what could be done if the government set itself to do so with a correctly scientific technique, may I cite two cases which have been brought to my attention recently. In western Canada one man is working on the railroad regularly and is farming a three-quarter section farm on the side, and his wife is helping with the stock. Here is an example of what could be done with the spare-time energies of the Canadian people if those energies were mobilized. A teacher in western Canada is conducting his school successfully and on the side is taking care of a dairy farm, supplying his community with milk; he has a considerable flock of poultry and is also running a farm on which there is a substantial herd of swine. That is another illustration of the way in which spare-time energies could be used. The average farm woman could use her spare time and would do so, if she were properly motivated, in producing great quantities of honey, eggs, turkeys, butter, cheese and many other commodities. The main reason why at the present time such activities are not engaged in by our farm women is the low or uncertain price that prevails. Our ordinary office girls who have finished their day's work at five o'clock or thereabouts usually spend the remainder of their time either resting or entertaining themselves or in some pursuit which is not immediately 
contributing to the war effort of Canada. If the right sort of price structure were built up and the right sort of direction given these girls they would become producers of necessary commodities for the conduct of the war. I suggest the production of fur from chinchilla or mink or fox, especially where girls live on the outskirts of cities or towns. Such fur would supply a valuable commodity and would help obtain needed foreign exchange with which to purchase commodities in the United States and would greatly add to our national wealth and contribute to the strength of our war effort.
In the April 17, 1942, issue of the Ottawa Citizen I read:
The Unemployment Insurance Commission reported last night that about 37,500 men and women were registered on March 31 at the commission's unemployment and claims offices across Canada. The March 31 figure was higher than the previous two months, "notwithstanding the fact that many classes of workers are in demand," the commission's statement said.
The January 31 figure, I am informed, was 31,930; the February 28 figure, 32,211 and the April 30 figure, 33,000, including male, 24,879 and female 8,142, while the May 31 figure was 31,249. These are figures of men and women in Canada who have registered themselves for claims under the Unemployment Insurance Act, clear evidence that these people have been employed and have been thrown out of employment, through some mishap or mismanagement in the conduct of the country's affairs. I am informed by men who are in a good position to make a dependable estimate that, were the real facts known concerning the unemployment in Canada of people who are or would be effective in every respect, we should have the astonishing figure of from 100,000 to 150,000.
In the face of palpable and obvious existing facts, the Prime Minister's fervent, enthusiastic, almost rapturous or even ecstatic effusions claiming that his government has accomplished complete mobilization of Canada's resources appear merely gaudy and flamboyant twaddle, hollow, insubstantial and deceptive.
Why this tragic failure? Is it because of lack of desire on the part of the Prime Minister, on the part of members of the cabinet, on the part of parliament, on the part of the people? A thousand times no. We hear much silly prattle in the country about the need for waking from complacency. The people of Canada are in deadly earnest about this war and are in no way complacent. If they appear so, it is due to mismanagement of the country's affairs. Nor is this failure of mobilization due to any lack of laws and

Mobilization Act-Mr. Blackmore
powers conferred upon the government. The Prime Minister himself, in remarks he made yesterday, indicated that under the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940 the government possessed virtually all the power to do anything whatsoever it chose to do. Evidently it is not from lack of power or of law. Well, is this failure to mobilize due then to the lack of machines in this country, or to lack of physical organizations for the production and distribution of goods? I think virtually everyone will acknowledge that it is not so. We have sufficient machinery and sufficient organization. Neither is the failure to mobilize owing to lack of a need for the goods which we could produce. With that all will agree.
Then what is the reason why in two years this government has failed, in spite of all its earnest efforts, to mobilize the resources of Canada for this war? The government has failed and will continue to fail so long as it continues to worship at the shrine of our present debUmoney financial system. The government must make finance the servant, not the master, in Canada's economic household.
There will be those, perhaps including the governor of the Bank of Canada, who will say that already the dominion government is making finance its servant. That will do for parlour talk but not for an expression of fact to hard-headed business men who know what is taking place. The government has already ceased to sacrifice at the altar of gold; let it now with equal wisdom, vision and courage renounce the worship of the false goddess of debt.
How can Canada's resources be mobilized? I maintain that every available man and woman in Canada can be mobilized and stimulated and motivated to any desirable kind or degree of activity and efficiency by three simple devices; by use of credit facilities; by the use of market facilities, which need not be foreign markets; and by the use of prices or wages.
If this can be proved to be the case, and it can, then to pass an amendment to the act of 1940 is idle and futile, and will result in disillusionment, as the passage of the act itself did. I recall how when we were discussing that measure I was accused of being a sort of public enemy number one because I had the temerity to ask that the discussion should be protracted one more day. Now we have had the act for two years, and still we long for adequate action!
As to what the credit facilities in Canada could achieve, may I speak briefly. Credit advanced to industry would encourage the production of gasoline immediately. Hon.
44561-207J
[DOT]members will recall, when the other day I rather pointedly asked the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) what the government was doing to bring about an increase in the production of certain commodities in Canada, how helpless was his reply; how it indicated that the government simply drifted along and apparently prayed that some person would come forward and go into a field and develop the production of vital war needs of Canada. Laissez-faire with emphasis! But the advance of credit from this government to prospective companies that might develop the gasoline resources of this country would have almost a magic effect on the production of gasoline. A similar thing is true in respect of steel, coal, alcohol, sugar, fruit, lumber, and a great variety of commodities, of every one of which this country is in danger of experiencing a shortage.
Furthermore, if credit were advanced to farmers in order to produce, say sheep, granted inexpensively, say at a rate of 2 per cent or less, and for a long enough period of time, say two or three or four years, to enable the farmer to get into the business before he had to pay back the loan, an astonishing impetus would be given to the production of primary *products, meat and animal products of all kinds, fish, and the like. And if credit facilities were made available to students or prospective students throughout Canada to enable them to prepare themselves for important work for their country's destiny, it would surprise the whole country to see how rapidly the youth of Canada would be mobilized in the class rooms to acquire important skills which might mean the very existence of Canada.
Let me turn to the question of markets as a means of mobilizing Canada's resources. If a market were assured to labour in this country so that, for example, a man would know that when he became a skilled mechanic he would forthwith be employed, in other words if he knew that as soon as he was qualified for a given kind of work he could get that work, the encouragement which would be extended to the preparation of youth for the tasks of life would be beyond measure. And the encouragement to added efficiency would produce a great improvement. The assurance which would be given immediately to large numbers of men who are to-day working in industry, who realize that perhaps in a year or two their work may disappear and they may be faced with a long period of desolating unemployment and therefore feel that they must strike in order to gain a little extra savings while there is a chance-I say the assurance which would be given to these men would

Mobilization Act-Mr. Blackmore
greatly decrease the tension which is observable throughout Canada to-day. If the government offered work to everyone who wished to work, regardless of his age, the government would again help to mobilize man-power.
When I was a boy we used to take great pride in seeing men of sixty-six to seventy or seventy-five years of age stack grain or give a hand pitching bundles on the rack or do any kind of work on the farm. I have seen men of sixty-nine or seventy who were able to stand up and do their full part in a grain field or hay field. But what happens now when they get to be sixty-five-yes, fifty-five? In a general way they are unable to find work, which means that they are not able to do anything for their country. They are not mobilized, but are being disregarded in the economic life of the country.
If markets were guaranteed for goods such as pork, milk, apples, wool, not only this year but next year and three years from now, with what added confidence would the farmers throughout this land equip themselves for the production of those various commodities, and what a tremendous addition to the production of this country would result. How much farther the government could go in mobilizing the human and material resources of the country I I maintain that two of the most potent means of mobilizing the country's natural resources are credit and markets.
I come now to the third means-prices. Prices in this land must be subsidized, if need be, to guarantee the cost of production plus a profit sufficient to enable producers to make a good living for a family. Also prices to the consumers must be discounted where necessary, in order to enable them to buy their needs without undue suffering or hardship.
The evening before last I illustrated this point by reference to the policy of the British government with respect to eggs. At that time I pointed out that that government is paying the producers 75 cents a dozen for eggs, and selling them to the consumer for 50 cents, thereby absorbing the 25 cents. The British government, hard pressed as it is in every way, is finding such policy excellent business. This instance illustrates the possibility of government management with respect to price. By the adoption of that simple device the British government is stimulating the maximum production of eggs in Great Britain, and is taking the precaution to prevent inflation in egg prices by keeping the price down, through subsidies.
Wages can be used to motivate a greater and greater effort by Canada in mobilizing her resources. Wages must be subsidized where necessary. I will grant that that involves an unorthodox principle, but I would

point out that we are finding the need for the application of many unorthodox principles, because we are living, sir, in an unorthodox age. If need be, wages must be subsidized to guarantee a good living for a family, to guarantee the possibility of saving, and to ensure that any increase in wages will not necessarily produce an increase in the cost of goods and thereby tend toward inflation. Increases to wage earners may be given in the form of savings certificates, if that method is thought wise, or of bonds, or of credits for post-war use, wherever the increases are not immediately needed for the requirements of the family. Given in this form, they will not immediately add to the purchasing power of the country, thereby putting pressure on prices, but will be in the people's hands as a guarantee that when the war production machine is transformed to the production of consumer goods for home consumption there will be an adequate supply of buying power to absorb those goods.
The proposal of the Prime Minister has largely to do with getting more soldiers. Let us for the moment give some attention to this matter of getting more soldiers. I would point out to the house that only recently the United States has raised the pay of its soldiers to S50 a month. Is there any reason why Canada should not raise the pay of her soldiers to $50 a month? I believe that as the result of such a change the government would find a considerable influx of soldiers into the ranks.
I suggest the government should find out why it is that while we have a waiting list for the navy and a waiting list for the air force, we have no waiting list for the army. Why is it that the condition which has grown up in our procedure with respect to soldiers, and which has created a hesitancy on the part of our youth to enter the ranks of the army, has not been removed? The cause should be discovered, and, with the greatest determination, removed, so that our boys will join the army just as gladly as they will join the air force or the navy.
I suggest another measure which would help bring the boys in. Why not guarantee to every soldier who enters our ranks that he will not only receive $50 a month for the duration of the war, but will from that time forward, to the end of his days, in case he needs it, receive $50 a month? Why should we not also tell the boys-and mean it-that the wife of each man in the forces will receive $50 a month, whether her husband lives or dies? Why should we not guarantee liberal allowances for each child?
The policy now pursued indicates that the government of Canada is not concerned about having an increase in population. It indicates

Mobilization Act-Mr. Blackmore
that the government has little thought about who is going to grow up, perhaps to fight the next war in another generation. Men who have raised considerable families are actually penalized, and I submit that that is a completely foolish policy. Why not grant a liberal allowance upon the birth of every child? Why should a soldier and his wife be penalized at the birth of a child-to the extent that they dread such birth? Why should they have to pay hospitalization, doctor's bills and other expenses incidental to the bringing into the world of a new Canadian? Why not agree that from this time forward such expenses will be met by the people of Canada as a whole-because the soldier's child is a precious heritage to this country. Why should not the child of a soldier be guaranteed a certain income per month until he reaches the age of sixteen years? Why should we not guarantee to every soldier and his dependents state hospitalization., state medicine and state dental care? Why should we not guarantee housing, fuel and lighting at reasonable rates?
It is all too well known how infamous is the condition in this country, when men and women having five or six children are unable to find places in which to live because the people who have accommodation to rent will not rent houses to families. Why should any man who takes up arms in defence of this country be confronted with a situation as humiliating and heartbreaking as that? Why should not the government guarantee to the men that if homes cannot be found the government will advance loans with which the soldiers may build their homes? Why should they not be guaranteed1 fuel and lighting? Why should we not guarantee them the education of each child until he or she is twenty-one years of age?
Some will say, "The proposal you are making would surely bankrupt the country." Well, Mr. Speaker, they are doing such things as that for virtually everyone in New Zealand, a country far less richly and extensively endowed in resources than Canada is. If Canada is not willing to guarantee as much for its family man, then I say, "Shame on the Dominion of Canada!" If it were determined that such guarantees were to be given to the men, and if such changes in our economic system were made as would render it possible to guarantee such things to them, we would find a tremendous acquisition to our fighting forces, and would need no conscription to fill our ranks.
I wish to refer briefly to the matter of industry, to which some references have been made. When war broke out in 1939 the members of the New Democracy party stood for the conscription of finance and industry before man-power. May I turn briefly to the matter of conscription of industry. I have not yet spoken about the conscription of finance, but I shall do so before I take my seat. I have, however, referred to some of the things which could be achieved if the government of this country had the courage, the determination and the vision to conscript finance.
How can we control our industries? We have several potent means of controlling any industry in this country, it matters not who owns it. The first one of these is through the price of its products, and the price of its raw materials. This government can manage so that the price of raw materials and products of any industries in this country can be placed at whatever figure the government chooses to place them, by the payment of subsidies and other devices.
This government can control freight rates to the advantage or disadvantage of any industry in this country. It can control markets; it can withhold or give contracts. It can control loans and credit; it can give bonuses or remit taxes. All these devices will successfully control industry within our gates. It is the contention of the members of this group that it is not necessary for the government to own any industry. It may be found advisable to own some industries, but in a general way this group conceives a state in which all industry and the means of production shall be individually owned.
Nevertheless this group conceives a state in which industry shall do what the state tells it to do. Why should such an outrage as has been referred to already, in the Dumart plant, continue unchecked? If an industry simply refuses to obey the directions of government, then the government without hesitation should force it to sell its shares to the government or to some other industry which would be prepared to obey the government's will and fall into cooperation. There are other forms of compulsion which could be used. As a result of the application of these devices it would be possible to conscript completely industry in this country, which means to bring it under control so that it will cooperate with the state for the people of the state.
The question will be asked, how can Canada afford to spend all the money necessary for all these purposes? I say that Canada must and can develop and use Canada's credit in such a manner and to such a degree as will enable her to do for her people those good things which everyone

