1942-01-30

CONSIDERATION OP SPECIAL ORDER SUSPENDED TO PROCEED WITH QUESTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR PAPERS ON MONDAY NEXT

["There can be, I think, absolutely no division of opinion on the assertion that we have at this time passed into one of the gravest periods in the world's history, a period wherein British institutions, British ideals of justice and liberty, in fact, the whole British way of life are all threatened by a combination of evils which aim to subjugate and eventually to exterminate our empire and everything for which it stands. At this particular time we are satisfied, I am sure, that it is more essential than ever that we in Canada should take stock with a view to ascertaining whether or not we are doing everything which it is necessary to do in order to meet the impending danger. I believe, further, that in every quarter of this country people are realizing more and more that every aspect of our Canadian life must be more highly coordinated and organized if ours is to be the most effective war effort.\nIn my humble judgment, the energies of the members of this house, the members who are the responsible representatives of the Canadian people, should be directed toward one main objective, namely, that this government and those responsible for the direction of this effort should use every measure necessary in keeping with the needs of the hour. We must take it upon ourselves to make it abundantly certain that partisanship, the desire for party advancement, must, for the moment at least, go by the board.\nI am one who personally believes that actions deliberately designed to create complications tend only to frustrate and impede and have no place in the present and the immediate scheme of things. The major portion of this debate has centred round the avowed intention of the government to take a plebiscite in order that the government may be relieved from any commitments which it made in the past regarding the method of raising men for military service. A vote at this time is not a vote for or against conscription. but it has precipitated a heated debate on the question of conscription.\nIt is, in my opinion, extremely regrettable that this government ever allowed itself to be manoeuvred into a position where a course of action such as that which is contemplated need ever have been considered. It is a most\nThe Address-Mr. Shaw", 'unenviable position in which it finds itself, and I believe it is going to be a most difficult position out of which to extricate itself.\nI am taken back to that hectic March of 1940 when what courage, vision, or foresight the government may have had at that time was sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Verily, in my opinion, it would appear that for them at least the day of judgment has at last arrived. It is also extremely regrettable that our vociferous friends of the Conservative party, inspired, I believe, by the scent of political blood, are endeavouring to move heaven and earth with their incantations, forgetting all the while that they, too, made ample use of that altar in 1940, though without very much success.\nThat this plebiscite is to be taken is, in my estimation, a certainty. I presume we may just as well reconcile ourselves to that fact. Since, however, it is to appear in this house as a formal issue to be debated as such, I shall refrain from making further reference to it at this time. With war convulsing the greater part of the world, with our own shores in imminent danger, as has already been indicated by many members, with that grim spectre of Hong Kong staring us in the face, it is probably timely that some of us say to the government, "Let us really get down to business and battle and thus set an example to all of our Canadian people." We are asking our Canadian people to gird themselves for war; but if we expect results which will be most highly satisfactory, it is essential that we set an example for them to follow.\nI do not propose to comment upon the extent of our war preparations. I encounter a good deal of difficulty in arriving at some basis upon which I am able to criticize. We hear the reports of the various ministers. We are obliged to take their word for what they say. We have no way of knowing whether those^ reports are exaggerated or not. Therefore it becomes extremely difficult for us to speak in definite terms with regard to the extent to which we should expand in the production of machines of war.\nThere are, however, many matters about which we are familiar. In the first place, if I were to level any charge at all at the government, it would have to be this:\tI believe\nthat we lack a definitely coordinated plan.\nI say that for this reason: We see, at this late stage, the spectacle of agriculture still in an unfortunate position; we witness the spectacle of thousands yet unemployed; we see certain cross-sections of our Canadian people still not having been given the consideration which is overdue. I have in mind,\n\nfor example, the old age pensioners of whom I spoke here a few months ago. We have those unskilled workers, who, because of the fact that they are unskilled, seem to be unable to find a corner or a niche into which they might be fitted in the war effort. We witness men being taken out of essential\' industries and put in uniform, thus impairing the efficiency of those industries and retarding our production. I believe that it will soon be necessary for the government to set up a board or a commission, or whatever they wish to call it, for the purpose of establishing a definite, clear-cut plan for the prosecution of the war.\nLet me speak of one group of Canadian citizens who are rendering most valuable service at this time even though they are unheralded; a group who have been given thus far practically no consideration by the government. That group, the teaching profession must have their views aired here. I feel competent to deal with this matter inasmuch as I have spent more than one-third of my life in that profession, and I realize from first-hand experience the difficulties they are encountering. I might be asked, "Why do you bring it up here?" Recently the government of Canada passed drastic regulations restricting certain wage increases, and granting cost of living bonuses to those in certain professions. This legislation or order in council, obviously designed to prevent inflation-which incidentally was supposed to arise only under proposals which we advocated -was intended to prevent inflation and also to ensure that all essential Canadian workers should be enabled to maintain life at a level compatible with physical and moral efficiency. The government, however, failed to take into consideration the teachers of Canada. I know the government may have regarded this as a provincial matter or a municipal responsibility. We know the government believed that the suggestions set forth in the order in council would be recognized by employing bodies. Nevertheless many of these municipalities, many of these smaller areas, failed to appreciate the valuable services performed by the teachers and the extremely necessary nature of their work. There are in Canada over\n30.000\tteachers in rural districts who, during the year 1940, received less than $1,000 a year for their services. There were 19,000 such teachers in the dominion who received less than $625 a year, and there were approximately\n13.000\twho received less than $525 a year. Outside Canada, in other parts of the British empire, we find that inexperienced women teachers enjoy an average income of from $700 to $800 a year with guaranteed increments for experience and satisfactory service.\n\nThe Address-Mr. Shaw\nI also have in mind that in Great Britain, when regulations were adopted granting bonuses, there was absolutely no question about the teachers being included; they were included. Unfortunately, there are all too few people in this country who appreciate the nature and the value of the work carried on by the teaching profession. Unfortunately, that profession, like many others, has been relegated to a minor position. It is high time that we gave proper appreciation to the value of education, if for no other reason than in order that the rising generation may be a little more competent to deal with the problems which confront them than we have been to deal with those which face us. I have seen during recent months hundreds of our most competent and efficient teachers move from their schools to factory centres because the rates of pay offered there are far more satisfactory than those they were getting. Ail this is to the detriment of the children.\nFrom coast to coast, we have witnessed the spectacle of schools closing on account of the inability to secure teachers. In recent weeks we witnessed the spectacle of many inexperienced youngsters, if I may so describe them, without sufficient training being taken out to teach school in many rural communities. We cannot afford to allow our standard of education to become a third-rate standard. We cannot afford to see our teachers submitting themselves to economic degradation. We cannot afford to allow a semi-illiterate generation to come forward, charged with the responsibility of solving the problem which we shall pass on as a legacy to them. The terms of the order in council should be broadened to enable the teachers of Canada to demand and to secure cost of living bonuses which are necessary, if they are to continue to perform the type of service we require.\nFor a moment I should like to refer to the matter of salvage. I am quite satisfied that if Canadians are given a clear-cut understanding of the need for salvage, there will be no reluctance on their part to do everything within their power to provide the materials which are available and are required. The more recent aspect of our salvage campaign has had to do with the salvaging of paper. If there is a shortage of paper, as has been indicated, and if it is the desire of the Department of National War Services that paper should be salvaged, the first thing that department must do is to indicate to our people that it is prepared to set an example.\nI have before me a notice which I presume appeared recently in all Canadian newspapers. It bears the heading "Bullets for Britain", and then, in large type, it states:\nWaste paper is a valuable war material- don\'t throw it away or burn a scrap of it. Canada needs it -needs it badly\n\nneeds it now!\nAnd so on. It has come to my attention in my own home town, through the chairman of a committee set up to salvage paper, that recently various papers and publications have come into his hands. After examining them, he has come to the conclusion that he cannot be inspired to go forward with any great measure of enthusiasm, because he can see no evidence on the part of the government that it is anxious to conserve supplies we already have.\nFor example, I hold in my hand a copy of a publication sent out to newspaper editors in Canada. It is headed "Press censorship", and comprises twenty-four pages, sixteen of which are absolutely blank. When this information becomes known to the people in any community, they are not going to be enthusiastic about proceeding with this or any other type of campaign. Sometimes I wonder why the salvage organizer, as I believe he is described, for Alberta and British Columbia has not been able to get more than four or five people to attend meetings held in centres of 1,100 or 1,200 population. I believe the condition I have set out affords a definite reason why he does not secure better results. The government must indicate that it is going to practise conservation.\nOne further observation in that regard. Our people have not been directed as they should have been in connection with the disposal of salvage. Probably I should say that they are not satisfied that the salvaged materials are going to the sources at which they are required, without certain persons or groups of persons profiting unduly as a consequence of the operation. I am not making any accusation, but I do state that the position should be made clear to those who are called upon to salvage materials.\nNot so many years ago there was set up in Canada an organization known as the air cadet league of Canada, and I should like to make one or two statements about it. I do so because in my constituency we have one of the largest air cadet squadrons to be found outside the larger cities in Canada. Squadron No. 7 at Penhold is composed of about 186 cadets. I approve the idea of an air cadet league, and it is my belief that great good will come from it. As the months roll by, we shall be in a better position to appreciate\nThe Address-Mr. Shaw', u"the vision of those who took the first steps toward establishing an air cadet league in Canada.\nLet me place on record this paragraph from a little booklet in which the regulations are set out:\nThe desirability of providing organized elementary training in aviation for Canadian boys and young men was apparent to many people long before the war. It has taken the present conflict in all its seriousness, however, to focus attention, both public and private, not only on the desirability but the necessity of creating such an opportunity for the youth of our country. From youth itself has come an overwhelming and irresistible appeal for this training.\nAt one point the regulations state:\nThe air defence cadet corps of the United Kingdom organized in 1938 by the air league of the British empire-\n-was a tried and proven plan to use as a guide. It continues:\nThe achievements of this corps, and its ever-increasing contribution to the war effort in the mother country are an inspiration and a record to which the air cadet league of Canada pays a sincere and grateful tribute.\nIn making this reference, I am not being critical at all. I offer suggestions because I believe in the idea of an air cadet league. I have witnessed the operation of the air cadet league corps in my constituency, and I believe the idea is first class. But this is what we are up against: Under the present system of organization we find that, with the exception of meagre assistance, the squadron is left pretty well to its own resources, as far as financing its operations are concerned.\nIt is true-and we are grateful-that old aeroplane parts, certain other used equipment such as rifles, and a per capita grant of one dollar a year are provided. But to provide a uniform requires about $20 per cadet, and our 186 cadets could not be provided with uniforms for less than about $3,700. I know we are supposed to appeal to our people for money to meet this cost, but by reason of other calls being made upon their resources at this time we find that many of our youth, after a number of months in the corps, are still without the required uniforms. Since the Department of National Defence for Air is more or less the godfather of this organization, I would recommend that the Royal Canadian Air Force take over immediately the general supervision of the air cadet league of Canada. They should supervise all organization work, the provision of uniforms and officer personnel. I am sure that in a few years, or in possibly a few months, we shall realize to what extent the Royal Canadian Air Force depends upon the air cadets as a source of air crew.