1942-07-06

VACANCY


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from two members, notifying me that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation, viz.:
Of the Honourable Pierre F. Casgrain, member for the electoral district of Charlevoix-Saguenay, by acceptance of an office of emolument under the crown.
I accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



THE CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


Georges Parent: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a copy of a communication addressed to the federal parliament of the Dominion of Canada, from the President and Secretaries of the Chamber of Deputies of Argentine, congratulating the Dominion of Canada on the seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation.
(The communication was read by the Clerk Assistant, as follows):
Buenos Aires, July 2.
The Chamber of Deputies of the Argentine nation has resolved in a session of to-day's date to send a cordial greeting of friendship to the Federal Parliament of the Dominion of Canada on the occasion of the seventy-fifth anniversary [DOT] of the act of 1867 which gave birth to the political government of the noble Canadian people whose organization, intellectual and material progress, and lofty spirit of American solidarity constitute an outstanding example of neighbourliness and continental fraternity. I
salute the Speakers of the Senate and of the House of Commons and, through them, the worthy members of parliament, with my highest respects.
Jose Luis Cantilo, President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Argentine nation; Secretaries Carlos G. Bonorinl, L. Zavalla Carbo.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	Is Mr. L. Scott employed by Wartime Housing Limited?
2.	If so, when was he appointed and what is his salary?
3.	What travelling expenses has he incurred?
4.	Is he doing publicity work? If so, what is the nature of publicity required by Wartime Housing Limited?
5.	What has been the total amount spent by Wartime Housing Limited for publicity to date?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	September 10, 1941. $260 per month.
3.	$1,055.86 to date.
4.	No.
5.	Nil.


INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS IN WAR INDUSTRIES
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1.	In what major war industries have industrial councils representing management and organized labour been set up to date for the purpose of securing maximum production in these plants?
2.	In what government-owned war industry plants are organized trade unions recognized as the bargaining agency between workers and management?


Mr. MITCHELL:: Mr. Speaker, question No. 1 is answered, as follows:
Shipyards in Vancouver; four operators on Queen Charlotte islands; coal mines, Vancouver island; Victoria Machinery Depo*-, Yarrows; aircraft factories in Montreal under Mr. Ralph P. Bell's scheme.
The whole matter is receiving active and immediate study. Selective service is trying to follow up, indicating different methods as to how this can be done and is working to enlist the support of both manufacturers and labour to accelerate the formation of these committees.
Question No. 2 will have to stand as an order for return, to be answered by my colleague, the Minister of Munitions and Supply.


Mr. HOWE:: Supplementing the answer
of my hon. friend, we have no record in the
Questions

Department of Munitions and Supply as to what plants have a unionized bargaining agency between workers and management.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Are there no records
regarding the conditions in the government-owned plants directly under the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, government-owned plants.


Georges Parent: No. 1 answered; No. 2,
order for return.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many men between 16 and 69 W'ere unemployed at the time of the recent enumeration by the Department of Labour?
2.	Of these, how many are considered to be unemployable?
3.	What are the numbers by provinces of, (a) unemployed, rb) unemployable?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1. and 2. The Minister of Labour dealt with the subject matter of these questions on June 25. See Hansard, pages 3683-3684, stating in part "At the close of business on June 11, 1942 .... the total number reported as being unemployed in Canada was 59,933 men." It was pointed out that this was a preliminary return and that it appeared that some 50 per cent of the number of men registering were totally or partly unemployable.
3. Subject to the foregoing the number of men registering in each province were:-
Prince Edward Island	 234
Nova Scotia	 1,715
New Brunswick	 1,033
Quebec	 11,965
Ontario	 22,285
Manitoba	 6,279
Saskatchewan	 3,808
Alberta	 4,156
British Columbia	 8,458
59,933


LABOUR CONDITIONS-STRIKE AT VILLE LASALLE PLANT OP DISTILLERS' CORPORATION
Mr. COTE:: 1.	Has the government taken any steps to bring about a settlement of the strike at the Distillers' Corporation, Limited, Ville LaSalle, Verdun county, Quebec ?
2.	If so, what steps have been taken?