Mobilization Act-Mr. Blackmore
agrees should be done and which her resources manifestly fit her to do. The question which really matters is this: can Canada produce enough milk, and will she be able to produce enough milk during ,the next fifty years to provide every returned man with all the milk which he and his family need? The answer is emphatically, "Yes. Of course she can!" Then why deny it to the people? Why not offer it to them? Can Canada not produce enough meat, fruits, lumber, fuel; can Canada not train sufficient doctors and teachers to provide her fighters and her people with a decent standard of living? The answer must be unquestionably that she can. Reason would dictate that she do so and then distribute the goods.
Canada can so develop her credit by use of a modern monetary technique. I should like to read several excerpts from an article by A. A. Berle, Jr., assistant United States secretary of state, which is reported to have appeared in October, 1941, Fortune, and which indicates that there are other people who are thinking along the lines that I am thinking along. I quote:
There is no need for fear. Rather, we shall have an opportunity to create the most brilliant economic epoch the U.S. has yet seen. It is entirely feasible to make the country at once more prosperous and more free than it has ever been. We shall have in our hands the tools by which we can create a greater amount of economic justice, without sacrificing any of the essential freedoms.
May I pause to comment that if the government institutes a policy of owning the industries of this country, many freedoms of Canadians will be destroyed. But it is not necessary to organize on that basis. I quote again:
We shall come out of this (war) with an enormous expansion of plant capacity. At once the problem will have to be faced of shifting over these plants into work that is of use in a healthy, peace-time world. That means changing factories, machinery, and the processes so that they will turn out something that you and I can actually want and can use in civilian life. Big as this problem appears, we are technically prepared to solve it.
Then he deals with the matter of money as follows:
This raises the subject of finance. Finance is the easiest of the several problems we have to solve.
It must be remembered that here was a man speaking with his reputation at stake, a man who stands high in the United States government. Yet he says solemnly that finance is the easiest of the several problems we have to solve. I continue:
Nevertheless, it is in this field we are going to have the greatest difficulty.

I agree that that will be the situation as long as we have stupid mentalities in control, who insist on continuing as they have done in the past. I quote:
The difficulty is not real. Technically, the solutions are sufficiently simple. The proper attitude towards dealing with a financial problem to-day is to consider finance as a job for a technical crew in the government. The specifications are relatively simple. So long as labour is available, materials are handy, and technical skill can be hired, the words "we cannot afford it" are absurd.
I maintain that such is the situation. Social credit and new democracy favour conscription of finance and industry before man-power. What do we mean by conscription of finance? Briefly, we mean that the government shall assume and exercise the function of creating and using new money which the goods-and-services-producing-and-consuming power of the country will support without inflation. I maintain that if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will call his cabinet together and then call in some people who have vision to assist them, they will be able to devise the means whereby they could mobilize all the resources of Canada, both human and material, in so far as it is necessary, in so far as the man-power will permit, without conscripting man-power.
I suggest to them that they seriously consider this possibility. Especially is this needful now that an almost stupid policy has been followed in this country since the outbreak of the war with the result that great numbers of our citizens have been aroused against the government policy of conscription. I suggest that under these circumstances the government should seriously consider the proposal that they conscript and use the financial power of this dominion. That does not mean that they shall take away a man's bank balance; that does not mean that they shall put on such a tax structure as will be onerous and injurious to the country's economic life, but it does mean that they shall assume and exercise the power to create the community's new money and will use that power in the best interests of the state.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Richelieu-Ver-cheres):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I ask to be excused by you and by the hon. members of the house for my very imperfect English. I have not attempted to prepare in advance the observations that I propose to make, in order that I may read them now. I intend to express my views as I would in ordinary conversation without any idea of making any contribution to literature. Listening yesterday to the able and well prepared speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cardin
King), and also to the well prepared speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Hanson), and closing my eyes I could call to memory the words and arguments presented in parliament in 1917 when Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Meighen introduced their legislation for conscription. There was no difference. The same arguments that I heard in 1917 have been offered in this house by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition. No difference-no change! History repeats itself. As in those days, not a scintilla of evidence has been produced to show the necessity of having recourse to such a measure at the present time -not one word. On the contrary we have still before us the declaration of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) that the voluntary system is working sufficiently well and meeting the needs of the present.
It reminded me also of something which is sadder to my soul. I remember having taken part in a by-election around 1916 or 1917 in which a Conservative candidate was offering himself to the electors in one of the Quebec district constituencies. Relying on the promises that had been made by the Prime Minister of the day, Sir Robert Borden, that he would not have recourse to conscription, that the voluntary system would be the only system he would adopt for prosecuting the war, this candidate said to his electors, "You see, gentlemen, in what position you are placed. You have the guarantee of the Prime Minister of to-day that you are not going to have conscription from the Conservative party. Beware," said he, "lest you might have conscription from the Liberal party if you turn your back on Sir Robert Borden at the present time."
It is to my sorrow that the principle of compulsory military service for overseas has been presented in this house by the Liberal party and by my leader. The bill that is now before the house embodies the principle of conscription for overseas service. We already have, we were told yesterday, the principle of conscription, in the mobilization act, except for service overseas. I remember very clearly the speeches that were delivered in this house when that law was being enacted. I remember what I said myself with the authority of all the members of the government. I remember very well what the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe said to those who were opposing the adoption of that law. He said that we would never resort to conscription for service overseas. But the amendment that is
now being introduced has the effect of establishing conscription for overseas service, though there is no present necessity for such action. Not a particle of evidence has been given to indicate that it is necessary for parliament to adopt- such a measure at the present time.
Let no one be mistaken as to the situation. When clause 3 of the bill is deleted we shall have on the statute books of Canada compulsory military service for anywhere in the world, or any theatre of war in the world. It is not to be put into effect by act of parliament, as it was in 1917, with the regulations attached to the bill and presented to parliament. No; it is to be done by order in council, and it may very well be that the order in council applying conscription, forcing the boys of Canada to fight anywhere in the world will be kept secret. That is provided for in the law, by section 5 of the mobilization act, as it now stands.
Let no bon. member be deceived as to the consequences of the vote that he will give on this measure. Let him not be led astray by what is being said. It is said, there is no necessity for conscription now; and that we do not need conscription at the present time; but only the power to apply it. That is the line of argument which is being very much used in the province of Quebec., They have been trying to appease public opinion there by saying during the past three weeks through the newspapers and radio: " Do not worry; do not be afraid; you are not going to be conscripted; the law which is going to be placed on the statute book is not going to be applied; it is only a gesture made for the purpose of appeasing certain people in other sections of the country."
This is the last opportunity, Mr. Speaker, that the parliament of Canada will have of expressing its will on the principle of conscription for overseas service. There will be no other opportunity for the representatives of the people in parliament to express their judgment or their opinion on this vital question.
It is suggested that the bill is the result of the plebiscite. But, Mr. Speaker, we were told that the plebiscite was not a vote on conscription. It was said, and repeated over and over again, that the plebiscite did not mean conscription. Then how is it that as soon as the votes are counted, as soon as the ballots are in, a bill embodying the principle of conscription for overseas service is presented to this house? Why were the electors of Canada told in the plebiscite campaign when we asked them to release the government

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cardin
from a moral obligation, that there was no legal objection in the way. Why did we state that we wanted to be released from a moral obligation pure and simple? Why did we not tell them that the plebiscite meant conscription? I have no time to go to the record and quote from speeches which the Prime Minister made both in the House of Commons and outside the house stating that the government simply wanted to be released from a moral obligation. We never asked power to abrogate Section 3 of the Mobilization Act.
We are now faced with a measure of conscription for service overseas, resulting from an action which, according to the Prime Minister himself and all those who asked for a "yes" vote on the plebiscite of the 27th of April last, did not mean conscription.
When clause 3 is deleted from the mobilization act, it will stand deleted not only for this government but for any other government that may succeed the present one. It is going to be the law of the land, and any government succeeding the present one, any Prime Minister succeeding the present Prime Minister, will have the law in his hand and will be in a position to apply the principle by a simple order in council which he will have the right to keep in secret drawers in his office. That is the position.
There are those who say, "Well, what is the use of making so much noise? Conscription is not going to be applied and is not necessary." Well, Mr. Speaker, if conscription is not necessary at the present time, why, in the name of God, authorize it? Why interpret the vote on the plebiscite, which was not a vote on conscription, as if it had been a vote on the issue of conscription? If it was the intention why then have they not been frank enough to indicate it to the public? Why did we not ask the people of Canada whether they were in favour of conscription-yes or no? Trusting the people as we should have trusted them, we should not have been afraid rf asking the question squarely <md without, in any way, avoiding the issue. That is my view. We should have faced the issue squarely. If it was a question of releasing the government from a legal obligation, why not say that the government wanted to know if the people of Canada were ready to delete clause three of the mobilization act? No, it was too clear an issue. We had to adopt another way. After having argued that it was not a question of conscription, it is now desired to interpret the answer as being in favour of conscription. But there is more. It has been said all through the campaign on the plebiscite that parliament would be consulted, 
and that every decision of the government would be taken in the light of its responsibilities to parliament. We told the people that the government would adopt a policy according to the need of the moment, and come before parliament, explain it in black and white, and give the representatives of the country in this house, the advantage of judging the issue on its merit. After all that, what are we doing? We are not doing what we have told the people we would do. We are playing on words.
It was said yesterday that a full discussion of conscription was welcome, that it would give parliament the opportunity to express its will on that very important question. But that is not the question which was placed before the electors. We said to the electors, that in the light of a new situation that might arise we would later on adopt the required policy. That is what the Prime Minister said on February 25 last, "Later on, when the need is apparent, when the necessity is clear to everyone, in the light of the information that will be given to us by the military authorities, the government will take its stand and will come before parliament with the reasons justifying the attitude." "Later on" has become to-day.
I am told I used the wrong expression in my letter of resignation in saying that a new policy had been adopted. I am perfectly justified, I claim, in saying that this is a new policy. We have not respected the pledge which we gave to the electors during the campaign on the plebiscite. We said action would be taken when the necessity would have arisen later on, and now we are interpreting it as meaning " to-day ". And legislation is presented to do away with a legal objection, when we told the electors that there was no legal objection. We have discovered an objection since the plebiscite, since the majority of the country has voted yes, and the province of Quebec alone voted no. The new legal objection, is clause three. That is not a great discovery. It has existed in our legislation for a very long time. We should have been frank enough to say to the electors of Canada, "After you have freed us from our pledges during the campaign, we propose to abolish and to delete clause three of the National Resources Mobilization Act." That is what we should have said, but we did not say it. We said to the electors, "The government is going to wait until a new situation arises, until new conditions prevail, to adopt the policy which should be adopted to meet the situation, and then we will come before parliament." There are many reasons, Mr. Speaker, which convince me that I was right in stating in my letter that the policy

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cardin
of the government at the present time is a new policy if it is compared with the one which was enunciated by the Prime Minister on February 25 last, and in his two broadcasts over the Canadian network.
There is no necessity at the present time to impose conscription. There is no haste to proceed with such an important measure, which is likely, in the words of the Prime Minister, and in the words of the Leader of the Opposition as well, to destroy the good understanding which has been established between the two races in Canada for the last forty or fifty years, through troubled hours and difficult days, by the leaders of all parties and those who have taken part in the public life of Canada.
With the deepest feeling of sincerity I say now to the government, wait .please, wait for the necessity to arise. Let us wait for the need to present itself, and then we shall be in a position to judge according to circumstances what course Canada should follow, what policy Canada should adopt.
It is no argument, as I see it, to say that such a course would involve delay and that the House of Commons and the Senate would require time to adopt the procedure for conscription if the need should come. That is no argument. Parliament can be summoned to Ottawa in seven days. In seven days we can be called here to decide on any emergency which may arise in Canada or elsewhere. In seven days conscripts are not going to be sent overseas. It will take more than seven days or ten days or fifteen days or a month to send the conscripts overseas. Nothing would prevent the government from preparing the machinery the moment they decide to have recourse to conscription. Nothing would prevent them from calling parliament together and ask for advice and support. It would be far better than trying now to delete Clause 3 and saying "that we have no intention of abiding by the result of our action in parliament." In the name of heaven, what is the use of having a dead principle in our statute books and destroying the good understanding that has existed throughout Canada.
Let us be frank. I am not ashamed to raise my voice in this parliament although I come from a minority-from the province of Quebec. I am not afraid and I am not ashamed. We have the right, as any other representative, to speak in this house in the name of the French minority; I have the right to speak in the name of those whom I am supposed to represent here. I take second place to no one, so far as Canadianism is concerned. I have done my duty.
I repeat, let us be frank. If we had asked the electors of Canada whether they were in favour of or against conscription for service overseas, the vote would have been different from that which was registered on April 27.
It is all very well to say that we have been released from our pledges. Yes; we have been released from these pledges by those to whom they had no meaning or no effect in the election. The pledges that were given in the election of 1940 were given by both parties, the opposition as well as the government. In those days the pledges were given to appease public opinion and to collect votes in the province of Quebec. Both parties did it at that time, and now it is said that we have been released. Yes, I repeat, released by those who were not interested at all in those pledges, and in constituencies where the pledges were not an issue during the election. It was easy for those gentlemen who had not spoken of these pledges during their election to ask for a yes vote in their constituencies. It was all right for them to go to their constituents and ask that freedom be given the government to impose conscription. That was an easy task, and it was a victory-let me say this without any implied insult to these hon. gentlemen-without any great honour, because it was a foregone conclusion. My position was different. When I appealed to my people in the province of Quebec, to whom the pledges had been given, in the most sacred and solemn manner that pledges could be given, by the Prime Minister, by the late Mr. Lapointe, by myself and by other members from the province of Quebec, my task was not the same as that which faced these other hon. gentlemen. We did not get the same answer that they received. That should surprise no one.
For fifty years, for sixty years, yes from the time of confederation up to the present time, arguments have been used to induce the people of Quebec to believe that they would never be forced to go to war outside the limits of the country which had been wrested from the wilderness and from savages and given to Christianity by their ancestors. The people of Quebec, the minority in Canada, as I have said, have no reason to be ashamed of the attitude its members are taking.
So far as I am concerned I have a quiet conscience as a result of the course I have taken in resigning the two portfolios which the Prime Minister was kind enough to bestow on me a few years ago. I feel that I have done my duty as a man who wishes to honour his word and respect his pledges and his declarations, who wishes to be able to walk with his head erect among the citizens