\n\nIt is a recognized fact that many of these young men are leaving the air cadet league to join the active service. There have been eight from the Penhold squadron. It is also a well known fact that an air cadet is able to complete the Royal Canadian Air Force course in approximately two-thirds the time required by a young man without similar preliminary training. I urge that consideration be given to the recommendation I have made.\nI do not propose to thke up much more of the time of the house, but I should like to point out-I referred to this a moment ago- that I believe the unskilled labour which is still' drifting from place to place should be given training immediately. Many men. have come to me and reported that they have tried to enrol in the war emergency programme section of the youth training scheme, but that for apparently no reason they have been rejected. Daily we hear of the need for manpower, and yet in many instances these young men, when making application for training, do not receive even* courteous consideration. A number of young fellows of about eighteen years of age came to me and stated that they were anxious to receive some type of training, but had been advised they would not be eligible unless they could produce proof showing that they had been rejected for or discharged - from military service. We cannot permit a condition of that sort to continue. Our unskilled labour should be given an opportunity to became skilled. We shall require them if production in this country is to be in keeping with the needs of the armed forces.\nThese are dark days. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are being threatened by the most evil type of forces who would restore the dark ages if they are successful. It is essential that we should: forget all those things which have hitherto divided us, that we give sane and sound consideration to our country's needs, and that the one and only concern at this time should be the needs of our country and the needs of our nation.\nMr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate, may I first congratulate the mover (Mr. Fournier, Hull) and the seconder (Mr. Macdonald, Brantford City) upon the splendid speeches they made. I had supposed that they would give some credit to the administration for Canada's war effort, but I think we should pay a tribute to the men and women of Canada who have put forth such magnificent efforts in this connection. There are thousands of men and women who have made considerable sacrifices, who appreciate the realities of the present time.\n\nThe Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)\nI am sorry that I cannot congratulate the government upon that portion of the speech from the throne which deals with the proposed plebiscite to save the political face of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his ministers. Under the guise of national unity it is proposed to hold a plebiscite in order to endeavour to preserve the solidarity of the Liberal party. There are several aspects of the speech with which I shall deal later; at some future time I intend to discuss increases in old age pensions, veterans' allowances and certain other matters, but to-day I shall confine my remarks mainly to the question of the plebiscite. I come from Toronto, and I must say that I listened with considerable interest to the speeches of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) who both gave the house some first-hand information in connection with the serious situation that exists on the west coast. In passing, I should like to add my protests about the lack of interest the government seems to have taken in this situation.\nI should like to congratulate the hon. member for Lamfoton West (Mr. Gray) upon the magnificent contribution he made to the debate. His was a well constructed and powerful speech, and I hope each hon. member will read it carefully. The speech from the throne tells us:\n. . . that the magnitude and balanced nature of Canada's war effort is being obscured and impaired by controversy concerning commitments with respect to the methods of raising men for military service which were made prior to the spread of the war to all parts of the world.\nThe government is of the opinion that, at this time of gravest crisis in the world's history, the administration, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, should in this connection and irrespective of any previous commitments, possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise.\nWith that I agree. To my mind the government have always had complete freedom of action, subject to its responsibility to parliament. Pledges given prior to an election are not binding upon the government as far as the people are concerned. It is within the jurisdiction of parliament to free a government of any of its pledges so given. On many occasions the Prime Minister has told us that parliament is paramount, and that is the view I take. I was elected to represent the people in my constituency, -but I was elected also- hon. members will find this in Beauchesne- to represent the people of Canada. At the time I was elected I told the people of Canada that I would endeavour to further their interests to the best of my ability. I imagine\nthat is the position of most hon. members. But I also told them that I would use my own judgment as to what I thought was in the best interests of my constituency, and I intend to do so now. I said at that time that I did not think compulsory service for overseas was necessary then. But times have changed, and I shall use my own judgment, as every member of the house must, as to what is in the best interests not only of our constituents but of Canada as a whole.\nThe conduct of the worst war in the history of the world is in the hands of the Liberal government. They have decided to remain in power alone, to share responsibility with no one who has ever dared to criticize the Prime Minister. They are now faced with the question of conscription. It calls for courage, but they must do their duty, and that duty cannot be done by holding a plebiscite. A plebiscite is the evasion of duty.\nWhat is the position of the government with regard to the pledges so given? Those pledges were given at a time when circumstances were entirely different, when the people of the country were not war-minded. Those pledges were given for political expediency. Has the government not given pledges before, Mr. Speaker, and not kept them? The Prime Minister, when seeking votes in the election of 1935, said in Quebec on September 28:\nI say that Mr. Bennett has no right to commit Canada in any way directly or indirectly or to take any action whatever as regards the possibility of war. The people of Canada do not want war and a war in such a distant part of the world holds no interest for Canada. Mr. Bennett has no right to commit the country without consulting the people by means of a plebiscite.\nThe Prime Minister was speaking at that time on the imposition of sanctions in connection with the Ethiopian war. Here was a clear commitment by the Prime Minister that he would not take the country to war without a plebiscite. Yet in 1939 parliament met, and without any plebiscite at all we declared1 war.\nAgain, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. .Cardin), speaking in a by-election in St. Henry in January, 1938, said:\nI have already so stated. Canada will not participate in Avars beyond its territory. Canada will do nothing in wars beyond its territory.\nThat was a definite commitment given by a responsible minister of the crown. I could make many similar quotations from Hansard, but that is sufficient for my purpose. As I said, parliament did declare war, and we did not have a plebiscite.\nBut now we are asked to determine by plebiscite a question which, to my mind, is not half as serious as declaring war. The way\n192\tCOMMONS\nThe Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)\nto declare war is the democratic way, by parliament declaring it, and the way to settle this question of compulsory selective service for any theatre of war is for parliament to thresh the question out here on the floor of the house, and not by appealing to the people of the country. Were hon. members pledged in 1939 not to declare war without a plebiscite? If they were, the country has certainly exonerated them from those pledges. Two wrongs do not make a right, but I just wish to say that the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleagues have not always been so meticulous in carrying out .the pledges they have given to the public as they would have the country believe at this time.\nIn the last war we had conscription, and it was opposed by the Liberal opposition of that day. The anti-conscription cry has been used by the Liberal party to win elections, and now the government finds itself faced with this hurdle which must be jumped. It proposes to get over the hurdle not by taking responsibility 'and deciding the question itself, but by throwing the responsibility on the people to decide by way of a plebiscite. In 1917, as I said, the opposition was against conscription. The issue then was conscription for overseas service. The need then was great, but who will say that the need was anywhere as great as the need to-day, in view of the magnitude of this war? To-day the issue hinges round compulsory national selective service for any front. There was no lack of courage displayed by the government in 1917, when the opposition was opposed to conscription. But now we have an opposition in support of that issue and we have the spectacle of a lack of courage on the part of the government. What good is a government if it will not act according to the needs of the country without seeking the opinion of the people before it acts? The members of this parliament will back up this government in whatever steps it believes to be necessary, and we know the steps that are necessary to be taken at this time from the very fact that the government is endeavouring to be freed from the pledges it gave at election time. But the principle involved in this plebiscite is simply that of asking the people to take a responsibility which the government should rightly take itself. In view of all the support which has been indicated in this parliament to-day for freeing the government's hands, there is no need to put the country to the expense of a plebiscite. The government can quite properly take whatever methods it thinks are justified, and the members of the House of Commons will exonerate it from all its pledges. Is it not unthinkable that such a thing as a plebi-\nscite or a general election should be considered at such a critical time as this, particularly in view of the expenditure it will involve at a time when every dollar counts?\nThis is not just Canada's fight or Great Britain's fight. It is the fight of what I like to call the new commonwealth of the democracies of the world, and their crying need is for men. It is not only the waste of money which is involved, but the waste of valuable time, which can be measured only in the sacrifice of thousands of lives. I hope hon. members will take this into consideration before they think of holding the plebiscite. Now is the time for the government to introduce any measures which will fully mobilize us for total war. The Prime Minister must implement his pledge for total war with total action. Time has been given us to mobilize. Time-so precious-has been won by the gallant stand of those United States patriots at Guam and the Philippines; the brave stand of our brothers of the various nations of the commonwealth in Singapore- an act which will live forever in history; the stand which has been made in Libya; the stand made by our gallant allies the Russians, the Greeks, and others; the stand of our heroic allies in China; the stand of the Dutch; the stand of our own Canadians at Hong Kong -which helped to win more time for us- and the stand of our own brave men in the army in Great Britain. This time has been won for us, and now it is proposed to waste two or three months of it and plunge this country into a state of turmoil and controversy.\nLet me remind you of a little history of the recent past. It may be useful if we are thinking of sheltering behind some kind of Maginot line to-day:\nApril 9: Germany overruns Denmark and occupies Norway.\t-\nMay 10: Invasion of the Netherlands and Belgium.\nMay 14: Netherlands army surrenders.\nMay 28: Belgian army surrenders.\nMay 29: Allied troops withdraw from Dunkerque.\nJune 9: Norway surrenders.\nJune 10: Italy declares war on Britain and France.\nJune 22: France collapes.\nSept. 7: Air blitz attack on London begins.\nSept. 27: Japan joins the Axis.\nOct. 28: Italy invades Greece.\nMarch 1: Bulgaria joins Axis.\nApril 23: Greece overrun.\nJune 1: Allies withdraw from Crete.\nJune 22: Germany, Italy and Roumania declare war on Russia.\nJuly 24: Japanese troops invade French IndoChina.\nDee. 7: Japanese attack Pearl Harbour.\n\nThe Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)\nDec. 7: Japanese invade Malaya.\nDec. 8: Japanese attack Philippines.\nDee. 17: Borneo invaded.\nDec. 19: Penang taken.\nDec. 23: Fall of Wake Island.\nDec. 25: Japanese take Hong Kong.\nJan. 13: Celebes and Tarakan captured.\nJan. 16: Burma invaded.\nJan. 20: Bismarck archipelago invaded.\n_ Jan. 21: New Britain and Solomon Islands invaded.\nThis is a grim chronology of twenty months of war. Are we not in a position to-day similar to that of the Netherlands and Belgium, Norway and France and Denmark? If they had had leadership and realized what was going to happen to them, would they too not have fought right from the start and mobilized everything right from the start? We cannot let our allies down. Nothing but the best is good enough. We must be realists. We do not want to have to defend Canada on Canadian shores. If that happens, it will be too late. The sad record of all these countries shows that. We may not have sufficient equipment now, but we will have it by the time we get all these men partly trained.\nNational selective service is long overdue. It will be approved by the House of Commons and by the people of the country.\nNow, again with regard to pledges. The hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), in seconding the reply to the speech from the throne, said in effect that if the government broke these pledges fit would be in the same position as Germany before the world war. No parallel of the kind can be drawn. The present government gave these pledges, as did some hon. members, at a time when they believed they would never have to forgo them. The government know it must be done now. They must have a free hand. Not so with German pledges; for at the time Germany was giving pledges the German nation was accumulating men and materials on the borders of the nations which they had pledged never to attack, and was preparing to attack them when these pledges were given. There is no comparison along those lines; the circumstances are entirely different.\nAs I said before, the people of Canada would be behind the government and would exonerate them; there would be more unity, too, if the government took this action themselves rather than tried to appeal to the electors.