Humphrey Mitchell: The distilling industry
does not come within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act. The dispute is therefore within the jurisdiction of 
the province of Quebec and no steps looking towards a settlement have been taken by the dominion Department of Labour.


DEFENCE OP CANADA REGULATIONS-CHARGES AGAINST RENE CHALOULT AND COLONEL DREW
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Has a special counsel been retained to prosecute Mr. Rene Chaloult?
2.	If not, who is directing the prosecution?
3.	Why did the government appoint special counsel to prosecute Colonel George Drew?


Mr.   S@: 1 and 2. Yes.
3. In pursuance of the usual practice of the department.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-PARRY SOUND SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION WORKSHOPS  WAGES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
What wages per hour are paid to the following groups emploved at the small arms ammunition workshops, Parry Sound, Ontario: toolmakers, leading hand, second class, third class (specialists); stationary engineers, first class, second class, third class; machinist, first class, second class, third class (helper machinist); oiler; blacksmith, assistant blacksmith; plumbing, plumber, pipe fitter, welder; saddle maker, assistant saddle maker; tinsmith, assistant tinsmith; welding, oxide and electrical welder, assistant; settler machinists (machine hand); garage, garage hands, garage mechanics, truck driver (explosives), assistant, truck driver (nonexplosives), assistant; foundry work, painter, moulder, chauffeur, weigher, day labourers; painters, plasterers, day labourers for general work, charwomen:	lead shop department,
antimony, press operator, junior lead machine operator; department No. 32 A.B. cordite, labourers (general), labourers (shop); millwright, assistant millwright, armourer; small arms artillery department, leading hand, chronograph operator, machine gun operator, cleaners, labourers, drum washers, cooks, assistant cooks, waitresses; mixing department, loaders, powder pressers, tinfoil and small press operators, department cleaners, cleaners of 25 A and B, inspectors, male and female, inspectors of production, male and female, carpenters, seamstresses, laundry workers; gas mask department, eye adjusters, mouth adjusters, examiners, cutters, shippers; stores, clerks, shippers.
Humphrey Mitchell: There is no small arms
plant at Parry Sound. I assume the hon. member has reference to a small arms plant elsewhere, and if he will indicate the location the reply will be made by my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe).


Georges Parent: Question stands.

Questions as Orders jor Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: In what government-owned war industry plants are Organized trade unions recognized as the bargaining agency between workers and management?


AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY-MORALE BUILDING CAMPAIGN
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Has an order in council been passed regularizing the appointment of E. G. Hirst of Toronto as morale building organizer in aircraft and allied industries?
2.	If so, what was the date of the order?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.


MECHANICAL MILKERS
Mr. CARDIFF:: Will the government give consideration to having mechanical milkers removed from the restriction placed upon them by an order in council dated January 19, 1942?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Return tabled.


BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
1.	How many cows have been slaughtered on account of bovine tuberculosis in the counties of Quebec-Montmorency, Portneuf and Charlevoix-Saguenay, since the adoption of the "zoning" system in these counties?
2.	How many cows were slaughtered under the jurisdiction of the health department of the municipality of Quebec?
3.	What are the names of the owners of these herds and how many cows were healthy or how many affected in each herd?

Mr. COTE:: 1.	What companies, associations or public bodies, if any, have made representations to the federal government since the outbreak of war, for the adoption of a six-day working week in all war factories in Canada, or certain of them?
2.	Will the government give consideration to such representations with a view to abolishing the seven-day working weex without seriously affecting management and production?
3.	Has the government taken steps to reduce to a minimum the number of war work shops in which the employees are required to work seven days weekly?