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cardin

of his province. I have no excuse to offer. My conscience is at peace, whether I am understood or not in my province by proprietors of newspapers. I may have something to say later on in this debate in regard to propaganda that is being carried on in the province of Quebec in an endeavour to frustrate the effort that I have been making and the effort that other members from Quebec are trying to make. Some other day I may have something more to say.
Who can raise his voice in this house and say that the province of Quebec has been lacking in cooperation with the rest of Canada in every activity, in war as well as in any other line of endeavour? We have been doing our share every moment, in every crisis, in every difficult time that confronted Canada. We have measured up to the standard. But we have never been able, even to this moment, to know definitely how many French Canadians have enlisted in English-speaking regiments. A member of the administration of 1917, after he was out of politics, complained that even in his day, in 1917 and subsequently he could never get information as to the number of French Canadians who had enlisted in so-called English-speaking regiments. We cannot get that information. We have never been able to get it.
When you start to compare the enlistments in other sections of Canada with the enlistments in the province of Quebec, you should be sure of your figures. There are many factors that have to be taken into consideration before condemning the population of the province of Quebec or before we sustain the censure of certain military men who are mixing in politics instead of fulfilling their military duties. This is a point that needs to be emphasized, and a point upon which many details should be obtained before condemnation is passed on the race which was the first established on the land of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, yourself and most lion, members of this house belong to the British race. You are proud of it, and I compliment you upon it. You have many reasons to be proud of being descendants of the great British race. But it is not your fault; it is an accident of nature. I am a descendant of the founders of Canada, those who first discovered and established this land as a civilized country. I am proud of my race. It is not my fault; it is an accident of nature. But when we come to consider problems such as the one confronting us at the present time, immediately any man who has any elementary knowledge of psychology' will understand that your response is going to be much quicker than mine. Why? Because I have to

reason in my mind why I have to support the British flag and spend my energies and my life for the defence of the British rule in this country or perhaps elsewhere. It is the result of thinking, the result of reasoning, if I come to that conclusion. With you it is the impulse of the heart. Your heart becomes inflamed as soon as the name of England, of the British empire, is mentioned. It is quite natural, it is in your blood; it is your blood that makes that impulse. It cannot be the same with me. It would be against nature. I have to reason why I should take that step or not take it. I hope that my position is understood from that point of view. My position being understood, the position of the French Canadian is also understood.
We are law-abiding citizens. But we have been left alone, outside of the economic field, for years and years. An hon. gentleman spoke of the conscription of wealth; there is no great wealth to be conscripted from the hands of French Canadians, because they have no great share in the economic development of Canada. They have been kept outside of that field, through circumstances, through conditions of which I have no time at present to give further explanation. But we have lived alone in our corner, in our little part of Canada. We have always been told by the representatives or the leaders of all parties in this house, when they wanted our votes, that we should not be forced to go and fight outside the limits of Canada. This is not new; it has been repeated over and over again since confederation. Is it surprising that to-day the same answer is not as readily obtained in my province as is found elsewhere?
The French Canadians, in order to maintain unity in this country have been making many and many concessions to the majority. We are a minority. It is true, it is the duty, unfortunately, of a minority to make concessions to the majority. We have been fulfilling that duty freely since confederation. I venture to say to the face of the country that we have made concessions upon concessions since confederation, in order to keep peace, harmony, good-will and good understanding between the two races in Canada.
But there comes a time when concession means betrayal of the people one is representing in parliament. I do not want to pass that limit.
It was not a pleasure for the late Mr. Lapointe and myself to leave our duties here when we were ministers of the crown and go into Quebec province to take part in a provincial election and turn the provincial issue into a federal issue in urging our people to approve the participation of Canada in the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cardin
war. This at the very beginning when the mind of the people was so agitated. We had the courage to go there and do our utmost to sustain good understanding between the two races and national unity. We reasoned with the people of Quebec in those days. But we had to tell them that our participation in the war would be limited to the voluntary system. That was not my word only, not the word of the late Mr. Lapointe only; it was the word of the Prime Minister. We carried with those pledges. When 1940 came, a year after we had entered the war, we went there again to urge the approval of the province of Quebec to the programme of the federal government and of the expenditures it demanded from the Canadian treasury. It took some courage then; I can boast about it without being ashamed. It took some courage to go there and preach the same doctrine and tell our people that they should continue participation in the war almost to the last dollar, even to the last dollar that we could borrow. We succeeded. We succeeded with the promise given that as far as man-power was concerned it was going to be voluntary and nothing else.
The plebiscite came. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, it came only two years after we had given, to use the words of the Prime Minister, those "solemn pledges" to the people of the province of Quebec. No wonder that we did not then get the response that I myself expected, although I may say I participated in that campaign at the risk of my own life. But we did not get that result. We accepted 1939; we accepted 1940; we accepted the plebiscite as a way between, in order to adjust our difficulties, and as compromise in order to preserve Canadian unity in Canada.
We said during the plebiscite that the supremacy of parliament would be preserved, that the representatives of parliament would be consulted before any policy of conscription for overseas would be adopted-not consulted in deleting clause 3, but consulted on a programme which would be adopted after representations had been made by the military authorities, and after the need had been shown for the application of conscription. That is not the programme which is now being considered. That is not what we said to the electors, that conscription would be decided on its merits. We are not deciding conscription on its merits. We are not by deleting clause 3, in the light of any new developments, in the light of any new demands, or in the light of new necessities. This is a mere expediency. There is no indication that any need is at present existing. We are playing on words.
We were to discuss what? Conscription in the light of new needs, new necessities, or a change of conditions justifying a change of policy, not a general or academic discussion of the principle. We were told by the Prime Minister that we would discuss the question on its merits, the facts being placed before parliament. Where are the facts? They are not before us. We have before us a declaration that conscription is not necessary and in all probability will never be necessary, unless something of a spectacular nature develops.
The province of Quebec deserves to be listened to in this house, because, although it is a minority, because of the promises made. When that province was asked if there would be a release from the promise made by the government, it said "no". I submit to the majority. I do not want to dictate to the majority in Canada what their policy should be. But there is nothing before us to indicate exactly that a majority of the electors of Canada ever said "yes" in favour of conscription. That is not the situation, because the question was not placed before them. Some people said to me not long ago, "I think your government was afraid of placing the question squarely before the electors on the plebiscite." Indeed, how can we say what the majority did want, when the Prime Minister himself said yesterday that there was 10 question of conscription when the plebiscite vas before the electors? Well, if there was 10 question of conscription before the electors it the time of the plebiscite, where is the majority favouring this measure?
And if we want to analyse the votes it will be found that the votes in many Englishspeaking parts of Canada were fifty-fifty- fifty "no" and fifty "yes". I cannot mention any names, or give away any secrets, but I know that many of my English-speaking friends in this house-on both sides of the house-have in their minds that a very large section of their constituents are against conscription for overseas service. They have expressed that view to me, that if the vote had been taken on a straight "yes" or "no", either in favour of or against conscription, the result would have been different. I would not say there would have been a majority of "no" votes, but the "no" votes would have been increased, in very large measure.
The minority does not want to dictate to the majority. But I am afraid that at present the government is listening to a minority which is much less important than the French minority in Canada. It is as the result of rumblings which have been heard from certain corners of Canada that the government has
3280
Mobilization Act-Mr. Cardin

been pushed, step by step, to the last ditch, by making concession after concession, until it has now reached the point where it has to pass the law that it is striving now to place upon the statute books.


Georges Parent: May I point out that it is now almost ten minutes after six. Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am sorry to be placed in this position, Mr. Speaker. I had intended concluding my speech before six o'clock, and I have only a few words more to say. When one speaks extemporaneously, it is not like making a set speech which can be timed before delivery. I thank hon. members for their kindness in my regard. They understand, I am sure, the difficult position in which I am placed, and the embarrassing situation which is mine at the present time.
There are many other features I should like to touch upon, but time does not permit. I wish only to repeat that no hon. member should be deceived as to what is going to happen after clause 3 is deleted. I can only refer hon. members to section 5 of the National Resources Mobilization Act, which provides the only source of information parliament is going to have in regard to conscription, if the government decides one day to apply it. We are going to be favoured with a copy of an order in council applying conscription. But it is only half a favour, because the proviso to section 5 reads:
Provided that any of the stepR specified in this section may be omitted or deferred if the governor in council considers such omission or deferment necessary in the national interest having regard to the special circumstances.
After section 3 has been deleted, conscription may be applied without parliament being informed, without the order in council being placed upon the table of the house even though parliament is sitting. Our boys will be sent overseas without anyone knowing that they have been sent; the order in council sending them can be kept secret, kept from parliament and from the public. That is the implication of what is here. One may say that that was the law. It was the law when I approved of it, but that law applied to the defence of my country only and to the territorial waters and possibly to adjacent territories. But when it comes to sending our boys anywhere in the world on the advice of the military authorities, I say it is not fair that this should be done without parliament being consulted or even advised. 
That is the position in which we shall find ourselves when section 3 has been deleted.
When section 3 has been deleted the mobilization act will place trainees on the same footing as volunteers. There will be no difference; they will be in the same class, liable to be sent anywhere at the will of the military authorities, approved by an order in council which may be kept in a drawer for as long as the government may decide to keep it there. That will be the position in which we shall find ourselves after this legislation is enacted.
It is all very well to say that there should be no anxiety, because the principle is not going to be applied. We are amending legislation which is already in operation. We are amending legislation which called men to serve in Canada. When this section is deleted, the effect will be retroactive and will apply to the trainees who have been called already. They will be placed on the same footing as the volunteers, and a simple order in council can send them overseas, just as it takes an order in council to send any regiment of volunteers overseas. No regular regiment can be sent abroad without an order in council being passed, because we must provide for transportation and for many other things. When section 3 has been deleted we can just dispense with the voluntary system and proceed with conscription only.
It is all very well to say that it will not be applied. What is the use of arguing in that way? The trainees are scattered all over Canada among regiments composed of volunteers. We have English-speaking soldiers, in Montreal and French-Canadian soldiers are sent outside the province of Quebec to be trained. When there is a somewhat large number of French-Canadian soldiers they are divided among the regular units. When those regiments are called upon to go overseas to replace casualties or as reinforcements, the authorities are not going to choose David, James and Harry who came in under the National Resources Mobilization Act, and say, "You will not go overseas." That would be absurd; it would create chaos in the administration of our national defence. Once section 3 is deleted and those trainees are in a regiment, they will go with the regiment. The order in council sending the regiment overseas will cover them as well. It would be a disruption of our whole organization of national defence to do otherwise.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the house, for your kindness and generosity. I conclude by saying that I want to respect the word I have given to my

Mobilization Act-Speaker's Ruling
electors. Some of you want to vote on this bill according to the vote that was given in your constituency on the plebiscite. You want to respect that vote; you want to say, "I am going to obey the will of these people and vote according to their wishes". Why would you deny me the same privilege of respecting the will of the population of my province after I have done all I could to have them see the question otherwise? I want to keep my word to these people. Despite what Burke has said, the only democratic system that is worthy of the name is the one that is based on respect for the will of the people. Burke never faced elections as we have them. If my memory serves me right, he was elected by one man instead of being elected by the majority of the citizens of his division.
But I have a still better authority. When the leader of the opposition asked the government to take the responsibility of proceeding without a plebiscite he was answered by the Prime Minister that we ought to respect the will of the people, that we have no mandate except the mandate that we received from the people who elected us to this House of Commons. That was the answer of the Prime Minister, and it is in black and white in the report of the speech which he delivered on February 25. The plebiscite was an absolute contradiction of the Prime Minister's new theory, because the plebiscite was an appeal to the people in order to know their views before any action was taken. It was not a case of the government and parliament acting according to their own best judgment. It was a case of our going to the people from whom we derive our power, and asking them what their wish was.
I believe that respect for one's word is more important in this parliament and is more helpful to the maintenance of democracy in Canada and to the world than the theory which was expounded by that great writer and historian, Burke. I want to respect not only my own word but the will of the people of the province of Quebec, and also the voice of the French Canadians of other sections of Canada. This bill is a flagrant contradiction to all that we have said both in parliament and outside of parliament on the plebiscite, and I maintain that the words "a new policy" I used in my letter of resignation, have been amply justified by what it is now proposed in contradiction to what we said in asking the people of Canada to answer "yes" on the plebiscite.
Once again I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence. I know it is based more particularly upon the fact that my English may not be as good as it should be.
Nevertheless I shall never forget your kindness and the generous and friendly reception which has been accorded to me this afternoon even by the members who do not share my views on this most important question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we resume at 8.30 p.m.


