1942-02-12

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Alphonse Fournier for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, like those who have preceded me I should like to extend my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.
It has already been said that we are not winning this war, but that in fact we have just barely missed losing it. However, there is something which disturbs me even more than our failure to win battles abroad and to get more efficient production at home, and that is the confusion and disillusionment which exists in the minds of the Canadian public to-day. It is doubtful if there ever was such factional and sectional strife in Canada as there is right now. Much of the discussion in the press and in this house regarding our war effort has been shaped by our emotions rather than by our reason. We are throwing catchwords and slogans at each other rather than sober facts. It is in a welter of mental confusion like this that nazism triumphs. Whenever a nation has lost its sense of national purpose it is ripe for defeat.
I am more concerned for the future of this country to-day than I was even in the dark days of midsummer of 1940. Only wise and courageous statesmanship can save this country from that psychological disintegration which was the prelude to defeat in France. We must all accept some share of responsibility for this state of affairs. None of us is without guilt in this regard. I think it is possibly true, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) claimed, that several powerful groups have fostered the cry for the conscription of man-power with a view to gaining political advantage and embarrassing the government. Others were motivated by a desire to regiment

The Address

Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
labour and exploit the farmer under the guise of winning the war. Still others were thinking in terms of the first great war and failed to recognize that this was a mechanized war in which large armies were useless unless adequately equipped with modern weapons.
I say that there may have been small groups in Canada acting from such motives. But that, Mr. Speaker, is not the whole story. That does not explain the widespread dissatisfaction with the government's war effort. The real fact is that the government itself must accept a large share of the blame. This country has been looking for courageous and aggressive leadership. It has not been getting it. We have been having a Chamberlain government in Canada, with neither a Churchill nor a Bevin in sight. The least that the people have a right to expect is that their leaders will lead them. This country's leaders have had to be pushed. It is true that no leader can afford to get too far ahead of public opinion, but public opinion in this country is far ahead of the government and is now waiting impatiently for the government to catch up, and I submit that it will not wait much longer.
Nor should the government make the mistake of being lulled into a sense of security because of the by-elections which it won last Monday. The three by-elections which were won by the government-


Mr. MacNICOL:: Four.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall deal with the fourth in a moment. The three by-elections which were won by the government were won because the sanity of the people of Canada voted not so much for the government as against the alternatives. In Quebec it was a vote against a group of irresponsible nationalists, and I was pleased as a matter of fact, to see the people of Quebec show their sanity and belief in the destiny of Canada to the extent which they did. In Welland constituency the vote was a vote against reaction and demagoguery, although I want to point out to the government that in that constituency the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation more than doubled its vote.
I come to York South, which has been mentioned by my hon. friend the member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). The leader of the Conservative party made the statement to the press that his defeat was due to a partnership between the dominion government and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The Toronto Daily Star gives an analysis of the vote in that constituency, in which it says:
In York township, the working class section of the riding, the election was lost for the Conservatives and won for the C.C.F. Conservatives dropped from 12,067 to 7,669, a decrease nothing in any other part of the riding could offset. The C.C.F. polled 13,467 votes in York township.
The remarkable turnover from Conservative to C.C.F. was evident when the first polling subdivision results were known. They came from No. 9, which in 1940 gave Cockeram 218 and the C.C.F. 42. Yesterday's vote was 112 for Meighen and 141 for Noseworthy. This advantage was held throughout.
In other words, the York South by-election was a demonstration by the common people that they did not propose to have leadership foisted on them from above. But I warn the government that these by-elections do not mean that there is no discontent or dissatisfaction in the Dominion of Canada. They will make a great mistake it they are lulled into a sense of security because of their victories in these by-elections.
I would like to ask the house to examine some of the reasons for this agitated state of the public mind. First, there is a feeling that the government has been less than frank in discussing the production of war material. Always we are told of orders given or money spent, but these do not always mean weapons produced. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) said last fall that he could equip a division every six weeks. Did he mean that literally? That means equipping eight divisions a year. Yet in November last the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said that perhaps one or two tanks from Canada had reached our troops in England.
To illustrate what I mean, let me refer to something which may be small, but it is indicative. The other evening, when the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was speaking, he said that at the coast men were equipped with United States Springfield rifles which could not be fired. The Minister of National Defence interrupted to say that they could be fired. Does the minister mean that? Surely the Minister of National Defence knows that these Springfield rifles are twenty-five years old and are marked with red paint to prevent any of our men from trying to fire them.


Mr. RALSTON:: Will my hon. friend permit me? My hon. friend is absolutely misinformed. They are marked with that red paint because they are a different calibre to the Mark III rifles. We have Lee-Enfield rifles, many of which are twenty-five years old but are perfectly good.
520	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am coming to that. I will give the minister all the information if he wants it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The United States Springfield rifle, . which thousands of these men are carrying, takes a -300 cartridge, while our ammunition is -303; and since our men are not supplied with American -300 ammunition they cannot possibly fire those rifles.


James Layton Ralston: May I interrupt my hon. friend again. The government has a considerable supply of -300 ammunition in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister if he has ever seen one of those rifles fired?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Mr. HOWE:: I can say that I fired one.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The only man whom I ever saw try to fire one of them had a broken jaw when he was finished.


James Layton Ralston: That may be so, but that might also be true with a Lee-Enfield or a Ross.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that speaking as a German?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am alarmed at the amount of cynicism and the sense of frustration which are present among some of our armed forces. They feel that we are just playing at war. For instance, last summer, when the Prime Minister came to visit Dundurn camp there were a number of reserve units there as well as active units- about 22,000 in all. The Prime Minister will remember that the men of the reserve units wore a heavy winter battle dress although the thermometer was close to 100 degrees in the shade. The reason was not far to seek: the men had no summer parade uniforms. He will remember that they did not carry rifles, because there were rifles for less than half the men. I had 139 men under my care and we were given thirty-six rifles, all American Spring-fields, and one Lewis machine gun which could not be fired-and that for only half of each day, another company requiring it for the remainder of the day.
Since the entrance of Japan into the war certain newspapers have intimated that the reserve army may assume a defensive role in protecting Canada. How many of the reserve units could be used in the event of an invasion on the Pacific coast? Most of them have no equipment. In the unit to which I am attached most of the men have had a maxi-

mum of six hours on the rifle range. They have never fired a Bren machine gun and have never seen, let alone fired, a trench mortar. Is this the army that is to play a defensive role "in the event of invasion"? Does the government wonder that the public are becoming somewhat sceptical of the rosy pictures which are constantly being painted?
The second factor which has undermined public confidence is the ill-fated Hong Kong expedition. I shall not review the facts already placed on the record by the Minister of National Defence, although the house has a right to expect some explanation as to why 138 to 148 men with less than sixteen weeks' training were sent overseas to meet seasoned enemy troops. Over one hundred officers and men from Saskatchewan units were transferred to the Winnipeg Grenadiers. Last year I lived in barracks with some of these men, and I know just how little training some of them had, and when the house committee is set up to investigate the matter I hope to have something to say about it. Five of the officers who went to Hong Kong are men with whom I had lived and worked for weeks. One expects to lose one's comrades in war time, but not through incompetence and negligence, and if there have been blunders we expect the government to see that the persons responsible are properly punished. May I say to the government that the Pearl Harbour incident was investigated, the report filed, and those responsible punished weeks ago and this government has not yet set up any body to carry on an investigation. There is a growing feeling across Canada that the government is merely stalling on this issue.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I say just a word to my hon. friend with regard to the government "stalling on" the matter? As the house will recollect, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) suggested that there should be a parliamentary inquiry into this question. Being anxious to have hon. members assured that the government intended to proceed with an inquiry immediately, I accepted the proposal which my hon. friend made and assured him that an inquiry would be held. In replying to the leader of the opposition, I used the same language which he used in putting the question to me, that it would be a parliamentary inquiry, without restriction. I confess that I had no sooner made the reply I did than there came to my mind what had taken place with respect to the inquiry into Pearl Harbour, which was made, as my hon. friend knows, by a member of the Supreme Court of the United States with whom others were associated. I felt that the same reasons as to procedure which governed in the case of

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
the inquiry into the Pearl Harbour situation should govern in regard to the inquiry to be made into the situation at Hong Kong; and for that reason it seemed to me that an inquiry by a royal commission, with-if possible-a membe* of the judiciary at its head, would be a more appropriate way of proceeding.
Having come to that conclusion, I had a conference with the leader of the opposition, also with the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group (Mr. Coldwell), and with the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore). I pointed out to them the different aspects of the situation to be considered in deciding as between an inquiry by a parliamentary committee and an inquiry by royal commission conducted by some member of the judiciary, and they agreed with me that, all circumstances considered, the latter course of procedure would be the preferable one.
I had then to ascertain whether I could secure for a commission of the kind some member of the judiciary who would be, I will not say persona grata to all persons, but so far as the country was concerned the one who in every way would represent the best possible choice that could be made.
I felt that no one, if his services could be obtained, would give the same sense of security, of impartiality and of wisdom, in a matter of the kind, as the chief justice of Canada, the Right Honourable Sir Lyman Duff. I had then to see the chief justice to ascertain whether or not his services could be obtained. Before the chief justice could give me an answer he had himself to review the situation with respect to his court and the arrangements it might be necessary to make for the time required for the inquiry. He finally said to me that in a matter of this kind, where it was the duty of everyone to do whatever he could to help in a crisis such as the world is faced with at the present time, no one should say no to any request that might be made of him by the government, and that he would be prepared to undertake the inquiry.
The chief justice has undertaken to conduct an inquiry under royal commission; in speaking to him, I said that the government would place no restriction whatever upon him with respect to the scope of the inquiry or any phase of it, and that he would be allowed to choose whomever he wished in the way of counsel, for secretarial staff and the like. In other words, I was assuring him that he would have entire freedom as regards the proceedings and the scope of the inquiry and that the government would not seek even to suggest the persons who might be associated with himself. It would be for him to name the personnel he might wish to have associated with him in the inquiry if he should undertake the task.
The chief justice has accepted and the government has before it at this moment my recommendation to1 the cabinet to have the chief justice appointed. I had hoped to be able to announce that the chief justice would act gnd that the order had been passed, and to table the reference this afternoon. However, some matters that turned up this morning have occupied my time unexpectedly and made that impossible. I hope to lay on the table of the house to-morrow the order which will have been passed meanwhile, and which will assign to the chief justice the duty of making this investigation.
I trust that will be a complete answer to my hon. friend.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: With the indulgence of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), may I add a word to what the Prime Minister has said?


Mr. COLDWELL:: I rise to a point of order. I do not think it is fair to interrupt the hon. gentleman.


Richard Burpee Hanson: By way of explanation I said, "with his indulgence." If that is denied me I will sit down. I am asking the hon. member for Weyburn if he will be good enough to allow me to proceed.


Major James William Coldwell: He objects.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does he now?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the hon. member be very long?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, just five minutes; I do not intend to make a speech. When I asked for the inquiry I did not believe it was open to me to ask for anything else than a parliamentary inquiry, although I was quite cognizant of the fact that that would not be as satisfactory to the people of Canada, I had it almost on the tip of my tongue to suggest the other as an alternative, though I refrained from doing so. I had not lost sight of the fact for a moment, and when the Prime Minister came to see me, as he has said, I welcomed the suggestion he made, and I think I told him at the time that I thought it was far preferable that the inquiry should be made by a judge of the supreme court rather than by a partisan committee of this house. I acceded to the suggestion and it is a matter of record.
The only point that has arisen since, so far as I can recall, was with respect to the

522	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
terms of the reference. I made it quite clear to the Prime Minister that I thought that section 13 of the Inquiries Act which was invoked in the Bren gun inquiry and which precluded the commissioner .from making certain findings, should be waived in this instance. I wish to say at once that the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) both acquiesced in that suggestion.
The only other question that has remained open was with respect to making the reference sufficiently broad to include the whole question of trained man-power available in Canada. That is not quite settled. On every other score I think I can subscribe to everything the Prime Minister has said, and I believe the public are entitled to this explanation. I believe the public will welcome an investigation of this kind, as I do.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his statement that this judicial body is to be set-up, though I do suggest that it is three weeks since the house met and seven weeks since Hong Kong fell. That is a considerable period and the people are anxious to know what steps are being taken to deal with those who may have been responsible for this situation.
May I say to the Prime Minister that when this commission is being appointed the terms of reference ought to be as wide as possible. This house and the country have a right to know a great deal more than was told us the other day by the Minister of National Defence. We should know whether the Canadian general staff was consulted regarding the dispatch of men to Hong Kong. We should know why it took ten days to reply to the British government and another ten days before instructions were issued to prepare the men for embarkation. We should know whether the government was informed as to the impossibility of successfully defending the island. We should know whether or not it is true that all heavy artillery was useful only for resisting a seaborne invasion and that only light field artillery was available to resist the Japanese invasion. We should know whether or not it is true that the water supply was on the mainland and that no adequate provision had been made for water storage on the island itself. We should know whether the two counter-attacks staged by the Winnipeg Grenadiers were attempted without the support of mechanized equipment-because if they were, then the terse statement by the minister that the counter-attacks failed, takes on an ominous significance.
IMr. R. B. Hanson.]
The country has a right to know whether, in the event of a dispatch of more troops to the far east, Canada will be on the Pacific council and whether that council will have executive authority or be merely an advisory body. I suggest to the government that the Canadian people will not take cheerfully the placing of Canadian troops at the disposal of those over whose policies and strategy we have no effective control.
The third factor contributing to public confusion is the appeasement policy which is being followed by the government in international affairs. For years they tried to appease Germany and then Italy. We were told later that it was unwise to prevent scrap iron going to Japan because we might antagonize that nation. All attempts at appeasement failed because the nazi appetite only grows on what it feeds. Now we are trying to appease Vichy France. The Prime Minister says that Churchill wants the Vichy legation kept open. The Prime Minister has the marvellous faculty of finding someone else's skirts behind which to hide; if the United Kingdom wants to retain contact with Vichy it ought to get someone else to do that job. They have Sir Samuel Hoare at Madrid, and there are legations in Portugal and Sweden. We fail to understand why Canada should be singled out to play the host to the emissaries of Vichy. British sailors died in combat with Vichy naval forces. Imperial, Australian and New Zealand troops lost their lives in taking Syria. At the present time Hitler is building a railway across North Africa. It is now proven almost beyond the shadow of doubt that the nazi General Rommel has received substantial reinforcements through French Tunisia. In Egypt the British government had to ask the Egyptian government to close the Vichy legation because the latter had become the clearing house for nazi and Italian spies. Have we any assurance that the situation is any better here in Canada?
When the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon were seized by the free French forces the statements issued by the Canadian Department of External Affairs and the State department of the United States were, to say the least, unfortunate. Reading them one would think the free French forces were our enemies, rather than men risking their lives in the cause for which we are fighting. The time has come for the government to stop halting between two opinions. Those who are not with us are against us; there is no middle ground. We are either with those who betrayed France or with those who are fighting for her liberation. Then let us have an end

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
of this dilly-dallying. If there are Vichy-minded men in the government let them be dismissed and let us set our own house in order. How can we expect our people tp be enthusiastic in the cause of freedom if the government itself is half-hearted?
Contrast our attitude towards Vichy with our refusal until a few days ago to open diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. We sustained relations with those who have slain blood of our blood and bone of our bone, and on the other hand continued to ignore a nation which we refer to almost daily as "our gallant ally." The time has come when the people of Canada believe the Prime Minister ought to give the representative of Vichy his hat with orders to go home.
The fourth contributing cause to the public confusion has been the failure of the government to enunciate a comprehensive policy with regard to the use of man-power. With the powers given to the government under the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, and the information gathered in the national registration of the same year, the country had a right to expect some far-reaching scheme dealing with the allocation of man-power. Instead we have had a hit-and-miss policy composed of improvisations, based on the method of trial and error. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) calls for more food production to win the war, while at the same time young men have been forced to sell their stock in order to take training or go to work at Banff national park. The other day I drew the attention of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) to the case of a young man who had almost completed his course as an aeroplane construction mechanic. When called for training he registered as a conscientious objector and is now wielding a pick and shovel in Banff. Cases like this can be cited by the dozen.
Some of the engineers engaged in war work tell me that they have had difficulty holding their mechanics and draughtsmen because the latter can join the active army and get promotion due to their technical training, whereas if they are called for compulsory training they will be put in the infantry. There has been no attempt to put the right men in the right place and to insist on their staying there. Not only should we not want a skilled munitions-maker in the army; we should not let him in the army as long as we are short of mechanized'equipment.
At the present moment all departments of government are competing against each other for man-power, with disastrous results. Has any survey been made of our man-power? If so, .the government ought to tell us just
44561-34}
how it proposes to utilize the man-power of this nation. We should know how many men are required to produce sufficient food to feed ourselves and our allies. We should know what is the maximum munitions production possible in Canada, how many skilled men will be required, and to what extent woman-power will be available for that work. Then and then only can we estimate the number of men that can be spared for the fighting services. These in turn must be allocated on the basis of which branch of the fighting service we can best contribute to, and in the light of our need for defence.
The Prime Minister has spoken of a balanced programme, but so far there has been no indication that the government has reduced this balanced programme to a definite scheme, as has been done in the United Kingdom. I agree with the Prime Minister when he said that conscription of man-power is not the solution to all our difficulties; the problem is much more complicated than that. But the clamour for conscription has arisen because the government has so far failed to tackle the problem of allocating man-power in such a way as to guarantee our maximum efficiency in the prosecution of the war.
This brings me to the question of the proposed plebiscite. No one can object to a democratic reference to the people of any public question. But there are many aspects which ought to be considered. I cannot agree with those who say that the holding of this plebiscite will delay Canada's war effort. That argument will not bear realistic examination. Under the National Resources Mobilization Act the government has power to call up and train all the able-bodied men for which it has training facilities and the necessary equipment. Later, if the government is given a mandate to that end, these men would be available for service in any part of the world. It is idle to say that the taking of the plebiscite is holding up Canada's war effort. If the Prime Minister feels that his pledge not to conscript men for overseas service binds him, he has a perfect right to take whatever means he thinks proper to be released from that pledge.
There is however another side to this question, to which the government ought to give some thought. The plebiscite as outlined by the Prime Minister is so vague as to be almost meaningless, and is already being interpreted differently in different parts of Canada. Consequently, instead of the plebiscite settling some of the sectional disputes, it may only postpone them. In the plebiscite the Prime Minister intends to ask the following question:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods if raising men for military service?
524	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
What exactly does this question mean? In Quebec it is being interpreted as meaning that even if the plebiscite is answered in the affirmative, immediate conscription of manpower for overseas service is unlikely. This is amply demonstrated by the statement of Premier Godbout, who assured the people of Quebec that Mr. King's attitude was still anti-conscription. On February 2, Mr. St. Laurent, the newly-elected Minister of Justice, said in a radio speech opening his campaign in Quebec East:
At the moment, and probably for a long time to come, conscription for overseas would harm our war effort.
And again in the same speech:
The Prime Minister does not renounce the promises, and if you do not consent to relieve him of them, he will keep the word he has given. But these promises of Mr. King permit his adversaries to make many believe that because he does not propose obligatory military service it is not because he judges it dangerous or inopportune, but simply because his hands are tied.
That is how the plebiscite is being interpreted in Quebec by prominent Liberal
speakers.
On the other hand, in western Canada Liberal newspapers such as the Winnipeg Free Press and the Regina Leader-Post are saying editorially that if the plebiscite is answered in the affirmative the government will proceed to conscript man-power for overseas service. Does the government see th trouble it is storing up for itself? Why does the plebiscite not call for a straightforward answer to the question: "Are you in favour of conscription of man-power for overseas service; Yes or No"?
All attempts the other day by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Agriculture to say that this was not a vote on conscription were evading the issue and will fool no one. If I as a citizen release the government from its pledge so as to give it power to bring down conscription if it thinks conscription necessary, then I am saying that I am in favour of conscription if the government believes that conscription is essential to winning the war. That issue cannot be evaded.
I wonder whether the government has thought of the effect this plebiscite will have on the national unity which it professes to be so anxious to maintain. What will happen if one part of Canada votes preponderantly in the affirmative and another part of Canada votes preponderantly in the negative? What will happen to neighbouring communities of different racial origin when one votes for the plebiscite and the other against? For years to come the results of this plebiscite may be used in charges and counter-charges as to the

relative patriotism of the different parts of Canada. Has the government thought what will happen if the plebiscite is not answered in the affirmative? Because I want to warn them that hundreds of people have intimated in the last few weeks that unless there is to be conscription of wealth and industry they will not vote "yes" for the plebiscite. If the government's request is refused then their hands are tied more completely than ever, and all the factional disputes that are tearing our country apart at the present moment may be fanned into open flame. Canada never needed courageous and dynamic leadership as she needs it at the present time, and so far the government is failing to give that leadership.
I come now to a d'iscusssion of the amendment to the amendment proposed by the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). The other evening the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said this amendment should be read in the light of the statement made by this group in September, 1939. Surely the minister knows that is not a fair statement. Surely the minister knows there is not a group in this house that has not changed its attitude with reference to the prosecution of this war, as the war has progressed. Surely the minister knows that in March, 1940, his own party fought an election on a moderate war effort. No one to-day on either side of the house will talk about a moderate war effort.