\nThe motion picture of the progress of events has changed too. All these years the world has thought in slow motion. Now we are in high speed with supersensitive film; Jiigh speed of the rapidity of moving events\nand the supersensitiveness of the public, jittery and nervous with regard to the world situation, which is obscured by lack of knowledge of facts and lack of leadership, prone not to believe that any crisis is upon them; their supersensitiveness increased by two classes, those who have selfish motives, and the hidden army of fifth columnists within our midst. The government must smite both out of the country.\nThe stakes are not only life and death. They are worse. The alternatives are life or a living hell. The government knows this, and still it proposes a plebiscite!\nThe Prime Minister, arguing in his speech, says:\t.\nIt must not be supposed that there are large reserves of idle people leading a leisurely existence who can now be called to the national ranks.\nI agree with him to a certain extent, but there is developing a certain class of idle people in this country, and there will be more because of control legislation. These people must be reallocated to war jobs. It may be difficult. Vast numbers of them are white-collar men. They probably will have to become blue-overall men.\nAgain he says:\nThe entire Canadian population, with very exc\xaepki\xb0ns, gets up in the morning, works all day, and goes to bed tired out at night.\nThis may be and probably is so, but I have no doubt in my mind that many people do just this in connection with non-essential war work. They should be available, and are available in a great many instances, to the countiy's war effort.\nThe Prime Minister says further:\nIn our form of society people have been accustomed to find their own jobs to a very large extent, thus saving vast government machinery.\nBut we have the machinery. It is set up, but it has not been functioning very well. These people must be directed to their work where they can be spared, and I am sure they are willing to do the jobs.\nI could give many instances in which people could be spared right at the present time. Where are they listed? They are not listed in the national registration. What accounting is there of those people who might be available? Do we know just what number of men and women are available for this balanced programme? So far as our war effort is concerned it is not a question of comparison with the war effort of some other country. The question is whether we are doing everything we can and whether we are going to do everything we can.", u'\n\nThe Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul\'s)\nWe must move with courage and thoroughness. We cannot leave a single citizen, man or woman, not doing the job he or she ought to be doing. If we want some comparison, it might be measured in monetary terms. Britain alone is spending this year \xa34,000 millions, or $400 per capita. A comparative figure for Canada on a population basis would be about $4,500 millions or $400 per capita. We are spending in Canada this year, in the words of the Prime Minister, $3,000 millions, or about $250 per capita. Britain iwill produce\n45,000\tguns, with corresponding ammunition. They are well up to their needs and if they had no one else to take care of, their position would be fairly satisfactory, but they have to give away about half of their supply.\nSo far as man-power is concerned, our problem is this. For a balanced effort there are so many people in this country. Some of them are trained for special jobs, and some are not trained, having, however, the natural strength and ability to become trained. Some are men of military age, while some are too young to fight and others too old. There are so many women, some married with children, others married without children, some young and others old. This is a vast pool of brawn and brain to draw from. On the other hand, there are so many jobs that have to be done. Obviously some of these people must be diverted towards the preservation of those physical amenities of life, the supply of food and shelter and clothing, transport and so on, which cannot further be shrunk or restricted. We have also huge numbers of men and women for the army, the navy, the air force and the merchant fleet.\nAs regards war production itself we have the factories and we have now the tools, and if we are to do the jobs we must keep the factories going three shifts. The government\'s job is to see that the efforts of the millions of people in Canada, between the ages of 14 and 65, are directed to the particular tasks for which they are best fitted.\nTotal mobilization on the basis of equality of sacrifice would knit together the people of this country in closer bonds of brotherhood than ever before. It would be a long step toward the realization of the new and better world which everybody is wishing for after victory. It would show by this act of the government, backed by parliament, sincerity of purpose beyond all shadow of doubt, and our soldiers, sailors and airmen would have renewed confidence.\nMan-power is the paramount need for 1942. So said Mr. Churchill. Every part of Canada must bear its fair burden in producing for our war effort. Surely we must all\n\nrecognize this, and it can be done only by compulsory national selective service. I have listened with great interest to the arguments put forward against compulsory selective service. They are not convincing. Those arguing against it seek to compare our effort with that of other countries-how many men we have serving in comparison with those of other countries. The comparison serves no useful purpose. The main point is this: What is our capacity, and how shall we get 100 per cent of that capacity?\nThe hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle) made this statement, at page 94 of Hansard:\nThey say that we will maintain production, in spite of conscription, by employing women. Without further discussing the question of the employment of women, let me say that it will create an overwhelming after-war problem. At present in England an organization is being formed to protect men\'s jobs against what I might call the infiltration of women into the domain formerly almost exclusively occupied by men.\nWhat an argument against conscription, compulsory selective service, to say that we must limit our effort because of the danger which might come after the war from overemployment of women in men\'s jobsl If we are to have an after-war problem-and we shall have one-we must win the war first and then face the problem. If we lose, however, slavery will be our fate and the problem whether men are in women\'s jobs or women in men\'s jobs will not make much difference.\nIt seems to me that those who are arguing against conscription are merely in favour of seeing what we can do or what our efforts should be so that we can still get by and save our faces. The axis is asking for total war and they will give it to us. We have to give it back to them. These are facts.\nWe have our men overseas and we have an obligation to keep them reinforced and not let them down. That is our most sacred duty. We must defend our country wherever it can best be defended. We must raise an army for service anywhere. There must be no restriction; there must be no party politics.\nI listened with interest to the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) when he formed his own party-Canada only, I think it was called. Wait, is he not responsible to members of the human race other than Canadians? Are we not all? Did he raise his finger when Mussolini slaughtered his Christian brothers of Ethopia? Did he raise his finger when Japan raided China? I must admit that we were all more or less in the same position when we allowed the international gangsters a free hand, when we allowed these acts of banditry to go unpunished. We\n\nThe Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul\'s)\nlaid the groundwork then for the arch bandit, Hitler, and we have the consequences with us to-day.\nPeace at any price-that was the downfall of France. That was the lesson taught in the French schools. That was the propaganda work of fifth columnists. The French politicians told their people that Britain\'s neck would be wrung in three weeks, as Mr. Churchill said, and his famous words stand out -\'\'Some chicken! Some neck!" There was similar propaganda in Great Britain and in Canada as well. That is not w\'hat we want here. We want a total effort.\nI am going to make an appeal to my French-Canadian compatriots. I understand their difficulties and I think that the situation with them is a psychological as well as a political and racial problem. For upwards of ISO years the whole mental attitude of the Frenchspeaking population of that province has been a defensive one, rightly or wrongly. For the people of that province acknowledged that, as a result of former British policy, and as their spokesmen have taught them, they have had all the rights and privileges and liberties of other Canadian citizens, in some cases possibly more; but their basic attitude is still one of resistance to any concessions of these privileges or rights.\nThey are willing to give, but they resent the shadow of compulsion coming from other provinces. I assure them that the other provinces do not wish to compel them to do anything; they only wish to persuade them. The Quebec Liberal representatives have accepted the plebiscite proposal and promised to support it on the government\'s demand for release from past pledges, with few exceptions I suppose; then let those hon. members support the government in parliament. We do not need a plebiscite. Let them go to their people and tell them what they have done. Loyalty-I have heard the word spoken many times by hon. members from Quebec, as if we on this side of the house sought to cast any aspersions on the loyalty of the people of Quebec. Of course they are loyal. As I have said, they enjoy all the rights as well as the privileges of citizens of other parts of Canada. 11 they want to retain these rights and privileges they must, as General LaFleche and others have said, fight for them. If we lose this war they can rest assured their rights will be taken away. They must bear their full share of the burden if they wish to enjoy the fruits of victory.\nIf we have leadership I believe we have at the present time in embryo a united nation. Unity can be obtained by the government taking full responsibility and enacting all\nnecessary measures for the safety of the state. The opposition have promised to support and will support the government; of course it reserves its right of critcism. But the opposition support cannot be obtained by such cries as come from some of the government benches when criticism is offered-cries of "sabotage". Our criticism is not offered in that way.\nIn the speech from the throne we find these words:\nThe conflict can have but one of two outcomes. Either tyranny, based on terror and brutality, must be overthrown; or the free peoples of the world, one and all, slowly but eventually, will be reduced to a state of bondage. Upon the outcome depends, for generations, the future well-being of mankind.\nAre there any hon. members in this house who do not believe these words? The peril is now. Some hon. members evidently do not believe those words. They talk about some people in this dominion as extremists. Those who advocate an all-out war effort are being called "extremists". No one can be called an extremist for advocating any measures that are necessary as a result of his belief in Mr. Churchill\'s pronouncements, or if he believes the words I have just read. These people are realists. You cannot be too extreme in days of perils such as this. Here are Mr. Churchill\'s words spoken in this chamber: do hon. members believe these words, or do they just give lip service to them? I quote:\nWe have to win that world for our children. We have to win it by our sacrifices. We have not won it yet. The crisis is upon us. The power of the enemy is immense. If we were in any way to underrate the strength, the resources or the ruthless savagery of that enemy we should jeopardize not only our lives-for they will be offered freely-but the cause of human freedom and progress to which we have vowed ourselves and all we have. We cannot for a moment, Sir, afford to relax. On the contrary, we must drive ourselves forward with unrelenting zeal.\nYet some hon. members call these patriotic men "extremists."\nNow a word with respect to compulsory service. What are the people of Canada saying to-day? They are saying that we have recruited so many men here in certain places, and the fellows in other places are not holding up their end. As a consequence national prejudices and jealousies are being set up. If we have compulsory national selective service that *111 stop, and one more step towards unity will be taken. What are the young men saying?-and this to my mind is one of the greatest arguments in favour of compulsory selective service. I know one young Canadian who supports his mother. He is willing to enlist, but he asks why he should', 'The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul\'s)\ngive up his job to an element in our midst who are chasers of dollars and not doing their duty. He says, "My chums and I feel that there is only one fair basis, compulsory selective service anywhere from everyone." These boys also feel that they want some method of removing any chance of future stigma on their name which might be caused by their being in some particular job.\nWhat do the government hope to gain by a plebiscite? At best the government get a respite of two or three months. Meantime there are all kinds of turmoil. When the three months are up there will be the same pressure for action. This proposal of a plebiscite is an affront to the rights of parliament and an undeserved reflection on the people of this country, of whatever race or creed. It will get nowhere. If the proposal carries it will not get rid of the controversy, and it will leave uncertainty as to future action; if it fails to carry, our troops will be abandoned to the uncertainties of voluntary enlistment. In either case the country is humiliated and disgraced.\nLet the government say to the country that the interests of Canada demand compulsory service anywhere. Let the government, after giving hon. members t\'he facts and making plain the necessities which may arise, demand that hon. members give them their freedom and a vote of confidence. What did Mr. Churchill do in the House of Commons the other day? He demanded a vote of confidence and he got it. He did not ask for anv plebiscites during this war, no matter what controversies arose or what difficulties he had. There is no necessity to split this country in two by the wholly unfair method\' of asking those who do not know, who have not the opportunity of knowing the facts, the mothers and fathers and the boys, to vote to conscript themselves. It is a cowardly act.\nOn motion of Mr. MacNicol the debate was adjourned.\nOn motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at six p.m.\nMonday, February 2, 1942']
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That consideration of the special order relative to the debate on the address to His Excellency be suspended on Monday the 2nd
Price Ceiling