MILITARY SERVICE-ENLISTMENT AND ATTESTATION FOR ACTIVE SERVICE-POSTPONEMENTS
Mr. CORMAN:: 1.	What percentage of men called for military training report in each military district as trainees?
2.	What percentage of these men enlist with
the active forces before reporting?	>
3.	What percentage of these men enlist for active service after reporting?
4.	What percentage of these men are granted postponements ?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BLACKMORE:: For a copy of all documents, letters, telegrams, etc., pertaining to the court martial which, on May 2, 1941, dealt with the charges preferred against Major H. C. Singer, of the 2nd Canadian Anti-Tank Regiment in England, including the following:-
1.	The application for Major Singer's court martial.
2.	The convening order for his court martial.
3.	The subpoena of each of the witnesses who gave evidence in the court martial.
4.	The first summary of evidence taken under Major S. McQwirter, April 14 to 18, both dates inclusive.
5.	Major-General Victor Odium's letter, 2 D.C./5-4, April 15, 1941.
6 The complete copy of the proceedings of the court martial.
7.	The shorthand notes taken by the court recorder at the trial.
8.	All details as they appeared in the application for the court martial, including character, correspondence, court of inquiry, etc., etc.
9.	The letter sent to the Secretary of State concerning the dismissal of Major H. C. Singer from the services.
10.	Part I orders 2nd Cdn. Div., February 20-28, 1941; Part I orders No. 1 Base Depot, February 20-28, 1941; Part I orders 2nd Cdn. A/T Regt. R.C.A., ct. 30-Nov. 8, 1940, Dec. 15-27, 1941, Dec. 28-Jan. 5, 1941; February 20-28, 1941.
11.	Declarations to suspend, (a) Rule 8, officer present at investigation; (b) Rule 14, officer sent to inform accused of charges, etc.; (c) Rule 17, undue delay in convening court martial. Open arrest April 9. Trial May 2, 1941.


John Horne Blackmore: Stand.
Mr. RALSTON; I asked my hon. friend the other day to consider either dropping this motion or proceeding with it. -I have no objection to his dropping it and putting it on the order paper again if he wishes to renew the motion, but it should not stand on the order paper week after week.
Motions for Papers


John Horne Blackmore: I will take the matter into consideration and decide in two or three days.


Mr. RALSTON:: My hon. friend said that the other day.
Motion stands.


CANADIAN FORCES-MEN DISCHARGED OR STRUCK OFF STRENGTH
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: For a return showing the number of persons by military districts and/or provinces who have been discharged or struck off the strength of, (a) the navy, (b) the army, (cl the air force, by reasons of (1) medical unfitness, (2) desertion, '3) other causes, and, in the case of military districts Nos. 4 and 5, and/or the province of Quebec, showing the number in each category (i) of French-Canadian origin, (ii) of origin other than French Canadian.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend said he would consider whether he would wish to go ahead with this motion in its present form.


James Arthur Ross: I wonder if the same procedure could be followed with regard to this matter as was adopted on June 17, as reported at page 3407 of Hansard with respect to a question that appears there.


James Layton Ralston: That is to say, using names as giving some indication of origin? So far as the army is concerned, that could be done.


James Arthur Ross: If it is worked out on that basis it will be satisfactory to us.


ACCELERATION OF MEDICAL COURSES BY SHORTENING OF SUMMER VACATION
Mr. IIAZEN:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, and other documents pertaining to the scheme for accelerating medical courses by reducing the normal summer vacation to a minimum, that passed between tbe dominion government and Dalhousie university, the faculty of medicine of Dalhousie university, the province of Nova Scotia, and the province of New Brunswick.


CROWSNEST PASS FLOOD CONDITIONS
Mr. HANSELL:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, communications and other documents exchanged between the government and the town of Blairmore, Alberta, and/or any other person or persons in respect to flood conditions in the Crowsnest pass during 1942.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-BAKING INDUSTRY
Major James William Coldwell: For a copy of a report or reports by J. D. Woods of the wartime prices and trade board, regarding the baking industry.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot agree to this motion, because this is a privileged document, a confidential document. It relates to reports of conditions existing in certain private enterprises or businesses, and I object to making it public.