Mr. MARTIN:: No one ever did.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: During the last two weeks we have heard one Quebec member after another chiding the government because they were not keeping their promise of a moderate war effort. As a matter of fact this group have repeatedly stated their stand on the war, through the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. He pointed out in Septem-tem of 1939 that we had no confidence in the government that was controlling the British war effort at that time, either in their international policies or their war policies. That government changed; there came to power in Great Britain a new government, with a powerful labour influence, headed by a man in whom we all had confidence. The C.C.F. stated at that time, and have stated repeatedly since, their stand on the war; and the Minister of Agriculture is not playing the game when he tries to tie up the present amendment with statements made in September, 1939, when conditions i)t-ere totally different.
In this amendment we urge the government, if they are determined to proceed with the plebiscite, to add a second question in which we would have them ask:

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
* ^re -vou *n favour of the conscription of war industries, accumulated wealth and financial institutions, at the same time and on the same basis of sacrifice as the proposed extension of the conscription of man-power?
We make this proposal for three reasons. The first is that we are convinced that a large section of the Canadian people are not prepared to support the conscription of manpower for overseas service unless it is accompanied by the conscription of wealth and vital war industries. The second is that we are convinced that the conscription of man-power in itself will not enable us to win the war. President Roosevelt has said that this war is going to be won or lost in the factories. As has been said so often, this is a mechanized war, in which the production of tanks, planes and modern equipment is an integral part of our war effort. A million men in uniform armed with rifles and machine guns, without the mechanized equipment essential to modern war, would be almost useless. This has become a war not of masses of men but of the productive power of entire nations; and to talk in terms of the conscription of manpower while leaving industry in its present haphazard condition would be to fight the war of 1942' with the mentality of 1914.
The third reason for proposing this subamendment is that we believe the government's oft-repeated promise of equality of sacrifice ought to be made a reality rather than a mere euphonious platitude.
In June, 1940, the National Resources Mobilization Act was before this house. It proposed to give the government power to conscript material and human resources. At that time some of us in this corner said we did not doubt that the government would use its power to conscript human resources, but we had neither confidence nor assurance that the government would use its power to conscript wealth or industry. It will be remembered that the Prime Minister was somewhat indignant; he repudiated the idea that he, the Prime Minister of Canada, would place more value on material things than on human life. However, the record speaks for itself. The National Resources Mobilization Act has been on the statute books of Canada for a year and a half. What industries have been conscripted under that act? What wealth has been conscripted? What financial institutions have been taken over? So far the government's legislation has been used for one thing; that is, the securing of man-power for home defence. To two successive budgets this group has moved an amendment calling for interest-free compulsory loans to be levied on the basis of ability to pay. Twice the government has rejected this proposal. It is becoming increasingly apparent that when the government talks about conscription it has in mind the conscription of man-power only, with wealth and industry left in the hands of those who operate them for private and personal gain. . If the government wants the whole-hearted cooperation of the great mass of the people of Canada, then it will accept this subamendment. If it is still determined to take a plebiscite it will give the man on the street a chance to express his opinion on this very vital matter. If the government refuses it can have only one meaning; that is, that it is afraid the question would be greeted with an overwhelming vote in the affirmative. I challenge the government to put this vote to the test and see.
I should like to touch very briefly on one or two things I believe ought to be done, in order that we may make a more effective contribution to the winning of this war. The first is that the government, having conscripted wealth and industry, ought to submit a plan for the utilization of our man-power similar to the one which has been outlined in Great Britain, as described in the Economist of December 14, 1941. The government ought to know the maximum number of men that can be spared from industry and agriculture for the fighting services. They should know, in turn, how the men available for the fighting services should be divided between the respective arms. The public should be told frankly that we cannot raise unlimited numbers of men for the army. At present six divisions are contemplated. Allowing two men in reinforcements for every man in an army division, that means we ought to have 50,000 men for each division, which would mean in the neighbourhood of 300,000 men. If we add to this number 150,000 men for the air force, 25,000 men for the navy and say 200,000 men required for the defence of Canada, we are getting close to 750,000 men, which may be the most we can spare from agriculture and industry without seriously affecting our contribution in these two important fields of operation. I do not know. It may be possible to take men out of agriculture and industry and replace them with women, but certainly the government ought to know. Some comprehensive plan ought to be placed before parliament and before the Canadian people if anything like an intelligent and united effort is to be obtained.
Another thing which must be done, in addition, is to provide for those with small fixed incomes who have been adversely affected by the increased cost of living and who have no means by which they can increase their income
526	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
proportionately. I refer particularly to the old age pensioners and soldiers' dependents, whose cost of living has increased in, the neighbourhood of 25 per cent on the basis of the commodities people commonly buy, and whose standards of living have had to be reduced to that extent. It does not help our war effort to have the parents and relatives of our men overseas feeling the pinch of poverty. Case after case has come to my attention of parents whose old age pensions have been stopped because their soldier sons have assigned part of their pay to them. Soldiers' dependents are receiving the same allowance now as they received in 1939 when the cost of living was much low'er than it is to-day. Canada's war effort can be strengthened by taking steps to remedy this lamentable situation.
Third, Canada's war effort can be assisted materially if the government will institute a new deal for agriculture. I do not propose at this time to go into the conditions of western agriculture. I did that on November 14 last and there will be opportunities for doing so again during the present session, but I want to say that it is to the everlasting disgrace of this government, and to the Saskatchewan members who support it, that over four hundred farmers had to come all the way from Saskatchewan to place their grievances before the cabinet. There has been some criticism of these people for the money which was spent to bring them here. The criticism should be directed toward the government which made it necessary to spend that money. The Prime Minister told the Saskatchewan delegation that almost all the facts which they had presented to the government had already been presented to council at some time or another. If that is so, then why did not the government do something about it? What have they been waiting for? Do they never take any steps unless they are pushed and shoved by an irate and angry public?
I warn the government that the representations made by the Saskatchewan delegation ought not to be taken lightly. They represent the point of view of a great majority of the people of that province and in fact of practically all of western Canada.
There has been some talk in the press of the possibility of the government bringing down legislation to provide ninety cents per bushel as initial payment and discontinuing the bonus. Let me say to the government, in advance, that the bulk of western farmers will not be satisfied with ninety cents. If discontinuance of the bonus is to mean discontinuance of the Prairie Farm Income bonus, there will be no objection, provided the initial price is SI per

bushel. But that is not true of the prairie farm assistance bonus, or the wheat acreage reduction bonus. These bonuses have nothing to do with the price of wheat. The prairie farm assistance bonus is to compensate a farmer for crop loss, and the wheat acreage reduction bonus is paid -to encourage the farmer not to grow wheat. Any increase in price will not remove the need for these two bonuses, and they must be continued.
Before 1 take my seat let me add this further thought. Those who listened the other evening to Mr. Evans, administrator of the A.A.A. programme in the United States, outlining the new deal that had been given to agriculture in that country during the past eight years, must have felt ashamed at the halting and feeble attempts that have been made in this country to assist agriculture. Mr. Evans told the delegates to the Canadian federation of agriculture convention about the "Food for Freedom" programme which is being put on by the American farmers. He completed his speech with a sentence which ought to be emblazoned on the walls of this chamber. He said "The American farmer is working for democracy because democracy is now working for him."
We talk often about fighting to save democracy. We cannot fight to save democracy; we can only fight for the right to practise democracy, but democracy must save itself. In the final analysis we cannot save democracy by fighting, unless democracy serves the needs of the common people. And unless the government is prepared to make democracy work for the farming and labouring population of the country, we cannot hope to get from them that enthusiasm and wholehearted cooperation without which a total war effort is impossible.


Mr. LUCIEN DUBOIS (Nieolet-Yamaska) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to congratulate the Right Hon. the Prime Minister on the magnificent personal triumph he has just obtained at the by-elections.
I have followed with close attention the discussion which has been going on ever since the opening of the session. The tone of the speeches of those who are resolved at any price to establish conscription for overseas service has in no wray surprised me. However, I view with a rather skeptical smile their claim to be serving national unity when I see them propose a measure so coercitive as to destroy the very foundations of that same national unit.
Conscription for overseas service and Canadian unity 1 Could there possibly be a greater paradox? Even before the question of conscription is submitted to the house, hon. members opposite seem to be running a marathon

The Address-Mr. Dubois
in order to see which one of them will shout quickest and loudest the "Aye, aye, ready" of the greatest blunderer Canadian public life has ever known.
I should have preferred leaving the discussion of this question to the proper time, but the opponents of national unity having thrown down the glove, there is no option but to take it up. Since they insist on talking conscription, let us talk conscription.
Conscription for what? Conscription for whom? Conscription for the benefit of what cause? The answers to these questions are to be found in agitation stirred up by the two hundred Toronto fanatics in the hire of the jackals of high finance, of the exploiters of prejudice, of the dealers in tanks and guns. For such is the infamous gang at the back of the committee of 200.
Why should we enact conscription for overseas service when we know that the voluntary system has given quite satisfactory results and that our war effort, as was stated in this house not so very long ago by the most authoritative representative of the nation chiefly interested in Canada's war effort, Right Hon. Mr. Churchill, is truly magnificent?
Does the opposition lay claim to a higher brand of patriotism than that of the Prime Minister of Great Britain? Besides, what does England ask of us? Men or equipment? Hon. members know full well that on many occasions the British government has said: We have a sufficient number of men; what we need is tools and munitions. Let us delve into the statistics regarding our war effort in terms of man-power. Canada has supplied so far:
Seamen, soldiers and airmen overseas, more than 150,000 men.
Seamen, soldiers and airmen voluntarily enlisted for service anywhere, more than
387,000	men.
Active force in Canada, more than 260,000 men.
Royal Canadian Air Force, more than 100,000 men.
Canadian navy, more than 27,000 men.
Reserve force in Canada, more than 155,000 men.
Add to that Canada's production of tools- corvettes, tanks, machine guns, munitions of all kinds, etc. etc.
Judging by the speeches of certain hon. members opposite, their plea in favour of conscription for overseas service constitutes the strongest possible argument against the conscription they demand. Let us face the facts.4
Since 1940 there have arisen a number of circumstances compelling us, if we want to be logical, to reason out the matter as follows: Either Canada is or is not likely to be attacked. If it is, common sense requires that we keep our men here to defend their own country and if Canada is not likely to be attacked, what is the sense of all our war effort?
Conscription for whom? If our country is likely to be attacked, what is the sense of the suggestion made in this house by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) that the province of Quebec should be left in isolation? Have the hon. member's white hairs caused him, perchance, to forget the history of his adopted country? Is he not aware that if he has been able to spend happy days in Canada under the mantle of the British flag he owes it to my ancestors and to the ancestors of my French-Canadian fellow-countrymen who saved Canada for the British crown in 1776 and again in 1812? I should like to give him credit for ignorance, but his social position does not allow me to do so. It is disgraceful, Mr. Speaker, and unworthy of a man of his age to make himself the accomplice of the opponents of national unity in their endeavour to whip up the fanaticism of the committee of 200. Such despicable attempts will not scare us. Moreover, the hon. member and his friends have not had much success. Out of the 3,756,632 Canadians constituting the population of Ontario, these so-called patriots have been able to gather only 200 supporters -only 200-and that at the pric* of a heavy expenditure on the part of high finance.
My hon. leader has no need to worry. We are not afraid of that crowd. We shall in due time bring them to their sense. Should it be necessary to give them a lesson, my fellow-citizens and theirs will do so.
I have too much faith in the broadmindedness of my English-speaking fellow-citizens to believe that they will endorse a movement which aims not only at obtaining control of the government by any means, but also to stir up against each other the two great races which were already beginning to agree.
Conscription for the benefit of what cause? For the benefit of our war effort? This effort would be gravely prejudiced by recourse to compulsion. Have we not heard in this house during the present debate eminent military men state-I emphasize this point because it is also my view-that one volunteer is worth
The Address-Mr. Dubois

more than ten conscripts? And to borrow the words of my friend the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle):
Who will believe that 50,000 more conscripts are more likely to bring victory than 120,000 volunteers at present enlisting at the rate of ten or eleven thousand a month?
No, all that is eye-wash. All that is trickery designed to cover the game of those who seek to reap large profits out of the whole business.
I have always been opposed to conscription for overseas service. I still am, and if ever the question comes before the house I will show still more convincingly, if possible, my opposition to anything of the kind.
As to the holding of the plebiscite announced in the speech from the throne, I must say that when I proposed such a measure in 1937-see Votes and Proceedings of February 9-I was far from foreseeing that it would be submitted to us in 1942. How could I vote against such a democratic measure when I proposed it myself five years ago? In conclusion, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am happy to associate myself under the circumstances, with the students of Laval university and with all the youth of my countiy, the group most vitally interested, and to say with them: Mr. King's government having need of us, we must give it our help. But, by the same token, we must help the government respect the pledges they have given to the people, leaving the latter free to express their views. Let us not lose our heads in the tragic hours we are going through. The tempest may rage with frightful severity during the next five or six months. Let us prepare ourselves to meet it with wisdom, firmness and courage, remembering that just as night is always followed by morning, storms are always succeeded by sunshine.
Mr. L.-PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention at first to take part in this debate, but many statements by members from my province make it necessary for me to go on record and explain the position I intend to take on the address and the measure that may be introduced immediately after.
Before proceeding with my remarks it is a pleasure for me to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address, who have so well and so eloquently discharged their duties after having both been Canadian ambassadors of goodwill to Great Britain last fall.

During these last weeks remarks have been made which might have better been left unsaid by extremists of the two schools of thought that exist on conscription. This issue has been forced on the public mind at the present time by high pressure propaganda of a financial-political group whose main enterprise fortunately flopped last Monday. It would have been preferable for the war effort of the country if it had not been used as a political weapon by the Globe-Gazette-Meighen imperialistic group. Playing with matches is a dangerous game. If it had only the effect of burning the fingers of those who hold the match, as was the case with Mr. Meighen, it would not be so bad; it might even teach a good lesson. But matches are more dangerous than that, and the fires of suspicion, fear and doubt can do more to hinder the war effort than a slowdown in the tempo of enlistment.
However, although conscription is not officially before us, everyone has talked on the matter in connection with the plebiscite referred to in the speech from the throne. It was of course to be expected that we would have an outburst of conscription fever, and I really think it has not been as bad as it might have been. The main arguments of most people who advocated conscription for overseas service failed to touch me because it overlooked for the most part Canadian interests and centred mainly on the defence of the empire and of Britain. If ever a good case could be built for conscription, it should be based upon the urgency to do it as a necessity for the defence of Canada, never on the advisability of helping Britain.
If some statements of the ultra-imperialists have annoyed me, I can say the same of some of the extreme statements of so-called nationalists of my province. Fortunately both groups received an appropriate answer last Monday from the intelligent electorate of the two largest provinces of this dominion. By their attitude since that election we can easily see how things would have become in this country had the conscriptionist press been encouraged by even a partial victory. As it is, the people of the two largest provinces have extended arms across the border to shake hands and unite in giving a vote of confidence to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) by electing the ministers he asked them to return and defeating the man who was selected by his enemies to lead a savage assault against him. No matter how the people have voted, this press is at it again. But it is not my intention to bother with them except in one case, that of an article published in the

The Address-Mr. Picard
Ottawa Citizen of yesterday, entitled "Racial Policies Cannot Prevail." The Citizen is a paper with an excellent tradition of public service to the federal capital, which made my surprise greater to find in it such an article drawing dangerous and false conclusions from the Quebec East election and the vote given to the Nationalist candidate. Would it not have been a better contribution to national unity to point out the marvellous judgment of the 16,000 Quebec electors who elected Mr. St. Laurent rather than to pretend that the 12,000 electors who supported Bouchard have all sombre designs against their fellow-Canadians? A closer study of the past elections in Quebec East would strongly invalidate the conclusions of the Citizen. In 1935 a modest Conservative lawyer of Quebec polled
10.000	votes against the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. These were straight party votes- Conservative votes, not Nationalist votes. In 1940, just three days before the election, the Conservative candidate-I mean the national government candidate-was withdrawn and Conservative support, in the hope of defeating Mr. Lapointe, was switched unofficially but efficiently to the Nationalist candidate, Paul Bouchard, the same man who was defeated by the present Minister of Justice; and Bouchard polled 12,000 votes against Mr. Lapointe

the same number of votes he polled against Mr. St. Laurent this week. The source of these votes is easily found by this study of previous election results-unavowed Conservative work to divide Canada and undermine confidence in the Prime Minister. Editors would render more service to the country at this time by helping to make known the accomplishments of the government rather than searching for arguments as weak as those contained in that article in order to divide Canadians one against the other.
As the questions of enlistment and mobilization have been widely discussed in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I will avail myself of the occasion to bring four suggestions to the attention of the government.
The first concerns farmers and farmers' sons. I admit readily that it would be hard to uphold that the agricultural class should benefit by special treatment that is not granted to other classes of people who do their share of war work. The primary consideration is the service rendered to the country by the land tiller and the necessity to maintain or raise the production of food in order to help feed Britain, and, above all, to maintain Canada's health and vigour by proper diets, ensured by increased supplies of food. Therefore what appears to be important is to
maintain a sufficient number of experienced men to cultivate the farm lands of the country. Although I am a layman in agriculture, I imagine it could be very easy for experts in that domain to determine how many men are needed to farm land of a definite number of acres with a given type of equipment and a certain number of head of cattle and hogs, and so on. It would be quite easy then to state that a farm of thirty acres operated with horse-drawn implements, with fifteen head of cattle, three horses and the usual small poultry yard, needs so many men. The owner, with three boys of military age, whose farm would fall under a category considered to need three men, and who is still able-bodied, would be allowed to keep two sons on the farm and would give the third to the armed services. This classification of farms could be fairly accurately established, and the decisions of boards of the war services department could then be arrived at with a maximum of security against favoritism and law-evasion.
The second point I meant to mention was the allowances granted to married men enlisting for active service overseas. At present allowances are paid to the wife and for the children uip to two. It may be that these figures were arrived at upon statistical data in an apparent scholarly way, but I cannot understand why fathers of large families are discriminated against. It surely is a much greater financial burden to raise six children than two, and it appears therefore that the father of six should in all justice receive more than the father of two. The mother of six children left behind, when the wage-earner of the family enlists, has to feed, clothe and educate six children on the same amount that is received by the mother of two. I cannot understand the justice and equity of such a decision. It is felt in the province of Quebec, where families of more than two children are the majority, that this rule is a discrimination that works against, enlistment.
Another anomaly in connection with allowances to dependents of enlisted men has been mentioned to me by one of my constituents, and I report it although I have not yet verified the fact. It is said that the mother of an enlisted unmarried man who was supporting her before his enlistment receives substantially less than does the wife of an enlisted man. If this is true I cannot understand the "what-for" of this discrimination against mothers.
Concerning also allowance to mothers, this other case came to my knowledge. In order to receive an allowance upon the enlistment of her unmarried son a mother must prove her son was supporting her before he enlisted.
The Address-Mr. Picard

There are cases when a young man of eighteen to twenty-one enlists before he ever had a chance to find employment after his coming out of school, and where the mother was painfully supporting her family by hard work. Because the son never had the opportunity to support her before his enlistment, I am told no allowance is paid to the mother.
I submit these problems to the minister and trust he will give the matter further consideration.
My fourth suggestion is to the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock). Speaking on the address on November 21, 1940, I stated, as reported at page 328 of Hansard:
. . . that letters to members of the Canadian army should be sent free of charge, and parcels which bring cheer to a man should be sent without costs to the sender. There are many enlisted men whose families have very little personal means. While it may be fairly easy for them to send a piece of cake or some other small gift, when it comes to paying forty or fifty cents postage on a parcel it cuts into their budget quite deeply and they hesitate to send it. The man overseas wonders if his friends have forgotten him. Perhaps it could be arranged to have parcels of a certain size sent free of charge, either through the different units of the army or otherwise. If the government wants to include letters in this scheme, I am all for it. Many of these men have been away from home a long time and they deserve every encouragement they can get from those of us who are in comparative safety in this land across the sea.
I am not aware that anything of the kind has been done. I know that a bill was introduced in the United States Congress to ensure free mail to the American armed forces. I do not know what was the fate of that bill, but I imagine that something could be done here along these lines. I renew my suggestion made a year ago and I think it is just as advisable to-day.
Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, up to now about the plebiscite. I view it as a measure resulting from a desire to keep unity in the country and preserve faith in the given word. I do not think it was necessary, and I think that, had we disregarded the alarm cries of the Tories and the inspired campaign for conscription, we would have rendered a better service to the country. However, if the government consider that a release from their given pledge is going to be more conducive to public confidence in the proper carrying on of the war, the plebiscite is the only proper method for them to use. I do not personally think it necessary, as I said; but how can a man who pretends to fight for democracy and liberty object to a government using the most democratic way to make sure if the people they govern have the same views on certain aspects of the conduct of the 
war that they had two years ago? I cannot logically vote against such a measure when it is introduced in parliament. As to advice to be given the electorate I have decided to tell my constituents to vote according to their views and their conscience, and I will not attempt to influence them one way or the other.
I did not think it would be necessary, Mr. Speaker, to explain the sentiment of French Canada on conscription for service overseas, but a word from an hon. member appealing to us to abandon what was called our narrowmindedness on the question indicates there are yet people who do not fully understand our position. I will therefore try briefly to explain it.
French Canada is still and definitely opposed to compulsory service overseas, because French-Canadians are interested only in Canada and nobody has convinced them yet that compulsory service overseas is a necessity for the defence of our land. It looks too much like help to Britain and defence of the empire and too little for the defence of Canada. French-Canadians could be persuaded to accept compulsory service for overseas solely if they knew that it was the only practical way of defending their own country, and it is not an easy task to convince us of that'fact. First of all, according to me, expeditionary forces have never been, up to this war, our best and only way of defending our soil, but they have been a way of proving the solidarity of the empire; they have been the product of a patriotic urge of Anglo-Saxons exiled from their homeland but still attached to it.
Our participation in the South African war was of that nature as was, in great part, our participation in the last war. As to the present war, the situation is different: we have to cooperate with all the remaining free nations of the world in the fight to stop barbarism if we are going to survive as a nation. However, in order to do that, we must not endanger our own safety by a wrong conception of our defence problems, and I am of the opinion that there is no necessity of conscription for overseas if a proper mobilization of our human resources is made now for service in Canada, and I will refer to that in a moment.
I was explaining the French-Canadian reaction to conscription. For us there is only one country-Canada-and we do not consider that help to Britain, to maintain British trade and enlarge British benefits, as was the case in our participation in the last war, was worth the cost. French-Canadians were opposed to conscription in the last war because to them it meant only risking their lives for Britain,