February, 1942, until the house has proceeded with the orders respecting questions and notices of motions for the production of papers standing on the order paper.
Motion, agreed to.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services to an editorial appearing on page 4 of Boating Magazine for January-February of this year, under the caption "Fairmile Fuddle". I shall not read the editorial, because I presume the minister has a copy of the journal. I should like to ask these questions: First, where are the five boats which are reported to have left Midland early in November, 1941 and, second, was a qualified officer in charge of those boats?
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not give notice of his question, and as I have not seen the article I should like to read it and get the information for him.


PRICE CEILING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: I should like to address a question to the government, for attention of the Minister of Finance. My question has to do with a news item appearing in yesterday's Ottawa Journal, headed "One hundred commodities are not affected by price ceiling." Will the Minister of Finance give to the house within the next few days an explanation as to the reason for removing the price ceiling on the one hundred odd commodities referred to in that item? Will he at the same time state whether or not there will be a similar removal in connection with other so-called seasonal goods, such as those which are purchased for winter purposes only?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall direct the attention of the minister to the hon. member's question.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a

question of the Prime Minister. I am in receipt of a copy of a telegram sent to the Prime Minister under date of January 29 by the New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, Union of the [DOT]Steel Workers Organizing Committee. The wire indicated that the workers in that area are disturbed over the refusal of the government to honour the principles of collective bargaining laid down in order in council P.C. 2685, particularly in the case of the Kirkland Lake dispute. The wire also indicates that stoppages of work may take place in other essential industries in Canada unless the government insists that without delay the mine operators of the Kirkland mines accept the principle of collective bargaining.
Has the Prime Minister replied to the telegram of the New Glasgow steel workers, and would he tell the house the nature of his reply?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the telegram to which the hon. member has referred was handed to me just as I came into the house. I have not had time to read it through.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I received a similar telegram at midnight last night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The morning
has been pretty well occupied: through deliberations with the cabinet, and other matters. The result is I have not had a chance to see some of the communications which have come in. I shall endeavour, however, to answer this one as soon as possible.


SHIPBUILDING DISPUTES-ANNULMENT OF AWARD BY BOARD OF CONCILIATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to ask a question of the acting Minister of Labour. I have a telegram from John W. Bruce, international organizer for -the Plumbers and Steamfitters Association, a group identified with the American Federation of Labor. Mr. Bruce complains about an order in council passed on Monday last, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour, annulling an award of the board of conciliation acting in respect of certain shipbuilding yards in Ontario and Quebec. Would the minister explain the procedure in this matter, and will he table the order in council mentioned?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (for the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the telegram
received by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) was not called to my attention. I should not like to give a

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
detailed answer as to the effect of the order in council passed on Monday last in connection with shipbuilding plants. The hon. member is aware that a board of conciliation was appointed to investigate one particular plant, whereas the commission was appointed to investigate all plants as a group. My impression is that the order in council referred to deals with the report of the commission; I was not aware that it dealt with the report of the board. I shall be glad, however, to make further inquiries and advise the house and the hon. member in connection with this matter.


GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, January 29, 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. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fitting first to remind the house of a gentleman who died not long ago, who formerly sat upon the treasury benches of this house for several years, acting in various capacities, particularly as Minister of Public Works and Postmaster General. I refer to the Hon. John Campbell Elliott. Mr. Elliott was liked by all and was a very good minister. One of the joys of his later life was to have my chief, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), ask for his advice, particularly concerning Ontario. I cannot forget one beautiful summer day, a Sunday in 1934, when a mass meeting attended by 10,000 people was held in the town of Trois Pistoles. This part of my constituency was taken away from me by Viscount Bennett. There were many speakers, among them our late lamented friend, the former Minister of Justice, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe; Mr. Elliott was there as well. There is in the vicinity of Trois Pistoles a summer school which is attended by many students from Western university in London who go to that school to learn French. Mr. Elliott spoke in French, but he did not mention the redistribution, nor did he refer to the gerrymander. He made a beautiful speech about good understanding, bonne entente. I offer my deepest sympathy to all my colleagues, to the members of the Senate and to the members of his family.
The government has suffered another great loss in the death of the former deputy minister of public works, Mr. J. B. Hunter. Mr. Hunter was civil servant No. 1 following the death of Sir Arthur Doughty, who created our archives and placed at the disposal of every student in Canada official documents pertaining to Canadian history.
This House of Commons is not the same at all since the death of the gentleman who was praised so highly on February 21, the man who was the right arm of the Prime Minister, who was a Liberal to the core, and a true disciple of Laurier. I refer to the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. It was most fitting that a special tribute should be paid to him, and I was deeply moved by all the speeches that were made on that occasion. That was not the time to contradict anyone, but I remind the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) that he made a slight error-this is important to me-when he stated that the late Mr. Lapointe had been born in Kam-ouraska county. Mr. Lapointe was born at St. Eloi, which was never taken away from Temiscouata. If it had been, there would have been a riot.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I regret the error in my geography.


Mr. POULIOT:: I know my hon. friend did it in good faith, but if he would consult me before making his speeches he would never make mistakes.
We have heard many interesting speeches. We live in a free country, and some of our colleagues hold certain views, while others hold altogether different views. That is their business. I do not intend to say anything unpleasant to anyone because he is in favour of conscription for overseas service while I am against it. That would be his right. But I do not want anyone to tread on my toes. I have sincere convictions and they are well known to all my colleagues. I quote:
If a member dislikes the government . ... he ought to have the manhood to testify to his opinions. Nobody need be mealy mouthed in this debate. . . . No one need be chicken-hearted in the division lobby. I have frequently voted .against governments which I have been elected to support and, looking back on it, I have sometimes felt very glad I did so. Everyone in these rough times must do what he considers his duty . . . Surely the hon. gentleman is not a man to be frightened of the whip.
That is fine language, but it is not mine.
I could have made it mine with a slight change. I have never voted against my party, although I have been near doing so at times. The man who said those words sat in this very place a short time ago, the Right Hon.

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
Winston Churchill. I was honoured to notice that Mr. Churchill sat right here when he was received in this chamber. I quote again:
Whoever speaks for Britain at this moment must be known to speak not only in the name of the people-and that I feel pretty sure I may-but in the name of parliament and, above all, the House of Commons.
I have said already that I am a Liberal to the core. I shall always be a Liberal and be true to the doctrines laid down by my late lamented leader, Mr. Lapointe, when he spoke at St. Roch de Quebec in his own constituency and said that if reforms were to be advocated, they should be advocated within the party. I believe the Liberal party is in good health, although it has two decayed teeth. If they are removed, its health will be splendid.
There are more important things, there are more urgent things, than a plebiscite. It is to make certain that democracy remains supreme in this parliament and that no one on the treasury benches shall be blackmailed or terrorized by any leader of any party. As I have said, opinions are free, and it is our common privilege to express them. But there is something very important, and that is that no leader of any party shall forget that he must always think, speak and act first as a Canadian, and as a good one.
Last summer I witnessed the ceremony held at St. Patrick, commemorating the anniversary of Sir John A. Macdonald, who spent twenty-seven summers in my constituency. At the same time a similar ceremony was being held at Kingston, the riding he represented for so long, and on that occasion the man who was at times Prime Minister of Canada spoke thus of Sir John:
Never at any time did he lose sight of or subordinate to a selfish Canadian purpose the oneness of our interest, the oneness of our security, and the oneness of our destiny with the British empire.
I am not anti-British; I am pro-Canadian, and in my humble view the interests of Canada must be considered first in all our dealings, whether with Great Britain, the United States or any other country in the world.
Let me speak now of the by-election in York South, and I have very good news. I cannot give it all at once but am giving it bit by bit in due course, and the members of parliament will get great comfort from it. I am not going to tell anything new. I just want to remind my colleagues in the House of Commons that the people of York South are just as sound-minded as the people of any other constituency in this country, and to say that Arthur Meighen will be beaten on the

ninth of February tvorse than he has ever been beaten before at the polls. I have a right to speak in this way because he is no longer a member of the Senate, and I can express my views about what is going on. It is the fight of democracy that is being waged in that constituency, and if Canadians look at it in that way, the by-election interests not only the electors of York South. We heard a lot about the leader of the opposition in the Senate, although his name was never mentioned. He was described as a very great man, and, of course, if a man is to be judged by the position he holds, undoubtedly he is a great man from the fact that he has been Prime Minister of Canada two or three times, although in that capacity he has never been elected by the Canadian people. The Canadian people turned their thumbs down on him every time he came before them because they did not trust him.
It appears that the Conservative party held a caucus, consisting of a handful of men, some of whom are very fine gentlemen-those are the Conservatives-and some others who are not such pleasant gentlemen-they are the Tories. It was rumoured on a Friday that they had made their selection and that Mr. Meighen would be the leader of the Conservative party, but it was only on the following Thursday that he accepted the position. What was the reason why Arthur Meighen did not want to represent such a fine group of gentlemen as I see in front of me? He was fearful; he was not sure of himself. It was not the voice of the people that chose him; it was just a handful of men, and he was preferred to my hon. friend the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson); he was preferred to my hon. friend the member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), to my hon. friend the member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) and to all the other gentlemen who were there. It was a discovery. They were like Archimedes. They had found a marvel. They were also like Diogenes. They were out hunting with a lantern, and they went to the Senate door, where they found a man who had courage. Oh, courage, maybe, but no brains.
The first thing that was done under the instructions of Arthur Meighen was to play petty politics-petty politics, I repeat-in the press by resurrecting a few days later an incident that had arisen a few days before in the House of. Commons when I had complained of the way in which my leader the Prime Minister had been greeted by some of the troops in England. I shall not insist on that. But after Arthur Meighen was selected as leader, something very funny happened, and that is that only two members

The Address

Mr. Pouliot
out of the forty Conservative members of parliament offered him their seats-two out of forty. So evidently they liked him, but they did not want him to take any of their seats in parliament.
Here I have a clipping from a very interesting paper edited by one of the brightest journalists of our time, Miss Judith Robinson, daughter of the former editor of the Conservative Toronto Telegram. The article is headed "Tory patriot offers leader costly seat," and to my great surprise none of the Conservatives have protested against this article since the commencement of the session.


An hon. MEMBER:: Because it is beneath notice.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh! The article goes on to say:	[DOT]
The Conservative party has a great history. But something happened to it in that election of March, 1940. The group of men elected to the House of Commons, particularly from Ontario, do not represent the Conservatives who voted for them.
Hear, hear.
At least it is hoped they don't, for if they do the Conservative party is unwilling to make sacrifices; is unwilling to do anything but hold on to what it has and let someone else bear the burden.
The two men who offered their seats to Mr. Meighen were Col. Alan Cockeram and Earl Rowe.
Mr. Meighen did not want Rowe's seat-
And so forth. It goes on, referring to Col. Cockeram:
It isn't that Cockie doesn't like being a member of parliament, and his $4,000 per year. He believes Arthur Meighen, if he does nothing else, will give Mr. King the hot foot.
Oh, ho!
Other Ontario Conservative members were willing to step aside for their leader and do the cause some good. But one wanted $12,000 on the line, and Meighen's men refused to stand for blackmail. Others just disappeared. No answer to the telephone. No answer to wires.
Then there was this Ontario Tory who has one of the safest seats in the house. He isn't much as a member, never will be.
This is an appreciation by a good Conservative!
But he is a great patriot. He wouldn't step aside for anyone except his leader. Yes, he would for his leader, because it was his duty as a Britisher and a good Conservative. But he would have to have-*
How much?
:-$20,000. And only for Meighen would he do that. The big-hearted soul.
I do not blame Conservative members for not having offered their seats to Arthur Meighen. I praise them for that; and when
there was a rumour that the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) would give his seat to Arthur Meighen, I said that the new leader would not fill the gap caused by the retirement of the hon. member for Danforth. No; I do not blame those hon. members for having refused him their seats. I cannot conceive how sound-minded men, as they seem to be, should have been disturbed to the extent of selecting him as their leader, even temporarily.
At the time of the Tory convention last November an item appeared in the press that the Conservative caucus did not want the present leader of the opposition to declare himself for conscription overseas. Yet Meighen did it without further authorization. Now here is something interesting, which I take from the Le Canada, of Montreal, under date of January 21. After it was decided that Mr. Meighen would get Mr. Cockeram's seat in York South, he wrote to the Department of Justice asking the law clerks if they were not of opinion he could remain a senator untO the election was over-showing that he was not sure of himself, that he was afraid he would lose his election. Of course the answer at that time was sensible; it was "no". It was the right answer. The answer was, "resign as a senator if you want to stand for election as a member". There is a corridor between the House of Commons and the Senate, but it is not for a member of the Senate who wants to run in an election. Then the Hon. Leopold Macaulay, a Tory of the Tories, a former member of the Henry government, said, "Let everyone vote for Arthur Meighen. All of those who have been Conservatives at any time in their lives must vote for Arthur Meighen. There is not a vote to spare." This shows that he is not very well accepted by the Canadian people.
But there is more. I remember very well what was said on February 7, 1933, by Mr. Mitchell F. Hepburn, then hon. member for Elgin West. He said, as reported in Hansard, page 1867:
Mr. Speaker, the morning papers contain the personnel of the newly appointed tariff board, naming Mr. Justice Sedgewick as tariff chairman at a salary of $12,000. I should like to know if this is the same Mr. Justice Sedgewick who as an appointee of the Ontario government was the chairman of a commission which investigated the Ontario hydro commission and gave that body a complete whitewash.
Who was a member of the Ontario hydro commission at that time, one who has been similarly censured by Mr. Hepburn himself? It was the very same Arthur Meighen, and in my ears I still have the sound of the voice of Mr. Hepburn denouncing the dealings of Mr. Meighen with the Abitibi power company. If, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Meighen was not good
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