Major James William Coldwell: Before it is dropped I want to point out that I asked for this from the wartime prices and trade board. It was understood at the beginning that it was a confidential document, but a member of the advisory council of the board circulated it among the employers, and if the employers have seen it, then surely the employees, who are also vitally concerned,, should see it. I am taking the only course that seems open to me in asking that the report be tabled, since it has been made public to one section of the people concerned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was informed that it was not made public with the authority of the board, if it was made public. I have no knowledge that it was, other than what the hon. gentleman has just said. I did gather from what was said to me by the board that one copy may have got out-


Major James William Coldwell: That is right.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -but it was not with the authority of the board. However, I will make inquiries and see whether, in view of that fact, there is any way in which it can be made available to my hon. friend. But I have taken the stand on a question of principle that reports of this kind are not producible in the house.
Motion stands.



PRIVILEGE-MR. RALSTON REFERENCE TO NEWS DISPATCH IN &quot;l'ACTION CATHOLIQUE&quot; OF JULY 4

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Layton Ralston: My attention has been called to the fact that in the issue of L'Action Catholique of July 4 there is a news dispatch from Ottawa under the date line July 4, marked (DNC), which I understand means "from our own correspondent". I will read the translation:
Ottawa, July 4 (F.O.C.) (D.N.C.) Hon. J. L. Ralston, Minister of National Defence, announced yesterday in the House of Commons he had discussed-when he was acting Minister of Finance-the amalgamation of Canadian Railways in the course of an interview with Sir Edward Peacock, English director of the Canadian Pacific.
An accusation along that line had been made against Colonel Ralston the day before by Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot, Liberal member for Temiseouata.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bonnier
I wish to point out that what is herein stated is directly contrary to the facts, as appears from Hansard itself. I assume that the dispatch appears as it stands either through a misprint or through an unintentional misreading, because I am sure that no responsible correspondent or publication would publish an incorrect statement of that kind. What I did say will be seen in Hansard at page 3910.
I said-
. . . that I never at any time, either as a member of the government or personally, discussed with Sir Edward Peacock, or anybody representing him, the amalgamation of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways or anything relating to the railways.



METALS AND MINERALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I wish to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) a question based on a press dispatch of this morning's date which reads:
An arrangement has been made to increase Canada's production of war metals and minerals, which will probably result in the opening of certain marginal and sub-marginal deposits, the munitions and supply department announced last night.
The question I should like to ask the minister is this: What is the arrangement; will the government finance the investigation and development of mineral areas; and is it intended by the government to encourage production of war metals and minerals in all provinces in which they are procurable?


Georges Parent: Order. This seems definitely a question for the order paper.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Roy.
Mr. J. A. BONNIER (St. Henri) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, to resume the thread of my remarks at the point where they were interrupted by the closing hour last Friday, I was speaking at the time of the former Minister of Public Works and Transport (Mr. Cardin) and of the stand he adopted when he saw that the government, following a change of policy, intended now to pursue a course of action diametrically opposed to that which the Liberal
party had followed for over twenty-five years. Despite the gravity of the situation, he unhesitatingly obeyed the dictates of his conscience and resigned from the cabinet. This act alone took on considerable import, and the address he delivered on June 11 was not of lesser moment.
As Minister of Public Works and Transport and as a member of this house, Mr. Cardin rendered countless services to members from all parts of the country during a period of thirty years. He was the most popular of the Prime Minister's colleagues, especially since the passing of Mr. Lapointe. His speech was thus listened to respectfully and, I might even add, with admiration by the entire house. No one can gainsay the sincerity of his decision.
What we have been unable to do throughout the country, the former minister may be able to achieve in the house. We have failed to reach the people of the country at large but, in the commons, Mr. Cardin and those who share his views will be heard by that country's representatives. Shall we succeed in convincing the majority of our colleagues of the merits of our cause? Let us hope so, yet we cannot be sure of it.
Now more than ever the unity of all men of good will is urgent not only in Ottawa, not only in Quebec, but in the whole of Canada. We rejoice in the fact that our province is no longer divided against itself as it was in the past.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the speech delivered by the former Minister of Public Works and Transport has made the Canadian people think and that they will realize the French Canadians have done everything in their power to promote friendly understanding throughout the country. For the last thirty years, the former Minister of Public Works and the late Mr. Lapointe have preached unity and mutual understanding in our province and throughout Canada, in order to increase the strength and prosperity of the nation. To attain this ideal, each one of the parties to confederation must do its share and be tolerant towards the others. It should not always be the duty of the minority to be tolerant, and the privilege of the majority to use what may be termed strong-arm methods. In the present circumstances, if the English-speaking part of the population were really desirous of attaining that unity of which they speak so much, they would avoid the ever-recurrent issue of conscription. At every election, conscription has been damned up by our various governments and yet, as soon as Britain declares war, the issue always crops up again. It is well known
Mobilization Act-Mr. Bonnier