The Address-Mr. Picard
for the prestige of the British empire trade in the world, and not for the safeguard of their country.
When the National Resources Mobilization Act was presented in 1940 and the principle was established that compulsory service was provided for Canada and not for participation in overseas expeditions, the vote was unanimous and the two faint murmurs of protest heard in this house had no echo in the hearts or minds of Quebec. Why was this? Because French-Canadians never objected to the defence of their country. They have proved it gallantly in the past. Some of them were even willing to help the empire; they proved it in South Africa, they proved it in 1914, and they are proving it during the present war. But as was said once by a French-Canadian leader, their participation was dictated by their mind, not by their heart.
When it comes to waging the imperial wars of Britain, or when it comes to defending Britain, we are bound to have in Canada different opinions and different viewpoints. You who were born in the British isles, as is the case with seventeen members of this house, or you who are sons of people born in the British isles, and there are fifty-three of you in the house, and all those who are more or less connected by blood to Britain, are bound to feel a call to defend your mother country, to wish to risk the ruin of your adopted country, to give everything for your mother country. It is a noble sentiment and it is bound to exist. You would not be normal if you were not stirred by these patriotic sentiments; and, mind you, I admire all those who hear the call to the defence of their mother country. But I claim that Canadians who are not of British blood who volunteer for service overseas deserve even more admiration. They deserve your gratitude and your respect because they are motivated purely by an enlarged sense of duty to Canada and by a reasoned determination to fight abroad for the preservation of the British institutions under which they have been able to develop.
A few minutes of unbiased thought, Mr. Speaker, should make people realize that men whose families have been established on the same land, or at least in the same part of the country, for from two hundred to three himdred years, are bound to have attachment to and love for their land, their country, and for no other country. They are a homogeneous group whose survival as such, and their expansion into a distinct nationality, is a miracle in itself. It has been attained by considerable sacrifice and self-denial on the part of past generations, and I am yet to find
a student of ethnology or of human geography who has not marvelled at the sturdy qualities of the French settlers and their descendants who have fought an unfavourable nature, fierce tribes of aborigines, and numerous battles, to be loyal to their flag, be it French or British. They have done all that because this land was their land and being loyal to their flag meant the defence of their country; but you must try to realize that they cannot have the same feelings of the heart for a distant land, which to most of you is the mother country, but to them is only the source of a governmental system which has given them a fair treatment when vanquished and the opportunity to wangle equality with their fellow citizens with great pains and persistence through their efforts and through their loyalty when the country was attacked.
To them, expeditions to the crown colonies will always remain imperial adventures in which their country, Canada, has no patriotic duty nor material interest; and to them expeditions across the seas will remain help to Britain and they will subscribe to it only as it remains voluntary. They would accept conscription for overseas solely if it could be proven to them that it is the only remaining way of defence of our own territoiy, and this is and will remain a most debatable question. As for myself I am as much opposed to it to-day as I have been in the past.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is something even more important to consider now than the reaction of a large part of the population of the country to conscription, and it is the study of the situation Canada faces now and how best it can cope with it.
In a world ablaze, in a universe in process of revolution, what was the position Canada could take to ensure its survival, the survival of its liberty, of all the institutions it held as sacred and precious? Could it have remained outside of the conflict, as was suggested by the member who boasted the other night that he had voted against the declaration of war? Could it have remained outside the conflict and survive? I think not. The ethnical composition of the country for one thing would have made it impossible, as two-thirds of the population would not have sat quiet and silent while the country of their fathers was in peril. But more than that, our geographical and economic position, in relation to our southern neighbour, would have made it impossible, and our position both economic and political within the commonwealth of British nations would have made it difficult. Granted, as it is by all clear-thinking citizens, that it had to enter the conflict, Canada was facing two roads to participation; entering the war as a
The Address-Mr. Picard

free nation providing first of all for its own defence, and secondly organizing ways of meeting the enemy and fighting it before it reached our shores; or entering the war as a British dominion to grant all possible help, in men, munitions and food, to the mother country, as was attempted during the last war.
My opinion is that the only way consistent with our status as defined by the act of Westminster was the first alternative. To all intents and purposes this is what has been done and the government is to be thanked for having taken the right road. But it is important to examine whether all the aspects of our war programme have been consistent with our avowed intention of waging the war for Canada and only for Canada. I think, sir, there is no harm in examining what has been done and what could be done.
I am convinced of one thing: this government has up to now done more to arm the country and gear its production for war than is realized by most of its citizens, and this splendid achievement has been reached with a minimum of inconvenience to the normal life of the country, with a wise system of economic adjustment, and while maintaining a better spirit among all citizens in the country, marred only by the alarming, politically-inspired cries of a few survivors of the Tory tribe and a few bitter, poisoned minds of the pseudonationalist clique. The government is to be given credit for this accomplishment and there should be no hesitancy in voting confidence in it on the address.
The nature and direction of our war effort has therefore to be looked into to determine whether or not it is the most consistent with our proclaimed goal-the defence of Canada. The programme outlined by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) puts all the emphasis on the expeditionary forces, and although it provides for a certain protection for the country we must candidly admit that it is not entirely adequate protection should an attack be made as was done at Pearl Harbour, for instance. I admit that at the beginning of the war the most urgent need was our participation in the resistance to the enemy far from our shores, and I approve of what was done in that regard. But is it not time to revise some of our theories in view of what is happening in a rapidly evolving war, which to-morrow may mean the invasion of Australia, because it provided too much for meeting the enemy far from its shores and not enough for meeting the enemy at home?
I may be a poor strategist, Mr. Speaker, but my contention is that the time has come to reconsider our commitments for the expedi-
tion,ary force and to look more after ourselves. A mere look at a map of the country shows that it is impossible to defend its boundaries with our present population. Taking into account our joint defence agreements with the United States, which leave our forces free for our eastern and western boundaries, we are still facing the defence of hundreds of miles of shore line on the Pacific and the Atlantic, including Newfoundland and not overlooking the valley of the St. Lawrence, the direct route to the heart of industrial Canada.
To foresee the future according to my view would mean stationing at least 100,000 men in the maritimes, 50,000 in Newfoundland.
100.000	in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, in order that they may be easily rushed to the defence of the St. Lawrence valley, and 200,000 would not be too many for the Pacific coast. This means that the most elementary defence of the country would need a minimum of 450,000 troops.
Let us look now at our man-power. With a population of 11,500,000, Canada has about
1.102.000	unmarried men or widowers without children between the ages of 18 and 45, and
1.201.000	married men between those ages. According to the statistics of 1931 some 62 per cent of the total active male population was between these ages, and 58 per cent of the population between these ages was engaged in gainful occupations. Also about 60 per cent of the people needed in industry were between these ages, and 55 per cent of the agricultural class also fell between the ages of 18 and 45.
We can therefore take it that more than 50 per cent of that population is essentially needed for the normal life of the country. We are therefore left with 1,150,000 men, married and unmarried, between the ages of 18 and 45. From this figure ten per cent should be deducted as being the lowest number of men of military age who are at present in jobs vital to national defence, or who are neccessary to the agricultural production, to which would already have been reallotted a large number of men unfit for military service or not of .military age.
We are therefore left with a rough total of one million men. At least 25 per cent of this number are medically unfit to serve in the army. Even if a reallotment of civilian employment to citizens unfit or beyond military age could be effected with one hundred per cent success, it is highly improbable that it would leave a total available man-power for the armed services of 750,000 men.
We have already 422,000 enlisted in the three services, and the programme for 1942 outlined by the minister demands another

The Address-Mr. Picard
190.000	for overseas service, a total of
612.000	men when the programme is completed. If we carry this programme on where shall we find the men necessary for the immediate defence of the country?
My view is that our forces should be divided into two distinct categories, the Canadian territorial army and the Canadian expeditionary force. The territorial army could be mobilized through selective service under the National Resources Mobilization Act, which provides all the authority necessary to do it. This army should be trained in sufficient numbers and in the same manner as the active service force is now trained, and enough of the troops scheduled now to go abroad should be kept in Canada and assigned to this army so that the country would at all times have the necessary minimum protection.
The United States army is now spread on all the battlefields of the world, yet I doubt whether they will not keep at home enough troops for their defence. Every country should think of itself, of its own protection first, Britain did it at all times since the start of the war, and she did well. She kept a huge army at home, considering it more important-and rightly so-than to send vast armies to the other points it had to defend in order to maintain the empire intact. My contention is that Canada now should do the same.
As to the Canadian expeditionary army, it already constitutes a magnificent contribution to the fight for freedom, but should be limited in the future to a size consistent with the safety of Canada at home. Its organization should be revised so as to make it possible to reinforce, maintain and equip it while keeping a sufficient protection for the country itself.
Needless to say, the expeditionary army would be recruited, like the navy and the air force, by voluntary enlistment of civilians not yet called to the colours, and by a steady flow of volunteers from the ranks of the territorial army, which would be composed of men drafted under the selective service system. With such a balanced plan, Canada, like other belligerents, would look after its security at home while at the same time doing its share in stemming the tide of the invader on other continents.
My views may not be acceptable to the minister or his advisers, but I thought it my duty to express them to-day, encouraged as I was by the reading of British Hansard. In the British House of Commons every other day supporters of the government press forward their suggestions on the conduct of the war, which seem to be accepted in the best spirit, even if they are not always adopted.


Mr. GREEN:: May I ask the hon. member a question before he passes from that? Does he not think it would be wise to extend the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act so that the troops serving under that act could at least be sent to say Newfoundland, Labrador and Alaska?


Mr. PICARD:: Personally I would have no objection to Newfoundland, Labrador and Alaska. I would approve of that as long as it extended to continental defence. I shall speak in a moment of a meeting I had with my own constituents at which I explained to them the same plan, and I did not hear or find many protests against that, so long as it was limited to continental hemispheric defence, which was more especially concerned with the defence of our own territory.
In conclusion, I wish to state that I shall vote for the address, because I have confidence in the Prime Minister, and I think his government deserves credit for their handling of the war effort. I might differ, as I have outlined previously, on certain methods adopted for home defence and the expeditionary force; nevertheless I consider that the government have done a splendid job and deserve approval.
As to the plebiscite, I shall approve of the measure when brought before the house, as I explained at the beginning of my remarks. And I should like, although as a newcomer in this house, I have no particular authority to do so, to make an appeal to all hon. members from my province to stand by the Prime Minister in this hour of crisis, as have stood by him the electorate of Quebec and Montreal as well as of Toronto and Welland. I am pleased to have been privileged to take part in the Quebec East by-election; it was a satisfaction to speak to crowds of serious-looking people intent on giving an intelligent verdict based on moderation and understanding and not on bigotry and prejudice. Previous to that I had invited eighty leaders from my own constituency to meet me in Quebec; one hundred and twenty came. I explained to them my attitude, told them what I have said here to-day, and I received their approval of it. Anyone would have had the same result.
I appeal to my colleagues from Quebec who might be hesitant to vote for the address. They will make no mistake in supporting the Prime Minister and the government. Let not the splendid lesson in national unity given this week by Ontario and Quebec go unheeded. The results of the four by-elections were the fruit of tolerance. Tolerance, the hope of the
The Address-Mr. Slaght

world, may yet save Canada. Let us all work to that end, in the same spirit of cooperation for victory.


Mr. A. G. SLAGHT (Parry Sound):: Mr. Speaker, permit me first to congratulate my good friends the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), upon their very fine contributions to this debate. The excellence of their addresses was not a surprise to me, because I was privileged to travel with them for a month throughout the mother country, where they presented Canada's position to the people of the motherland in a way creditable indeed. I endorse to the full, in order to save time and not repeat it in detail, what was so well put by the hon. member for Lethbridge with reference to the friendship engendered among all six of us on our English trip, and also his tribute to the devotion and hospitality of our hosts over there and the thoughtfulness of those on this side of the water who made our trip possible.
Much has already been said in this house by my associates in that journey, about the trip itself, so I shall content myself with looking forward to making addresses throughout the country, as I have already done in part, in order that those not so fortunate as we were may better understand the devastation, the sorrow and the destruction which we found; but also, transcending all that, the quiet, grim determination of the British people in all walks of life to see this war through to final victory. We did not confine our visit to the well-to-do people or the white-collar folk. We went down into the holds of ships; we went through the dockyards; we saw the trawler men; we talked with people at work at their machines in the munition factories, to farmers tilling the soil and to our own soldiers and airmen, in order that we might learn at first hand the very innermost life of the British people. From the humblest, battered home right through the picture to Buckingham Palace we as Canadians were received with the utmost cordiality and friendship. At the many places we visited and the many receptions, luncheons and dinners we enjoyed, people who previously had been strangers to us were eager to listen to the story of our Canadian war effort, and in every case seemed reluctant to let us go on our way. Let me conclude this reference by saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that everywhere we went, the British people were happy and contented with Canada and Canada's war effort, and they marvelled that we had been able to do so much.

Let me now turn to a consideration of the speech from the throne, and first I desire to utter a friendly word to my friends from the province of Quebec. Personally I have a great regard for the province of Quebec and its people. I number among my warmest and most cherished friends Canadians of French descent both within and without this House of Commons. I have the most abiding faith in their loyalty to the British empire, and there is still fresh in my mind a picture of the devastated homes of old France, of the sufferings, the sacrifices and the magnificent contributions made by that country, now suffering under the cruel heel of a conquering enemy, side by side with us in the last great war. To those of my friends from Quebec who entertain genuine doubts as to the wisdom of the course being pursued by this government, let me point out in the most friendly spirit that we must be free to adopt whatever course the welfare of our country demands, whether it be compulsory service for overseas or whether voluntary enlistment should prove fully to meet the needs. I appeal to them for their support for this plebiscite; for their continuing contribution, as in the past, to the various armed forces of this country, in order to throw back into their teeth the words of those hot-headed, uncharitable people who may by evil or insulting speeches impugn the loyalty of the great French-Canadian race to the British empire.
Never was there a time in history when the people of that great race, by their conduct toward this plebiscite, by their continuing voluntary enlistment, have had such a splendid opportunity to prove once and for all that this country is united and will go through to victory as a powerful national unit, in order that we may take our place at the peace table and make our voice heard in the final declarations that will settle the future happiness of the civilized world. Nor does the disturbance last night in Montreal, referred to in the press to-day, much as it is to be regretted, indicate to me anything more than that a small, misguided group of youths, stirred up by inflammatory doctrine, saw fit for the moment to carry on unseemly demonstrations. Let us not forget that when the Duplessis government of Quebec went to the people, there was much more noise of a disruptive character than occurred last night. At that time the great French-Canadian people had their opportunity to weigh the effort that was made to take them away from their loyalty to Britain; and after that misguided campaign, to use a mild expression, they gave an overwhelming answer to those who desired

The Address-Mr. Slaght
to take them down a path that could only-lead ultimately to the destruction of the unity of this country.
Before I deal with the plebiscite, Mr. Speaker, permit me to make a personal statement as to my conception of my duty in connection -with this war. I will take from no man any imputation that I have not always striven to place our country at the side of the motherland and to take the most effective possible measures to defeat our enemies and make victory sure. On March 24, 1938, I begged this House of Commons to double the estimates for the air service in Canada. I urged the house to set up training schools across Canada, at Halifax, Quebec, Montreal, the Royal Military College at Kingston, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Regina, Vancouver and Victoria, to turn out 8,000 well trained men, consisting of one thousand piiots who would be capable of operating the highest speed machines, with seven thousand mechanics on the ground to service them. I told the house on that occasion we would have
8.000	men who, in my humble judgment, would be of as great value in war time as
200.000	men would be, enlisted in the other branches of the service, and who would make a greater contribution to empire war service and to empire defence. Not a word of encouragement or approval for such a course did I obtain from any of my hon. friends sitting across from me, or, in fact, from any of the members of the house.
The following session, on May 13, 1939-and note the date-for which year the estimates for the air service had been notably increased, being brought down at $29,000,000, I again urged the house to double that year's appropriation, repeated my plea of the year before, and again urged for its support grounds which I have just detailed to hon. members.
On that occasion, I made a statement relative to the use those 8,000 trained airmen would be. My statement is found at page 4041 of Hansard as follows:
I have verified this by conversation with one of the greatest airmen of the world, a distinguished Canadian. . . .
I had had the privilege of doing that, before speaking. The statement I verified was that
8.000	trained airmen, 1,000 of whom would be pilots, would be as great a contribution to defence as 200,000 men in the other forces.
Not a word of support on that occasion. Let me be fair to the then Minister of National Defence, the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). On both occasions before speaking I secured his approval for my urging upon the house the adoption of this proposal. If
it had been adopted, what untold value such a force might have been at Dunkirk, or at Hong Kong, or to-day at Singapore, or to-morrow in British Columbia.
I do not wish to be misunderstood in recalling my plea of 1938 and 1939 when I got no response from the house. I felt strongly on the subject. I could have followed it up in the country with speeches on public platforms. I did not do so. Therefore I am as much to be indicted as any other hon. member for not having followed up what seemed to me something we should then do, and something which involved the youth of our land going across and fighting in the British channel in defence of the motherland. Therefore there is no question about it, so far as I am concerned, that I approved meeting the enemy anywhere he might be found.
There recently appeared on the horizon a new leader for the great Conservative party. When he appeared on the horizon, when some by-elections were in sight, with the possible exception of that caused by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) who, I am sorry, is not at the moment in his seat-he is a friend of mine, and one for whom I have high regard -there was no pother or stir about the question of conscription or compulsory service for overseas. In the house and in the country we had travelled down the road of preparation. Canada was making a splendid contribution, with not only national unity and cooperation up to that time among various peoples of different racial origin throughout the country, but also real and honest cooperation among the various parties and groups in the house who, in the main, have all directed their efforts toward a united front in the prosecution of the war.
Speaking only for myself-and I want to be the one to say this-I think it is time in the debate to pay tribute to the leader of the official Conservative opposition (Mr. Hanson), and to his group in the house; also to the leaders of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and Social Credit groups, whose friendship I cherish, and have had the privilege of developing in an intimate way in the past few months.
Nor would it be fair for me to close my speech without reference to the Hon. R. J. Manion who, during part of the war period, led his party in the house, who, since, has followed and is still following the splendid example set by Wendell Willkie in the United States, and who under this government is now conducting a most important an onerous war task, as director of the A.R.P. activities throughout Canada. I am told he is doing an extremely good job of it.
The Address-Mr. Slaght

I say this, not because we have not had differences, and sometimes a bit of heat across the floor of the chamber-and not only across the floor of the chamber, but some fairly warm blasts and counterblasts passing up and down the side-lines on, the other side of the chamber among men who differ from each other on various points. But the point I emphasize right now-and I am glad to do it-is that all groups in the house have cooperated splendidly for the common purpose. What I want to deprecate is that, fanned up by partisan influence, by expletive, high-powered adjectives and denunciation, a little group of high-powered politicians outside the house have picked this time, on the eve of our new victory loan, to try to tear the country wide apart, w'hen there is no need in the world to do so.
A number of people in Canada are in favour of compulsory service for overseas, beginning right now. Many hold to the honest opinion that conditions have changed, that they have become more serious, and that the need for increased man-power has brought us to the place where, in their view, voluntary enlistment has perhaps begun to lag a little, and the other system should be adopted. But do not let us forget that right down to a month ago, when this new politician appeared on the scene and stirred the kettle with inflammatory attacks upon the government-a government by the way which had graciously refused to oppose him in York South-down to that time, I say, practically everybody in Canada had endorsed and approved the system of voluntary enlistment, a system which is now so viciously attacked by those who heretofore voted for and supported it.
My hon. friends of the Conservative party across the floor, with the single exception of the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), of whom I am not sure-and I stand corrected if in any way I am in error-all came into the house and were elected under the banner of the Hon. R. J. Manion in March, 1940, and all adopted Mr. Manion's platform, the man who was their leader, in calling for a so-called national government. They worked for him and he worked for them, and they were elected under that banner.
Let me place on Hansard what their leader on their behalf and for himself pledged the' people of Canada on March 4, 1940. Two weeks before polling he issued a press release, only two paragraphs of which I shall place on record:
Conscription to my mind was a failure in the last war, as it raised only about 10,000 men out of more than 500,000, and it stirred up much misunderstanding in our country. For 
that reason and because conscription is not necessary in this war, and because as I have said on other occasions, it is the duty of a public man to hold Canada together as a nation, I am absolutely opposed to conscription.
My hon. friends opposite-and if I am not right, let them stand up and say so-adopted the policy of this Conservative leader, as enunciated to the people. They went to their constituencies and made speeches, tacitly relying, at all events, on the platform he was putting forward, and owing their seats in the house to-day to that kind of pledge.
But that is not all. I have a word for my hon. friends of the two other parties. The leader of the Social Credit party, (Mr. Blaekmore), a good friend of mine, said this on May 26:
The Liberal party obtained the mandate of the people in the last election while opposing the conscription of man-power. It is clear therefore that the question of conscription is a dead issue in Canada until another mandate is given by the people at a new election.
My hon. friend always stands by his word.
The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, (Mr. Coldwell)-I am sorry he is not in his seat at the moment, -as reported in the Globe of March 14, reiterated his party's unalterable opposition to conscription, and I think my hon. friends will feel that I am fair when I say that that was their policy in the last election. It is small wonder that we do not hear Doctor Manion's voice supporting his party in this campaign. He believes in the Willkie way of doing things. That is why every place you turn, Mr. Speaker, you get right back to the one man who has stirred up this whole agitation, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the man who prided himself for years as one of the leaders of a party whose slogan was, "No truck or trade with the Yankees." That was emblazoned on banners above his platform at his political meetings. He is the same man who accepted from former Prime Minister Bennett a seat in that other place and supported Mr. Bennett in his campaign to blast Canada's way into the markets of the United States and of the world. Are the people of Canada to trade our magnificent Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who is the leader of this country to-day, for this "no truck or trade" politician and this "blaster" fellow? Is he the right man to place at the head of this country when we have just concluded a treaty with the United States for the mutual defence of North America, and when we have sitting to-day a joint commission for the greater protection of North America, and have established the most friendly relations between Canada and the United States that have ever existed since