Georges Parent: With the consent of the house.
At 6.20 p.m. the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at 8.30 p.m.


Georges Parent: During the dinner hour
1	have been considering the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and I should like to express to the house my appreciation of the observations of hon. members. The amendment reads:
This bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that provision for the introduction of conscription of man power for overseas service, without specific proposals for the immediate use of the power conferred by section
2	of the act, to conscript war industry, financial institutions and accumulated wealth, does not meet the urgent need for total war, imposes further inequality of sacrifice and is, therefore, contrary to the peace, order and good government of Canada. .
In support of the amendment the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar referred to an amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier which is set out on page 321 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. I think the hon. member will agree that that amendment is not parallel to the amendment which is now proposed. It was such an amendment as could not be moved in committee. It did not propose to amend; it sought to defeat the bill. This amendment in its terms does not so intend.
The hon. member also quoted from page 217, citation 755 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. I will read the citation:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.

Mobilization Act-Speaker's Ruling
But in conjunction with that citation must also be read citation 760 which reads:
The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every proposed resolution, which must, therefore, "strictly relate to the bill which the house, by its order, has resolved upon considering" and must not include in its scope other bills then standing for consideration by the house. Nor may such an amendment deal with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved, in committee, nor attach conditions te the second reading of the bill.
The same issue was raised in. a debate in this house on April 24, 1934, and is apropos of this amendment. It is referred to on pages 272 and 273 of the Journals of the house, volume 72, 1934. It dealt with a bill concerning the marketing of natural products in Canada. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), then leader of the opposition, moved the following amendment:
That all the words after the first word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this house, while prepared to support legislation or assisting the orderly marketing of natural products, is unalterably opposed to the enactment of any compulsory measure which delegates to unnamed and undetermined individuals, groups or organizations, sweeping powers over the production and trade and commerce of the nation, and which confers upon a minister of the crown, and upon the governor in council unprecedented authority and unusual powers to restrict production, and interprovincial, interimperial and foreign trade as regards both exports and imports, as well as other autocratic powers."
The report in the Journals continues:
Hon. Mr. Stevens raised the point of order as to whether the said amendment is in order inasmuch as it constitutes what might be termed a declaration of policy instead of offering reasons why consideration of the bill should not be proceeded with or should be postponed or proposing something else germane to the actual motion before the house.
The then leader of the opposition referred, as was done to-day, to citation 755 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary' Rules and Forms, and read it, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did this afternoon in the first instance.
The then Speaker, the Hon. Mr. Black, now member for Yukon, referred the leader of the opposition to citation 760, ruled the amendment out of order, and based his ruling on a decision in support as cited in May, thirteenth edition, page 390, and the precedent set forth there in support of this was 188 Parliamentary Debates, 4th series, column 76, the Education (Scotland) Act. The house divided on an appeal against the Speaker's ruling which was sustained.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar accepts in part the principle of the bill, but indicates that it does

not go far enough. It anticipates amendments which may be moved in committee on the bill, but cannot be moved on second reading. But there is another, and, I think, a more serious objection to the relevancy of the amendment. That is, that this house has already decided, during the session, on the 18th day of February, on the principle which is now invoked in the amendment, as will be found in Votes and Proceedings of that day, page 57.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The people of Canada generally are confused and bewildered as to the exact meaning of the measure now before the house. There has been such a torrent of words around the whole question of the conscription of manpower for overseas service that the people generally are not clear as to exactly what this measure means or exactly what principle is now at stake. Therefore I wish to outline three of what might be considered very elementary propositions with reference to this measure.
The first is that this measure will place the principle of conscription of man-power for overseas service on the statute books of Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has a strange belief in the efficacy of words. In his letter to the former Minister of Transport (Mr. Cardin), appearing in Hansard, of May 11, the Prime Minister said:
There has, however, been no change of policy. No new policy has been adopted.
In the last paragraph of the same letter he says:
In view of the grounds on which you have tendered your resignation, I cannot but feel that you have given to the decision of the government a significance it was never intended to have.
In contrast with that may I draw attention to two of the statements made yesterday by the Prime Minister. He said, as reported in
Hansard, page 3234:
The power to which I refer is the power to decide if, when, and to what extent the use of compulsion may be necessary for military service outside Canada and to exercise that power accordingly.
In the same column, further down, he says:
In order that the government may have the power if required to resort to the compulsory method of raising men for service overseas, if it is found that men in the numbers required cannot be raised by the voluntary method. . . .
The Prime Minister seems to feel that if you call an onion by some other name it will smell less odorous. The fact of the matter is that the measure now before the house does place on the statute books of Canada unlimited compulsory service. The Prime Minister, instead of going direct to the goal,
apparently believes that if you approach that goal by a series of steps you can truthfully say at each step that that step does not mean conscription of man-power for overseas service. That is true, but each step which has been taken has moved in that direction. In 1940 we had the National Resources Mobilization Act, giving the government power to conscript men but not to send them outside Canada or the territorial waters thereof. National war service regulations were brought in to call men up for thirty days training. The Minister of National War Services at that time, now the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was very careful to point out that this was not military service, that this was, in fact, only military training. That training was then increased from thirty days to four months; later, to military service for garrison duty in Canada for the duration of the war. Recently we have had a plebiscite asking the people of Canada to release the government from any past commitments, subject to its responsibility to parliament. Now we have before us a bill asking parliament to remove clause three from the National Resources Mobilization Act, thus giving the government power to send men conscripted under this act into any theatre of war.
The Prime Minister argues that of course it is only enabling legislation. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the point. When this measure is passed, the government has complete power to put the principle of compulsory service for overseas into effect. It has power, not to bring down a bill to this house for the conscription of man-power for overseas service, but by order in council to send men outside of Canada without any resort to this house whatsoever. It is a well-known fact that all over Canada to-day are army units whose personnel is partly made up of volunteers and partly of men conscripted under the National Resources Mobilization Act. What will happen? The Prime Minister says that this will be a decision of the cabinet; that it will not be a military decision. Technically that is correct. But in actual fact it will be a military decision: The general staff will decide that some of these units are needed overseas; an order in council will be passed, and some morning we shall pick up the paper and find that one of these units has landed in England or some other theatre of war, and that 20 or 30 per cent consisted of men conscripted under the National Resources Mobilization Act. Then someone will dig around and find an order in council which has been kept back because its earlier publication would have
3284	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
revealed military secrets. Thus we shall find that surreptitiously, by the back-door, conscription for overseas service has been introduced in Canada.
The Prime Minister argues that he could have done this under the War Measures Act. Technically that may be true, though it is debatable. In reality, however, he could not have done that, because if the War Measures Act meant that he could set clause 3 aside, then clause 3 was meaningless when put there. But clause 3 was put there by the Prime Minister and his government as a pledge to certain parts of Canada that conscripted men would not be sent outside Canada.
Not only that, but the Prime Minister made a pledge to the people of Canada throughout the plebiscite campaign that this whole matter would be referred to parliament and would not be dealt with by order in council. Throughout the plebiscite campaign the Prime Minister said repeatedly that he was asking the people of Canada to free the government's hands, subject, as he always said, to his responsibility to parliament. Well, he is now discharging that responsibility. We are now at the stage where this parliament is having its last and only say as to whether or not the principle of conscription of manpower for overseas service shall be placed upon the statute books of Canada. From then on the decision will lie entirely with the cabinet.
I object most strenuously to requisitioning the life of the young men of Canada by order in council. The speech to which we listened before the dinner recess was just one of the chickens coming home to roost. There will be many more chickens coming home in the next few weeks and months, and I am afraid that among the things that will be hatched out will be distrust and disunity in this countiy for many a day. It is one of the ironies of history that a political party which for twenty-five years has been elected again and again and again by constant and repetitious reference to the Military Service Act of 1917 should now be proposing to conscript men for overseas service without any statute which hon. members can examine. Instead, men will continue to be called up under the national war service regulations, regulations of which I defy any hon. member to know the exact meaning, under machinery which has already been described and debated in this house, 'by semi-judlicial boards set up in the respective military districts, not responsible to this parliament, and from whose rulings no appeal can be made. Already
{Mr. T. C. Douglas.]
proof has been presented, if any were needed, that the decisions of these boards and their interpretation of the regulations have not been uniform across Canada. If I had no other reason for voting against this measure I would vote against it on this ground alone, that if men are to be conscripted in Canada for overseas service they should be conscripted under a statute passed by this parliament, a statute setting up the machinery for conscription, and that machinery subject to review by parliament. Therefore I say that the first point I have tried to establish is perfectly clear. Without any attempt to hoodwink the Canadian people, without sophistry that has been indulged in, we should say to them frankly: "This measure, if and when passed by this house, will place upon the statute books conscription of man-power for overseas service." It matters not whether the government implement it to-day or next week or next year; as far as this parliament is concerned that is the decision we are being asked to make.
The second proposition I should like to lay down with reference to this measure is that this is conscription of man-power and of man-power only. When the National Resources Mobilization Act was before the house in June, 1940, I made this observation as reported at page 879 of Hansard:
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, before this house is asked to vote on this bill, to vote on the principle, I do not think it is too much to ask the Prime Minister to make a very clear statement, first, as to what forms of wealth will come within the term "mobilization of material resources"; as to whether or not this government is prepared to bring in a 100 per cent excess profits tax; as to whether or not large corporations are to be allowed to continue to make money while at the same time we propose to take boys off the farm, from the workshop, and off the streets and put them in uniform to go out to defend another group of men who, unless the government take drastic steps, are not making their fair contribution to the defence of Canada.
The Prime Minister in his speech referred to that, and said, as reported on page 902:
The measure is intended to cover every resource that the country has, human and material. But, may I ask my hon. friends this question:	"What justification is there for
assuming that it is only going to be the provisions of the measure related to the human that will be invoked, and not the material? Is not any fair-minded man entitled to say that there is just as much reason to assume that this bill is introduced solely for the purpose of applying it to material things?
Mr. Coldwell: Experience of the past.
Mr. Mackenzie King: Not experience of the past. I absolutely deny that statement. Docs

Mobilization Act-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
my hon. friend mean to say to me he believes that I place more value in material things than I do on human life?
Mr. Cold well: No.
Mr. Mackenzie King: That is what it comes to.
Mr. Coldwell: I do not mean that at all.
Mr. Mackenzie King:	I am glad my hon.
friend does not, and on behalf of every member of the house I make this statement: Every hon. member, irrespective of party or group, is primarily concerned with preserving the human, and if there is any sacrifice to be made in a material way to help to save the human, that will be the first sacrifice made.
The record of the past two years speaks in accents that will not be denied. What have we conscripted under this legislation? Many thousands of men. What industry has been conscripted'? What factory? What natural resources? We have given to over 300 contractors in Canada cost-plus contracts which state that the government will pay them whatever it costs them to produce plus a percentage of that cost. We have given to many others fixed price contracts; into that fixed price is estimated 5 per cent profit, but if the manufacturer is able to produce for less than the fixed price that is an added profit for him. Conscription of wealth! Why, the government has invested $500,000,000 of the money of the people of Canada in giving capital assistance to private industry. It has spent an amount well over half a billion dollars in building government-owned plants. These plants have then been turned over to private industry on a management basis. There has been no interference with private industry. What conscription of wealth is there? The selling of bonds at 2i per cent-is that to be the conscription of wealth?


An hon. MEMBER:: Taxes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My hon.
friend says, ''taxes." Well, everybody is taxed. People who get very little are taxed. How much taxation is there on the people who are making the money?
I notice in this morning's issue of the Montreal Gazette there is a report of Distillers Corporation Seagrams Limited. For the first quarter of this year they made a profit of $3,643,S13 as compared with $1,948,557 in the same quarter of the preceding year. That is the amount after they paid the taxes to which my hon. friend referred. The same report shows that for the nine months ended April
30, 1942, after they had paid the increased taxes they made a profit of $9,315,860 as compared with $3,338,638 for the corresponding nine months of last year.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Is not most of their business in the United States?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not
know where their business is. The fact is that they are selling large amounts of their commodities in Canada, and making a good deal of their money in this country.
This afternoon the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred to lists of Canadian companies. I have before me a list of twenty-three companies in which profits are shown. If I may, with the consent of the house, I should like to place these tables on Hansard. I shall not have time to read them.