enough to be a hydro commissioner of Ontario, if he had to be denounced by the present premier of Ontario for wrong dealings with the Abitibi power company, how can he be accepted as leader of a great party and a prospective prime minister of Canada?
There were other statements, and I am not afraid to refer to them. I do not want any hon. member to say, "here is a French-Cana-dian from Quebec who is dealing with Ontario matters". I do not know whether the leader of the opposition is aware of it, but I may tell him that I have more friends than he thinks among the English-speaking members of his party-although it is a small one. Not only that, but some of my best friends are from Ontario. No less a gentleman than Doctor Edwards, former leader of the Orangemen, was a very dear friend of mine. When he died I came here to give the news to the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Bennett. I saw to it that Doctor Ross, of Kingston, came up to take care of Doctor Edwards, and I gave my room to Mrs. Edwards and to Mrs. Macdougall, wife of the then hon. member for Inverness. Moreover, I have in my room a letter, written in French in his own hand, by Doctor Edwards, which shows that in his later days he was thinking differently from what he did before. Apart from this, I had very dear friends in Ontario. One of them was Mr. Hepburn, who is still my friend, and the friendship started at the time when we were the two members of parliament whom Mr. Bennett hated most. This is the reason why I made the campaign for Mr. Hepburn. No member of parliament was invited to speak in a larger number of constituencies in Ontario in 1933 and in the provincial campaign of 1934 than the member for Temiscouata. I was delighted to meet good friends, and I returned afterwards at the time of the general election, saw old friends whom I had met there before, and spoke in the constituency of the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding). I was a Liberal speaker at the convention of the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty), and I went to different places, meeting good Englishspeaking and French-speaking Canadians, and supported Mr. Hepburn because I thought he was a good man. And both of us, indeed all of us, regarded Arthur Meighen as one of the calamities of the world.
Therefore I am not a stranger in Ontario, although I do not now speak there very often.
I have many other good friends in that province. Besides Doctor Edwards, there was Mr. Alison Young, of the Windsor Star, a close friend of mine, and dear Harry Anderson

of the Toronto Globe, one of the finest citizens of this country. There are many others whom I have not the time to name.
Well, here is Arthur Meighen, the Charlie McCarthy of the Bergens of high finance in Toronto. He decided to run in that district, and immediately afterwards we saw a full-page advertisement published in the newspapers of this country, headed "Total war effort", signed by about two hundred persons-I have not counted them, but I know some of them -who want to substitute themselves for the elected members of parliament. They say that they want total war. We want total war, too, but we do not want to use total war as a pretext for some schemes which are shameful and which they try to hide under the flag.
One of them is the completion of the amalgamation of railways; and I have here official copies of the two speeches published by the king's printer, which had been delivered before in the Senate-one by Arthur Meighen, and the other by Senator Beaubien. The title of Meighen's speech is "United management of railways". Was it sent to me by Arthur Meighen? Was it sent to me by Senator Beaubien? Who sent it to me?
They have not yet succeeded in performing their operation. The idea is not at all to wage total war; the idea is to speculate in Canadian bonds, and that is all that is behind that move. That is why they are against my leader, the present Prime Minister. It is because he is not the man of Bay street and St. James street. They want their own tool here in the House of Commons at the head of the Conservative party, and they want him as the head of the government. They want to prevent the members of parliament from expressing their views, and they call them unpatriotic when they differ from them. Arthur Meighen and his gang-whether the members of his gang are in the house or outside

are the depositories, the only depositories, of pure patriotism-the purest!
To show the insincerity of that man, let us judge his own acts and his present words, comparing his behaviour with his speeches. In the Citizen of January 23 I find:
Never believed government capable of such an act. Right Hon. Arthur Meighen asserts plebiscite on conscription is admission of its necessity.
I do not want to say anything unpleasant about Mr. Hepburn, for whom I have great respect. I think he has rendered numerous services to the party. Although at times he was not satisfied with what was going on, we have remained friends. I cannot say anything unpleasant about him. Whatever he does, whatever he says, I shall continue to respect

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
him. On the other hand, his position will be very difficult. Senator Meighen says a referendum is a necessity; Mr. Hepburn is opposed to it. How will they explain it to the people? The other day I listened with great interest to the speech delivered by my friend the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray). He said, "I am for conscription at once; that is why I am against a plebiscite." He will vote against the plebiscite if he is logical with himself, and there he will meet another gentleman who holds entirely different views. He will meet my hon. friend the member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), the father of the new Canadian party. Both will vote on the same side, although for different reasons.
Now, sir, speaking of insincerity, I find this:
Meighen deplores failure to give armed forces vote.
Is it possible to have less tact than that? There is no man in Canada who is more tactless than Arthur Meighen. When he said that, he forgot the War-time Elections Act. that miserable piece of legislation for stealing votes in order to get power against the will of the people. There is one sentence that was used outside the house by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), which I will now' quote. It is most appropriate. He was referring to the loan:
I know the Canadian people will not grudge that money. It is necessary to save the most precious life in the world

the life of liberty.
That is, liberty, freedom-freedom of speech and freedom of vote.
I have here a telegram that was sent by the same Arthur Meighen, who wants the soldier's vote now. This telegram was sent in 1917 and was read at the Liberal convention which selected my leader in 1919. It was read by Judge Adamson.


Mr. POWER:: It is on Hansard.


Jean-François Pouliot: The telegram reads:
Winnipeg November 30, 1917. Robert L. Borden, Ottawa, Ontario.
Would like one thousand soldiers' votes at large for Manitoba, of which 300 for Selkirk, balance divided between Provencher, Macdonald and Springfield, or same proportion of division, no matter what our allotment may be.
Arthur Meighen
This is the man who wants more soldier votes. Here is something else he said:
"Present system needs reform," Meighen says.
That appeared in the press on January 17; he said it on January 16. To continue:
Conservative leader, in by-election speech, calls for end to baseless aspersions and stop to fomenting of class antagonisms.
He made that statement in Toronto. I have here another telegram which is signed by a well-known citizen of the world with regard to illegal arrests in Winnipeg. It is dated June 17, 1919, and is a telegram from Mr. Meighen to Mr. Andrews:
Notwithstanding any doubt I have as to the technical legality of the arrest and the detention at Stony Mountain, I feel that rapid deportation is the best course now that the arrests are made, and later we can consider ratification.
The meaning of that is that the law did not authorize him to keep these men under arrest in the penitentiary. Nevertheless, as he says, afterwards we will ratify it by changing the law and making it valid. This was quoted by no less a man than the Hon. Peter Heenan, now a minister in Mr. Hepburn's cabinet, on June 2, 1926, as reported at page 4004 of Hansard of that year.
Is it surprising that after Mr. Meighen's speech of January 10, we had this news item in the press:
Fredericton, January 11. "Mr. Meighen's speech speaks for itself," said Hon. R. B. Hanson, acting Conservative house leader, when asked Saturday if he had any comment to make regarding the speech of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen at Toronto last night. "He is the leader of the Conservative party in Canada and I commend his views to the Canadian people," said Mr. Hanson.
The correspondent of the Gazette, a very distinguished journalist, Mr. Mears, wrote on January 12 that Mr. Meighen simply refused to admit that the present conflict is not a continuation or repetition of that of 19141918. Mark you, sir, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) is not the leader of the opposition. He is acting leader of the opposition. His accepted leader is Arthur Meighen, who is now a candidate and who will be defeated on February 9.
The other day I, a Liberal member, said that the Minister of National Defence should resign. It was my right to say so, but should have been said before by the acting leader of the opposition. Arthur Meighen's supporter, Colonel Drew, made a statement in Toronto about Hong Kong. And when I spoke, the leader of the opposition said: "Order," meaning by that that he did not want me to express freely my opinion about that. How can he explain that? How can Arthur Meighen complain about the government when every time I have complaints about the government, the ministers were not defended by their colleagues, they were defended by the leader of the opposition himself, who was like Ferdinand the Bull and had a flower in his mouth for every cabinet minister on this side of the house?
The Address-Mr. Pouliot


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I withdraw at once.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely
this exhibition has gone far enough.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I have the
floor, and I do not want my time taken up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is
a point of- order. I object to the language being used by the hon. member, and I do not know why he has not been called to order before now, and especially by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crerar) who is now leading the house. Do I have to listen to a comparison like that, from the hon. member for Temis-couata or anyone else? I call upon you, Mr. Speaker, to make him withdraw every word he said about me, and I call upon the leader of the house-


Jean-François Pouliot: I withdraw Ferdinand the
bull, nothing else.


Richard Burpee Hanson: -to end this state of affairs.