The Address-Mr. Slaght
confederation? Is he the type of man to lead Canada through a war when only within the last few weeks the United States have said to us, "We will give you equal priorities with us on our steel. We have got our arms around your shoulders. We want your nickel in return for some of the things you want, but we will go hand in hand with you from now on." Could they entirely forget that he affronted them a few short years ago with the most insulting slogan that ever man tried to ride into office on-"no truck or trade with the Yankees"? Over there, "Yankee" is a word that is used only when somebody tries to insult someone. He is the leader you are asked to place in power as against the present Prime Minister, who has devoted at least the last five years of his life most faithfully and earnestly to cultivating, fostering and cementing the most friendly feelings and relations not only between Canada and the United States but also between Great Britain and the United States. This man has lived to see his dream come true, and is he to be rewarded with vilification and abuse because, instead of breaking his word to the people as these outside Tories would have him do, he proposes to ask the people to relieve him from the solemn pledge he gave and which every other member of this House of Commons on both sides of the house gave to their people either by implication or directly?
What is all this bother about? Stripped of its political trappings and torn from its coating of hypocrisy, it all boils down to a denunciation of the government because they want to permit the people of Canada to give them a free hand to enact whatever measures they may deem to be best in the interests of this country.
I was glad to hear my hon. friend the member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), with whom I am not always in accord, state that he believes the proper form of government was, when a pledge had been given, to consult the people on the great issues before forcing something to the contrary down their throats.
Let me quote an authority that I commend to my hon. friends of the French-Canadian race. In 1917 our great and departed leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, after the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, who was then leading the government, had proposed a measure of compulsory service overseas without consulting the people in any way, begged Sir Robert not to ram this measure down the throats of the people of Canada but to consult them in a referendum, and this is the language he used on that occasion, which will be found at page 2403 of Hansard of June 18, 1917:
What I propose is that we should have a referendum and a consultation of the people
upon this question. I have taken the referendum, not that I have been very favourable towards it, but I find that the idea of the referendum has made enormous progress in Canada, and that it has been adopted by the political associations in the western provinces as a method of political action.
My hon. friends from the west will be prepared to bear out the statement of those early days. Sir Wilfrid goes on:
If we are to have peace, if there is to be unity, we must meet the wishes of the labouring classes, who have asked for this privilege. When the consultation with the people has been had, when the verdict has been pronounced, I pledge my word, my reputation that to the verdict, such as it is, every man will submit, and I claim to speak at least so far as is concerned the province from which I come.
I commend to my French-Canadian fellow members as they pass that great statue standing in our grounds, in this noble enclosure on parliament hill, to remember at least those words of their great leader; and, following them, they cannot go far astray.
Two main points have been advanced against the taking of the plebiscite. First, that it will cost some money, estimated, I think properly, at about one and a half million dollars-out of a total annual expenditure of three billion dollars. Is it worth a million and a half dollars to have a government which has kept its word-instead of breaking it? Is it worth a million and a half dollars and sixty or seventy days of time to have a government carry on the business of the country in war time which cannot be pointed at with an accusing finger and told by the people of the country, "Your word is no good. You have breached your trust to me." I am going to watch with interest if and when my hon. friends of the Conservative party rise and bow to a negation of this plebiscite because if they do, and vote against it, who that listened to their pledges of that day can not but come and say, "You are a liar?" And what will their answer be? "Oh, well, but, my dear friend, times have changed." Let my hon. friends take that course if they see fit. They are only-I do not hold this against them-a small item in this House of Commons proportionately. But I do not want the government, the great Liberal party in this house, to have to sit with a blush of shame on their cheeks when any of their constituents who heard them make that pledge come forward and say, "You are a liar." And that is what they can do unless this simple, honourable course of consulting the people is taken.
Does any honest man-I put it that way because this is one of the arguments we have heard used, although I do not think it has been used in this chamber; I have unfor-
The Address-Mr. Slaght

tunately not been here all the time-does any honest man say that those reinforcements now under arms in Canada in the active service army who have volunteered to go overseas if we want to send them, the 120,000 of them now in uniform, are not sufficient to replace even the most dire casualties which might occur in our overseas army of 130,000 men? That is sheer political bunk, fed to the people to inflame them. That sort of inflammatory, false argument is whipped up to try to create political prejudice against this government in the minds of those splendid people-fathers, mothers, wives and sisters-who have menfolk in the army overseas. This whole move is largely an effort to defeat our Prime Minister. It is directed to him by some gentlemen who want to get rid of him. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) has returned to his seat. Not long ago I paid him a personal tribute which I desire to repeat in his presence; he has not had, perhaps, many friends politically.
We know what the Eight Hon. Arthur Meighen thinks and says about the Prime Minister of Canada. We know also the views of a little group of other gentlemen. I am going to put on Hansard the opinions of some men who are not interested in playing politics in Canada. The first one to whom I refer is the Right Hon. Winston Spencer Churchill, who on September 4, 1941, said, in London, with regard to our war effort:
The war effort of Canada is immense in ships, aircraft, air training, in finance and in food, and constitutes an element in the resistance of the British empire without which that resistance could not be successfully maintained.
Then, speaking to the distinguished gathering which had cheered our leader's outstanding address in the Guildhall a few months before, Mr. Churchill said of our Canadian war Prime Minister:
To-day you have listened to a memorable and momentous declaration made here amid our ruins of London. You have listened to a speech which, I think, all those who have heard it will feel, explains the long-continued authority which -Mr. Mackenzie King has wielded when, during more than fifteen years, he has been Prime Minister of Canada.
Then this further tribute: Mr. Churchill said, with regard to our Prime Minister:
You have a great knowledge of the flexible organization, a system ever changing and ex-paneling, yet ever growing into a greater harmony, by which the British commonwealth of nations is conducted.
You have also knowledge of your own people and your association with them is so long and so intimate it has enabled you to realize and express in these hours of trouble a more complete unity of Canada than has ever before been achieved.
[Mr. Slaght.1
If you were jurors on a lawsuit, would you prefer the evidence of Arthur Meighen or the evidence of Winston Churchill?


Mr. LOCKHART:: The smashing of windows in Montreal does not look very much like unity.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Well, without being unfair to the hon. member, that is the sort of talk which, if it is indulged in on the floor of this house, will tear this country limb from limb. Did my hon. friend hear the Duplessis talk from Quebec for a time, and does he not remember that, with the aid of the leaders of the government of this house, and the sound, sane thinking people of Quebec, Duplessis was snowed under and disgraced by the vote of the overwhelming majority of the people of that province?
Just one more tribute from Mr. Winston Churchill, and this, remember, after he and the great president of the United States had met upon a vessel in the Atlantic ocean. He said:
Canada, with those relations of friendly, affectionate intimacy with the United States on the one hand and with her unswerving fidelity to the British commonwealth and motherland on the other is the link which joins together these great branches of the human family. In Mr. King we have a Canadian statesman who always has preserved the most intimate relations with the great republic of the United States and whose name and voice are honoured there as they are on this side of the Atlantic.
I had an opportunity of meeting the president of the United States a few weeks ago and I know from him of the great esteem in which Mr. Mackenzie King is held and how much he has contributed to joining together in close, sympathetic action, the republic of the United States and the Dominion of Canada. Canada is the linchpin of the English-speaking world.
What does General McNaughton say, that man for whom I fancy every hon. member has the greatest and highest esteem and regard? What did he say in his message to the Canadian troops at Christmas time? It has already been put upon Hansard, of February 5. 1942, at page 346, and I shall not read it all, but I shall just quote that passage wherein he says:
From a very small beginning the Canadian army has now grown to many tens of thousands of men and women. New units and formations and reserves have come to us as quickly as ships could be found to bring them here, and as they have arrived the organization of our military headquarters, reinforcement units, hospitals, schools, repair establishments and many other needed facilities have been pressed forward; . . .
Throughout this long period of preparation which circumstances have given us, the corps, divisions, armoured formations and other field units have been completed in equipment, and trained together and with squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force assigned to army cooperation.

The Address-Mr. Slaght
That is the tribute. Is it false or is it true? Who will stand up and gainsay the language of General McNaughton? Yet, by implication, a great many of those who have denounced the war effort of this government are doing just that thing.
Let me appeal to my hon. friends opposite. I suppose it is too much to expect that they would drop their amendment and let this house get on as a unit. Let us have this plebiscite; let us bring in the bill next week or as fast as possible, put it through, and take the plebiscite. I have the greatest faith that every province in this dominion, when that plebiscite is taken, will entrust this government with continued control of the Canadian war effort.
One point which has been advanced against the plebiscite by a great many, including I believe Mr. Drew-I am not sure whether any hon. member has raised it-is, "If you hold a plebiscite, what will they say of us in the United States? Oh, that will be terrible! What will they have to say of us?"


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Let us vote on this question this afternoon.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: What did the hon. member say?


James Arthur Ross: I said, about your question of withdrawing the amendment, why not call a vote right now, and get along with the business of the house?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: How would you vote if
it were called?


James Arthur Ross: I would vote for the
amendment and, if it were defeated, I would go into my riding and ask them all to vote "yes" as fast as possible.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I commend the hon. member for that; he is a splendid adherent to the cause. Let my friends who feel that way about the United States console themselves with this. The New York Times is admittedly the greatest friend of Britain so far as daily newspapers across the border are concerned, and it stands almost in a class by itself. This is what that great organ, expressing public opinion in that great republic, has to say. On January 26 the Times said editorially:
. .	. that when opponents of conscription in
Canada assert that the forthcoming plebiscite will throw doubt upon the dominion's "exertion of her full power" in the war, "her friends- and we are all her friends-must protest."
That is what our friends in the United States are protesting-the statements made by the opponents of this plebiscite.
There is one matter to which I should like to turn for a moment if I may be allowed to
do so. It has nothing to do with the plebiscite, but to me it is important. I refer to the question of our introducing as rapidly as possible a system of parliamentary secretaryships. The house may recall-and this is nonpolitical, I am sure-that in the speech from the throne in 1936 there appeared this clause, that there would be brought in a bill to provide for the creation of parliamentary secretaryships. I had the honour to move the address in reply on that occasion, and I used in Hansard certain language in which I commended the idea. I suppose most young speakers commend the speech from the throne, and I did so on that occasion, giving the reasons therefor. This is what I said on that occasion-I hope hon. members will bear with me because the matter is, in my judgment, ten times more important now than it was at that time-and I commend it to the consideration of the Prime Minister and of the government. I said, as reported at page 31 of Hansard of 1936:
Then we find a proposal to create parliamentary secretaryships, and this proposal will, I hope, meet with the approval of every hon. member of this house. It is established in the mother of parliaments, and I believe is fully approved by British statesmen regardless of party affiliations. It should create the building up in this house of a body of men who because of the experience gained as under-secretaries will be better able in the future to carry on the responsible duties attaching to cabinet positions. I fancy that the right hon. leader of the opposition and some of those *who sit beside him will agree with me that it will afford a measure of relief to the ministers of the day who can very properly turn over some of the exacting details of their offices to undersecretaries, and do so without impairing the efficiency of their work. From every viewpoint I submit to the house that this administrative reform is one that will be found of benefit to Canada.
My recent visit to England has confirmed me tenfold in that view, and I will mention one incident. We were privileged to visit eleven cabinet ministers, including every member of the war cabinet, for half an hour privately in their rooms. I was in Mr. Herbert Morrison's room, and there was with him, a young gentleman, a member of the house, whom he introduced as his parliamentary secretary. Mr. Morrison turned to him at times for verification of certain figures, and this young gentleman was very helpful. I said to Mr. Morrison, "I don't suppose you could carry on without your parliamentary secretary." He answered, "Carry on? I could not possibly. I have three parliamentary secretaries, and with them I find it difficult to dc all the work I have to do." And why not? There is plenty of material in this house. There are eighteen members of this house whom I
The Address-Mr. Slaght

could mention. Of course, I have not the privilege of picking either cabinet associates or parliamentary secretaries. I am putting this on Hansard merely as a recommendation to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. Let me run over the list as rapidly as possible. There are the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bra-dette), the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann), the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven), the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Edwards), the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. McKinnon), the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). Those bagpipes would, I am sure, give an extra swirl if we had the hon. member for New Westminster as a parliamentary secretary. Then there is a wealth of material from Quebec-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why stop there?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I don't. I could name twenty more just as good as the eighteen. Let me mention some, and I think my hon. friend will agree with me. There are the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Bertrand), the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott), the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Claxton), for example; and down in the maritimes there is the member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch). One could go across the floor of the house and find some splendid men there as wartime material for parliamentary secretaryships-and I am sincere in this.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: My friend says "no." I remind him that this is war time-there is a war on. What better material could one have than the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) ?


Howard Charles Green: You had better stay on your own side.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Do I understand that you decline?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will my hon. friend allow me? He is making a very constructive suggestion-there is no doubt about it-and one that is worthy of great consideration. But during the last war Sir Robert Borden tried that question of undersecretaries, and it was abandoned. I have often wondered why. I do not know.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Perhaps he did not 'have the material I am now suggesting. Then there is the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), for whom I have high respect.

There is the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). Where is he now? He is a man with a real knowledge of labour problems; if he threw off the mantle of politics, I believe he would be an able under-secretary to the Minister of Labour, and in that capacity he would make a great contribution to Canada's war effort.
That is my view of the war. I speak for myself alone, but I commend this idea to the government of the day.
One word more if I have time. I wish to say something about British Columbia, and I am sorry that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is not at the moment in his seat. May I refer to British Columbia and the Japanese situation and the fifth column in that province?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has exceeded his time, and he may proceed only with unanimous consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I will be brief. The fifth-column question, the matter of internment, is one to which I have devoted myself particularly for the last two years, under the guidance of, in cooperation with, and at the request of the late lamented Minister of Justice, to whose memory I pay great tribute to-day. I know something about this matter. I went to British Columbia at my own expense a year ago to look into the Japanese question, and I say this to the Minister of National Defence: Get those interned Japs across the mountains out of British Columbia without any more delay. You cannot move too fast. Three days from now you may be too late.


An hon. MEMBER:: One day.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Well, one day, if you like. But let us have it done. Someone says, "But where will you house them?" Well, two or three contractors from Calgary or Edmonton could put up temporary housing for 1,500 or
2,000	men in two or three weeks' time, and they could be taken care of, fed, guarded and protected.
One word more and I close. I am on the indulgence of the house. To what was the downfall of Norway due? The Quislings within. When did she learn of that danger? Not until the hun was over the border into Norway and the traitors cropped up like mushrooms overnight. To what was the downfall of France, Belgium, Holland due? The cream of the British army, 350.000 men, found that Hitler had whipped eight million men in thirty-three days. Why? Because of enemy treachery from within. There is no question about that. Now then, do not let us wait. We have the machinery; we have

The Address-Mr. Parent
them picked up in the area proclaimed to be a war area; let us get them out of that province before irreparable damage may be done. I offer that as my view, from one who thinks he knows something about the matter, to my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence.
In our present dilemma, which is indeed grave-and we await news that may be yet more so-my word to this house, and a word which I believe can govern the attitude of any man who wants us to give an all-out effort to win this war, is this-I use the language of Mr. Churchill.
We have great reason for vigilance and concern, hut no room for despair.
Mr. CHARLES PARENT (Quebec West and South) (Translation); Mr. Speaker, since the opening of this debate a considerable degree of unrest has been noticeable on all sides. The intemperate language used by some hon. members shows that the war of nerves started by the Toronto committee of 200 has reached us.
Be assured, Mr. Speaker, that in submitting my reasons for voting against the address and the proposed plebiscite I shall be brief and moderate.
The discussion so far has revealed the existence in this house of four distinct schools of thought. This shows how difficult it is to appraise the government's attitude and to make it acceptable to the various groups.
The first school of thought endorses the government's war policy such as it was originally, that is, free, voluntary and moderate, the result of a compromise due to the firm attitude of the Quebec leaders. This school, by its support of the proposed plebiscite, is taking an alarming turn towards what may become to-morrow a coercive, nonvoluntary and immoderate war policy.
Many hon. members, I know, are supporting the plebiscite while reserving the right to vote against the conscription bill when it comes before the house. It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that once freed from its pledges the government will not have to bring in a conscription bill, as it already has all the power required to achieve this end. I do not object to the principle of a plebiscite, but I maintain that the government has no right to use such a measure for the purpose of allowing the majority to repudiate sacred pledges given to a minority.
The second school of thought is that of the Toiy element. After hearing the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), one can say with Abraham: "It is the hand of Esau, but the voice of Jacob." The Toronto committee of 200 has voiced its demand for a total effort with conscription, but not conscription of
wealth, for that would too seriously affect their bank accounts.
It is scarcely necessary to say that I intend to vote against the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition.
The third school of thought is led by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I must admit that the hon. gentleman has shown a praiseworthy consistency, since he preaches in 1942 what he preached in 1939. He advocates a total war effort with conscription of man-power, of industry, of resources and of wealth. I must regretfully say, however, that I do not share his views and that I shall vote against the amendment to the amendment.
The fourth school has no leader, but it has an ideal-a Canadian ideal. We acknowledge that we have certain duties and certain obligations towards England, but within reasonable limits and in proportion to our means. We recognize that our only country is Canada and that it is Canada that we must defend and that we are ready to defend. This school of thought has endorsed without recrimination Canada's war effort which was to be free, voluntary and moderate. It has accepted every compromise for the sake of national unity, but to-day it refuses to go a step farther, for fear of prejudicing this same national unity. Solemn pledges were given to the electors at the 1940 general election. Whatever the cost, we insist on respecting these pledges.
That school of thought is of the opinion that the government can no more release themselves of their undertaking through a plebiscite than could ten endorsers relieve themselves from any obligation to pay a note through voting one and all against their creditor. Let us remember that this compromise was agreed upon by the province of Quebec on the [DOT] one hand and by all the provinces of Canada on the other. Quebec alone could renounce its vested rights.
If I now take the responsibility of voting against the address and the proposed plebiscite, it is that I am determined to honour my undertaking and because I believe this plebiscite will constitute a dangerous precedent, for, by this measure the government is taking a great step towards conscription for overseas service.
Lapointe possessed great parliamentary experience, a deep understanding of law and a knowledge of the meaning and implications of words. Never did he leave any door open, however, in his statements on conscription. He had been in the house with Laurier in 1917. He had approved Laurier on the referendum. But the experience of 1917 had taught him a lesson. He was acquainted with all
The Address-Mr. Parent

democratic methods of consulting the people. Nevertheless, in making his statement on conscription Lapointe always burnt his bridges behind him. He consented every sacrifice, but would not leave the weapon of the plebiscite in the hands of the majority to overcome the minority.
Lapointe never said: "I will never agree to conscription until it has been voted by the people through a plebiscite or referendum". He quite positively and definitely stated: "I shall never accept conscription nor will I *remain a member of a government which would enforce it". As the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) so aptly recalled, Lapointe said: "Never".


Mr. POULIOT:: Hear, hear.


Mr. PARENT:: On June 18th, 1940, he stated before the whole country that the province of Quebec opposed compulsory' service for overseas, that he would oppose such a *measure and that were it suggested by the government he would cease to be a member of such government. Lapointe's undertakings as regards conscription for overseas service constitute his political will. Let us respect it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


Charles Eugène Parent: It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that Quebec is opposed to conscription for overseas service. That is true. We have a great many reasons for opposing it. In order to understand such an attitude one must be acquainted with Quebec's soul. Its state of mind, its character and its education are the result of three centuries of struggle, resolute labour, steadfastness and faith in its mission.
How truly has the author of "Maria Chap-delaine" said:
We came here three centuries ago and we have remained. Those who brought us here could return among us without bitterness or sorrow, for while it is true that we have not learned much, we have certainly forgotten nothing. We brought from overseas our prayers and our songs; they have remained ever the same. We have brought within our breasts our countrymen's hearts, valiant and vivacious, as open to pity as to mirth, the most human of all human hearts. Our creed, our language, our virtues and even our failings become sacred, intangible things, and will remain so to the end.
The province of Quebec does not forget that it has nearly 2,700,000 French Canadians as compared with about 650,000 people of all other extractions. Nor does it forget that the average Quebec family has four children against less than two in the other provinces. Owing to that very fact, conscription would mean to Quebec a sacrifice proportionately far greater than to the other provinces.