Georges Parent: With unanimous consent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of these lists is a group of twenty-three companies, and the table shows the profit increase up to 30 per cent over the 1936-39 average. The second table shows a list of twenty-six companies, and giving the same information. These tables show the profits in 1940 and 1941. They show that the aggregate profit increase in 1941 over the base period was, in group 1, 14 per cent; and the aggregate profit increase in 1941 over 1940 was 9 per cent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where are these lists from?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: These are compiled by the Financial Post.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the last authority in Canada I would accept.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The list of twenty-six companies shows an aggregate profit increase in 1941 over the 1936-39 average of 62 per cent, and in 1941 over 1940 it was 29 per cent.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Those figures were given yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No; they were not. The tables expressed in round figures are as follows:
3286	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
Group I
Profit increase up to 30 per cent over 1936-39 average
1.	B.C. Power	
2.	Gatineau Power	
3.	Steel Co. of Canada	
4.	National Breweries	
5.	Canadian Celanese	
6.	Howard Smith Paper	
7.	Moore Corporation	
8.	Page Hersey	
9.	Canadian General Electric....
10.	Canadian Westinghouse	
11.	Canadian Industries Ltd	
12.	Dominion Tar and Chemical....
13.	B.C. Telephone	
14.	Canadian Industrial Alcohol....
15.	Dominion Oilcloth & Linoleum. .
16.	Hinde and Daueh (Paperboard)
17.	General Steel Wares	
18.	Shawinigan Water and Power...
19.	Bell Telephone	
20.	Laura Secord	
21.	Canada Malting	
22.	Canadian Bronze	
23.	Simpsons Ltd	
Average,
1936-39	1940	1941$ 1,876,000	$ 2,061,000	$ 2,073,0001,768,000	2,161,000	2,054,0003,701,000	4,342,000	4,440,0001,813,000	1.495,000	2,029,0001,581,000	1.464.000	1,975,0001,044,000	1,135,000	1,273,0001,710,000	1,787,000	1,800,000909,000	942,000	917,0002,064.000	2,308,000	2.480,0001,089,000	1,203,000	1,418,0005,299,000	5,396,000	5,383,000536,000	587,000	643,000714,000	660,000	732,000351,000	220,000	379,0001,097,000	1,130,000	1,309.000416,000	416,000	497,000456,000	438,000	556,0002,209,000	2,065,000	2,321,0006,132,000	6,691.000	7,303,000219.000	231,000	240,000604.000	523,000	608,000231,000	188,000	281,000837,000	928,000	1,027,000$36,656,000	$38,369,000	$41,738,000
Note: Aggregate profit increase in 1941 over 1936-39 average=14 per cent (just under). Aggregate profit increase in 1941 over 1940=9 per cent (just under).
Group II
Profit increase of 30 per cent or more over 1936-39 average
1.	Aluminium Ltd	
2.	Consolidated Mining & Smelting	
3.	Montreal Cottons	
4.	Ford of Canada (Canadian operations only)....
5.	Canadian Westinghouse	
6.	Famous Players, Canadian	
7.	Canadian Breweries	
8.	Belding Corticelli	
9.	Brantford Cordage	
10.	Brompton Pulp and Paper	
11.	St. Lawrence Paper Mills	
12.	Cockshutt Plow	
13.	Ontario Steel Products	
14.	Dominion Bridge	
15.	National Steel Car (increased capital)	
16.	Canadian Car & Foundry	
17.	Canada Foundries & Forgings	
18.	Beatty Bros. (Washing Machines, war work)...
19.	Dominion Glass	
20.	Canada Cement	
21.	Building Products	
22.	Sherwin-Williams, Canada	
23.	Cosmos Imperial Mills	
24.	Lake of the Woods Milling	
25.	Crown Cork and Seal (Canada)	
26.	Canada Wire and Cable	
Average, 1936-39	1940	1941$ 9,454,000	$12,462,000	$16,015,0009,294,000	9,062,000	12,199,000396,000	344,000	615,000949,000	2,584,000	3,279,0001,089,000	1,203,000	1.418.000817,000	999,000	1,162,000425,000	559,000	603,000108,000	135,000	154,000142,000	227,000	213,000247,000	632,000	832,000131,000	578,000	546,00069.000	236,000	471,00079,000	106,000	143,000308,000	699,000	955,000499.000	463,000	729,000441,000	478,000	702,00081,000	105,000	147,000203,000	268,000	329,000503,000	568,000	687,0001,175,000	1,332,000	1,631,000357,000	414,000	476,000372,000	539,000	527,000185,000	225,000	260,000260,000	477,000	479,000235,000	243,000	315,000572,000	743,000	1,043,000$28,391,000	$35,681,000	$45,931,000
Note: Aggregate profit increase in 1941 over 1936-39 average=62 per cent (just under). Aggregate profit increase in 1941 over 1940=29 per cent (just under).

Mobilization Act-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I should like to have these tables read.


Georges Parent: I understood there was unanimous consent that the hon. member should have permission to place them on Hansard. No one took exception, and consent was given.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: During a previous debate in the house the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) taunted this group by saying that we were seeking to bring socialism into this country under the guise of winning the war. I shall not debate that question now, but I will say that the opposite is true. We in this group are convinced that unless the country is prepared to adopt some of the principles of socialism we cannot possibly win the war. The greatest obstacle to our winning the war has been the private competitive system-the same system which for years prior to the war caused us to have nearly a million people on relief, thousands of men walking the streets, farmers with their granaries filled, and yet not being able to get the necessaries of life. That same system which functioned so anti-socially before the war has kept us from producing an all-out war effort since the war.
We cannot fight a war if the profits and competitive system are to continue to be the dominant factor in the national economy.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No; I should prefer to go on; I have not much time. Early in April, 1940, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) told us the reason we were not producing tanks was that it was impossible to get specifications. Why? One of the reasons we are short of oil to-day is that in days gone by it did not suit the interests which controlled the oil industry to develop the potential oil resources of this country. The Truman committee in the United States discovered that the Standard Oil company had the formula for the production of synthetic rubber in Canada and the United States, but that it sold the formula to the Farben Company of Berlin, so that Hitler's mechanized forces could roll across Europe on synthetic rubber at a time when we in this country had not yet got into production in that commodity.
We contend that not only must there be conscription of wealth and industry, because it is fair and just, but that without conscription of wealth and industry Canada cannot make its maximum contribution to the winning of the war.
Emphasis continues to be put in the wrong places. This is a war dependent upon the productive capacity of the nation engaged in it. If we were to conscript every man, woman and child in Canada and put them into uniform we could still lose this war. Unless we are able to produce the goods, the tanks and the planes which enable us to fight, and to fight effectively, the mere conscription of manpower, we contend, does not necessarily mean the winning of the war.
In June, 1940, I made the statement that the National Resources Mobilization Act was the poor man's conscription bill. On that occasion the Prime Minister chided me for making the statement. I made the statement then on the basis of my fears; I make the statement to-night on the basis of my experience, and the experience of the whole of the Dominion of Canada in the administration of the act in the last two years.
The third proposition I lay down is that we in this group are not opposed to the principle of compulsion, but we are opposed to the principle of discriminatory compulsion. We recognize that in war time the state has a right to expect that every citizen will make every contribution he or she can make in the national effort. But we do object to having that principle of compulsion apply, as it has applied, only to the human resources of the nation. There is an old saying, one worth repeating, that "the life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment." In war time we are inclined to think cheaply of human life, when we hear of huge casualty lists. We speak in terms of hundreds of thousands of men, and we fail to recognize that when this or any other parliament undertakes to requisition human life it is requisitioning the dearest possession of mankind. When I asked a question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) with reference to taking over a large vacant building in the city in which I live to use as a barracks, he replied, "confiscation". You could give that building back, but when you take a man's life you take something from him which you can never give back. This house has a serious responsibility when it takes the step that it is prepared to take, to give this administration the power to conscript the lives of human beings. It has a responsibility to see to it that there is first conscripted those other resources which are far less vital and far less important.
The minister argued yesterday that the same reasoning which caused the people of Canada to relieve the government of their moral obligation ought to apply now to relieve them of this legal obligation. I maintain that that does not apply. We in this
Mobilization Act-Mr. COMMONS
Douglas (Weybum)
group went out across the country and asked any people with whom we might exercise any influence to relieve the government of their responsibility. Why? Because the Prime Minister had definitely promised that this matter would come to parliament. The people of Canada were not asked to put the conscription of man-power for overseas service on the statute books of Canada; they were asked to relieve the government of all commitments in order that the matter might be discussed, to relieve all members of this house of any obligation in order that they might attack this subject on its merits. But that argument does not apply now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is my hon. friend talking about right now?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask:
are we discussing conscription?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; the question of overseas service is now before parliament.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The moral obligation of the government was released in order that the matter might be discussed in parliament. To relieve the government of its legal responsibility without any assurance that it intends to conscript all the material resources of Canada is a totally different matter. Whereas we were willing, and did ask the people to relieve the government of its moral obligation, we are not prepared to relieve the government of its legal obligation unless the government is prepared to take some definite steps for the conscription of wealth, industry and the other material resources of this country.
In a few days the reserve unit to which I am attached is going into camp and I may not be here when the vote is taken. I should like to place my position before the house so that there may be no doubt as to exactly where I stand. Had the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar been accepted as being in order, naturally I would have voted for it. If the government is prepared to withdraw this bill and introduce mandatory clauses to section 2 of the mobilization act conscripting the wealth and industry of Canada, as outlined this afternoon by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar; if they are prepared to follow that policy with a conscription measure for the conscription of man-power for overseas service, then I am prepared to vote for it. But if the government fails to follow such a course,
I say definitely to-night that I shall vote against this measure.

I do not intend to lend either my voice or my vote to giving the government power to conscript young men, many of whom have never owned a square foot of the soil of this country, many of whom for years did not know where to lay their heads, if at the same time the government proposes to leave those to whom this country has been good, those who own a large part of this country, go comparatively free. This is either everybody's war, or it is nobody's war. As long as the government fails to utilize the material resources of the country, I for one will not vote to give it the power to conscript human life.


Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) has just said that the public has been confused and bewildered by the bill now before the House of Commons. I think he has demonstrated the truth of the statement he made, demonstrated it in a personal way rather than by argument. The hon. gentleman said that he and his associates travelled across Canada asking that the government be relieved of its commitments against conscription. Yet he now says that he will not permit the passage of a bill, the plain object of which is to make possible the putting into effect of a eonscriptive measure.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that what the plebiscite was for? That is not what the Prime Minister said. He said it was not.


Thomas Reid: No one interrupted the hon. member. We gave him a fair hearing.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: If the hon. member will hear me, I will tell him the whole story of the plebiscite and what was intended, in my humble judgment, by the question and answer.
I know the hon. member is under some obligation to leave shortly, but if he will wait I am sure he will hear the whole stoiy. The hon. gentleman has told us that he is prepared to vote for a eonscriptive measure if it is brought before the house in sufficient detail. Yet he proposes to vote against the bill which has for its purpose the very thing which he proposes to support.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Practically. I suppose my hon. friend will say that the difference lies in the fact that some detail could be lined out in a bill brought before the house, detail which under the present measure must be regulated by order in council. I refer to the putting into effect of conscription by the government.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Roebuck


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And preceded by the conscription of wealth.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: That is the herring across the trail. If my hon. friend objects to the government having the power to take care of the details, how does he think a conscriptive measure can be enforced? How could it be administered even if it were passed by the house? In the very nature of things a statute can deal only with general details; it can determine the principle and little more; the remainder, that is, its administration must of necessity be left to the cabinet.
I must congratulate the hon. member for Weyburn upon the speech he has just delivered. We are discussing a definite measure, and at least he has directed his remarks to the measure itself. I listened this afternoon to a long discussion by the leaders of the two parties other than the official opposition, and I must confess that if that was what the public heard, I have no doubt they would be both confused and bewildered. Instead of addressing themselves to the measure before the house, the two leaders made this bill a vehicle for the expression of every possible idea they could think of, whether it was relevant or irrelevant to the measure before us. They turned it into a wheelbarrow, loaded it up with the entire platform of both political parties and dumped it on the floor of the house.
At least the member for Weyburn has discussed the question at issue, and I congratulate him upon doing so.
I listened, as did all the members of this house, of every party, and, I suppose, every division of thought, to the remarkably eloquent and appealing address of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), and I must say to my fellow members that my heart went out to him for the sincerity with which he spoke and the musical eloquence of his words. He said he was not ashamed to represent his French-Canadian compatriots. In reply I should like to say that his French-Canadian compatriots are honoured by his representation. I will go further than that and say that I am proud to call him a fellow-Canadian compatriot. Of course that does not mean that I must agree with all the hon. gentleman said with such force and eloquence.
He complained, for instance, of the form of the question that was placed upon the ballot, and I agree that something may be said with some force along that line. Unfortunately, however, the time for complaint has gone by. The time for the revision or the improvement of that question was when it was being formulated by the cabinet of which he was then a member, and he not only took responsibility for the form of the question
and the fact of the plebiscite but actually approved it before the country. It is rather too late now to criticize the action for which he and the other members of the government were responsible.
As I understand it, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres says that the answer to the question does not warrant the government now introducing a measure which has for its purpose enabling legislation for the introduction of conscription. Surely we did not spend a million and a half dollars on a plebiscite to obtain from the Canadian people an answer that means nothing. The answer must surely mean something, not nothing. If the question and its answer are the innocuous pair that some people reason they are, and did not give the government power to introduce conscription if it is necessary, let me ask, what did it mean? If it did not mean that, why did the constituencies of the province of Quebec, or many of them, vote "no" in such overwhelming numbers? Was it simply because it was verbiage that they did not like? Certainly not. Those constituencies in the province of Quebec which voted "no" did so because they knew that this was a step in the direction of conscription. Equally, Mr. Speaker, in my judgment those constituencies which voted "yes" did so because in their view it was a step in the direction of conscription.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres drew an eloquent and imaginative picture of the distinction between the British race and the race from which he springs. He says that when England is attacked, those of the British race rush to her defence because their deep racial emotions impel them to action, while with the French Canadians their enthusiasm has to be raised by the logic of the mind. That argument appealed to me. I can see the truth of what he says. It is perhaps a reason why we of British extraction should be most kindly in our attitude toward people of French extraction. But I think the error of his statement lies in this, that the heart of the French Canadian floods with emotion just as rapidly and just as strongly as that of the English race in this country when the name of Canada is mentioned. Who, Mr. Speaker, sings "0 Canada" with greater fervour than my fellow-Canadian citizens of French extraction? The error of our position lies in our failure to realize that the boys who are fighting across the English channel, the Canadian young men who are bombing German cities, are fighting the battle of Canada. The error lies in a failure to realize that the armies of Canada which are now in England and standing guard on the chalk cliffs of Dover are in very
Mobilization Act-Mr,. Roebuck