Mr. CRERAR:: I have not followed all
the speech of the hon. member for Temis-couata because I was required to be out of the chamber for two brief periods. But from what I have heard I think the hon. member's remarks were in order until the last statement. he made, which he has already withdrawn.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall read from an
editorial in the Toronto Evening Telegram of January 23. It is headed:
Opposition forces the door to open inquiry into incompetence.
The editorial begins:
It is not often that it is possible to agree with J. F. Pouliot, M.P., the effervescent member for Temiseouata, yet in his statement that the Minister of Defence should resign over the Hong Kong affair-a statement that was drowned by cries of "Order!"-he appears to have been the only member of parliament who recognized the gravity of the situation revealed by the admissions of Hon. J. L. Ralston.
That concerns what I have said. There is one thing should be done; it is that all Canadians should unite to perform a national and patriotic duty to "squeeze" Arthur Meighen on February 9. I remember very well the day in the special session of 1939 when my leader, the Prime Minister, was speaking, through the chair, to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), and he said: "There is no man for whom I have more respect in this house." But at the

present time it is not a question of accepting all the views of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation; the question is to defeat Arthur Meighen so that the big financial interests and the "two hundred" in the city of Toronto do not rule this country. That is all I have to say for the moment.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be of congratulation to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald). They indeed had a great opportunity in having seen Britain, resolute and fearless. The inspiration that came to them from that opportunity was reflected in their words. The Empire Parliamentary Association is to be congratulated on having invited these hon. members to Westminster. I would make the suggestion that the government of Canada might well consider inviting a group from the congress of the United States to visit us, and at the same time the parliamentary association might arrange that some hon. members of this house have an opportunity to go to Washington, thus indicating to the United States of America our appreciation of the efforts they are putting forth as our allies and the magnificent assistance they gave us long before the actual outbreak of hostilities between the United States and the axis powers.
As I listened to the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) it came to me once more what democracy in this empire and this country means: That in the midst of war, when all of us are worried and concerned, an hon. member may rise in his place and make the type of speech he made to-day. That is freedom of speech-the opportunity to express one's view in parliament.
I am not going to endeavour to follow the hon. member in what he has said. I think now is not the time for me to endeavour to enter into any defence of our new leader. That may well be left to less perilous times. As I apprehend my responsibility as a member of parliament it is this, not to indulge in personalities, or in recriminations as to what took place in 1917 or since, but to try to place before the house and the country any ideas I may have that might be of assistance at this time.
The speech from the throne confined itself in general to an expression of the intention on the part of the government to extend the

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
war effort. But throughout the entire speech there is only one definite promise, contained in the following paragraph:
My ministers accordingly will seek, from the people, by means of a plebiscite, release from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service.
Two amendments have been proposed. The only point of conflict that I see between these amendments is that that proposed by my hon. leader is clear and unequivocal; we challenge the right of the government at this time in our history- to submit a matter of life and death to the people of the nation in this way. On the other hand the subamendment, while agreeing with all that we say in our amendment, suggests that provision should be made in the plebiscite for an additional question. Let me ask at once: is there any hon. member in this house to-day who denies the proposition that treasure should be mobilized with blood? Gould it ever be said that Canada would conscript her sons but not her wealth? No hon. member would say to-day that large profits should be permitted in time of war. We all admit that in war time large profits are indefensible and unjustifiable.
What is the amendment we propose? In essence it is this, that we should completely mobilize the wealth and material resources and, on a. selective basis, the full man and woman pow-er of the nation, to the end that the nation may wage total war in any theatre of war, and that we should supply the needs of agriculture and industry and the fighting forces and prepare for the post-war period.
I point to the order in which these requisites are referred to in the amendment-that we mobilize wealth and material resources, and mobilize on a selective basis the man-power of the nation.
Let me make just a reference to agriculture. We are asking that the imperative needs of agriculture shall be met. For almost two years in this house we have called attention to the situation of agriculture in western Canada. Population records now tell the story

parts of western Canada depopulated in large areas because of the fact that in part the government has failed to x-ealize that there is a problem in so far as western agriculture is concerned.
We on this side of the house have taken the stand consistently that so far as the wheat grower is concerned, as of right he should be entitled in this time of war to a parity price. Finally, the farmers of Saskatchewan, in desperation, knowing that there was no hope from this parliament unless they showed themselves
here, will arrive on Sunday next. On November 27 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was interviewed, and rather ridiculed the projected trip. His words were:
Asked about the plan Friday, the Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, said if such a delegation does come they will no doubt be received and listened to attentively. I am afraid they will have left the impression that money- is more plentiful in western Canada than most of us believe it to be.
They are coming, Mr. Speaker, to demand their rights. They come in no threatening mood, but rather as individuals who to-day find themselves in a position bordering on economic slavery. The farmer must have parity prices for farm products, and I believe that when they do come, and when this government realizes they mean action-and by that I mean political action-the government will see the light and do that which it has not done, in spite of the representations made from this side of the house, during the last year. That is all I am going to say at the moment about agriculture. Our attitude is this-and it was the attitude of Mr. Meighen adopted when he accepted the leadership: our stand demands every sacrifice, whether of time, money, property, income as well as men for the army, so long as the laws making these demands are equitable and fair and apply to everyone without discrimination.
Here we are, Mr. Speaker, in the darkest period of the war. All of us to-day admit the peril to freedom. What the people of Canada are asking for is not a reference; it is not a consultation. What they are asking us to give is a plan, definite, comprehensive and fearless in its operation. They demand that. They have no way of getting it other than by asking for it, and by requiring their representatives in the house to stand up and make their demands on their behalf. Our responsibility as members is to give voice to their demands.
Great changes have come over the world in the last few weeks. The freedom-loving nations are banded together to forge the greatest chain for the preservation of liberty the world has ever known. They are banded together-1,720,000,000 people, as compared with 293,000,000 under the axis, and 215,000,000 in countries under the scourge of Hitler. They are banded together with over seventy per cent of the world's natural resources.
Wealth unused, man-power unmobilized and potential resources unless utilized avail nothing. We were told by Mr. Churchill when he was here that the period of consolidation is ending, that the pattern of victory is being designed. Yet even to-day Germany is spend-
The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker

ing $25,000,000,000 a year, while the British empire as a whole is spending approximately $23,000,000,000. I am not one who deprecates our war effort; it is fine, so far as it goes. We are all Canadians, but, Mr. Speaker, there are dangers which must be met. Hong Kong was to Canada its Dunkirk. Hong Kong was another example of that principle of "too little and too late"-"too little" in numbers, "too little in forces" and too late as to transport and armoured vehicles. I suggest to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) that whoever was responsible for making the errors at Hong Kong should be punished and removed from office.
What will be necessary, I ask the minister, to awaken the people of Canada to immediate action regarding man-power? Will not the foreboding news of Singapore or the repulse in the Libyan campaign to-day? The answer of the government for not acting is that "national unity," must be preserved. Is "national unity" 'being used as a shibboleth to avoid responsibility, and as an excuse? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, will not the common danger which faces this empire to-day, which faces this country, and which was so admirably pictured last night in the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), bring national unity in Canada?
Is Canada's war effort to be like a convoy in the Atlantic, the speed of which is to be determined by the slowest ship in the convoy? The Prime Minister says he believes in total war, and he has used striking words in that connection. He has said this:
There is only one way to meet total war, and that is by total effort, not for a day or a week or a month, but every day until victory is won.
Must we in Canada wait until every person agrees that the government in its good time takes action? The great majority of Canadian people are asking for and pleading for action, and the government seems to be hobbled by those who ask for moderation in the extent of Canada's war effort. It is no time for discouragement. It is time for courage, for action, and above all for a banishment of political considerations. It is time for us to take stock of our resources and to act resolutely. Once and for all we must determine that the days that are gone, are gone. 1917 is gone; the last election is a thing of the past. We remember what Churchill said, -"If we wrangle about yesterday we have lost to-morrow."
I make this appeal to-day: let us forget recriminations, forget the past and the mistakes which have been made: forget partisanship and forget jockeying for votes, with an

eye on the ballot box of the future. Let not Canada's effort be circumscribed by political considerations. What the people are asking for is not partisanship. They ask for psychological rearmament, rearmament of hope, and faith.
The heroes of Hong Kong went out into the night, a night of certain sacrifice. They went with courage unexampled, because they knew they would be avenged, that others would take their places, and that Canada represented by its parliament would not fail them. The foundation of morale is faith and knowledge -faith that those who serve will not be deserted, an appreciation of the eternity of the principles for which this empire stands, the knowledge that there will be no surrender by those who survive, and that though life is lost there will be others to take their places.
Lose morale and you court disaster. Who is the custodian of our morale? The responsibility rests upon parliament. The Canadian people can do nothing, they are helpless, they are shackled. However willing they may be to serve, they can be frustrated by a parliament that will not act. What happened twenty-four years ago has nothing to do with the question to-day. Our duty, our obligation, our trusteeship as members of parliament is to see that no man who serves is sacrificed unnecessarily, and that the wealth and resources of this nation are mobilized.
I think the time has come when the members of this house have the right to ask of the members of this government what their plans are, and to have the answer. What of the balanced programme that was referred to in the speech from the throne regarding increases in our armed forces and in the production of munitions and foodstuffs? Is Canada's main contribution to be materials? In the armed forces is the first consideration to be to secure men for the army, the navy or the air force? Instead of saying to the young men of this country, "we need you in the army, we need your services", a regulation goes out making provision for a new suit. In other words, the man shall determine where he will serve. This is not decided upon the basis of need according to government plan, it is decided by the individual upon the basis of whether or not the suit suits. Have we achieved maximum production? What is the plan for the mobilization of agriculture to assure producers a fair and reasonable return for their products? What is the plan regarding selective allocation of men to the places where they will give the maximum service to the war effort?
Are our objectives known? Except for the British empire training plan, which was worked

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker
out a year and a half ago, our objectives have been announced piecemeal. We are told that there is a shortage of gasoline, that our forces need gasoline, and we are given a rationing scheme that is a sham. The people of this country are being allowed to drive for pleasure a total of 5,500 miles. We hear about a rubber shortage, but what is being done to mobilize the available resources of this nation? We have heard a lot about a salvage campaign, about the need for iron and steel and scrap iron. A plan, was evolved under which the people of Canada patriotically endeavoured to supply the needs of the government. But does the government accept that scrap iron? No, it goes to the clearance centres for its needs.
One instance comes to my mind. The farmers in the vicinity of Strongfield, in my constituency, believing that cast iron was needed, went out in their fields and removed all unnecessary parts from their machinery. They got together a total of 138,000 pounds, but they found there was no market. They finally got an offer of a certain price per ton which they had to accept although the price was low. They shipped the scrap iron and received a net amount of $400 upon the basis of a ton of 2,250 pounds. The purchasers pointed out that a ton of scrap iron is that weight according to the decision arrived at by the government last summer, but later on made up the difference in price.
Are men needed? When Mr. Churchill introduced his man-power bill in the British House of Commons extending compulsion to men up to fifty-one years of age and to women for the auxiliary services, he said this:
The crisis of equipment is largely over and an everbroadening flow is now assured. The crisis of man-power and woman-power is at hand and will dominate the year 1942. This crisis comes upon us for the following reasons: The great supply plants have largely been constructed; they are finished; they must be staffed. We must maintain the powerful mobile army we have created with so much pains both for home defence and foreign expedition.
General Auchinleck says that the empire needs men; Mr. Roosevelt says that the United States needs men, but the government of Canada says that there is no need. I ask the government to tell us what system they have for the mobilization of man-power.


Mr. RALSTON:: That is not so.


John George Diefenbaker: How are they to be the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said that they were getting enough men. That is the record of the last few days.


James Layton Ralston: I said nothing of the kind.


John George Diefenbaker: How are they to be obtained? What is our system of mobilization? Conscription for service in Canada penalizes the youth from twenty-one to twenty-four years because of his age. Every day one receives complaints from young men who are in the service about the coercion that is being used, young men who say they are being browbeaten and intimidated in an effort to get them to go overseas. Records can be given. Let the government investigate the situation in military district No. 12. Farmer boys have been called up whose brothers are already serving overseas. They leave their homesteads when there is no possibility of securing the necessary labour to work them. They are brought into the city and placed in a position where enlistment for overseas is forced upon them. And the government calls this voluntary enlistment!
Why have we no planned coordination in the empire? Why are we not represented in an imperial war cabinet? I suggest that it would be fitting to take one of the ministers of national defence in Canada and send him over to England to cooperate with the ministers from other parts of the empire. The other parts of the empire have asked for this but the Prime Minister says that we are getting along as well as we need to at the present time. What is the psychological effect going to be in Australia, in New Zealand, in south Africa, if Canada persists in this action? I cannot understand the attitude of the government in refusing the offer of a place for Canada in a war cabinet as proposed by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The membership was not refused directly, but acceptance has been postponed indefinitely.
Australia is fearful and afraid. Has any good reason been given why Canada is not a member of the Pacific defence council? The failure in Hong Kong apparently arose because the government was not aware of the probability of Japan coming into the war. If they had been, they would not have sent untrained men over there. We have a joint defence council for Canada and the United States headed by Mayor LaGuardia. Did he not tell Canada of the danger? That the danger was known in the United States is revealed in the report of Mr. Justice Roberts on the Pearl Harbour disaster. He said:
As early as October 16, the commanders were, warned of the possibility of an attack by Japan on the United States and were directed to take precautions and make preparatory dispositions in the light of this information. A significant warning message was communicated to both the local commanders on November 24. On November 27 each responsible commander was warned that hostilities were momentarily possible.