The province of Quebec does not forget either that taxes fall more heavily upon its families, that in the economic, financial and administrative fields, it has had to overcome formidable handicaps in order to survive, and that conscription would mean the upsetting of its entire economy.
It would be a mistake to believe that our national life draws its sole inspiration from France. Most French Canadian families can trace back their ancestors over a period of one, two or three centuries, and I do not think there are to-day one hundred French Canadian families with relatives in France. Such a fact makes it clear that Canada is the French Canadians' home land and that Quebec especially represents for them the result of labour, accomplished by many generations, that they are determined to live and die there but, above all, they are ready to defend the Canadian soil against anyone who might attempt to conquer it.
I can conceive that such a state of mind is bard to understand for some of our Englishspeaking fellow citizens who live in Canada but whose minds and hearts are in England. We do not have among our people a Lord Beaverbrook, a Viscount Bennett, a Beverley Baxter or a George W. Weston. Those men after acquiring wealth in Canada have left our shores to spend their declining years in England.
The province of Quebec does not forget either that it enjoys a certain measure of freedom, but it is well enough acquainted with history to know that whatever it enjoys was only obtained after hard struggles and that, besides, it is not the debtor but rather the creditor of Britain.
It is all too frequently forgotten how generous and loyal Quebec was in 1775, 1812 and 1914. Vimy, Courcelette, Ypres, Passchen-daele give striking evidence that after the lapse of one hundred years, we have fully preserved the virtues and gallantry of our fathers.
The province of Quebec also remembers the days of 1917 and better propaganda than is now going on will have to be used if our young men are to be brought to believe that Canada's first defence line is in England.
I represent a constituency in the city of Quebec where decent and peaceful citizens were killed during the 1917 troubles, and my electors knew when they gave me their confidence in 1940, that I would honour my pledges and protect their interests.
Mr. Speaker, these are a few of the reasons why Quebec is opposed to conscription for overseas service; many others could be enu-

The Address-Mr. Emmerson
merated but there is no point in taking up the time of the house. I have mentioned enough to justify my vote against the address and the plebiscite.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec is opposed to conscription for overseas service, but it is not opposed to the war effort through voluntary enlistment. Religious and civil authorities have been generous in their support of the Canadian war effort, but the Government have enlisted this loyal support by committing themselves not to resort to conscription for overseas service. Let us keep our word.
From certain quarters, we hear that these pledges were made by the leaders and the members under circumstances different from those which presently obtain. In 1939, 1940 and 1941, the Rome-Berlin-Tokio axis was already in existence and our leaders knew full well that Great Britain could not rely on her allies of 1914.
Furthermore, Germany had exhibited the might of its military machine to the world, by cutting to pieces, in a few weeks, the gallant Polish armies. The Canadian leaders were conversant or should have been with the deficiencies of the allied armies and it was easy to gauge the situation in comparing the events of 1917 with those of 1940. However, in spite of all this, while Hitler was marching through Europe, we were told time and again that conscription for overseas service would never be resorted to. We even denounced as evil-minded citizens those who questioned the word of our leaders, the word of honest citizens, by their reminder that other leaders, Borden, in Canada, Chamberlain in England, had to go back on their word against conscription.
For the last thirty years, we have campaigned against conscription for overseas service and the Quebec population had good reason to believe that their attitude in this matter was just as reasonable as that of Australia where there are no French Canadians.
All this goes to prove that Quebec is now influenced by its education, its formation and its sense of duty toward threatened Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, allow me to render homage to the heroes of Hong Kong and especially to the Royal Rifles of Canada, of Quebec City, and offer the tribute of my sincerest admiration and deepest sympathy to their bereaved families. Though unfortunate, this expedition has been glorious. Those sons of Canada have given living testimony to the gallantry and courage of the Canadian soldier. It has been suggested that Hong
Kong should be-forgotten. For my part, I say, in the words of Gambetta: "Let us always think, but never talk, about it."
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with the remarks I have to make with respect to the subject matter of this debate, may I be permitted to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) who had the honour of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both in manner of delivery and in thoughts expressed his speech was worthy of the highest praise. It warmed my heart, as I know it did the hearts of all hon. members listening to his words of commendation, inspired by his association with the men and women of Great Britain. I wish also to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) who, like the hon. member for Hull, had an opportunity to visit the old country quite recently and see first hand the effects of the blitz from the centre of our empire, and had the privilege of mingling and talking with those who had suffered so severely, and who are still carrying on so magnificently.
While perhaps some may consider that the present debate has gone far enough, and are impatient to get on with the job of pushing forward the war effort, I believe I owe it to the people of my constituency of Westmorland to say a few words, as their representative in the House of Commons. Westmorland is a large constituency, and has the second largest population among the constituencies of New Brunswick. I am proud of my county because of what it has done in peace time, and prouder still because of what it is doing in the present war. We are a truly Canadian section of the dominion, with a mixture of English, Irish, Scotch and French. Approximately two-thirds of the citizens are Englishspeaking, and the remaining third are Frenchspeaking. There is no more loyal part of our country than Westmorland, whose chief centre is the city of Moncton, often called the hub of the maritimes. Westmorland is the core of the maritimes, and what more loyal part of the dominion is there than the maritime provinces?
If we may judge loyalty by enlistments, then Moncton, Westmorland county and all the maritimes will certainly not take second place to any other part of Canada. We have

The Address-Mr. Emmerson
had our share of losses, too, on land, on sea and in the air. May I be pardoned for calling attention to the fact that the glorious role played by the Royal Irish Rifles of Quebec at Hong Kong fills us with pride; for on the nominal roll of that great battalion were the names of over 450 men from the maritime provinces, French, English, Irish and Scotch.
I desire now to pay my tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), my honoured leader, for the way in which he has guided the war effort so far. I do not intend to recite the innumerable measures which have been taken by him and the members of his cabinet, but we can judge their wisdom by the results thus far, results which have called for unstinted praise from that grand man, Winston Churchill, and many leading men of the empire, as well as of the great republic to the south of us.
I want to thank my leader for the stand he has taken with respect to the future war effort. I must admit that for several weeks prior to my coming here I was somewhat disturbed as to the action the government might take, in view of the vociferous call for conscription for overseas service in the army, which has come from various sections of the dominion, but more particularly centred in certain interests in Toronto and Montreal. While I realize that the greatest energy is emanating from those interests who are trying to get rid of my leader and get control of the purse-strings of the government, I also realize there are a large number of loyal citizens who conscientiously believe that to carry on our maximum war effort we must put into effect conscription of men for the fighting forces. There are, on the other hand, many people who are opposed to this idea and are not of the opinion that this is necessary at the present time, some who feel that total war effort does not require the forcible calling up of men and placing them in combatant units and sending them overseas. I believe, too, that these people are just as loyal as any Canadians and 'are conscientious in their beliefs. On both sides of the controversy we have extremists, and I was worried as to what action the government might take. I was greatly relieved when I listened to the speech from the throne and found that members of parliament supporting the government were not going to be forced to break their promises to their constituents, if they wished to support the government and maintain a stable administration in control.
I am supporting the plebiscite. I want the government of the day to be relieved of their past commitments. I want the people of my constituency to tell this government, by their

'ote, to go ahead and do what they think advisable at any time, when in the light of their knowledge and judgment they decide upon a course they deem necessary in the best interests of the whole of Canada and the empire. I have faith in the loyalty and the judgment of the Canadians in my constituency of Westmorland and in all the other constituencies in the other provinces of Canada. I do not want to face the people of my constituency and have them say I am supporting a government that so flagrantly will ignore pledges. I have faith in Canada; I have faith in our people; I have faith in the love and loyalty of the mothers and fathers, even though some speakers who have preceded me may not. I am certain that true Canadians will sacrifice themselves, their sons and their daughters, if and when they believe those sacrifices are necessary to preserve our country and maintain our freedom and liberty for future Canadians. Personally, I do not believe in conscripting men for fighting units unless it is absolutely impossible to get men by any other means. During the last war we raised and maintained, as an effective fighting force in France, four grand infantry divisions, each one of which was classed as a first-line division and could be relied upon as first-line storm troops. Lloyd George once said:
The Canadians played a part of such distinction in the Somme battle of 1916 that thenceforward they were marked out as storm troops.
Was that because Canadians are superior beings to those of the motherland? Was it not because these divisions were made up of men who went over there voluntarily and were kept to their purpose by their own eagerness to do their part in destroying those forces that would destroy us? They did not go because they were forced; they went because they elected to do so of their own free will. The troops we have sent across the sea during this war are made up of just that kind of men, and there are many yet ready to go to support them. Do hon. members think it advisable to reinforce those troops from the ranks formed by men pressed into service against their will. I do not wish to belittle those who will not volunteer to fight overseas, but I do not consider that it is to the best interests of the Canadian army to dilute it with men so constituted that they have not the heart and spirit to fight, and who must be driven on by compulsion. Let the farmers go on the land, the machinists work in the shops, and by all means send only those into the combatant units who have the intestinal fortitude to go.
In spite of the flagrant statements made in this house, and outside this house, I do not

The Address-Mr. Emmerson
believe that our voluntary system has fallen down. I am still of the opinion that we can raise, by voluntary means, all the troops we should. From the beginning of this war till the end of 1941 our voluntary enlistments for all branches of the service have been over
422,000,	and apparently it is keeping up, for over 182,000 were attested during the calendar year of 1941. The first month of this year, January, has given us, by voluntary enlistment for overseas, over 11,000 men for the army alone, and I am confident that there will be a continuous flow answering Canada's call. These men, together with the "R" recruits that are being called up under the National War Services Act, will tax the resources of our training facilities, and it will keep this country on its toes to supply and equip them, in the light of the tremendous demands for all the guns, tanks, rifles, et cetera, that are so urgently needed by the empire and our allies w'here they are actually struggling with our vicious enemies.
The government has announced in parliament that the Canadian corps overseas is to be expanded to an army of two corps; one to be a corps of three infantry divisions and two army tank brigades; the other to consist of two armoured divisions. The navy is to take all the ships Canada can produce, and man them just as soon as they can be put into commission. There is to be an increase in the home war establishment of the air force as well. With that extension of the army, there are all the corps and army -ancillary troops, which, with the reserves to be sent forward this year, will require around 95,000 men- to be enlisted, trained, and equipped up to March, 1943. There is every reason to believe that this can and will be done by voluntary enlistment.
I think Canadians are prepared and eager to enlist, equip and maintain as large a fighting force as we are physically able to do. But there is a limit bey-ond which Canada cannot go and make our forces effective. Do not let us forget that at the present time we have about 550,000 men and 75,000 women working in our factories on war production, and remember also that during the last war there were less than half that number of men engaged in war production. Let us also keep in mind the very large number of men in the air force, at least 100,000 enlisted men, besides the civilian personnel in the empire training scheme, and upwards of 27,000 in the Royal Canadian Navy, which has done such heroic work in guarding our shores and convoying the ships carrying food and munitions to Great Britain and our allies, who are so much in need of them. All these tremendous efforts
of our country require men, but they require machines even more, in this type of war. Those of us who made u-p the Canadian corps of 1914-18 have still vivid memories of the trenches and the holes in the ground to and through which we foot-slogged it, but our army of to-day -moves on wheels or treads, with engines, transmissions, and drives, that need specially trained -men to operate and maintain them. I do not think I am very far out of the way in saying that the striking power of one of our divisions to-day is equal to that of two of the divisions of the last great war, and that the modem division requires far more men behind the lines and at home -to equip and maintain it in the field.
Mr. Speaker, I have faith in our government, and- I have every reason to have that faith when I know' the type of men who make up our government. We are fortunate, especially at this time, in having such men, so many of whom know by experience as soldiers what it is to fight a war, and know what it is to hear the thud of a shell and the whine of a bullet too unpleasantly near. No one can doubt their loyalty, and no one should question their determination to make a full and total war effort. I shall support the government in this plebiscite, and I shall support this government should circumstances so develop that they feel it necessary to enact total conscription for the army for action in any part of the world where it is necessary to fight the enemy.
The other night I had the privilege of listening to a lecture in the theatre of the National Museum in Ottawa on the subject of "Canada's Army-Man-Power Plus Machines". The speaker was Lieutenant-Colonel Goforth of the headquarters staff, Department of National Defence. I have confidence in our military leaders and our military staff, even thohgh one of the speakers the other evening said a great deal that might cause the people of this country to doubt their ability. Among other things, Colonel Goforth told his audience that a comprehensive study had been made by our military authorities some time prior to the present W'ar, and it was concluded that the maximum force that could be raised in Canada and maintained in action was six infantry divisions and one cavalry division. At that time, so far as one could gather from the speaker, there was no idea of any British empire air training scheme, nor could there have been at that time any comprehension of the huge proportions to which the production of arms add implements of war in Canada would be expanded, not to mention the growth and expansion of the Royal Canadian Navy.

The Address-Mr. Emmerson

Have we not already accomplished more than it was ever hoped we could? Can there be any justice in claiming that this government has not gone all-out under the inspiration of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)? Could there be anything more unfair than the accusation or the insinuation that William Lyon Mackenzie King has had any other idea than an all-out war effort? One thing certain is that a maximum war effort can be accomplished only by making it a united effort. Up to the present time no one can say that there has not been evidence of a unity of purpose in this country such as has never before prevailed' in Canada. What a sabotaging of the war effort it would be if those who are so eager to upset the government or destroy its leader should for this or any other reason succeed in setting one section of Canada against the other. '
There is actually just one point on which the opposition differs from the government, and that is as to the method of securing men for the army overseas. Surely there is only one way to decide what Canada wants. Let us ask the people whose servant we are. Let me ask those who oppose the plebiscite, are we to be hypocrites preaching democracy and practising totalitarianism? We must not be stampeded into Hitler's methods by catch-phrases and extreme statements. Let us get down to calm thinking. The cost of the plebiscite in dollars will not be too high a price to pay for our democratic ideals of government. When we know that our implements of war and equipment are being given to those who so urgently need them right now in battle, and that men are being trained by Canada as rapidly as our facilities will permit, what delay will there be in our war effort by holding a plebiscite? What right have you or I on either side of this house to say that the people should not be given a chance to speak their mind in the only way in which they can effectively do so, and why should opposition members on the other side fear the sound of that voice? Who are we to feel that the people of Canada are not every bit as loyal to Canada as members of this chamber and as eager to go the limit in defeating the enemy at every point we can?
Our duty is clear. Winston Churchill has made it clear to us. He said:
Bach to our part, each to our station. Bill the armies, rule the air, pour out the munitions, strangle the U-boats, sweep the mines, plough the land, build the ships, guard the streets, succour the wounded, uplift the downcast and honour the brave.
Let us go forward together in all parts of the empire, in all parts of this island. There is not a week, not a day, nor an hour to be lost.

Do not let us becloud the issue; and if each gets busy and makes it clear to our constituents, I am sure Canadians will tell the world they absolve the government of the day from any commitment that might interfere in a full, all-out conduct of the war effort.
Mr. J. E. S. EMMANUEL D'ANJOU (Rimouski) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, realizing my responsibility as a member for the constituency of Rimouski, at this time, and with all possible frankness, I wish to state my opinion concerning the plebiscite mentioned in the speech from the throne. Having always been a Liberal, I have, for the last thirty years, campaigned for my party, not only in my own constituency, but in a large part of the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick. Follower of Laurier and Lapointe and, I may add, follower of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I have always believed in their political creed for, to me, the word Liberal has always meant freedom of thought and speech on all political matters.
Therefore, on the strength of this very freedom, I shall, in all frankness and without reservation, state my reasons for opposing the plebiscite alluded to in the speech from the throne. In my estimation, the proposed plebiscite may have but one outcome, that is conscription for overseas service purely and simply. It is nothing but a screen through which the hideous outline of conscription is plainly visible. I have always been opposed to	conscription	for	service
outside of Canada and to-day, more than ever, I am against this iniquitous system of military enlistment.
Furthermore, no power on earth could cause me to repudiate the solemn pledges that I gave to my faithful constituents on this matter of conscription. I have stated time and again in each parish of my constituency, that I should	oppose	whoever in	this	houseattempted to enforce compulsory military service for overseas. I even specified that I would not hesitate to vote against my party if it ever took that initiative. I shall therefore keep	my word and vote	against theaddress and the plebiscite. I repeat that, to my mind, the plebiscite is the forerunner of conscription, for the government, unless they intend to	enact a	measure of	this	nature,
would not ask to be relieved of past commitments in this connection. The risk is too great and the most elementary discretion commands that I remain on the alert and watch my step.
However, I must say that I rely entirely on the right hon. Prime Minister. But how am I

The Address-Mr. D'Anjou
to know how long he will remain at the head of the government. He does not enjoy immortality any more than we do. And death may come suddenly. We have experienced the truth of this statement, some time ago, on the occasion of the decease of the late Minister of Justice, Mr. Lapointe.
It is, however, my honest hope, for the greatest good of the country, that the right hon. Prime Minister may long remain at the head of the government. But, I repeat that, for any one of many reasons, he may disappear from the political arena, and I am not prepared, in advance, to trust his successor in the matter of conscription for overseas service.
Our political opponents, Mr. Speaker, have often stated that the province of Quebec stood alone in its opposition to conscription. The verdict rendered on March 26, 1940, however, has shown this statement to be false. Both political parties made known their opposition to conscription and the present government was returned to power by the greatest majority ever obtained at any previous general election in Canada. It can be proven, if need be, that Frencli-Canadians from the province of Quebec and from Rimouski constituency in particular are neither poltroons nor cowards. During the last war, a regiment from Rimouski went overseas and counted among its brave men, Jean Brillant and Joseph Iieable. Both received the highest military honour within the gift of Great Britain, the Victoria Cross. A constituency boasting such heroes does not deserve to see its population be referred to as people who refuse to fight and flinch in the accomplishment of duty.
In company with several of my colleagues who have spoken before me, I stand wholeheartedly for the defence of Canada, but of Canada only and on Canadian soil. Since Japan came into the war, our country is in greater danger than ever before. Why not keep our men here, then, in case the country should be attacked? Australia has had her own sorrowful, experience. Australia sent many of her best troops to foreign lands. She is calling for help to-day, because she is insufficiently defended and lacks the number of men required to cope with the situation.
In so far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, may I say that when the time comes to answer the plebiscite my answer will be no, and I will advise my electors to give the same reply.
I do not wish the government to be released from, their undertaking nor do I wish to be released myself. The members of the government were not alone in their pledge against conscription. All hon. members of this house
gave the same undertaking. I intend to vote against the subamendment, against the amendment itself and against the main motion.
I do believe, Mr. Speaker, it would be political wisdom on the part of the government were they to change the. Mobilization Act so as to exempt farmers' sons and farm hands from its application. I have had occasion quite often in my constituency, which is essentially agricultural, to ask for postponements on behalf of farmers' sons. I might quote, among other instances, two really sad cases. An excellent old man, a farmer, seventy-six years of age and sick, had three sons. Two of them were already undergoing training and he came to me in the hope that I might obtain a postponement for the remaining son. Would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, I was unable to obtain this, and notwithstanding the fact that his other two sons were already in training they took the last one from him. Such a course does not seem reasonable, for wars are not won by soldiers alone, especially by soldiers who have nothing to eat. Soldiers have to be fed if they are to fight. In order to provide them with food, the farms have to be operated.
Here is another case. A widow with a large farm, asked me to obtain a postponement for her only son. I have been unable to obtain it. The exemption boards should show more consideration, especially in the case of farmers' sons.
As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of defending Canada and Canada alone, for I am first of all a Canadian. Mine is the motto of Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Canada first, Canada always, Canada only. May I quote the following words uttered by Lord Tweedsmuir, a former governor general of Canada:
Canada is a sovereign nation and cannot take her attitude docilely from Britain, or from the United States, or from anybody else. A Canadian's first loyalty is not to the British Commonwealth of Nations, but to Canada and Canada's king, and those who deny this are doing, to my mind, a great disservice to the commonwealth.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by stating once again my intention to vote against the address in reply to the speech from the throne, that is, against the plebiscite mentioned therein.