truth guarding the ramparts of Canada, and may I say to my hon. friend, guarding the entrance to the St. Lawrence.
I doubt if foreign service is actually possible in this war. I doubt the accuracy of the term because the armies of Canada, on the land, in the air and on the sea, no matter where they may be and no matter where they fight, if it is in north Africa, England, Prance, Germany or Russia, are defending Canada.
I can say with truth and enthusiasm that there is no class in our community to whom the freedom of this country, the liberty of its people, and the preservation of our ancestral lands are more dear than to my French-Cana-dian friends. So let us realize that we are all together in this war and that this little distinction of race is a veiy small matter in view of the danger that our country is facing and the tremendous responsibilities which we have undertaken.
There are periods in the life of a nation when the interests of the state become more important to the individual than his own ambitions and his own future. There are times when men's souls are stirred to enthusiasm and to self-sacrifice. This is one of those periods in the history of Canada. When Canada declared war against Germany in September, 1939, she staked her national existence on the success of her arms and on the fighting qualities of her associates, and instinctively our people everywhere-I do not care whether they came from the con-scriptionist districts or the non-conscriptionist districts-recognized the national danger and offered themselves, their services and their property in defence of the state. In periods such as this and in the act that we are now performing, conscience should take command. I hope that it is'with a full realization of the solemnity of this moment that we of the House of Commons approach the problems involved in and surrounding this bill. It is with a profound sense of responsibility that I attempt to discuss the measure in this house.
The bill itself, in my judgment, presents almost no problems, and for the simple reason that it has in substance already been approved by a nine-to-one vote of the Canadian electors of my own constituency, and by something like a million majority in the country at large. In courses of debate, it is important that we hold before us the very thing about which we talk. What was the question submitted to the people? "Are you in favour of releasing the government"-note the word- "from any obligations arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?" It does not say, are you in favour of releasing the House

of Commons, the Liberal party, the Conservative party, or the individuals involved; it asks the people whether they are prepared to release the government. The government was the subject at issue. The people said "yes," specifically. I think they said much more than "yes," but to that question they answered "yes" by a vote of approximately two-to-one. Accordingly the government has introduced a measure to implement in substance the question which was asked. The bill which is now before the house is the practical counterpart of the question which was asked of the public. Oft proposes to strike out of the mobilization act these words:
The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
Those who would criticize the assumption of powers by the government in the present bill should realize that all that is happening is the disappearance of certain words, and that the powers which the government will retain were already set out in the mobilization act. No new powers of administration are being given. The only distinction between the exercise of those powers after the bill is passed and their exercise before the bill is passed is that the powers may apply to foreign service, so-called, while at the present time they apply only to local service. So let us not, as the hon. member for Weyburn says, be confused and bewildered. The government is given no powers which it did not formerly possess. It only extends those powers to foreign service. It does seem to me that every hon. member who comes from a constituency which voted "yes" in the plebiscite must in the very nature of things, if he would obey the will of those who sent him here, vote "yes" on this bill. I see very little difficulty as far as the bill itself is concerned; I am satisfied that it will carry with an overwhelming majority in the house, and that majority will not be made up only of members of the party to which I belong. It hardly needs a defence as far as its literal words are concerned.
This bill, however, has implications much more far-reaching than the mere release of a government to do as it sees fit. Irrespective of amendments which may be offered, this bill raises the whole question of methods by which Canada will in the future raise her armed forces for service overseas, and it brings before this house in a formal way the vexed question of conscription. It is a question which, in my judgment, cries out for decision. It is a question which can no longer be evaded. It is a question which will not down.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Roebuck
One speaker has said that this is the last opportunity which we members will enjoy to discuss and to determine this question of conscription. Well, let us determine it now. This is the debate and now is the time. I noted with a great deal of pleasure the statement of the Prime Minister in his speech of yesterday that he invited a full discussion of conscription-an invitation which I propose to accept.
It would be easy for me to argue the question of conscription on its merits, because there are so many sound arguments on both sides. I suppose that one could list every possible relevant fact and argument in two opposing columns and, after a contemplation of the weight of both sides, could honestly come to either conclusion. But for me the time for argument has gone by. The decision on this question was taken out of my hands. It was made for me by an authority that I acknowledge to be my superior and to whom I owe a very willing obedience. It has been decided by the high court of the electors of the riding from which I come.
The pledge which was the subject of the plebiscite had a number of aspects. In the first instance, it bound the government in whose name it was given. In the second instance, it bound the Liberal and Conservative parties, perhaps others, whose leaders and many of whose members spoke on their behalf. Finally, it bound the individuals whose personal honour was involved in the keeping of the pledge. The pledge against conscription was an individual obligation on all those members of the house who adopted it by outright spoken declaration, or who tacitly became bound to it by acceptance of its benefits. The pledge was a matter of general and national concern and it was also a matter of private concern, between each individual member and his respective electors.
The request for release affected that personal relationship between myself and my own constituents; and yet the reference was made to the people for the release from the pledge without any prior consultation with the members of the house. It appeared in the speech from the throne which was prepared before the arrival of the members in Ottawa at the opening of the session. I am not complaining-do not misunderstand me-of the decision to hold a plebiscite. It is the right of the government to take the initiative and to stand or fall by the consequences.	It is not only its right to
take the initiative; at times it is its duty to do so. So I am not complaining of being presented with a jait accompli with respect to the request for release from the pledge.
I am only pointing out that the plebiscite was a government measure pure and simple, and the government, having taken the responsibility of asking for an expression of the views of the electors whom I represent, no doubt will not be surprised-it will expect- that I follow the decision of my electors, as I understand it, that I heed what they say. This was the appeal tc Caesar.
Now, then, what was it that my constituents said to me in the course of the plebiscite campaign? In the speech delivered in the house on the second reading of the bill by the Prime Minister on February 25'. 1942, he made abundantly clear the meaning which would be attached to the answer by the government. The Prime Minister said, as reported at page 823 of Hansard:
If the answer is in the affirmative it will mean that the government, according to the opinion expressed by the people, has been released from commitments that have been made; if it is in the negative, it will mean that the majority of the electors are of the opinion that the government should continue to be governed by the commitment that was made at the time of the last general election and on previous occasions, and on subsequent occasions as well.
That is to say, if the electors voted "no", there would be no conscription; if the electors voted "yes", there would be no conscription still, unless and until the government sees fit. However much that may resemble a proposition of "heads I win, tails you lose", that was the meaning attached to the question by the government. That was the construction which was placed upon it, and I submit now that neither the Prime Minister nor the government can be charged with inconsistency if the government now contends that "no" means "no" and that "yes" means "no" at its pleasure. That was the plain logic of the situation.
But, Mr. Speaker, I am troubled. I am troubled with this question: Is there any obligation on the part of the public to accept for themselves the interpretation placed by the government upon the question which they were asked to answer? The electors when called upon to vote are not civil servants to be instructed by a government; they are, in fact, its masters. They are not servants at all; they are masters. They are not confined in the expression of their opinions to any narrow formula that may be placed in print upon a bill. They can express any opinion they please by any method they care to adopt, and they, too, can announce in advance or afterwards the meaning which they place upon their vote. This they did in my constituency, and the meaning which

Mobilization Act-Mr,. Roebuck
they gave to a "yes" vote, was not the meaning which was given to it by the Prime Minister. They told me by hundreds; they made it known to me in every way that masses can make their meaning clear, that they were voting "yes" on this plebiscite because they preferred the compulsory selective service system to the voluntary system. They were voting "yes" because they were in favour of conscription.
I am speaking only for myself. I am speaking only as member for Trinity. I would not presume to speak for other members or for other members' ridings. I know my people as well as most members know theirs, and I say that my electors did not vote in this plebiscite only and exclusively to set a government free from shackles of its own making, although I realize that that was an element in their thinking.
It has been contended that the government wished t-o be free from its commitments because it would then be in a better position to explain to the people of the United States why the United States has the draft and Canada has not. The importance of American relations is thoroughly understood, I think, by all well-informed Canadians, but I am safe in saying this to the house, that my electors of Trinity did not go to the polls by thousands in order to improve a speech or to sprinkle salt upon an argument. There were 26,295 electors in my riding who went to the polls-26,295 in my constituency alone -and they voted for the affirmative on the ballot by a vote of nine in ten.


Mr. FLEMING:: Are you in favour of
it, too?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Yes. Why did the
people of my riding flock to the polls in such numbers? In my judgment they went for no other reason than to decide whether Canada should or should not have conscription. That may have been illogical on their part, in view of the form of the question as placed upon the ballot. But the electors were not the architects of that verbal structure; it was given to them; they had no choice but to accept it and make the best use they could of it in expressing their purpose. They may have been actually pig-headed in view of the speeches made by parliamentarians of all colours, but in my judgment that is what they did. And they are the masters. According to my intimate knowledge, they went to the polls to decide this question of conscription.


Harry Raymond Fleming: Did the hon. member
advise them to vote for conscription?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I asked them to come out, and they came in great numbers. I am

not saying whether they were wise or unwise, whether it was right or wrong. I am not defending my own position; I am simply saying what I think they did.
I wish the house would permit me to present the case and would sympathetically go along with me for a moment in trying to get the picture as it presents itself in my riding. Mine is a constituency of homes, thousands of them. The men and women whom I represent are home people. They love their families. No people in the world ever loved their families more than do the people of my constituency. Yet young men and women went to the polls and said, "Take our brothers and our fathers." Fathers and mothers went to the polls and said, "Take our sons." They hate war and they do not love compulsion; yet they said, "Take us; save Canada; beat Hitler." They said it with sore hearts, in no spirit of bravado. In sombre seriousness they said it. They are Canadians; they did their duty.


Georges Parent: I have to inform the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Unless I have the indulgence of the house I must bow to your ruling.	[DOT]


Georges Parent: There is some objection.


Thomas Langton Church: The motion is for the second reading of Bill No. 80, a bill which has been a costly one for the taxpayers of this country. It is a pretty skimpy bill to cost $1,500,000 to release someone who says he gave a pledge. As far as I am concerned as a member of the House of Commons and of the party to which I belong I never gave a pledge on anything, and I can say that no leader had the right to pledge my political party on that question because the party was never consulted about it. That is what defeated our party in Ontario, the principle of "follow your leader" and "your leader is your policy". That policy is fatal in peace and still more so in time of war.
Every second, every minute, every hour, every day and every week between now and midsummer are big with fate for this country. As we approach the summer we do not know to whom this country is going to belong. The enemy is at our door, our front door, our back door and every other door. It has attacked three dominions; three of them have the enemy at their front doors. This is going to be the most fateful summer in our history; yet nearly six months have been wasted by a plebiscite which meant nothing from the start. All this bill does is to