that French Canada is opposed to the principle underlying such a method of raising men, for we have always been led to think that conscription would never be enacted and that enlistments would be voluntary. Why bring up then, every time our country goes to war, this issue of conscription which the French Canadians cannot endorse? They are willing to do everything possible through the voluntary system but are irrevocably against conscription. I wonder whether the advocates of conscription are quite sincere. If they want unity in this country, let them stop talking about conscription and we shall accept everything else for victory and the efficient administration of Canada. As everyone knows, we have no wish to stir up trouble but we do not want conscription. Why this persistence in trying to foist it upon us?
Besides, the voluntary system has been satisfactory so far. The Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) has emphasized, after his colleagues, that there is no possible comparison between the voluntary system and inscription as regards military efficiency and quality of personnel. In the air force especially, coercion would give poor results, a remark that also applies to the navy. It is therefore preferable to stick to the present methods of recruitment which have so far proved more than adequate in bringing the active army up to strength and have afforded the required supply of labour for agricultural and industrial production.
The government, led by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is endeavouring to balance and coordinate our war effort as much as possible, which is the best way to ensure its complete success. Conscription for overseas service would be a harmful measure and, in placing their trust in the Prime Minister, the Canadian people no doubt wish that its enactment will never become necessary, however grave the situation.
On April 27 last, the province of Quebec voted "no" on the plebiscite while the other provinces gave an affirmative answer. The results in my constituency were as follows: 9,851 ayes, 22,071 nays and 690 spoiled ballots.
I left my constituents free to vote as they thought best and, abiding by their verdict, I must now voice my opposition to Bill No. 80 which we are considering and which is but a further step towards conscription.
Much is made of the fact that eight provinces voted in the affirmative, but a close analysis of the results shows that the "no" votes in Quebec cancel out the "yes" votes in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Which

reduces to a great extent that impressive majority of eight to one. Moreover, the plebiscite vote was not taken on the direct issue of conscription. On the contrary, our leaders emphasized time and again in their radio addresses that its purpose was not the immediate enforcement of conscription but merely to obtain release for the government of commitments made before 1940. The picture might be different if the enacting of such a measure appeared necessary, but the voluntary has been fully adequate until now and that is why the province of Quebec voted in the negative. Indeed all the reverses our allies have suffered can be traced to the lack of artillery and motorized units and not to their need of man-power.
The advocates of conscription claim in every one of their speeches that they wish to maintain harmony and unity in this country. Now is it fair to expect the province of Quebec to knuckle down every time there is a sacrifice to be made? Let our friends from the other provinces who never stop talking about Canadian unity lead the way to a better understanding and cease all this chatter about conscription. That would be the best evidence of the fact they are willing to make some sacrifices for the sake of national unity.
Mr. Speaker, the cabinet has a new member who seems determined to run the whole show. There was a man down our way named Aubertin, who called such people who cannot refrain from throwing their weight around in any group they belong to "the man in the straw hat." I think this new minister should drop his managerial attitude and withdraw from the stand he has taken on conscription. Perhaps he is actuated by some hidden motive. Perhaps he wishes to step into someone's shoes. Let him beware. After the death of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one of his lieutenants, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, endeavoured to take over as leader of the Liberal party. However, you may remember that a convention wms held to find a new party leader. What happened? Delegates were appointed. I was requested to appoint one myself. After the meeting our delegate was instructed not to support anyone who had voted against Laurier on the conscription issue. When the time came to select the leader, the Hon. Mr. Fielding seemed to have a clear field. However, at that time, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe was living and very active in political circles and so was the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). They pointed out that in 1917 Mr. Fielding had favoured conscription and had forsaken Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Mr. Fielding was put aside and the present Prime Minister