Mr. W. R. AYLESWORTH (Frontenac-Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice to those who are asking for a better deal for the farmer. We are hoping that the government will see fit to recognize the extreme value of an organized farm effort in relation to our war effort. The farmer has been hit harder by the war than those in any other vocation.
The Address-Mr. Aylesworth

He has been hit from all sides-by the shortage of farm labour, by the low prices of his products, by the high prices of his necessities and now by the price ceiling, which was applied before the prices of his products reached parity with the prices of the goods he must buy. In the old days the farmer, when he had to give his best days to working on the soil, retired to the city or town and left the farm to the young people. They did the hard work after that. Now the young people leave the farm long before the old people are ready to retire. In the city the young people can make a living without much effort, and there is no inducement to them to return to the farm where they can barely make a living, and that only with a good deal of effort. As a result, the old people are left to struggle along, and when they can no longer carry the burden alone they must- hire help.
With the beginning of the war the demand from industry for all kinds of workers at good wages resulted in hired men being weaned away from the farm to industry. Unless the farmer can compete with industry in the matter of wages-and very few of them can-a very serious situation will have to be faced. We should have a war plan for the farmer. No one can rise in his place in this house and say that the farmer has been receiving fair prices for his products in the past; that is, prices that are fair in relation to the prices the farmer has to pay for the commodities he has to buy.
Unfortunately, most city people do not know the farmer. They think that all he has to do is to plant seeds, wait for the product to grow and then harvest it and sell it. They do not realize the backaching work that goes into his job, the heartaches from wind, hail, drought and floods/ to say nothing of insect pests. Certainly he has had his good years, but even in those times his profits have not been large, and in the bad years his optimism has kept him going. On the whole the farmer has done little complaining to the government about his plight. Perhaps if he had done more complaining, he would not be in the position he is in to-day. The prices he receives at present barely assure him his existence, and there is no relief in sight.
This ties up with the labour problem. If the food production industry gets a parity of prices, it will be able to pay wages comparable with those paid by industry. With the rise in price of most farm products owing to the war, it looked as if the farmer might soon have an adequate return for his efforts and be put in a position where he would be able to compete with industry for help. But then came the

price ceiling. The farmer does not object to the government's action in this regard provided a fair balance of prices is maintained. There is injustice to the farmer in freezing the unbalanced economy that exists, and I suggest to the government that the price ceiling should be let off certain products. The farmer should have a fair return for the products he sells.
So little consideration is being given the farmer that it looks as if the government does not realize the importance of keeping the farmer in production, and more production. Canada has been struggling along with a hand-to-mouth policy, and it is evident that if the country is to hold its own in the task of sending food to war-torn Britain and feed its own population, including the army, the navy and air force, some plan must be advised to -bring farms into full production.
Some people say, "What if we bring the farms into full production and the war ends?" That would be good. Just think of the enormous market there would be in starving Europe, for food, as well as the huge market that would exist to replenish the herds of live stock in European countries. We have been in this war considerably longer than the United States, and already they have a plan for agriculture, while our plan, if we have any, is piecemeal and has no definite goal. If we do not plan now for agricultural production, there is grave danger of a food shortage in the country.
At the last session of parliament the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) put forward a plan for agricultural production, and a very good plan it was. In fact, it might bear repeating. But has the government taken any note of it? Let me repeat some of his suggestions. First of all, there is the suggestion to appoint a national food board. I know that the wartime prices and trade board and the agricultural supply board are operating, but they are not planning to any extent for future production. They are interested in controlling prevailing production. This board would estimate the production required for 1942, and each year to the end of the war, to feed Canada and meet the requirements of our allies. Canada would be divided into production zones according to the things best produced in the different areas. Give this board power to put into operation any scheme whereby the maximum production for the zone would be reached, and assure adequate supplies of labour, with machinery and fertilizers made available for agricultural purposes. There should be nothing difficult about this.
National registration has shown that there are sufficient men to work the farms if they

The Address-Mr. Aylesworth
are placed at this work. We could even recruit a farm army at military pay and place them in the different zones as needed. As for machinery, the government could arrange transportation to any point where needed, or make it part of the equipment of the farm army.
Another suggestion was a women's farm army. The Ontario government is going to and may now be training women to take their places on the farm. Could not the federal government follow their lead and recruit women for farm work? I would earnestly urge upon the government that farmers' sons and farm help working on the farms and producing food be allowed to continue this work.
With regard to parity for farm prices with war production, I mentioned before when I suggested withholding the price ceiling to allow farm products to catch up and gain parity.	.
The board would provide that the owner of the land would have these objectives and would be adequately reimbursed for his investment and his effort. That is only fair, because all other industries receive a fair return. Give the farmers fair markets and sufficient help and they will keep our farms producing. The board would plan to build up stocks of finished foods like canned pork and beef, canned vegetables, evaporated milk, dried eggs, and so on. I would make only one addition to the plan of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, that is that a special section of the national food board deal with and promote a greatly increased production of cattle and hogs. The demand for bacon from our allies is ever increasing. Someone slipped so badly in their estimate of the requirements of our allies that for a time we were asked not to buy pork, with the result that the price of other meats climbed so high it was cheaper to buy pork. I admit that the situation in this regard has improved, but we could have an even greater production in hogs. For instance, we have a huge surplus of wheat that could be purchased from the western farmer at a fair price and sold to the hog raisers of Ontario. The government could arrange this. With the feed problem solved, the farmer could raise twice as many hogs. We should also increase the number of cattle raised, not only for food but in order to be ready at the end of the war to send many shiploads to Europe for food and for stock.
Cattle demand for the past year has been 115,247 head greater than for 1940. The main reasons for this increase were: curtailment of supplies of pork for home consumption; increased industrial activity resulting in improved consumer purchasing power; and the
fact that military camp estimated requirements were 40,211,767 pounds, compared with 18,214,421 pounds in 1940, an increase of 21,997,346 pounds. At an average of 500 pounds to the carcase the increase is equal to 44,000 head of cattle. This makes a total camp consumption of 80,000 cattle. The number of cattle on feed is below that for the past five years. Incidentally I am sure our producers are looking for higher prices, to offset the higher prices paid for feeding cattle, the increased cost of feed and higher wages of farm help.
An improved demand for beef in both Canada and the United States could easily bring about a period when marketings of cattle would fall short of supplying our full requirements of beef. It is important that our producers be encouraged to increase their production, so I ask that the ceiling price on beef be lifted for a time. I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to see that producers of beef, lamb and hogs are allowed to make a reasonable profit.
I would also ask the government to allow the price of cheese to advance. The lifting of the ceiling, allowing the price of cheese made during the winter to advance, was a good thing, but many farmers were not able to produce milk during the winter months and, therefore, could not take advantage of this.
I should like to place before the house the necessity of encouraging an increase in lamb production. We are facing a shortage of wool in this country, and that at a time when woollen mills are coming to Canada from England. Also last year we imported nearly
3,000,000 pounds of lamb. I should like to place on record these figures showing our imports of lamb from Australia and New Zealand from 1934 to 1941:
Imports
Year	pounds
1934		 37,764
1935		 83,162
1936		 19.079
1937		 40,245
1938		 402,332
1939		 1,565.747
1940		 920.870
1941	(11 months)	 2,494,796
Up to 1937 the duty was three cents a pound, but from October 1 of that year it was reduced to half a cent.
There was a very healthy demand for lamb in 1941. This demand was doubtless due to increased purchasing power of consumers, and also to curtailment in pork supplies. The above figures show the effect of the reduction in import duties. The ceiling price on lamb has recently been lifted. This is in accord with my view, and I would ask
The Address-Mr. Aylesworth

that it be left off in order to encourage production. If we could produce the 3,000,000 pounds of lamb imported last year, it would equal 70,000 lambs, which would produce 500 000 pounds of wool.
The farmers also have to face the restriction of electric power, and I would ask the government to give every consideration through their power controller to applications for electric power in order to help in the production of the necessary foodstuffs.
This country, Mr. Speaker, is facing a grave situation. What happened in France should be a lesson to us. Party politics and shades of political opinion so divided that country and created such dissension that it was impossible to obtain any cooperation or continuity of effort toward the prosecution of a war. At this time when we are facing such an emergency party politics should be forgotten. Anything said at this time should be aimed toward unity rather than tending to create dissension among the Canadian people. What has happened to Australia may happen any day to Canada, and it is important that we do the right thing now. I appreciate the effort the government has already put forth but I would earnestly urge a still greater effort. Russia is calling for more equipment; China is calling for more equipment; General McNaughton asks for more and better equipment; so let us see that every man or woman who can work is put to work, and let us produce to the very limit of our resources. Surely it is time we became alive to the fact that we stand in a very precarious position, from which we can extricate ourselves only by a determined effort on the part of all the people.


Mr. G. T. PURDY (Colchester-Hants):: With very much of what the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Aylesworth) has just said I am in hearty agreement. Probably that is no wonder, because we both represent constituencies very much interested in the agricultural life of this country. I congratulate the hon. member upon what he has said.
This debate is now in its third week. Such being the situation I shall not cover all the ground I had intended to, because much of what I expected to say has been well expressed by other hon. members.
The hun is at our gates; the Jap is at our gates, our gates both east and west; Canada's gates both east and west. If there ever was a time in the history of our country when clear thinking without political or personal bias was required from members of parliament, this is the time. Having regard to this, I was sorry to see so many members of the opposition resort to making political speeches for seven-

eighths of their time and then in the remaining one-eighth trying to fool the house and the country by striking a patriotic note.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: What about the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) this afternoon?


Gordon Timlin Purdy: The hon. gentleman made
his speech, so please let me make mine. Surely it has been demonstrated again that the Tory party, shorn of power, is like a she bear robbed of her cubs. I am free to admit that certain members of the Liberal party have dealt somewhat with politics in part of their remarks, but I am sure that an unbiased perusal of the record will show that such statements were provoked by opposition speeches. Occupying as I do one of the buffer seats in this parliament, as I also did in the last parliament, with opposition members to the left and opposition members to the front, I can truthfully say that for the most part I have found them splendid fellows. I believe many of them are gradually coming to the Liberal viewpoint. I urge them to continue to seek the light, because I feel that without leaders they will have to wind up as a party. During the few years I have been in parliament I have endeavoured to follow the motto: "If you have nothing to say, say nothing." May I suggest to those groups sitting to the far left that if democracy is to function as intended, they should pay more attention to this motto. I have on my desk the following verse:
What one approves, another scorns,
And thus each his nature shows.
You find the rose bush full of thorns;
I find the thorn bush full of roses.
I often turn to this for comfort when I hear or read of some move that does not appeal to me.
The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) is a friend of long standing, whom I admire in both a business and personal way. I cannot, however, follow his political thought. On Monday, while speaking of the accomplishments of his constituency in munition manufacturing, it seemed to me that he was not at ease, that he cast his eyes down, and I hope he bowed his head. He must have recalled that but two short years ago he was touring his county far and wide and in effect saying that the statement made by the late Norman Rogers, a fellow-townsman, on behalf of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), that a large aeroplane programme was under way for Amherst was nothing but election talk, and that if Amherst was to have a revival of industry it would be necessary to elect the Manion National government. The Manion government was not elected, and the

The Address-Mr. Purdy
hon. gentleman sits condemned by his own words and discredited in the eyes of many of his electors by the statements he made at that time.
The constituency I have the honour to represent, Colehester-Hants, has its roots far back in the days of colonization in Nova Scotia, and stretches from Northumberland strait to the bay of Fundy, across the central part of the province. Truro, the shire town of Colchester, was the Cobequid of the Acadian;, and Windsor, the shire town of Hants county, the Pisquid. Our people are mostly of British origin, the forefathers of many of them being New England planters or pre-loyalists, who took up the lands from which the Acadians were expelled prior to the American revolution. They were followed by their Loyalist friends and relatives, and the ties with the British isles were strengthened by direct emigration from England, Scotland and Ireland. We have a small percentage of other European stock, and a considerable overflow from the original German or Dutch settlements in Lunenburg county. Our population is roughly one-third urban and two-thirds rural. The chief industries of the towns are textiles, lumber products, wood pulp, dairy products and fertilizers. The principal activities in the country are mixed farming and lumbering. Large quantities of gypsum are produced round the famous Minas basin, where the tides rise as high as sixty feet; and the western end of the constituency is the eastern end of the famous Annapolis valley, so that we produce about one-tenth of the commercial apple crop of the province.
With this background and these surroundings, Mr. Speaker, we have maintained a reasonably well balanced economy and have produced a race of people loyal to the British crown and British traditions, proud to call the union jack our flag. When the call for duty came, our boys and girls were no less willing to enlist than in the past, and are now serving wherever Canadians are found on the far-flung battle front. They are standing firm on British shores, flying over the low countries and in the middle east, and their names appear on the service rolls with the Hong Kong heroes. One company of the forestry corps now serving overseas was largely recruited in our district. We are represented in the prison camps of Germany, and our casualty lists are mounting. Enlistments keep up. To those who do not return I pay my homage. While not regarded as a marine constituency compared with others in the province, our boys have enlisted freely in the Royal Canadian Navy, and their names can be found in large numbers among the unsung heroes of the war,
the merchant marine. One of my constituents, Mr. Dick Harvie, of Noel Road, Hants county, has seven sons serving with the forces, volunteers for service anywhere. That is a truly magnificent contribution from any one home.
Let me say here to these men and women of the forces, to many of whom I am tied by the bonds of friendship, and to others by the ties of blood, and to their relations and friends, that as their representative in the parliament of Canada I hope and pray they will feel that in the decisions we have made or are required to make I have not and will not let them down. I voted for the Union government in 1917 because I felt then, as I feel to-day, that selective service is the fair way of raising an army. But, Mr. Speaker, war as practised to-day by our enemies is not fair war, and we must meet them by the most efficient methods at which the best brains of this country can arrive.
In case I may be misunderstood I will say here and now that if it develops that the voluntary method of raising men does not produce sufficient recruits to maintain overseas the maximum force we are capable of sending, having regard to the demands on our man-power for munitions and supplies and adequate home defence, I will support the government in extending the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act to cover man-power for overseas. Churchill, in his famous speech to the empire after Dunkirk, called us to our stations-not necessarily in the firing line, but wherever we were most useful. Since munitions, food and ships are now required rather than man-power, Canada must, on account of her location, be expected to take a larger share of the load in this regard than otherwise would be the case. This is not nearly as spectacular as the million marching feet asked for by some of the opposition, but it is far more effective in an allout, balanced effort. It was German machines, not man-power, that drove through the low countries, raced up the French lines and drove the British expeditionary force into the sea at Dunkirk. We must equip our army and the armies of our allies with the very latest in fighting equipment before we lessen the flow of these vital articles overseas by drawing men from the production lines. Have we the man-power to keep up the maximum supply of munitions and food and at the same time materially increase our overseas force? I do not know. We look to the government to inform us and to lead us in an all-out war effort, with a complete mobilization of all resources, material and human. I urge that
The Address-Mr. Purdy

in such an effort our natural resources must be further developed and more advantage taken of the productive capacity of our smaller mncerns than has been the case to date.
As yet, Mr. Speaker, I fear that our manpower and productive capacity are a long way from being fully mobilized, and that a great deal of our effort is still devoted to nonessentials. The people of Canada are just now beginning to feel the pinch of regulations which are necessary for the carrying out of the war. This being the situation, they look to the government not only to regulate and advise, but also to set an example. It is therefore difficult to understand how certain departments can continue to use up manpower and materials along certain lines in duplication and non-essential services, while other departments are crying for the people to salvage and save, and our allies are looking to us to produce more munitions.
For instance, our Post Office Department has a considerable programme of expensive advertising. Their service should be their best advertiser. If they are advocating less use of the telegraph, one department of government is in effect working against another. Again, wTe have recently been favoured with a series of advertisements issued by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. These were very well done, but, I would assume, very expensive. Surely present radio listeners do not have to be told what the corporation is doing, and we are supposed to discourage the purchase of more radios. Could not the materials and man-power used in these activities be placed to better advantage elsewhere?
Again, we have one department of the government sending out forms all across the country, asking from business certain information which has already been furnished to another department, or continuing to send out the inquiries when the party to whom they are addressed has advised that he does not deal in the article or articles inquired about.
I have before me an inquiry which has been widely circulated, asking for the price of bread on certain recent dates, while the price has been pegged throughout Canada since the outbreak of war. Is this efficiency or economy? Is it any wonder that the maritime boards of trade, at a recent meeting, asked that business be released from the work of furnishing so many government returns?
In my constituency are located the Debert military camp, the Debert airport and the Stanley elementary training school. At these
I Mr. Purdy.]
various centres in the course of their training, or sailing for overseas, we are privileged to have a large number of the picked manhood of Canada, not only of Canada but of all parts of the British commonwealth, and also of the United States. Our citizens have welcomed these strangers with open arms, and while, having regard to the numbers of men as compared with our population, we have not been able to do all we would wish, yet I consider that most of our temporary military guests will take away with them very warm feelings toward the people of this banner constituency. Surely this contact will, in the years to come, bear fruit, and people from other provinces and other lands will be better able to understand our problems and we theirs.
In passing, it might be well to point out to the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) that from reliable sources I am informed that the Stanley school was the only one in eastern Canada able to carry on continual flying operations last spring during the break-up, and suggest that our location is most suitable for further extensions if required.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel I should refer to a matter which has to some extent caused me to lose my faith in mankind. I am told on good authority that in the officers' mess at Debert and at other military camps the story is being circulated that the reason why a large military camp was established at Debert is because the site of it was the old Ralston homestead and was owned by our present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). A return filed on February 9 to an order of this house of February 2 shows that the land occupied at this point was acquired from more than 120 individual owners and that none was owned by the hon. minister. In fact I can obtain no information that either he or his near relatives ever owned property in this district. The hon. minister, who in 1914 and again in 1939 answered the call of his country, is too big a man to pay attention to such lies as the one I have mentioned, apparently circulated in order to discredit the government, but I feel that this statement of the true situation should be posted in every mess of the Canadian army so that he who runs may read. Officers who are gentlemen should know how to deal with the likes of those who start stories such as the one to which I have referred.
Coming now to the plebiscite, I propose to support it, and urge my constituents to vote, "Yes". Why do I do this? I do this because I feel that our ministry should have a free hand, subject only to the control of parliament, in the troublesome days to come.

The Address-Mr. Purdy
Do I feel that the government is bound by a pledge of ''no conscription for overseas service" given in 1940? My answer is "yes". Furthermore, I consider, having accepted the Liberal platform and having been elected on same, that I am also bound by the pledge. It may be hard for our opponents to get over the idea that election promises are made to be elected on and then to be forgotten, but my leader, the Prime Minister, stands for something higher than that, and I feel that the people of Canada will honour him for the stand he has taken, in spite of the clamour of the old Tories for him to forget promises. Surely, had he done so, he would have to-day been held up to the Canadian people as a man whose promise could not be relied upon, and this by the same people who are now condemning him for holding the plebiscite.
Mr. Speaker, may I take a few moments to refer to my part of the country. I referred previously to a full use of the productive capacity of our smaller plants, of which we have a number capable of doing something to help along the war effort, but so far they have been given very little opportunity. In fact one has had to close entirely owing to the lack of raw materials, and others to curtail. When the Minister of Munitions and Supply announced the bits-and-pieces programme last fall, I felt that it was a splendid move, and I strongly urge that it be developed until every shop and every bit of machinery capable of producing a needed article for our war effort are at work. I have asked on many occasions that small concerns in my constituency as well as our contractors be given consideration on war and defence projects. To date, for the most part, we have had to be content with the crumbs which fall from the rich man's table. Centralization is efficient to a certain point but, if carried beyond that point, creates inefficiency.
I would suggest that the time is now ripe for the government to take industry to where the labour and facilities are available rather than make it necessaiy for the people from the maritimes to move to central Canada to work, with the consequential housing and transportation problems, to say nothing of post-war situations and the disarrangement of our local economy.
Our contractors are efficient and should have been given an equal chance on local defence works rather than being overlooked until the best contracts in the district were given to central Canadian firms, some without our contractors knowing that the project was open. Even on tenders advertised in the public press, maritime contracts are at
times advertised in the central Canada media, while I have yet to see central Canada projects of a similar nature advertised in our local papers.
Equal sacrifice should mean equal opportunity, and I would urge that we be given this oportunity. To my mind this can be brought about only by a better geographical distribution of the various appointments in key positions in the departments charged mainly with our -war effort.
In the past the maritime provinces have not been found lacking in producing men of a high calibre, nor are they to-day, and I believe that if the course I have suggested is followed, we shall have made a further step toward a balanced and all-out war effort.
Not so long ago the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), our then premier, was called to Ottawa by the Prime Minister. Our people felt honoured by this action. I recall hearing the present Minister of National Defence for Naval Services say at one time that a happy and contented peasantry was the back-bone of a country.
As stated previously, approximately two-thirds of my constituency is rural, many of these being engaged in. mixed farming. May I, therefore, for a -moment be permitted to deal with some of their problems. It will be recalled that prior to the price-ceiling policy being announced, the position of our eastern farmers had been receiving attention and that it was decided t-hat, in the face of the low prices they were receiving for their products, some assistance was in order. The federal government agreed to pay one-third of the freight on feed grains, and the local government the same. Then we come to the priceceiling policy when, to bring farm products somewhere in line with other ceiling prices, the *western farmers were given further assistance and the eastern farmers the full freight on feed grain. As stated a moment ago, our farmers had previously been given, based on their need of assistance, two-thirds of the freight, so the assistance they in fact received was but one-third. It therefore seems to me that in order to carry out the intention of the priceceiling policy our farmers should receive additional assistance to the equivalent of two-thirds freight on western feed grains. This can be arranged by way of a rebate or discount on feed purchased, and I would ask the government to consider this matter.
Some of our farmers and poultrymen were surprised to find that western corn was not included for freight assistance, although it had been included in the original discussions. It

The Address-Mr. Purdy

was included in the British Columbia agreements. Apparently the Ontario corn growers had to be protected at the expense of the maritimes. The matter was taken up with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and hopes were held out for its inclusion by special arrangement. We are now advised after two months' delay that nothing can be done. I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to remove the duty on water-borne ;orn brought to the maritimes and suggest that ve now have reason to expect this. Our farmers are not organized, nor can they afford to send large delegations to Ottawa as their western cousins have recently done. If they had the money they would, under present conditions, buy war bonds or certificates and not spend it in taking long trips. If they took the trip, who would look after their work? Therefore, as a member from Nova Scotia, interested in the welfare of our farming population, as all our members are, I am speaking on their behalf.
I am not in accord with the system of bonuses built up for western agriculture and, if I understand the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture correctly, about to be extended by new legislation; yet having regard to the price-ceiling policy, I see no other way of equalizing farm income with that of other industries.
If the end of the war is not to see the number of vacant farms in Nova Scotia largely increased, with resulting relief problems, something more must be done for agriculture.
I have shown what we are entitled to under the "some assistance" but not "equalization" price-ceiling policy. A series of abattoirs and cold storage warehouses might be erected in the province at places convenient to the mixed farming population, such as at Antigonish, Pictou, Truro, Windsor and Lunenburg. With such an arrangement our farmers could receive a proper inspection and price for their products locally, instead of shipping them out of the province or equally long distances to provincial points, only at times to have them returned for consumption within a few miles of where they were produced. I shall not further labour this matter, but suggest that it should be carefully considered.
In view of the labour situation on our farms brought about by enlistments, and higher wages being paid in war industries, assistance could be given in certain sections by way of extension of rural mail routes and assistance in extending rural electrification into districts not now eligible under provincial legislation. This latter would, of course, only be possible if the equipment were available.

Both these suggestions, if put into effect, would increase the number of man-hours available for work on the land.
Mr. Speaker, we have a wheat committee of the cabinet. I would suggest the appointment of an eastern agricultural committee also, and I call upon the Prime Minister and the ministers representing the maritime provinces, as well as the Minister of Agriculture, to take the maritime agricultural situation in hand before it is too late and submit any necessary legislation for the maritimes along with that proposed for the assistance of western agriculture. Only in this way can we have a happy and contented peasantry stretching across Canada and our rural population united in this our hour of greatest need.