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker
The warnings indicated war and war only. What was the reason the munitions did not arrive in Hong Kong? Was it that there was no appreciation of the danger? Was it that they were shipped in a slow ship? Is that the explanation? I am glad the whole matter is to be investigated, and I express the prayer and hope there will be no more Hong Kongs.
Why not mobilize man-power now? The Minister of Agriculture is authority for the statement made on September 12 last that Canada could still muster a million men without interfering in any way with the production of primary products and industry. He went on to point out that 1,198,000 single men between the ages of eighteen and forty-four are still available. But the excuse given to-day is that we cannot do that because we have not the necessary man-power for industry and we would not be able to equip the troops. Well, we have the answer to that in a speech delivered by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) on September 11, 1941, when he said:
As a matter of fact the problem of equipment for our Canadian armed forces is one that no longer gives concern.
He went on to point out that we had almost reached the limit of Canada's industrial production. He said:
The Department of Munitions and Supply has been entrusted with the task of mobilizing Canada's full productive capacity for the manufacture of munitions and war supplies. As minister of that department I feel that I can now report practical fulfilment of that task.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will permit me, he has used the word "munitions" twice with reference to the Hong Kong expedition. Probably he misunderstood. The munitions went with the ship. It was the mechanized vehicles that did not reach there. Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to make that correction.


John George Diefenbaker: That is perfectly true. I was referring to the mechanized equipment.


Mr. GARDINER:: Perhaps the hon. member will also permit me to put the record straight. As a matter of fact my statement was this: If a million men are necessary, the other seven million could do the work necessary to keep them there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not what the press said.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what the press said, if I was reported properly.


John George Diefenbaker: Here is what the Minister of Agriculture said as reported by the press:
Canada can muster 1,000,000 men for the armed forces and still attain the necessary production in farm and factory, Agriculture Minister Gardiner said last night in a Reconsecration Week speech on the national network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
If 1,000,000 men were called to arms, he said, there would still be 7,000,000 persons over 16 years of age left and these "properly organized and determined to stand behind the armed forces can operate all our farms, our factories and places of business in a manner which will give us the production required."


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will permit me, because this matter has been referred to three times in the house already, in the last sentence he has read he has quoted what I actually said. But before that in the first sentence he read the newspaper lead.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of Agriculture made the statement as reported by the press.


James Garfield Gardiner: I made the statement as reported in the last sentence that was read.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who is making the speech?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am making a correction.


John George Diefenbaker: The record speaks for itself, but as usual the Minister of Agriculture, after making one statement, finds it necessary to withdraw part of it when challenged later on.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not recalling any part'of the statement I made. My statement is reported in the press and properly reported, but I am not responsible for the reporter's lead. 1


John George Diefenbaker: We are not going to get into an argument over reporters' leads, except to say that this reporter's lead summarizes exactly what the minister said.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not. Read it
again.


An hon. MEMBER:: The minister has never denied it until to-day.


James Garfield Gardiner: I corrected it last session when the same speaker was speaking. I made him read it a second time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, surely the minister knows the rules of this house much better than that. If he wants to make a correction, there is a proper time and place.

The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker


Mr. SPEAKER:: If the hon. member does not wish to have any interruptions, I would ask hon. members not to interrupt.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: By all the rules the proper time to make a correction is when the statement is made.


James Garfield Gardiner: The speech was read over the radio; it is on record and can be produced at any time.	-


John George Diefenbaker: I am not concerned about the interruptions, Mr. Speaker, but if the Minister of Agriculture has a speech to make, let him make it, because the people of Canada want to know whether the Minister of Agriculture who spoke in September last has the same views to-day that he had then.
Man-power is necessary, and it can be secured. The speech from the throne admits inferentially that there is need of man-power in our war effort, in the armed services, in industry and on the farms. And what does the government do? It holds a plebiscite, a sop to public opinion, to be acted on, I presume, as was the referendum on prohibition in 1897. The majority voted in favour of that plebiscite, but the government failed to act for fourteen years.


Mr. GRANT:: I 'thought the hon. member was not going to go into past history.


John George Diefenbaker: Your situation, Mr. Speaker, is a difficult one when a member refers to matters that are not to the liking of the government. As I was about to say, what does the government give us to-day? A plebiscite. I would not contest so seriously the government's action if they were .frank enough to inform the people of Canada that if there is an affirmative vote on the plebiscite, they will act and mobilize the man-power of this country, that is, of course, provided that the pledge of the Prime Minister and the other members of the government is such that they find it impossible to be released therefrom in this parliament by the people's representatives. But they will say nothing about what they will do after the plebiscite is taken. The Prime Minister says he will give no commitments. I ask the ministers who have been interrupting me: What will you do? I ask the Minister of Agriculture now: If the Canadian people come out in favour of releasing the government, what will you do? I ask the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar): what will you do? I ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock): what will you do? I ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) and the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald): what will you do?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Do the right thing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do our duty.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker. The government give no undertaking. They say: relieve us of our responsibility and we will do what is best. What is -best? The best is a matter of interpretation according to the whims of the person voting on the plebiscite. The hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) says: The government will act. The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott) says: The plebiscite will allow troops to be sent overseas. But the premier of Quebec says: no; it means nothing of the sort. The Prime Minister denies that he gave Mr. Godbout any authority to make such a statement. Then where did Mr. Godbout get his authority to make a statement such as that? Again I ask the ministers of the -crown: Did they give authority to Mr. Godbout to make that statement? Have hon. -gentlemen read in the press to-day that every member of the Godbout government is opposed to conscription? I ask the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar): What would he do if the plebiscite passed, in view of the speech he delivered in the city of Winnipeg prejudging -the matter?
The Prime Minister claims |hat a plebiscite is the only way available to him to secure release from his pledged word. Mr. Chamberlain, when Prime Minister of Great Britain, found himself in a like position, by reason of the pledges of Mr. Baldwin, and himself appealed to parliament for release using these words:
The Prime Minister, whatever his declarations have been, is deprived through external circumstances of the ordinary constitutional methods of escaping from a difficulty of this kind. Therefore, he is bound to act in accordance with what he believes to be the national needs and safety. That is the supreme pledge which is tacitly and unspokenly given by all those who hold first office in the state. I should like to point out, that, looking back on the past, this is exactly what happened in the great war. We were all pledged against conscription in the great war. The most fiery speeches were made by all the members of that government before the war and at the election preceding it. I certainly declaimed against it with the utmost vigour.' When, however, the crisis of the war was reached and it was found to be absolutely necessary to have conscription, hardly any of the ministers found the slightest difficulty in voting for it.
But what did the Minister of Mines and Resources say when speaking in Winnipeg? The government claims the right to consult public opinion and yet the Minister of Mines
The Address-Mr. Diejenbaker

and Resources said that you cannot depend on public opinion. This is his statement as reported in the Winnipeg press:
I have never ignored public opinion but in my experience and observations there are times when public opinion may not be well informed.
Then he goes on, in these significant words:
And I have not a great deal of admiration for the public man whose ear is always to the ground so that he may trim his sails according to the wind. . . .


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does my hon. friend
quarrel with that?


John George Diefenbaker: Wait till you get
the rest of the story.
I say frankly that if I were convinced that conscription of men for overseas service is the one best contribution Canada can make I would be for it.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about answering the question?


An hon. MEMBER:: How are you going
to vote on the plebiscite?


Georges Parent: I would ask hon. members not to interrupt the speaker. If they do not agree with his statement they will have an opportunity afterwards.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister has often spoken of the supremacy of parliament. In this case he substitutes uncertainty for constitutional responsibility. If he would say frankly to the people of Canada that he wanted to take this step, I and every person in Canada would believe him, and there would be no opposition. But, no, we are to have procrastination and delay for another two or three months, to see what is going to turn up. I suggest this, bring in a resolution to the house, or give the private members an opportunity, through the restoration of private members' day, to introduce a resolution for complete mobilization of wealth, man-power, and resources. Let the Prime Minister and each of his ministers get up and say to their following-as loyal and patriotic as any in the house-"Vote according to the dictates of your conscience." Allow the members of parliament to vote on this question. Do not submit the question to the people of Canada, for in my opinion the taking of a plebiscite at this time may well destroy the unity of Canada. How will the people know how to vote? If they vote to release the government, what is the government going to do? God forbid that the proposal be defeated! But if so, what harm will be done to a united war effort? Is parliament to be sovereign, or is it to become a political juke-box which is to be voiceless unless the token of public opinion is inserted, and public 
opinion, on inserting that token, is still uncertain and uninformed as to the tune the government will play as a result? Let us have certainty. Let us know what the government's attitude is and what its plan is. The Prime Minister referred the other day to taking the people into their confidence. I say, yes, do that, and take the members of the House of Commons into your confidence! Tell us what you are going to do. Why allow the issue involved in the plebiscite to depend upon the uncertainties of interpretation by each and every individual who votes on it?
My time is almost exhausted, but I wish to deal with one other matter-the mobilization of man-power within this House of Commons. Here are 245 members in touch with the needs of their constituents all over the dominion. There are the members of the government who to-day are overworked. We all have some appreciation of the load of responsibility which they carry. But the rest of the members, with the exception of a few who are on committees, have nothing to do, no work to engage them.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I have too much.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, the hon.
gentleman represents, he says, two or three constituencies. It may not be a suggestion in accord with ordinary democratic principles, but we are at war. Mobilize the brain-power of this house. Divide the membership into committees; let us get together, not on the basis of committees over-loaded with government supporters, but as members each of whom is endeavouring to see the other man's point of view. Set up a committee on the mobilization of our resources, so that all the machine shops throughout Canada will be used, so that we shall be assured of getting the necessary oil production. Set up a committee on agriculture; it is two years overdue. Set up a committee on labour, to be sure that labour is receiving proper treatment. In passing I should like to suggest that representation on various war administrative boards be given not only to dollar-a-year men but to representatives of agriculture and labour as well. Set up a committee on home defence to deal with air raid precautions and the like. Set up a committee on rehabilitation problems. Set up a committee to utilize the services of veterans all over the dominion, the men who served in the last war and, who, but for age and other handicaps, would be serving to-day. Mobilize these veterans, through a committee of this house, to replace young men in service to-day in Canada. Seventy-five per cent of the members of this