Mobilization Act-Mr. Stirling
was chosen as leader of the Liberal party for his devotion to Liberal traditions and his stand on conscription.
Let the Prime Minister keep that in mind lest the same thing happen to him. The province of Quebec has a long memory.
In conclusion, I repeat that there should be an end to these requests for all-out sacrifices on our part during this war. We are not opposed to the budget in spite of all the sacrifices it will mean for us. Our people are by no means in affluent circumstances. Most of my constituents are working men but they nevertheless accept every sacrifice necessary to win the war. However, a matter on which we disagree is the method of conducting this war. On that point, we disagree with our Englishspeaking fellow citizens. We support the voluntary system of enlistment while they favour conscription.
In every victory loan and Red Cross campaign launched in the country, we have exceeded our quotas. We can surely not be accused of having failed to contribute our share. The former Minister of Public Works has always done everything he could, and he remembers the pledges he gave in the province of Quebec. He has waged many political campaigns in every part of the province. Everywhere he was scheduled to speak, the people were eager to hear him. The same could be said of the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. Were he still alive, he would speak along the same lines. His words are sacred and no one can overlook his statements. Lapointe and Cardin had both promised that there would be no conscription. The former Minister of Public Works did not hesitate to resign when he saw that the enforcement of conscription was advocated. We are fortunate in having Mr. Cardin to uphold our cause. We are prepared to follow him, and all my constituents have intimated to me that they are pleased by the stand taken by the former Minister of Public Works.
Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member for Laval Two-Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) and the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) criticize the former Minister of Public Works. Such criticism is regrettable. People who have the same purpose in view should try to get along with each other. Mr. Cardin has given up his portfolio and I would ask those two hon. members to maintain a friendly attitude toward a man who thinks as they do, who has one wish and one purpose in common with them: opposition to conscription.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, it will not take me very long to state
my position with regard to the bill now before the house for second reading. Its purpose is to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940 by repealing the restrictive section which stands in the way of posting a trained man to a unit which is to serve overseas, which restriction was placed in that act because of a commitment the government had previously made and which it found was an obstacle in the path of a total war effort. To rid itself of that commitment it held a plebiscite. We did not agree with the holding of the plebiscite; we argued against it, and stated our objections. However, those objections were overruled and the plebiscite became law'. We threw ourselves with considerable energy into the campaign, which was to endeavour to facilitate the getting out of the vote all through Canada so that the electors might state their answer to the question being asked them. As everybody knows, the result of that plebiscite was a strong affirmative vote. We still believe that the government did not follow the right course in not energetically and courageously taking the steps which it considered should be taken, and, if necessary, asking parliament for its opinion thereon.
Certainly I support the bill. But the situation does not seem to be quite as simple as that. Speaking on the plebiscite bill in February the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated that in the opinion of the government it was not necessary to introduce conscription, that if that time did come the government proposed to state the facts to parliament and let parliament decide. On introducing this bill a month ago, however, the Prime Minister, although stating again that the government felt that conscription was not necessary, went on to say that in his opinion this was the time and certainly this was the place in which the question of conscription should be debated, and that as he did not want conscription to be twice debated, perhaps in the same year, now was the time to debate it. It has been debated to some extent. Debates culminate in votes. Therefore this vote, which will be taken perhaps to-morrow, being a division on the second reading of the bill, will have to be used by hon. members to answer two questions. It will not be an entanglement for me because I am prepared to support the bill and all that the bill entails, but I can well imagine that there may be hon. members who desire to support the bill which removes the commitments of the government but who are not prepared to vote for conscription.
It is a matter worth recording that ever since the beginning of the war the government
Mobilization Act-Mr. Stirling