Mobilization Act-Mr. Church
permit overseas service if, as and when the governor in council thinks it necessary, which in my opinion will be never, as long as this government is in power. I have a great admiration and respect for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King); I think I have known him longer than anyone else in the house, and anything I have to say is what I believe to be the truth and without offence to anybody, because I speak only of principle. I regret the results of the action taken by the government in regard to this legislation. My leader in the house and the whole Conservative party in the Toronto district supported the plebiscite and the "yes" vote. The leader of this group addressed a letter to the Conservatives in every constituency asking them to support the plebiscite and to vote "yes", although we on this side of the house opposed the plebiscite. I myself did not believe in the plebiscite because I believe that on the government of the day rests the responsibility to carry on the war. It is their function as long as they are the govern^ ment; under the parliamentary system and the constitution the responsibility is theirs; it is something that they cannot evade notwithstanding pledges and that kind of thing.
As far as this particular pledge is concerned, when the trouble was on in 1922 and 1923 and one of the leaders of our party said that if war came he would like a referendum, I opposed my leader and told him that in this house and outside the house as long as I belonged to the party I would never see Mr. General Election become commander in chief of the British forces; I would never allow Mr. General Election to become admiral of the British fleet, because before Mr. General Election could open his ballot boxes the enemy could sail up the St. Lawrence and bomb the citadel at Quebec, blow up the public utilities in Montreal and blow down this building and the Chateau Laurier and all our institutions. For that reason I opposed it, and because I have always believed in the principle that when Britain is at war Canada is at war. Everything we in this country have we owe to the mother country. She bore the brunt of the whole war for the first two years. Had it not been for her the axis powers would have been in America, and Ottawa and Washington would long ago have had to make peace with them.
As I say, there is only one clause in the bill; it is merely enabling legislation giving the governor in council power to act if, as and when they consider it necessary. I regret that this action was taken at all, because I believe the Prime Minister and his cabinet
have done a great deal of good work. I am not one who would say anything to the contrary, because I believe they worked hard- so hard, in fact, that it has affected the health of most of them. I believe they have done their best, and what they believed to be their duty. But I do say that the government was ill advised in having the plebiscite, and in acting the way in which it did at that time.
I say that because in my opinion the plebiscite has led to wide disunity, from Vancouver to Halifax. It has fomented wide dissension from coast to coast, and has frustrated the ideals of the fathers of confederation.
The principle of the bill, as indicated by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), is just enabling legislation. When addressing a meeting in my constituency at the time of the plebiscite I said that I did not believe in it. I had voted for a six months' hoist, because in my view a plebiscite was not the proper way to deal with the matter. When addressing my constituency on March 5 at the Masonic hall, I urged them to vote "yes" on the plebiscite, although I had said the night before I had voted for a six months' hoist.
My observations are reported in the Toronto papers of March 6, as follows:
A lot Hitler and Japan care for plebiscites. The axis partners may arrive in Canada before the ballot boxes are open.
Then the article continues:
Taking the plebiscite, he characterized as "War according to Hollywood, and not according to Hitler and Japan," and he predicted that "It will, when taken, like the national register, be consigned to the archives."
"The people are fast losing all confidence in our free parliamentary institutions in Canada and in their public men," said Mr. Church, accusing the government of "several rounds of shadow boxing, such as the sham plebiscite route to glory. If the people vote Yes the government will take one pace forward and four paces backward in the war effort."
"It is no time to belittle those who for five years before the war had predicted it. If I were one of those who had changed my views- like some in the house-I would have come to the House of Commons and taken the penitents' bench, and would have said that a change of opinion had been forced upon me by Hitler and Japan, and that I regretted my past actions in opposing rearmament and coordination and cooperation with Britain. But, No! They pose now as super-patriots, these pacifists in all parties. If Hitler and Japan come to Canada they will take the plebiscite and all connected with it, and hang them on the sour apple tree-like was done with John Brown's body. History always repeats itself."
Those were my views. They were honest views, and I had expressed them in the house before. I am sorry that my opinion differed from that of the citizens' committee during

Mobilization Act-Mr. Church
that campaign. The Toronto members were invited by the Canadian corps and Canadian Legion to attend a meeting to boom the plebiscite. I would not have attended it otherwise, as I did not believe in the said citizens' committee or that a thing would be done on this vote. One of the members of the government was there. Our members were not allowed to take part in the meeting. I asked the chairman had he any word or undertaking from the government that if we voted "yes" we would get conscription, or a total war effort. He said "no", and now this celebrated committee find out they were fooled, and what they voted for was not carried out.
The Prime Minister has pointed out that one of the main principles of the bill is that parliament has to decide what part it will take in the war. There have been some differences of opinion, but they have been cropping up since the war started. It has been said that Canada did not enter the war for ten days -until September 10. After ten days of neutrality we did enter the war. Then there were some other election speeches which had been made against conscription, and the government got over that difficulty with the plebiscite.
We now have a bill which has for its purpose the striking out of section 3 of the act. As I say, this is merely permissive and enabling legislation. In connection with this matter of recruiting, we have been doing everything by fits and starts. It is a fact that this country should stop, look and listen, because the adoption of the amendment may not make any change in the law as it was, with the exception of section 3.
This measure will not help the overseas part of the war. It will not send any troops over there. It will not conscript troops at the present time, unless it is found necessary. It has strings, riders, and a number of jokers- what would be known by the laymen as "jokers". It has "ifs" and "whens" and "when necessaries", and all that kind of thing. If it is adopted, it is not intended to apply conscription until necessary.
That particular part of the bill is not very clear. It is no more clear than was the plebiscite, and I suggest that it needs some revision. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is perfectly clear that the enemy overseas will have to be destroyed, if this continent is not to be the field of final conflict, or the first scene of an invasion. Our provisions for home defence do not amount to the snap of a finger in the 'beating of Hitler. If we are beaten overseas the battle will be here in a very few hours.

The motion for second reading of the bill
was not necessary, nor was there any necessity for the plebiscite. As I say, there has been too much interference with the war, instead of leaving it to our military leaders to conduct along lines of military strategy. It has been conducted from the political end, and that was the trouble in the far east. There has been interference from statesmen, some of whom have been called politicians. They interfered in the far east with the direction of the military campaign on land, on sea and in the air.
This war is different from the last one. In 1916 the Asquith government went out of office in England because it tried to conduct that war as a Liberal war. Since this war started, the government in Canada have been conducting it as a Liberal war. All along the line it is conducted from the political point of view. I should like to find out if this change in Bill No. 80 was considered by the defence council. Did the defence council advise the government about the situation in Europe? If they did, they did not know what they were talking about. They were not well advised if they said that an overseas army, in addition to what is in England, was not necessary.
I say that because there will have to be another peninsular war. Great British cannot win this war in the air, and we have lost command of the Pacific. I would repeat my question as to whether the defence council were consulted, and if they recommended this amendment. Will they take the responsibility for this bill if Canada is invaded, and any reverse is suffered by our forces. Australia had the same trouble. They wanted the formation of a war cabinet, because they found that political decisions were being given against them, and against the advice of their military leaders in the far east.
I do not see any necessity for this bill. The government was given authority, by a large majority, the largest majority since confederation, to carry on this war. The government has failed all along the line. It is a Liberal war, based on a half-way effort. As Napoleon said, when we gamble with the lives of men we lose the confidence of the troops. That is true to-day. I venture to say that the minute our troops hear what we heard in this chamber yesterday they will be very much surprised, and they will be asking themselves the question as to why they enlisted at all. I say that in this Bill No. 80, from the military point of view and from the point of view of strategy in the war we are taking a gamble of a hundred to one.
The people have not been given the facts. They have not been told the details of the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Church
money that has been spent. Less information is given to the public of this country than of any of the other dominions. On March 21, 1939, I called this to the attention of the house and quoted the statement of the then British Prime Minister over there that if the people "are only allowed to know what the leaders choose to permit them to know, then that people are in danger of being led to embark upon a course which may presently lead them into disaster."
Is this Bill No. 80 the answer to the men at the front, to the men who are flying over Germany to-night? As the Prime Minister has said, this bill will permit soldiers to go to adjacent territories like the United States, Newfoundland, and probably the Aleutian islands and other places, but where are you going to get the men under this bill? I do not intend to discuss the issue raised in the debate yesterday and to-day in connection with the situation in Quebec. In my opinion the soldiers will be greatly disappointed, and the "yes" voters of the country will be tremendously disappointed by the action of the government.
People outside the house, in the constituencies, sometimes tell me that they cannot understand the mentality of the House of Commons. When such measures as this are allowed to go through, as has been the situation in the past, the government must assume the responsibility. I consider it is only cheap political vaudeville and cheaper political burlesque, a declaration to the world that we are not going to do anything. Before the war we relied upon such things as the League of Nations, the Monroe doctrine, the status quo, the Locarno treaty and collective security. It is collective security only when you have an armed Britain. The "yes" voters thought that if the "yes" vote were the majority vote, they would have a total war effort. They find now that there is to be no total war effort.
We face invasion just as much as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. In my opinion there is no such thing as home defence. The defence of this country will not be decided at Victoria or Vancouver or Quebec or Montreal or Three Rivers or Saint John; it will be decided in the other theatres of the war, in the Mediterranean, in the Atlantic and in the Pacific. If we fail over there, it will be all over. Hitler is the grand master of timing. But our distinguished Prime Minister is a good judge of timing. He is the best politician we have in the country and he is the grand master of political timing in the sense to which I have referred.
The Prime Minister takes his appeasement policy even to the electors. What was the "yes" vote? In my opinion it was a vote to get on with the war. We have had five sets of counts and votes and they are all deposited in the archives. It is a fine way to trust the people by giving them legislation like Bill No. 80. In my opinion the voters will be disappointed at the action of the government because Bill No. 80 will be pigeon-holed in the archives like the rest of these things. To-day is the forty-fifth day since the vote was taken and now it is going to be deposited in the archives. Dust to dust, earth to earth and ashes to ashes.
The address we heard yesterday was an explanation of the plebiscite and we heard that men are not wanted. Why are we taking this circuitous route? There never was a time when things looked so dark. This war can be won only with a large army and an air force and a fleet. We have lost all the battles in this war. In his first spring drive Hitler captured Norway, Luxemburg, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and France. In the second spring offensive he entered the Caucasian mountains, the Balkans and Greece, and Crete fell. This spring offensive he is in the Caucasus and a great battle is raging. Germany has 3,000,000 men and 14,000 tanks, the largest army the world has ever seen. Opposed to him is an army of only 2,000,000. Germany has passed through the worst winter in her history.
In the first two years Britain had to bear the brunt of the struggle and Russia will have to bear it in 1942. This country should bestir itself to send her all production possible and other help, air force and otherwise Many people think that this bill will not get very many men into the army, that the women will be left to do the fighting for the men. That remains to be seen. In my opinion the Prime Minister's speech was appeasement in excelsis.
Last Sunday in Toronto, in a driving rain storm, in my constituency at a Sunday service, an appeal was made to the soldiers of this country. The Canadian corps met in Riverdale park, a spot where on former occasions as many as 150,000 people have met together. The service was led by Lieutenant-Colonel the Reverend Canon H. F. D. Woodcock, V.D., who was the chaplain of the Queen's Own regiment. He served overseas for four and a half years during the last war. The son of Sir Allen Aylesworth, who sits in another place, was with him overseas. Canon Woodcock is at Christ Anglican Church, Toronto. I quote from the newspaper report of the sermon;
Mobilization Act-Mr. Church

You have the country at your service," Canon Woodcock told Mr. King. "All we ask is that you use it totally to win the war." The country expressed an opinion on the request of the Prime Minister to release him from promises, the speaker charged. "With an overwhelming 'yes' we responded to his request."
Canon Woodcock said that the vote released Mr. King from "anything to prevent you mobil-ilizmg this Canada for total war."
"We are not afraid of regimentation in this great war, when the struggle is for death or victory," the speaker declared.
Commenting that anyone who speaks to-dav has a great responsibility, Canon Woodcock said words must not be empty things in these days."
"I speak especially to these men whom I see before me."
Many of those men had served for four and half years in Flanders and France. I quote:
The speaker said that the dominion was proud of the veterans not only because of their acts in the last war but because of their conduct in those trying days between these two wars.
"They stood for the best traditions of the empire and always stood for imperial relations," Canon Woodcock stated.
"The veterans have been a steadying influence during these years, all of which have not been peaceful ones. And we did need a steadying influence during those days," the speaker said.
"To-day we meet in honour of this great empire. The gates have been set up like Jericho of old. Gates set up in the blood of the younger sons. We claim that we deserve this empire because it was procured at such a tremendous price-the price was blood. So we prize the empire. We idealize it. We think of it as standing for truth, justice, honour and fair play."
Those were the words of a great pastor, great citizen and great leader. When the Napoleonic wars were going so badly against England, Napoleon said:
This government foresaw nothing and only discovered difficulties when brought to a standstill by them.
A hundred thousand men have perished, the artisans of our defeats, the people responsible for our misfortunes, have no business to take any further part ill our public life. They ought to remain in retirement and do their best to be forgotten.
To scatter forces in little packets is not the way to make wrar.
I have read the Prime Minister's speech twice to-day, and while it contains considerable information it fails to show what the objectives are under this bill. What are the objectives of the government during this fateful year, 1942, especially now that we are approaching the darkest hours of the summer. Indecision, after all is said and done, is one of the most fatal mistakes in war time. It is clear that the speech of the Prime Minister fails to let the country know where we are going to land. It is clear also that we have been 
depending all along, and so has Britain, toe much upon American supplies and upon America to defend us. As I said the other day, we need a minister of production in this country, who can and will organize our whole resources and man-power and materials in an all-out drive for production. The work of the present Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) is divided among himself and two other ministers, and I believe that we should have immediately one minister of production in charge of it all, because if Great Britain does not get the supplies she needs, the united nations will soon be in a very grave situation. We need a minister of production who will organize our whole resources for this war. After all is said and done, it is not America, but the mother country herself, that is the great arsenal of democracy to-day. Figures produced in the British House of Commons show that Britain's production is twice that of the United States. The United States, while her heart and soul is in the war, is not a military power, and it will be impossible for it within less than two years to attain the maximum production which is necessary to match the axis powers.
This country seems to be entirely lacking in anything like a war mentality. We are fighting the best organized enemy in the history of the world, and the most cruel and barbarous of all times. I would like to see commando empire troops raised' and trained in the dominion. Commando in modern warfare are like armoured shock troops in their application, and are only in their infancy. But to send them to the continent alone would be a mistake, because they are useful only following in the wake of powerful tank brigades, which in turn must follow powerful fleets of bombers and fighters, with a fleet back of them. So far we are wanting in this, because our fleet is now being used in the war of survival to safeguard the lines of supply from America; but 'the job is now to see that these units of commando dreadnoughts, by divisions, are ready. Canada is the logical place to train them and to recruit them from all parts of the empire, as is being done under the air training plan. Our job should be to see that these units are forthcoming to aid Russia and Britain. Canada has produced magnificently in aircraft and munitions of various kinds, and I believe that we could contribute greatly by training commando troops in Canada.
I believe that this country is not doing its duty to those across the sea at the present time. This war is approaching the most critical days in the history of civilization, and yet Bill No. 80 is, in my opinion, merely a lot of window-dressing and shadow-boxing. It will not fool anybody. It is just a smoke-