The Address-Mr. Shaw
house get no opportunity whatever, except through criticisms and suggestions, to assist the government at this time.
One thing more, Mr. Speaker. The people of Canada are asking that civilian expenditures be reduced to a minimum. Yet what has happened during the past few sessions? Estimates in millions and millions of dollars have been brought in during the last day. Give us an opportunity, by bringing them in earlier, to sit down and pare millions and millions off those estimates, to the advantage of our war effort. .
As I see the situation, there is a challenge which comes to every one of us in these terrible and trying times. I saw the other day a quotation, in one of the articles sent out by the Department of National War Services, "God grant that no brave boy shall lose his life because I falter." That is the message for all hon. members of this house. Our duty is to assure the people of Canada that her effort will be such that no man in our armed forces will lack for a plane, a tank or a boat; to make sure that it will never be said of the members of this parliament, on whom the responsibility rests, that we have been "weighed in the balance and found wanting."
I warn you that the people of Canada are in no mood for trifling. They are prepared to sacrifice, to pay increasing taxes, to reduce their standard of living, to do all, but they demand that service be equalized and that wealth as well as man-power be mobilized. Parliament is more than a sounding board. It symbolizes the hopes and aspirations of all the people'of Canada, whose eyes are on us. If we allow partisanship to govern to-day, parliament will become nothing but a voiceless vassal of the government.
We on this side of the house are sometimes ridiculed for our criticism. If it had not been for the criticism that came from the member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), would tanks be built in Canada to-day? Would a great shipbuilding project have been undertaken? What about the acceleration of production of aircraft? What about the acceleration of the war effort? Criticism has come from this side and not from government members in general and it was met in many cases by ridicule at first but later was accepted.
"Politics as usual," with its companion, "business as usual," is a dangerous partnership in time of war. Canada to-day is asking her men to do and to give their all, and they ask us to make our objective victory and not votes. Let us forget our partisanship, which we have shown in the past. All of us have
been guilty. Let our party drums cease to rumble, and let not party declarations stymie us from our goal of a total war effort, stultifying the national war effort and stagnating the people's morale and their will to do and their desire to serve.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: There can be, I think, absolutely no division of opinion on the assertion that we have at this time passed into one of the gravest periods in the world's history, a period wherein British institutions, British ideals of justice and liberty, in fact, the whole British way of life are all threatened by a combination of evils which aim to subjugate and eventually to exterminate our empire and everything for which it stands. At this particular time we are satisfied, I am sure, that it is more essential than ever that we in Canada should take stock with a view to ascertaining whether or not we are doing everything which it is necessary to do in order to meet the impending danger. I believe, further, that in every quarter of this country people are realizing more and more that every aspect of our Canadian life must be more highly coordinated and organized if ours is to be the most effective war effort.
In my humble judgment, the energies of the members of this house, the members who are the responsible representatives of the Canadian people, should be directed toward one main objective, namely, that this government and those responsible for the direction of this effort should use every measure necessary in keeping with the needs of the hour. We must take it upon ourselves to make it abundantly certain that partisanship, the desire for party advancement, must, for the moment at least, go by the board.
I am one who personally believes that actions deliberately designed to create complications tend only to frustrate and impede and have no place in the present and the immediate scheme of things. The major portion of this debate has centred round the avowed intention of the government to take a plebiscite in order that the government may be relieved from any commitments which it made in the past regarding the method of raising men for military service. A vote at this time is not a vote for or against conscription. but it has precipitated a heated debate on the question of conscription.
It is, in my opinion, extremely regrettable that this government ever allowed itself to be manoeuvred into a position where a course of action such as that which is contemplated need ever have been considered. It is a most
The Address-Mr. Shaw

unenviable position in which it finds itself, and I believe it is going to be a most difficult position out of which to extricate itself.
I am taken back to that hectic March of 1940 when what courage, vision, or foresight the government may have had at that time was sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Verily, in my opinion, it would appear that for them at least the day of judgment has at last arrived. It is also extremely regrettable that our vociferous friends of the Conservative party, inspired, I believe, by the scent of political blood, are endeavouring to move heaven and earth with their incantations, forgetting all the while that they, too, made ample use of that altar in 1940, though without very much success.
That this plebiscite is to be taken is, in my estimation, a certainty. I presume we may just as well reconcile ourselves to that fact. Since, however, it is to appear in this house as a formal issue to be debated as such, I shall refrain from making further reference to it at this time. With war convulsing the greater part of the world, with our own shores in imminent danger, as has already been indicated by many members, with that grim spectre of Hong Kong staring us in the face, it is probably timely that some of us say to the government, "Let us really get down to business and battle and thus set an example to all of our Canadian people." We are asking our Canadian people to gird themselves for war; but if we expect results which will be most highly satisfactory, it is essential that we set an example for them to follow.
I do not propose to comment upon the extent of our war preparations. I encounter a good deal of difficulty in arriving at some basis upon which I am able to criticize. We hear the reports of the various ministers. We are obliged to take their word for what they say. We have no way of knowing whether those^ reports are exaggerated or not. Therefore it becomes extremely difficult for us to speak in definite terms with regard to the extent to which we should expand in the production of machines of war.
There are, however, many matters about which we are familiar. In the first place, if I were to level any charge at all at the government, it would have to be this:	I believe
that we lack a definitely coordinated plan.
I say that for this reason: We see, at this late stage, the spectacle of agriculture still in an unfortunate position; we witness the spectacle of thousands yet unemployed; we see certain cross-sections of our Canadian people still not having been given the consideration which is overdue. I have in mind,

for example, the old age pensioners of whom I spoke here a few months ago. We have those unskilled workers, who, because of the fact that they are unskilled, seem to be unable to find a corner or a niche into which they might be fitted in the war effort. We witness men being taken out of essential' industries and put in uniform, thus impairing the efficiency of those industries and retarding our production. I believe that it will soon be necessary for the government to set up a board or a commission, or whatever they wish to call it, for the purpose of establishing a definite, clear-cut plan for the prosecution of the war.
Let me speak of one group of Canadian citizens who are rendering most valuable service at this time even though they are unheralded; a group who have been given thus far practically no consideration by the government. That group, the teaching profession must have their views aired here. I feel competent to deal with this matter inasmuch as I have spent more than one-third of my life in that profession, and I realize from first-hand experience the difficulties they are encountering. I might be asked, "Why do you bring it up here?" Recently the government of Canada passed drastic regulations restricting certain wage increases, and granting cost of living bonuses to those in certain professions. This legislation or order in council, obviously designed to prevent inflation-which incidentally was supposed to arise only under proposals which we advocated -was intended to prevent inflation and also to ensure that all essential Canadian workers should be enabled to maintain life at a level compatible with physical and moral efficiency. The government, however, failed to take into consideration the teachers of Canada. I know the government may have regarded this as a provincial matter or a municipal responsibility. We know the government believed that the suggestions set forth in the order in council would be recognized by employing bodies. Nevertheless many of these municipalities, many of these smaller areas, failed to appreciate the valuable services performed by the teachers and the extremely necessary nature of their work. There are in Canada over
30.000	teachers in rural districts who, during the year 1940, received less than $1,000 a year for their services. There were 19,000 such teachers in the dominion who received less than $625 a year, and there were approximately
13.000	who received less than $525 a year. Outside Canada, in other parts of the British empire, we find that inexperienced women teachers enjoy an average income of from $700 to $800 a year with guaranteed increments for experience and satisfactory service.

The Address-Mr. Shaw
I also have in mind that in Great Britain, when regulations were adopted granting bonuses, there was absolutely no question about the teachers being included; they were included. Unfortunately, there are all too few people in this country who appreciate the nature and the value of the work carried on by the teaching profession. Unfortunately, that profession, like many others, has been relegated to a minor position. It is high time that we gave proper appreciation to the value of education, if for no other reason than in order that the rising generation may be a little more competent to deal with the problems which confront them than we have been to deal with those which face us. I have seen during recent months hundreds of our most competent and efficient teachers move from their schools to factory centres because the rates of pay offered there are far more satisfactory than those they were getting. Ail this is to the detriment of the children.
From coast to coast, we have witnessed the spectacle of schools closing on account of the inability to secure teachers. In recent weeks we witnessed the spectacle of many inexperienced youngsters, if I may so describe them, without sufficient training being taken out to teach school in many rural communities. We cannot afford to allow our standard of education to become a third-rate standard. We cannot afford to see our teachers submitting themselves to economic degradation. We cannot afford to allow a semi-illiterate generation to come forward, charged with the responsibility of solving the problem which we shall pass on as a legacy to them. The terms of the order in council should be broadened to enable the teachers of Canada to demand and to secure cost of living bonuses which are necessary, if they are to continue to perform the type of service we require.
For a moment I should like to refer to the matter of salvage. I am quite satisfied that if Canadians are given a clear-cut understanding of the need for salvage, there will be no reluctance on their part to do everything within their power to provide the materials which are available and are required. The more recent aspect of our salvage campaign has had to do with the salvaging of paper. If there is a shortage of paper, as has been indicated, and if it is the desire of the Department of National War Services that paper should be salvaged, the first thing that department must do is to indicate to our people that it is prepared to set an example.
I have before me a notice which I presume appeared recently in all Canadian newspapers. It bears the heading "Bullets for Britain", and then, in large type, it states:
Waste paper is a valuable war material- don't throw it away or burn a scrap of it. Canada needs it -needs it badly

needs it now!
And so on. It has come to my attention in my own home town, through the chairman of a committee set up to salvage paper, that recently various papers and publications have come into his hands. After examining them, he has come to the conclusion that he cannot be inspired to go forward with any great measure of enthusiasm, because he can see no evidence on the part of the government that it is anxious to conserve supplies we already have.
For example, I hold in my hand a copy of a publication sent out to newspaper editors in Canada. It is headed "Press censorship", and comprises twenty-four pages, sixteen of which are absolutely blank. When this information becomes known to the people in any community, they are not going to be enthusiastic about proceeding with this or any other type of campaign. Sometimes I wonder why the salvage organizer, as I believe he is described, for Alberta and British Columbia has not been able to get more than four or five people to attend meetings held in centres of 1,100 or 1,200 population. I believe the condition I have set out affords a definite reason why he does not secure better results. The government must indicate that it is going to practise conservation.
One further observation in that regard. Our people have not been directed as they should have been in connection with the disposal of salvage. Probably I should say that they are not satisfied that the salvaged materials are going to the sources at which they are required, without certain persons or groups of persons profiting unduly as a consequence of the operation. I am not making any accusation, but I do state that the position should be made clear to those who are called upon to salvage materials.
Not so many years ago there was set up in Canada an organization known as the air cadet league of Canada, and I should like to make one or two statements about it. I do so because in my constituency we have one of the largest air cadet squadrons to be found outside the larger cities in Canada. Squadron No. 7 at Penhold is composed of about 186 cadets. I approve the idea of an air cadet league, and it is my belief that great good will come from it. As the months roll by, we shall be in a better position to appreciate
The Address-Mr. Shaw

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
give up his job to an element in our midst who are chasers of dollars and not doing their duty. He says, "My chums and I feel that there is only one fair basis, compulsory selective service anywhere from everyone." These boys also feel that they want some method of removing any chance of future stigma on their name which might be caused by their being in some particular job.
What do the government hope to gain by a plebiscite? At best the government get a respite of two or three months. Meantime there are all kinds of turmoil. When the three months are up there will be the same pressure for action. This proposal of a plebiscite is an affront to the rights of parliament and an undeserved reflection on the people of this country, of whatever race or creed. It will get nowhere. If the proposal carries it will not get rid of the controversy, and it will leave uncertainty as to future action; if it fails to carry, our troops will be abandoned to the uncertainties of voluntary enlistment. In either case the country is humiliated and disgraced.
Let the government say to the country that the interests of Canada demand compulsory service anywhere. Let the government, after giving hon. members t'he facts and making plain the necessities which may arise, demand that hon. members give them their freedom and a vote of confidence. What did Mr. Churchill do in the House of Commons the other day? He demanded a vote of confidence and he got it. He did not ask for anv plebiscites during this war, no matter what controversies arose or what difficulties he had. There is no necessity to split this country in two by the wholly unfair method' of asking those who do not know, who have not the opportunity of knowing the facts, the mothers and fathers and the boys, to vote to conscript themselves. It is a cowardly act.
On motion of Mr. MacNicol the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at six p.m.
Monday, February 2, 1942