Mr. PAUL EMILE COTE (Verdun) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker,, it is a great honour' and a heavy responsibility to rise amidst the elected representatives of the nation to speak on behalf of one of the constituencies of my province, the constituency where I was born and brought up, whose people, kindly witnesses of my first experiences in business life, have given me signal evidence of their confidence in choosing me to present their thoughts, their feelings and their aspirations to parliament and to the government.
Verdun and Lasalle, the two highly cosmopolitan municipalities making up my electoral division, are, with their citizens of various extractions and traditions, languages and religions, veritable miniatures of Canada. Faced by the same problems of life and inspired by a common ideal, my fellow-citizens have built up two great cities which have impressed all the people of Canada and have more than once been cited as examples to all communities seeking progress in union, understanding and tolerance.
The city of Verdun, by far the more populous of the two, proudly stands third in my province and twelfth in all Canada. Among the responsibilities which this honour has imposed upon it, there is one which it has discharged in a particularly glorious fashion. I refer to the part it played in this country's effort during the last war. The Prince of Wales himself, during his trip to Canada in 1919, stated that Verdun was the city of the British empire which had, in proportion to population, placed the largest number of men under arms.
Twenty-five years have passed, and these years may have effected a considerable change in the proportions and the appearance of the constituency which I represent. However, the sense of solidarity and of unity in the presence of great causes, the love of country and of liberty, have in no way diminished, and

The Address-Mr. Cote
it is with rightful pride that I -can say in this house that Verdun has accepted wholeheartedly and generously its large share of the burden of the present war. Thus it is that every war service, every patriotic organization, of whatever nature, is represented in the constituency of Verdun and receives all the cooperation and the results expected. In addition, according to the statistics available, Verdun is once again in the very first rank of the Dominion's municipalities as regards the proportion of its sons in our three fighting services.
In this community, so highly representative of the various ethnical elements of our country, I have imperceptibly gathered, a fairly accurate conception of the patriotic sense of Canada. I find myself to-day in the presence of my fellow-members of this house, all charged, though in different degrees, with the leadership of our beloved country in this [DOT]most critical period of her history-.
Allied of her own free will with the great democracies, Canada has constituted herself the champion of the liberties of our Christian civilization and has bravely opposed the conquering march of the armies of German . paganism. The conflict which began by the devastation and enslaving of far-away countries has drawn closer to our shores, and our national life is now seriously threatened.
During the two years and a half which this world-wide conflict has lasted, Canada has not betrayed the cause she undertook to champion. Quite the contrary. With the ardour and patriotism which distinguishes her sons and the incalculable richness of her resources, this Dominion has, for the defence of her territory and of civilization, contributed to the heroes of the democracies which have retained their freedom a magnificent effort which has excited the admiration, nay the astonishment, of the civilized world.
I am a Canadian by birth and by inclination. Never before, however, have I felt such love, such pride for my country as when I had an opportunity to appreciate, at the beginning of the present session, the progress made in the last two and a half years and to visualize what our young nation has accomplished for the defence of our most sacred liberties, for the safeguard of our Christian civilization. And the sentiment thus entertained toward my country was equalled only by my admiration for him who, on that date of January 26, rendered an account of the manner in which his administration has carried on the war, and by my pride in sharing the political convictions of the greatest of Canadian statesmen and the most Canadian of our great statesmen.
The Right Hon. Mackenzie King, our Prime Minister, has made a clear, comprehensive and eloquent statement on a well balanced and most efficient war effort. It would be presumption on my part, therefore, being only a novice in public affairs, to attempt under such circumstances to describe our contribution in the present conflict. I would rather leave the people under the charm of that enlightening speech which old parliamentarians claim to have been one of the best ever made in the house by the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
May I be permitted, nevertheless, to bring out into bolder relief how that outstanding speech offers a fundamental explanation for the success of the gigantic task undertaken and a guarantee of its successful and really efficient accomplishment. Addressing myself in all sincerity to my fellow countrymen of every province and of every class of society, to all those who in these hours of trial pride themselves on being Canadians, I would state that we would never have accomplished one-half of what the country has contributed in two years to the successful prosecution of the war had we not had, as a foundation for our economic and military activities, both peace and unity in the land and the possibility of utilizing fully the energies which inevitably develop under such favourable conditions.
Had we been a divided country, in the throes of internal strife, far from withstanding the burden of a military effort -which one might be tempted to call out of proportion with our development and population, our country might well have become but another instrument of those infernal machinations so ably devised under Hitlerian diplomacy.
Quite the contrary, in the security of internal peace, Canada has achieved a splendid contribution, particularly during the year about to close.
Our country has been able to produce all the food required for domestic consumption and to meet the needs of an ally having a population five times our own number.
We have succesfully developed our armament production and are in a position to-day to arm and equip by our own means a modern division in a relatively short time.
We have built a navy capable of serving as escort and of protecting convoys going overseas and of giving chase to enemy submarines over the seven seas.
An all-Canadian and powerful air force patrols our coasts, guards over our convoys and patrols enemy skies in search of new targets.
Compulsory military training prepares our young men for the defence of our country on
The Address-Mr. Cote

Canadian soil, while voluntary recruiting enlists all who are willing to carry the fight [DOT],o the enemy wherever he may be encountered.
In short, the economic and military policy of the country has been managed with such wisdom, that the government would hear nothing but a chorus of praise and gratitude, if it were not for the uproar fostered through a certain section of the press by a handful of heirs to the Union cabinet of 1917 and to the disturbances bred by that administration.
Faced with facts, these agitators are forced to admit, occasionally, the efficiency of our war effort, in all fields. Some of the newspapers, the Ottawa Journal and the Financial Post, among others, engaged in that contemptible campaign of disparagement against the government, but in reality against our Prime Minister, have published wThole supplements admitting the efficiency of our country's contribution to the allied cause. I shall mention only their issues of January 30th and 31st respectively, where 32- and 15-page supplements are devoted to a review of the accomplishments of our industries and armed forces.
However, it seems that these people are not satisfied with the complete harmony that obtains all through our war effort. They must always recall the causes of the 1917 misunderstanding and, to this end, they have revived the old battle cry: "Canada cannot realize a total war effort without conscription of its youth for military service overseas."
The Prime Minister has answered their clamour with faultless logic supported by the most irrefutable statistics.
I need not quote again the figures that have already been given in this house to show how successful the voluntary system has been. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that in the seven last months voluntary enlistment in the three services of our armed forces has given an average monthly yield of over 20,000 men, whereas in the month that has just ended, 11,000 recruits were obtained for the army only, the same clamour is being raised about the so-called failure of the voluntary system and the necessity of immediate conscription for overseas service.
Fortunately, such is not the view of right-minded and sincere people, nor I think of the great majority of Canadian citizens. The constituency which I have the honour to represent, and where there are people of various races and creeds, strongly supports maintenance of the voluntary system of enlistment for overseas military service. So far as I am concerned, I am all the more willing to express the view's of my constituents on that subject as I am and will remain a supporter of the anticonscriptionist doctrine.

I shall not repeat the arguments advanced by my colleagues in this house whose views on that matter are similar to mine. I shall only add that conscription has been an utter failure during the last war, that from October, 1917, to November, 1918, a period of thirteen months, it yielded 83,355 men 22,000 of whom were granted temporary postponement for agricultural or other purposes. Consequently, during the above mentioned period, that system only yielded a monthly average of 4,720 men, most of whom could be called soldiers only because they wore a uniform and were subject to military discipline, as compared with the average number of 8,000 men who have enlisted every month since September last, and all of whom are proud soldiers conscious of the part they have to play in the army and determined to uphold the honour of their country. There are over
250,000	such volunteers in our active army, besides over 125,000 men in the air force and over 25,000 in the navy, making up, as at the 1st of January last, a total of well over 400,000 men who have voluntarily enlisted in our armed forces for service anywhere in the world. In order to appreciate better the importance of those figures, we must remember that our munitions and arms factories are now employing over 500,000 men and over 70,000 women, or tv'ice the number of workers that v'ere required by the same class of munitions factories during the last war. Yet. our country has only 11,500.000 inhabitants.
I am against conscription because I am in the first place opposed to any cause of disunion and misunderstanding in this country. Besides, I believe that it will not be necessary in so far as the constituency which I represent is concerned. The voluntary system has hitherto been highly successful and the same success can be maintained through the sincere and enlightened cooperation of all those who are called upon to exert some influence over their fellow citizens and public opinion in general.
Let the newspapers who have hitherto furthered the cause of disunion in this country stop their purely political and personal controversies and launch a campaign for voluntary enlistment, or at the very least, occasionally publish earnest appeals to young Canadians, a thing which they have hitherto carefully refrained from doing.
Let certain military men, probably well intentioned but ill advised, abandon the coercive means they have brought to bear upon the young men under compulsory military

The Address-Mr. Cote
training, for the questionable purpose of hastening their enlistment in the active army; the signing up of a recruit through such means has not the character of a free decision and more often as not it hurts the cause, in discouraging a relative or a friend of the recruit, who otherwise would probably be earnestly willing to enlist.
Let the government consider whatever measures may be necessary to give better treatment to privates and non-commissioned officers in the active army, or to increase their dependents' allowances, keeping in mind that the pecuniary remuneration offered to them must meet the competition of the salaries that are attracting them to munitions factories.
Thus, the deficiencies and imperfections of our voluntary system having been remedied, enlistments will reach a higher level and bring into our active army as many if not more young men than during the last months, when conditions were not always quite favourable. At that rate, it would be possible, within a year, to obtain at least 100,000 additional men, without prejudice to the needs of the air force or the navy. I have every reason to believe that conscription for service in the active army would not produce as good results in the same period, and I need not emphasize the dare consequences it would undoubtedly have upon the morale of our people.
Unity within our ranks is a prime condition of success for our arms. By uniting our hearts, our minds and our energies we will succeed, under the guidance of an enlightened and wise government, in putting to really good use all our material resources and man-power, in a way that will ensure victory for the democracies over the forces of evil. Without such unity, whatever those in authority may do, we cannot expect anything but halfmeasures and quite unsatisfactory results.
Mr. Speaker, let us make the most of what is likely to unite us in this war; let us make use of it fully in the best interests of the great cause which we must defend until victory. As to what is liable to divide the country and, mind you, it is only a very small part of our total war effort, let us examine it calmly, without prejudice or passion. Let us see if, by adopting a one-sided and inflexible solution, we are not jeopardizing the ever growing successes which have crowned our efforts in this domain as well as in all the others.
The Prime Minister and his government have succeeded in preserving peace and harmony in our country since the beginning of the war. Unity has been preserved in the country by a responsible and strong government, in which the nation had placed full confidence. Conditions have arisen which have been considered to necessitate an appeal to the people on the question of compulsory military service. I need not question the motives which governed this decision. I have too much confidence in the Prime Minister and his advisers to doubt, even for a single moment, that this measure was not absolutely necessary to maintain unity' and solidarity in the government ranks and preserve the peace of the country, threatened by the unavowed ambitions of the group of agitators whom we all know. A plebiscite will thus be held in a few months. I am convinced that the people will welcome it as a truly democratic measure and answer it conscientiously and in the best interest of the nation.
For my part, I approve the principle of this appeal to the people because of the special circumstances which necessitate it, and I understand that the government will submit, after the conclusion of the present debate, a bill which will permit us to examine and determine the details of this plebiscite.
The main motion before the house asks the members for a vote of confidence in this government.
An adverse vote, on whatever ground, would be a condemnation of the policy generally followed by our leaders and an indication of want of confidence in the authority of the Prime Minister.
I congratulate the government on having maintained as the first principle of their war policy that the might of our country and the efficiency of its cooperation with the allied powers must be based on the unity and common action of all sections of her population, for the one purpose dear to all Canadians, namely, the ultimate victory of o-ur forces.
I note with pleasure the wonderful balance given to our war effort, which has been kept free from passions and injustices which were rampant during the last conflict and which it is sought in certain quarters to revive.
I say to the Prime Minister without hesitation that we admire the mastery with which he is guiding the ship of state through the difficulties of all kinds constantly being raised. I wish to assure him of our unswerving confidence and to say that as representative of the *constituency of Verdun, I will vote against both amendments and in favour of the main motion.


Mr. AZELLUS DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I will take just a few minutes of the time of the house to state the reasons why I shall vote for the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
The Address-Mr. Denis

Why should I betray the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), when I am convinced that he is the only man who is able, for the present, to administer the country according to the wishes, not only of the electors of the constituency of St. Denis, but of the whole population of Canada? Why should I lack confidence in him when he has protected us since the beginning of the war against disunion, against those who were thirsting for profit and power, against the financiers and the ultra-imperialists? Why should I deny him my support when he thinks the same as we do as regards conscription for overseas service? It would be silly and inconsistent to say: I have so much confidence in King that I am going to vote against him; he has administered the country so well since 1940 that I am going to vote to put somebody else in his place.
Mr. Speaker, it may be interesting to set oneself as the saviour of one's race, as the protector of one's province and constituency, and at the same time to have one's colleagues considered as "followers." But one must beware not to cut off one's nose to spite one's face.
If I vote against the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I will be voting with and for the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), and if a sufficient number of members from the province of Quebec do the same thing, the government may be defeated, and in all probability the leader of the opposition would be called upon to form a government. With the combined help of the Conservatives, the C.C.F., the Social Crediters, and the few Liberal members who do not see eye to eye with us on the subject of conscription for overseas service, that might well happen and immediately afterwards the house would pass a conscription bill with "blitzkrieg" speed. What a nice gift it would be for my electors of St. Denis and for the country were I to vote along with certain people I know.
Mr. Speaker, it is always wise to ponder the consequences of an act before making the decisive move. It is also advisable not to hurt ourselves when we want to help ourselves.
For the present we must show our confidence in the government by approving in bulk the measures announced in the speech from the throne. Then each one will be examined separately by the house, including the plebiscite. That will be the proper occasion to discuss them.

Therefore I will consider it a pleasure and a duty to support the government by voting for the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I shall vote against all the amendments moved to date, which if adopted would undoubtedly and unfortunately result in a Conservative government, or a national government, or a government directed by the 200 of Toronto, plus a conscription act for service overseas. If I am wrong, I pray God to enlighten me.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to read one of de la Fontaine's fables which is chock-full of good sense and seems to befit the occasion.
THE BEAR AND THE GARDEN-LOVER A certain Bear, whose dam had licked him ill,
Dwelt in a lonely forest on a hill.
A new Bellerphon, he shunned his kind,
Till the seclusion, telling on his mind,
Went near to drive him melancholy-mad. Though speech be good, and silence better still,	,	,
And sense consorts not long with solitude. The other animals tabooed;
His unattractive domicile;
And he, for all his bearishness,
Relished isolation less and less.
Meanwhile, in the same neighborhood, There lived a Greybeard, who was likewise bored.
He had a taste for gardening, and adored Both Flora and Pomona, whose employ, Though always pleasant, yields a fuller joy If shared with some congenial friend;
For gardens rarely talk-(except in Fable).
At length, dissatisfied to spend His life in circles purely vegetable.
On day he gave his silent loves the slip In search of livelier companionship.
The Bear, impelled by a like yearning,
Had left his cheerless eminence,
And by an odd coincidence They met each other at a turning.
Tlie Man took fright, but what was to be done?
Twas not the feaintest use to run;
And feeling that on such a case 'Twas 'well to put one's boldest face,
He managed to dissemble his alarm.
The Bear, whose manner failed in courtly charm,	t
Muttered a grumpy invitation.
'Nay,' said the other, won't Your Lordship grace
My humble cot, which you can see from here, And condescend to cheer Of milk and fruit? no doubt a strange collation
For one of your distinguished race,
But 'tis the best I have.' the Bear agreed. They were good friends before they reached the door;	_
And though 'tis better, by the wise man's creed,
To live alone with a bore,
Once there, they got on very well indeed. The Man could garden undisturbed all day, For Bruin had barely two words to say.
He went a-hunting to supply their need; But his great line was shooing flies away

The Address-Mr. Farquhar
From his friend's forehead as a-drowse he lay.	, .	,
Once while the Oldster snored in deep repose,
A bluebottle assailed his nose With such persistence that the Bear At last was driven to despair.
'I'll swat you, ma'am, for this,' he growled- 'here goes!'
Therewith he hurled a brickbat through the air,
Which squashed the fly-but broke the sleep- head.	_	,
His aim was better than his reasoning,
And the result of all his pains Was that his chum lay doornail dead.

An idiot's friend's a dangerous thing:
I'd sooner have a foe with brains.


Mr. THOMAS FARQUHAR (Algoma East):: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but after listening to some statements made by some hon. members and reading certain articles in the press which to my mind are misleading and far from the facts, I feel I should say a few words to present the situation as I see it.
It is true, as some hon. members have said, that we are indeed passing through a most serious time. There never was a time in the history of the world when we had so much at stake as we have to-day; never a time when it was more important that Canada should be united, never a time when it was so necessary that all democratic countries should be united in order that we may put forward our maximum war effort. I am sure that the people will never forget the dark days of Dunkirk, the fall of France, the narrow escape we had from losing our Canadian army. As Lord Halifax said, what a blessing it was that if France was going to fall, she fell as soon as she did! Had she held out a little longer, our Canadian army would have been so far inland that they would have had no possible chance of escape. What a disaster that would have been!
Then came the long year when Britain had to stand alone; not a country in Europe to look to for help, her own manufacturing industry in danger of being destroyed. Therefore she had to look to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, none of which were in a position to give her very much help. At the beginning of 1941, Britain had not an army worth calling an army, her air force wras no match for the German air force; she was losing the battle of the Atlantic; the enemy were sinking her ships much faster than they could be built. Notwithstanding all this, notwithstanding the tremendous setback we had in the far east and the great sacrifices we shall yet have to make before we get control of the far eastern situation-notwithstanding all this the past year has been a very successful year for Britain and her allies.
Britain won the battle of the air over Britain in the fall of 1940, and this gave her an opportunity to prepare for the expected invasion in the spring of 1941. Britain was all set for the attack, which would have meant tremendous sacrifices of life and property, but she was not called upon to go through that ordeal. Hitler went east to attack Russia, thinking, of course, it would be a short job and then, when he had nothing to fear from Russia, he would return and destroy Britain. But in doing so, as Mr. Churchill said, he made the greatest blunder of his life. The resistance of Greece, Yugoslavia, with the help of Britain, delayed Hitler's plans for six weeks, just long enough to bring winter upon the German armies before they could knock out the Russian army and get possession of the great Russian oilfields last autumn. Russia is putting up a great fight, winning a great victory. She has destroyed much of the German manpower and equipment. She has more trained reserves than Germany, and if she can get the tanks, heavy guns and aeroplanes, she will drive every German out of Russia and defeat Germany on her own soil. The great question is how soon and in what quantities can we get the tanks, heavy guns and aeroplanes across to her. This is the important question to-day.
To hear some hon. members speaking in this house, and to read some of the articles appearing in the press, one would think that there was only one really loyal class in Canada, only one class really interested in the winning of the war, and that this class consisted of the Conservative members of this house and their friends. I should like to tell hon. gentlemen to my left that many Liberals have boys in this war, too. I believe we think just as much of our boys as they do of theirs. I think we are just as much interested in our neighbours' boys as they are. I think we are just as loyal to the principles for which we are fighting as they are, and certainly we have just as much at stake. I like to feel that all men are sincere. I should like to feel that all members of this house are sincere. I should like to feel that the entire press of Canada is sincere. I should like to feel that the Premier of Ontario is sincere; for when we feel that men are sincere we can respect them for their sincerity even though we may disagree with them. But when men have the facts and withhold those facts; when they make statements which they know are not according to the facts, then I must question their sincerity.
The Address-Mr. Farquhar

What are the facts? First, let me say that as far as the Premier of Ontario is concerned, we all know his problem. It is a long-drawn out desire for revenge, without just cause, upon the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King), a man who is big enough just to ignore him. By his continued insults, the Premier of Ontario has so belittled himself that he has lost the confidence not only of many of his close friends but of the Liberals of the province of Ontario, and he has lost the respect and confidence of all good thinking men and women throughout the Dominion of Canadd. I am sure that all members of this house, I care not to what party they belong, if they are sincere, fair and reasonable will agree that the all important question to-day is not more men for overseas, however important that may be. The important question to-day is more equipment for the men whom we have overseas at the present time. So far in this war there has not been a battle lost because of shortage of men. Every battle that has been lost so far in this war has been lost because of a shortage of equipment, a shortage of heavy guns, heavy tanks and aeroplanes. Every member of this house knows this statement to be true.
Russia said recently that she had an unlimited number of men, but that her great problem was to equip them with heavy tanks, heavy guns and aeroplanes. China has made the statement that she, too, has an unlimited number of men whom she cannot equip, and that her army in the field is not even yet equipped. Her cry is for more tanks, more heavy guns and more aeroplanes. India now has a million men in her army. She recently stated that she could put eight million men into the fight if only she could get equipment for them. The United States has 130,000,000 people and could put millions of men into her army, but she cannot get equipment for them quickly enough. Canada has over a hundred thousand men in her air force. Our great problem is to get bombing and fighting planes fast enough for them to fight with. Britain's army is not yet fully equipped, because Britain has been doing what Canada has been doing, sending all the equipment she could to Russia, China, Libya and every battle front *where it could be used. I have here a clipping from a Port Arthur newspaper, written by Judge McKay under date of February 2, 1942, right along the line of what I have been saying. It reads:
Japan has a large navy and merchant marine and a very large number of aircraft carriers, bombers and aircraft and will probably attack