Mobilization Act

Mr. Church
screen, added to the delay that was caused by holding the plebiscite, for the mistakes which were made in disarmament before this war and for which the government of the day is responsible.
This country is not doing its duty. There should be no more political conduct of this war. We could have had a million men trained for the army under the voluntary system if we had not been acting on the on-again-off-again principle. Recruits came forward all over this dominion at the beginning of the war and were told that they were not needed for the army. The ambition to serve was there, but these young men were told they were not wanted and that there was no room for them in the army. It was difficult to get into the army then, but they could get into the air force and into the navy without limit.
This is a life and death struggle and I should like to know why in a democratic country like Canada there is not equality of sacrifice. In this country from coast to coast we have spent millions of dollars on free education, free textbooks, free dental and medical inspection. Is it, then, too much to ask our youth to do something which has been done ever since the creation of the world, to undertake the defence of one's own country? That is the first duty of a citizen. But in some of our schools and state universities long before this war started they were preaching pacifism and that it was immoral to defend one's country, with the result that when the war came, pacifism had almost got control of the government.
I believe that Russia is very badly in need of men and materials. The "yes" vote in the plebiscite urged the government to wage total war. We have forgotten to think out loud in Canada and let the people know that this country is less democratic in matters of defence than the totalitarian nations whose armies are composed of every ablebodied man between certain ages, who come at the call of duty to serve the state. That is regarded as the highest form of social service. Our educational system has been lacking in that respect. It has not taught the children of the land that their first duty is to defend the realm. Our troops will suffer as a result of pacifist doctrines and policies. We were not ready for this wTar. The real facts of our situation have been withheld from the people of Canada. It is absolutely useless to send untrained men up against trained men. Are we going to send our young men without sufficient training to Russia and Europe, because there will be another peninsular war sooner or later, to fight the highly trained soldiers of the axis powers? Munich
gave this country and the world a year's respite. That respite had to be purchased by Britain and France from Germany because either singly or together they were then no match to meet Germany as both Britain and France had disarmed. This respite was turned into an ultimatum, and this country stayed sound asleep and did nothing about the matter.
The result of the vote on the plebiscite shows the spirit of our people, and proves that the Canadian people are ready to make greater sacrifices if they are told that those sacrifices are necessary to win the war. Britain can no longer rely on the English channel and the Atlantic ocean as her sufficient protection; and the day is not far distant, .unless we bestir ourselves and rid our strategy of politics, when we shall be facing a very grave peril. This is a life and death struggle, and nobody knows where it is going to end.
The mistakes which have been made in the far east show the immediate necessity of an empire war cabinet. There is no more important topic before the world and the British empire to-day, because without a war cabinet the war cannot be won. We have evidence of the need of it in the mistakes which have been made in . the far east. The Prime Minister need q,ot be in attendance; he can have a representative there. In the last great war the war council did very useful work. It led to coordination of effort and cooperation in strategy, in place of every country pursuing a strategy of its own. I hope that the matter will be reconsidered and that action will be taken in this direction.
Britain did not want war, but she will stand higher than any other nation in the verdict of history. As in the parable, while the lawyer, the priest and the Levite illustrated the hollowness and sham of their profession, it was the much maligned Britain that alone came forward, voluntarily, and acted the part of the Good Samaritan to stand in the breach and save the world from slavery. Britain has acted the part of the Good Samaritan in this war. She has been the protector of the weak the world over. She entered this war voluntarily. There was no selfish reason why she should have entered it, and by her stand and the heroism of her people after Dunkirk she saved the whole human race. She has been the bulwark of freedom, religion and civilization; to her will go the main credit in history.
I believe the Prime Minister will have the united support of the whole house for his bill. I know, as a member of the opposition, that he has received pretty good support from our leader. The splendid speech which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) made yesterday will be remembered as one of the best
3298	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia)
which has been made during this war or the last. My leader has measured up very finely to his responsibilities during this war. He has given the government good, independent support. I hope that, notwithstanding the mistakes which have been made, the government will press on with the prosecution of the war and give our troops in all theatres the help they need and deserve. It should certainly consider the training of additional regiments for use when the new peninsular war begins in Europe, because it is there, not in Canada, that the battle is going to be.
Mr. ARTHUR J. LAPOINTE (MatapSdia-Matane) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) wishes by means of Bill No. 80 to strike out section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act, and thus do away with all barriers to conscription of men for overseas service. This measure is, to my mind, one of the most important and critical to be submitted to the commons since the great war. The discussion may even become violent, unless hon. members of this house exercise a great deal of good-will and moderation. That is why I intend, during these brief remarks, to respect the opinion of those who differ with me on the burning issue of conscription. In critical times such as these, when everyone is highly keyed up, it is important to discuss calmly the grave issues with which we are faced. Mr. Speaker, since 1935 when I first entered this house, I have been loyal to my party, for I had no serious reason to do otherwise. I have always had faith in the right hon. prime minister, believing then as now in his utmost sincerity. It is therefore with the deepest regret that I find myself obliged to take issue with him on so grave a measure. The dictates of my conscience leave me no other choice.
During the 1917 election campaign, I was serving in the trenches as a volunteer. Then, as now, I did not believe in conscription for overseas service and voted against the government. Two years ago, thinking that I might once more be of service to my country, I joined up, this time again as a volunteer. The prime minister does not intend perhaps to resort immediately to conscription for overseas service, but through this bill he is nevertheless asking us to accept the principle of such a measure. After that, the road to conscription would be wide open. H I am so strongly opposed to the measure, it is because I am convinced that this system, far from helping our war effort, will cause deep dissension among the people of Canada and

undoubtedly destroy national unity, which is so essential to the success of our common cause.
I know the people of my constituency whom I have had the honour of representing in this house for almost seven years. They are willing to sacrifice everything to victory, but they are averse to compulsion and they will never condone the implementation of such a measure. So far, the people of Matapedia-Matane, together with the whole population of Gasp'e have very generously answered the call of their country. Their sons have enlisted in large numbers and I am positive that were conscription to be enforced very few conscripts could be found in many parishes of my part of the country, for all able-bodied men have enlisted voluntarily and have generously answered the call of their country. They wished to follow in the footsteps of two great heroes, Brillant and Keable, both of whom used to live in my constituency and both of whom have been awarded the Victoria Cross. They were the only two French Canadians ever to receive such a distinction which they have bought with their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I have absolute confidence in the efficiency of the voluntary system of enlistment. I am convinced that it will provide for all the needs of our various forces, as long as it is properly administered and supported by all people of good-will. I am convinced that were the supporters of conscription to put forth as much effort to promote voluntary enlistments as they have done, especially in the last few months, to organize their campaign in favour of conscription, we would have, at the present time, many more volunteers than we could use. I do not wish to cast any doubt on the sincerity of certain supporters of this method of enlistment, but nevertheless I cannot help but feel that many of them are much more interested in causing trouble for the Right Honourable Prime Minister than in promoting the war effort.
The hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has stated that the voluntary system is adequate to supply all present needs of our various armed services, even taking into account the imminent entry of our troops into battle. In that case what is the use of reviving, every once in a while, this national bone of contention?
Mr. Speaker, about two years ago, the powerful German war machine was achieving extraordinary successes in Europe. The French army, considered as one of the best in the world, had sustained the greatest military disaster in its history. Germany, elated by its victories, was hastily organizing

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia)
the battle of Britain, in order to loose its swarms of barbarians on the rest of the world.
It seemed at that time that the collapse of a civilization was near and that nothing could halt the dreadful scourge. Across the channel the British people were in constant fear of invasion, but nevertheless feverishly organizing the defence of their country. In the course of the succeeding months England was to know every form of horror and anguish. After the defeat of France, Hitler thought, in his boundless conceit, that English morale would soon be broken by his powerful air force. That was his first great mistake. In spite of thousands of tons of explosives and incendiary bombs strewn over the English cities, in spite of the slaughter of innocent people, in spite of the destruction of their oldest and most beautiful monuments, the British people remained stoical amid their ruins and did not lose heart. On the contrary, the indomitable courage shown by them through those cruelly testing hours moved every nation of the world to admiration. This incredible tenacity through this trying period allowed those people who were still free to recover from the shock and organize resistance. By her example, by her indomitable courage and with the support of her formidable navy, England then saved the world from slavery of the worst kind.
If our country has not so far been invaded, if we have not hitherto experienced the brutish cruelty of the Gestapo, if we are not as yet at the mercy of the most brutal and most inhuman soldiery one can imagine, if we still are a free people, here in Canada, we owe it mostly to Britain. For the last two years, my military duties have prevented me from taking part in the debates of this house, but I wish to take the opportunity which is afforded me to-day to express my heartfelt admiration for my king, the queen and the British people, whose courage and steadfast determination are so aptly symbolized by the British bulldog in the person of their admirable Prime Minister-, Winston Churchill.
Mr. Speaker, Canada would not have this war. The citizens of this country were quite willing to live in peace, but circumstances over which we had no control have thrust this war upon us. We are fighting to-day beside nations which were still free and anxious to defend that which they hold most dear and most sacred. We are fighting in order to defeat the strongest imaginable conspiracy of evil forces to enslave the nations of the world. We are fighting to defend our Christian ideal. We are fighting for the defence of those
liberties which are nearest our hearts. We are not fighting for China, for Russia, for the United States or for England but, as the late lamented Right Honourable Ernest Lapointe was wont to say with such aptness, we are fighting at their sides for Canada, our own country. This war is therefore our war and we must win it at all costs and, in order to do so, it is imperative that we maintain the unity of our country.
It has been stated by Sir Norman Birkett, speaking before the Canadian club in Montreal, on June 5th, that England's greatest achievement since the war started was the preservation of its national unity. Since we joined the conflict, our war effort has been wonderful. We have exceeded our expectations in all fields. Yet, despite the whole nation's tremendous efforts, despite the amazing results so far achieved, certain people claim that we have not yet accomplished anything, while others claim, that we have done far too much. And there are at present in this country two groups of extremists who are causing considerable harm to our war effort and who are busy sabotaging our national unity. Do they realize to what extent they are playing into the enemy's hands? Nothing could so please Hitler as to see strife and disunion reign among his opponents. This was, moreover, a favourite method of his and one to which he invariably resorted before attacking any country. He weakened it first of all by having his agents of the fifth column spread class hatred throughout the nation. When he saw that prejudices, disunity and discord reigned supreme, the country was ripe for invasion. This was his strongest weapon in all the countries he vanquished. There are, at the moment, in this country two extremist factions who are playing into the enemy's hands. It seems to me that the government and the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) should take vigorous steps to put an end to this bickering. It is high time that this campaign of prejudices and disparagement was checked on both sides, for its only result is to engender hatred and discord which can lead our country to the worst disasters. There is no time to quarrel with one's neighbour when one's house is afire. This does not mean that French Canadians have no grievances in need of redress. On the contrary, we have many. But this is not the time to settle old accounts. While the enemy is at our gates, let us forget our quarrels, unite in the face of our common foe.
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, allow me to recall briefly to the memory of the house the most outstanding example of
3300	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia)
cooperation between races that it has been my privilege to witness. It was during the last great war, on the Lens front, in 1917. The enemy had just started a wild night attack and a very heavy bombardment of our trenches was in progress. The 25th Nova Scotia battalion was in the firing line and the 22nd was supporting them. Suddenly a messenger from the front line brought us the news that the 25th battalion, weakened by the fierce battles of the two previous days, was assailed by forces greatly outnumbering them and were in great need of support. The older members of the 22nd recalled to their younger companions the services rendered them by the 25th battalion at Courcelette in similar circumstances. "Let us go," they said, "this is our opportunity of paying the debt we owe the 25th battalion." In a few moments, the commanding officer had more volunteers than he needed. The fighting was fierce, and a great many lost their lives in the fray. However, the enemy was beaten back with heavy casualties. Later, when relief came, nothing
was more touching, I can assure you, than the sight of these soldiers of the 22nd and 25th battalions marching arm in arm, although they could not understand their respective languages, but who, from that time, became, for life, the best friends in the world.
In these tragic days, we should take inspiration from such an example and such a lesson. This war may perhaps not last as long as we imagine and Canadians of every origin should join and march on hand in hand. I trust that each and every one of us will be able to do so with a clear conscience. If we do this, Mr. Speaker, we shall be able with good understanding between us, with cooperation from every race, to build a truly great country, a truly great nation for which generations to come will hold us in grateful memory.
On motion of Mr. Crete, the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.