British Columbia instead of Australia rvith a view of destroying industries and plants on the Pacific coast both in the United States and Canada.
During 1942, and until the United States can get into maximum production, practically every man should be retained in Canada to defend the Pacific coast and produce as many ships, aircraft, tanks and other mechanized war equipment as possible.
There are apparently over 1,500,000 Polish officers and trained soldiers who were prisoners of war in Russia who are now free and desperately anxious to carry the war into the very heart of Germany as soon as Canada and the United States can furnish them with the necessary clothing, bombers, tanks and necessary equipment. These officers and soldiers have already had experience in this war.
There are millions of men in China and India and elsewhere who are crying out for more mechanized military equipment.
For the sake of all that is precious and priceless the agitation for conscription should be dropped, and as far as possible the capacity to produce agricultural products and mechanized war equipment should be doubled.
In the face of these facts will any reasonable man tell me that the all-important question is the conscription of men, to send all we can overseas, when we cannot equip the men whom we already have over there? Our Canadian soldiers are brave, but is that a reason for sending them to the battle front to face the enemy without the proper equipment? Is it fair to ask the Russians, the Chinese or those brave soldiers from India to go into battle without all the necessary war equipment? These countries are calling to Canada, not for men but for tanks, heavy guns, aeroplanes, ships and all kinds of war equipment. We have the manufacturing industry; we have the raw materials; we have the farm lands to grow the foodstuffs. Before this war is ended, there is a distinct possibility that the industries of Britain may be destroyed.	Britain may have to look to
Canada even more than she looks to-day to supply her with war equipment. There is no question but that there will be a greatly increased demand for foodstuffs, and we shall make a serious mistake if we rob our farmers of experienced farm help. Too many men have been taken from some sections already, and production cannot be kept up if this continues. Our big job, then, at the present time is to equip and feed the millions of trained men who are ready and willing to fight, if they can get the equipment to fight with.
Do not misunderstand me; I am not opposed to conscription if it is necessary. When the time comes when we can equip the men we now have at the battle front, and the voluntary recruiting system to supply a sufficient number of men for reinforcements has

The Address-Mr. Farquhar
failed, I shall be in favour of conscription. And when that day does come, I trust that the conscription of wealth will come also. But I do not think anyone can say that voluntary recruiting has failed, when there are over
400,000	men enlisted for overseas service, and when during the last seven months there was an average of 20,000 a month, including enlistments in all branches of the army. So far as conscription is concerned, the government could do no more than they are now doing, because every training camp in Canada is filled to capacity, and will be for months to come.
So much has been said in the house with regard to the plebiscite that I wish to add only a word. Every hon. member knows both parties gave, their promise that conscription would not be brought in for overseas service during this war. That promise was made not before, but some time after war was declared. Whether or not we individually made the promise, the fact that we supported our leaders who did make the promise commits us just as much as though we made the promise ourselves. Had the government gone ahead and brought in conscription for overseas service, without asking to be released from their promise, there would have been nothing left for me to do but to resign my seat. To my mind that is the only course any hon. member could take. How an hon. member could take any other view, I cannot understand.
Some men who know better are trying to make us believe that the government is attempting to evade responsibility by the taking of the plebiscite. That, of course, is not true. The government is asking to be released from the promise made, in order that it may be able to take on the additional responsibility of bringing in conscription, should it become necessary to do so.
There is one thing more I wish to say before resuming my seat. When this war is W'on, as it will be, and when great sacrifices have been made, do not let us forget what we are fighting for. During the last war some of us who could not go over encouraged the boys by telling them that they were fighting a war to end war; that they would return to a better world, a world in which there would be more equalities of opportunity, a world where men would not have to spend their days living in fear of unemployment; that men with families would not have to live in fear of losing their jobs; that they would not have to live in fear of sickness, or of impoverished old age. Such worry and fear have brought many men and women to early graves.
Yes, during the last war we saw the vision of a better world, and we held that vision up before the boys as they left Canada, and left behind them all they held dear in life. We won the war, but we lost the vision. We settled back in our old ways of living. We passed through a depression, the like of which I trust the people of Canada will never be called upon again to experience.
Of late I have been reading a good deal about Russia; and while I am not a communist and believe in the democratic form of government, still I am convinced we could learn many lessons from the Russian people. I believe the inequality of our system is wrong, and must be changed. The day of special privileges for certain classes in Canada must come to an end. Again we see many of our leaders holding up before us a vision of a better world to live in after this war is over. May we this time make the vision a reality; for land and possessions won, enemies subdued, will count for nothing to the rising generation unless there is a more lasting effect upon the lives and characters of the nation's individuals.


Mr. MAURICE BOURGET (Levis) (Translation) :: Since the opening of the present session, Mr. Speaker, we have heard, in this house, hon. members from all parties, representing the various parts of Canada, express their views on the momentous problems which we have to solve at the present time. I would like now to give you a sincere statement of my opinion on the matter. I will endeavour to do it in a frank and honest manner without stirring up sentiment or prejudice.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I had a disagreeable surprise on reading in the speech from the throne that the government intended to ask our population, by means of a plebiscite, to be released from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service. I sincerely thought that this question asked of our population during the electoral campaign of 1940, had been answered for the duration of the present parliament and that, consequently, there was no earthly use in putting it again. It is hard to believe that the government will disregard the mandate entrusted to them and that a great majority of the hon. members have already forgotten their solemn pledge to the electors. I cannot believe it, for the answer was too clear-cut, too unanimous, too eloquent. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I have not forgotten those pledges and that I feel just as honestly bound by them as I did on the evening of March 26, 1940.
The Address-Mr. Bourget

I feel that, in a democracy, where the electors of each constituency give to a person the right to represent them and speak on their behalf, they are entitled at least to the sincerity of their representative as their sole guarantee against deception. For anyone to entertain the contrary opinion would be to deny the elementary principles of democracy. Mr. Speaker, I have faith in democracy and its principles and because of this faith, I would be the last to attempt to destroy it.
I wonder whether the members of the official opposition in this house asking with such eagerness that the government break their pledge are really sincere when they parade their readiness to every sacrifice in order to safeguard democracy. One is entitled to doubt their statement when recalling the actions of their party in past circumstances of a similar nature and when considering the kind of supporters their campaigns draw from outside.
I am not a prophesier of evil, but let me say that they might be the first to lament over the results of their present campaign.
The candidates of their party, following in the footsteps of their leaders, took, before the electors of the whole country, the solemn pledge if they were set in power of never enacting conscription for overseas service. Queer pledge indeed, Mr. Speaker, for during the very first session of this parliament we have witnessed in this house an extremely energetic campaign against the government for the purpose of compelling them to set aside their pledge and enact conscription for overseas service.
They did not ask if our country was well prepared to defend itself; they did not ask how many men were needed for the defence of our coasts and the protection of our civilian population in the hinterland. They did not ask how many men our farmers, our war industries and our shipyards would need for maximum production.
No, for certain people, our first duty was not to defend our own country, but to be at the side of Great Britain.
That is not the way I understand my duty as a Canadian citizen, because I consider that each country's foremost responsibility is, first of all, to assure it own security. Unable to persuade the majority in this house, duly elected by the people, to change their views on the subject, our opponents do not accept defeat so easily; they go outside to the press and the high priests of finance for support. A campaign soon follows, in a certain section of the
	.
country particularly; these people try cunningly and dishonestly to impose their views, under the cloak of patriotism. All means are fair for them; racial prejudice, religious differences, they stop at nothing, as long as they reach their goal; they do not even stop to think that they are in great danger of defeating their own purpose.
You will admit that it is not by seeking the destruction of the present national unity that our war effort will be increased. The citizens of all parts of the country are heartily desirous of contributing to the full measure of their capacity towards the victory of our allies. I would deem it a crime to seek to destroy this noble enthusiasm by undermining national unity for petty purposes.
It has been stated repeatedly by many persons in this house and outside, even last year, that the military act of 1917, enacted by the government of the day, had in fact disrupted national unity. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, is it logical to believe that what was true in 1941 is no longer true in 1942?
For my part, I sincerely believe that the adoption of conscription for overseas service would certainly destroy what all true Canadians have striven to build up since confederation. Are those who now strive to disrupt that national unity and use every means to bring about the enactment of conscription so blind as not to see that this government 'has put forth a maximum effort to help our allies? Let us look around us, let us travel in the various provinces, and we will witness with admiration the exuberant activity that prevails in all our industries producing war material to help our allies.
Is not the speech delivered in this house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), at the beginning of this session, an accurate summary of the wonderful effort we are putting forth?
Early in January I happened to read in one of the great newspapers of the American metropolis about Canada's share in the present war, and, I frankly admit that, as a Canadian, I was not ashamed of the story told to our neighbours.
Why then, Mr. Speaker, should we abandon the policy we have followed up to the present? Is it not the best one? Have the results not clearly shown that it is? The statements made by some people show a total lack of sense of proportion. How can it reasonably be claimed that with a population of eleven million it is possible to: (1) Supply industry with all the labour it actually needs and may need in greater proportion later on. In the province of Quebec alone there is at present

The Address-Mr. Whitman
a shortage of more than 30,000 bushmen; and everybody knows that our boat-building industry is seeking thousands of experienced workers. (2) To leave to agriculture all the hands essential to its survival.
Already complaints are being heard in the rural centres about the shortage of labour, and many agricultural associations and county councils have sent resolutions to their federal members and to the government asking that farmers' sons be exempted from military service. (3) Supply the country with all the soldiers necessary for its own defence and at the same time send hundreds of thousands of men overseas.
I dare hope, Mr. Speaker, that such a thing shall never occur and that most members of this house agree with me on that point. I respect the opinions of other people. In the present circumstances, everyone should assume his own responsibilities. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I do not fear to assume mine, and I sincerely regret that the government does not continue the policy they have followed since the last election.
The campaign conducted by our opponents here and outside matters little. Personally, I am convinced that the majority of right-minded citizens approve our conduct. Everything was not perfect, I admit, but no one, I think, can logically expect a human organization to be perfect.
That is why I cannot support the policy of the government on the plebiscite. I consider moreover that such a policy is fraught with danger, especially under the present circumstances, when it is so easy to appeal to prejudice and revive old political rancour. In some places, attempts will be made to convince the people that they should vote "yes" under the pretext that the sacrifice will not be equal, and elsewhere a similar vote will be given for the sole purpose of embarrassing the government.
Moreover, should the Tories succeed, in bringing the people to accept conscription, will any one believe, Mr. Speaker, that they would not press their campaign for a union government. I find at page 151 of the debates of this session, a statement showing that our opponents are already preparing a campaign along those lines. Let me quote the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce):
If the Prime Minister is committed on conscription he is equally committed against a national government; consequently, if he is
bound to proceed with a plebiscite, he should also ask to be relieved from a commitment against a national government.
May we not believe, under the circumstances, that we are treading on dangerous ground in proposing such a measure? Are we not going to play into the hands of our opponents?
I am inclined to believe it, for if we give way on one point of our programme, we may later have to give way on another.
So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have told my electors that I would fulfill the promises I made at the last election and under the circumstances I do not see why I should alter my course.
The very essence of liberalism compels the Liberal party to let its members be free to express their views, even within the party, and notwithstanding my respect and admiration for my leaders, I regret very much to have to disagree with them about the plebiscite. Consequently, I shall vote against both amend1-ments as well as against the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Mr. F. P. WHITMAN (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the debate I should like to express my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was greatly impressed by both the subject matter and the splendid delivery of both addresses.
This debate has seemed to me to be both interesting and educational. As a new member, and one not yet well educated in political strategy or intrigue, I have been impressed by the arguments advanced by the opposition to the government.
In the general election of 1940 I found myself elected as a supporter of this government. My political opponent, the late Mr. W. Allan Walsh, was one of Montreal's most public-spiritedi men and one of her finest gentlemen. In many ways it was unfortunate that he had to be defeated.
As a follower of this government I expect still to be able to arrive at decisions dictated by my own conscience. Not being a politician or a strong party man, I felt that I could vote conscientiously and honestly. This has been my aim in the past and shall continue to be my aim in the future.
The debate so far has brought out two important points: one, the government is making a real war effort according to plan; two, even greater efforts must be made in the future.
The effort so far made by Canada has been well made. That is nothing to be smugly satisfied with; but, like all sincere efforts, it is gaining in momentum as it goes along. J
The Address-Mr. Whitman

was particularly impressed by the report of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) when, last November, he delivered his report to this parliament. He described the result then as the result of the planning of the year before, and promised that, as time went on, a further development would take place and industrial evolution would unfold which would astonish us. I remember well when tanks were not even on order by this department, and now we find this complicated piece of war machinery coming along at several per day. The manufacture of guns, aeroplanes, vehicles of war, et cetera, that we have never tried to manufacture before, has astonished the world, and has proved to us that this government has made and is making a very material contribution according to plan and with the cooperation of both labour and capital, towards winning this war.
Agriculture, lumbering, transportation, mining and fishing are other phases of industry which deserve special mention. Our mines are producing minerals and coal which will eventually bring us victoiy. Our agriculture will in the future be taxed to the utmost but will produce whatever is necessary to feed civilization. Transportation in Canada is doing a splendid job; and right here I should like to pay tribute to those shop workers of our railways who are keeping the equipment in shhpe. When new equipment is not available, the old is kept in service, and developments take place of which the public never hears. But the wheels roll, freight and humans are transported, and, except for some faultfinding when trains are late we pay little attention to details and difficulties. We expect efficiency, and I think we are getting it pretty well all along the line. Each department seems a cog in the wheel of a successful war effort. If one of those cogs should break down, we would, in a short time, >be aware of a serious situation in all departments. If our fishermen caught no fish, or if our lumbering industry were stopped, our entire effort would be slowed down or would become out of step. We have confidence in these phases of our national life, and feel certain they will not fail us. Sometimes little irritations arise that cause inconvenience-a strike here, or a lock-out there-but on the whole the wheels roll on without let-up, and will continue to do so until victory is ours. As long as the cogs of Canadian effort fit, we shall have a wheel that turns efficiently. And this whole Canadian effort, Mr. Speaker, is just another cog in a larger wheel-the wheel of the twenty-six nations now signed to a pact to save Christian civilization as we know it.

If we as Canadians fall down in our effort, the whole cause suffers and is slowed up. We must not fail in our duty.
This brings me to the most contentious point yet discussed in this parliament-the plebiscite. I am not going to justify the causes leading to the undertaking of this plebiscite or the promises made that are being discussed. In fact, I will not attempt at this time to discuss the taking of the plebiscite, but I want to make this definite statement. If this plebiscite carries-and I know it will-I shall expect this government this session to adopt whatever powers are necessary so that our war effort will be the most effective possible. Conscription? Yes, if our war effort demands it, then let us pass it. Conscription is not a Liberal or a Conservative issue; it is bigger than any party or any section of our country. I should like to see our man-power and our woman-power detailed to a position of trust for the duration of the war and know they would be compelled to remain there till victory is won. Our farmers should have detailed to them the help needed to farm efficiently. Our industries should also have the man-power or woman-power required. Conscription-or should I call it compulsory national service?-should be a measure to ensure that our war effort is as effective as it can be with due regard to the desires and demands of the other twenty-five signatory nations of the Washington pact.
Is any political party qualified to tell this government when conscription is necessary? Is there a newspaper in this whole country that can intelligently state that to-day is the day to bring in such a measure, or am I, a member of this house, in a position to demand or insist that the government enact such a law to-day? Surely it would be sheer effrontery for any of us, with the limited knowledge we have at our disposal, even to suggest what is the most desirable course at this time. Even our experts, with all the knowledge they have at their disposal, are puzzled as to what might be the correct course. I believe, however, if we trust those experts and have faith in ourselves and our institutions and work to assist to the maximum the effort being made by Canada, that effort will be one which historians will record as worthy of this generation. Never will it be said that we failed in a time of stress to be effective and loyal both to our traditions and to those other twenty-five nations that are now our allies in this fight for survival.
Much is being said to-day about conscription for overseas service. This really is only one phase of our war effort, and it is my considered opinion that when men are required

The Address-Mr. Whitman
for overseas service they will be obtained. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is not going to take no for an answer when the need is there. Up to the present we have recruited men for our army voluntarily. We have also raised money voluntarily. We have built tanks, guns, aeroplanes voluntarily. We have raised farm products voluntarily. But if any of these or any other phases of our war effort fail, conscription will be enforced so quickly that even the opposition will be surprised; and as Mr. Menzies told us last year when he addressed the Canadian club here, let us at times say to the government, "Well done; we did not know you had it in you."
I have yet to hear one word of praise from the opposition as to any of our accomplishments. This is unfortunate since the people of Canada are aware of some of our successes and are certain to discount largely the statements of those who depreciate or belittle the results so far obtained. If Sir Robert Borden, Sir Sam Hughes, Sir Joseph Flavelle or the other leaders of the last war effort could see what we have done in this war, I think they would be astounded at the expansion of industry and our success in raising an army. And if we could see what the future holds, if we could visualize how many casualties we might have in the next year, how easy it would be to plan our efforts. But this we do not know; therefore our-effort must be elastic. Our leaders and our government must take whatever steps are considered necessaiy as time elapses to coordinate our effort with our twenty-five allies, so that the entire allied effort will be efficient and successful. For this reason no promises should be made as to what will be done in the future, and promises made in the past must not tie the hands of our government to do Canada's share in the future.
When this plebiscite is taken, as my hon. friend the member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) has said, we must all vote "Ja" overwhelmingly; and after the vote is taken, we must not stop there. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) told us, in his excellent address, the government will be free to act and will act in the best interests of the country. Our duty will be to see that such statements are carried into effect, not by threats but by cooperation and by just such debates as are taking place here to-day. In the meantime, trust and confidence in our government is the order. Have confidence in our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who has been Prime Minister so well and so long. Even my hon. friend the member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) went to some length to tell us, on May 28, 1940, what a good peace-time Prime
Minister he was. I should like to quote what the hon. member for Parkdale says, as reported in Hansard at page 305, May 28, 1940:
I have been a friend of the Prime Minister of Canada for many years and have admired his many excellent qualities. He was prepared, as few in this country have ever been, by long years of education and training in statecraft for public life. He is a man of high character, a man of peace.
Let us also have confidence in our Minister of National Defence, who in my estimation is giving all that he has to fill his position. The evolution of our munitions and supply make it easier to have confidence in our minister of that department. The Minister of Finance must also command our confidence and our cooperation. If any one in Canada talks about boycotting the war loan of 1942 because of some fancied wrong or of a political injustice, then I say that person is doing an immoral act and should be punished. 'This loan must be oversubscribed, and the Minister of Finance must use any means he deems necessary to ensure its success.
I should also like to say a word on the conscription of wealth and industry. To a limited extent we are having conscription of our wealth to-day. Wages and salaries are paying a defence tax; small, I admit, but still a tax.
I was impressed by the suggestion put forward by my hon. friend the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) when he suggested a compulsory saving plan. That is, if this national defence tax is not producing sufficient revenue, then let us take a larger percentage of the wages. But let a portion of this collection be returned within five or seven years after the war is finished. Possibly a graduated scale of such saving could be adopted, and we could see the smaller incomes taxed a little less and the larger ones a little more. As I remember one speech made in this house, our Minister of Finance was told that his first war loan was a flop even though the amount of money required was received by extending the time of contribution. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that if he considers it necessary, he should do whatever his judgment tells him should be done to conscript accumulated capital or bank balances or money not being used. If our war effort demands it, I know he will not hesitate.
Now as to industry. I was in a plant a short time ago and talked with the superintendent. In the course of our conversation he told me he had been called to the main office that day and instructed to prepare for the production of a complicated piece of war machinery. He replied that he could not
The Address-Mr. Whitman

produce it conveniently owing to labour involved, space required, et cetera. His directors told him to overcome all obstacles, for if he did not, the government would take over the plant and operate it themselves. This, I think, is all that is necessary at present. Rather than conscription we have cooperation detailed by the government. If a greater degree of cooperation becomes necessary, then I feel certain we shall have it.
I remember a few years ago about a contract for Bren guns. I remember the unrest, suspicion and lack of trust in our public men than were created by statements of a politician and of certain papers. An investigation was held, and I remember the result. Hitler must have smiled to see the slowing up of the production of Bren guns due to that investigation. I met Major-General Lafleche at the station at Montreal West last year and congratulated him upon the splendid results that this contract had produced. I told him he must feel satisfied and almost exultant at this success. His reply was that he knew what the result must be eventually and that the people of Canada would appreciate the situation. Why should we tolerate such tactics? I do not suggest control of the press, but I do believe control should be exercised if a paper stirs up unrest, suspicion and lack of confidence merely for political gain. I think the government could very well appoint a controller to insist that the freedom of the press is guaranteed to papers which print only facts and not propaganda that undermines our war effort.
I am not one of those who expect a depression after the war. I do not believe Canadians will ever tolerate a depression such as we had from 1929 to 1938. If we had kept our young men gainfully employed during those years, they would not have become demoralized. Imagine men twenty-five to thirty-five years of age being gainfully employed for the first time in their lives!
Our economy has been wrong. Possibly out of these new price controls now in force in Canada we may be able to work out a basic price so that farmers, lumbermen, fishermen and other primary producers will be able to enjoy a standard of living which will make their callings attractive. This must be done if democracy is to survive. Depressions such as we have known must not again be tolerated. We expect and must receive from our elected representatives great solutions to great problems. Our present-day war effort shows that nothing is impossible if the will to accomplish is there. We must have faith and1 confidence in ourselves and produce results in peace time similar to those we are producing now.
[Mr. Whitman.1
One other matter I should like to touch on is that of national government. The term "national" seems to be used incorrectly. All elected governments here in Ottawa are national governments. What I expect my Conservative friends wish to have is a union government. To this I cannot subscribe. The government of Britain since the last war has been mainly a union government, and its accomplishments are well known. Surely no one can point with pride to all the results of the union activities of the British government since 1923. Even the talents of the present Prime Minister of Great Britain were not used, in fact they seemed to be discovered only when an emergency appeared. The government of Britain is still union, but I believe democracy such as we enjoy in Canada can be stronger and more efficient if we have a loyal, intelligent and effective opposition. Because this is my belief, I believe we should not now consider union government. If all parties and representatives who have been elected to this house will cooperate, our system will continue to give satisfaction.
In closing, I wish to state my position clearly. I will vote for and exert my greatest.effort to have this plebiscite give the government the authority it requires. This, however, will be only one step towards the ultimate goal. I want to see action taken this session, or as soon as possible after the authority asked for has been obtained, and if it is necessary to act before the results of the plebiscite are known, then I want this government to act first and obtain permission afterwards.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Lotbiniere) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Friday, February 13, 1942