has proceeded nervously and haltingly toward a total war. The extent to which Canada's war effort has been magnificent does not appear to me to have been due so much to the effort of the government as it has to the strident expressions of public opinion which have reached us from the country. It will be recalled that on May 22, 1940, the date on which in the parliament of the United Kingdom an emergency bill containing very wide powers was introduced, passed through all its stages, and received the royal assent, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked the Prime Minister whether the government had considered the advisability of doing likewise. The Prime Minister replied that consideration had been given to measures of a sweeping character, but that he could not say more until he had seen the United Kingdom legislation.
Four weeks passed and then at an interview with the Prime Minister, sought and obtained by the leader of the opposition, somewhat detailed proposals were made to the right hon. gentleman that the government should bring in a measure which would give it very wide powers indeed to cope with the alarming situation. By the signal mercy of God alone the British and allied troops had been evacuated successfully from Dunkirk, but Britain then stood alone faced by a powerful enemy drunk with success, and the only assistance then forthcoming-France was tottering to a fall- was from the dominions, which were gradually gathering in force. I was present at that interview, and a discussion ensued between the Prime Minister and his colleagues and the leader of the opposition. The leader of the opposition pressed upon the Prime Minister the desirability of' creating for his government far wider powers than they then had.
The Prime Minister suggested that the matter might be allowed to rest for twenty-four hours before the Leader of the Opposition made any public statement thereon, and that was acceded to by the colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition after he had discussed it with them. On the following day, June 18, 1940, the Prime Minister introduced the national resources mobilization bill, and the house gave it first and second readings. It was printed and distributed; the house gave it third reading on June 20, and it received the royal assent on June 21. The official opposition had proposed it to the government. A month later it had pressed it on the government and only then was it introduced; and, warmly supported by the opposition, it became law.
The first notable action under the mobilization act was the holding of a national regis-
tration, a numbering of the people, an effort to find out just exactly what people there were and what they might be able to do best. It was announced by the Prime Minister on his introduction of the bill, in these words:
A national registration of Canada's manpower will accordingly be instituted at once.
[DOT]ri emPhasize the fact that this registration will have nothing whatever to do with the recruitment of men for overseas service.
The registration took place on August 19, 20 and 21 of 1940. But it must be remembered that just about a year before, that is a day or two after Canada entered the war, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) advocated just such a numbering of the people. This was his phraseology:
A general survey of all skilled labour and man-power in order to throw light on the adequacy or inadequacy of Canada's resources and to plan in advance the proper allocation of our man-power between the ages of eighteen and sixty-five.
That was on September 9, 1939. Eight months later, nothing having been done in that direction, he placed a question on the order paper asking whether such a registration would be undertaken, to which the Prime Minister replied that "it was not customary to announce government policy in answer to specific questions on the order paper".
On the 27th of May, the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) again emphasized the necessity for such a registration, for the reasons already given, but also for another reason, namely, to enable the government to tackle the question of the fifth columnists, which at least in some parts of Canada was causing considerable alarm to the people. And he also would have liked to have the registration include all men and women above the age of sixteen.
On the same day the leader of the opposition appealed to the Minister of National Defence asking for a comprehensive survey of the availability and suitability of industrial activity to help win the war, to which the late Hon. Norman Rogers replied that national registration "had received the careful study to which it was entitled".
Thus again the official opposition, carrying out its expressed determination to do all in its power to help the government in its war effort, proposed in detail action which, months later, was effected.
The registration was the basis for placing young men of chosen ages and of certain medical categories in training camps, and the first period of that training was a thirty-day period. It must be remembered that the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Stirling
Prime Minister now refers to the placing of the men in training camps under the 1940 act as an acceptance of the policy of conscription. The first phase was for thirty-day training periods; that was in October of 1940. Almost at once a clamour arose in the country that a thirty-day period for training was utterly inadequate, that these young men after but a few days of actual training work would slip back into civil life and that their work would largely be lost.
On November 12, a month after the camps started, the leader of the opposition asked that the training period be extended to four months, half of which should be training of a preliminary character and the other half training of a more detailed nature, graduation being required from the one to the other. That suggestion also was adopted, and the four months training period began in February of 1941. But at the end of the period, whether it was thirty days or four months, the trained men would return to civil life and a good deal of the training work that had been accomplished, costing time and money on the part of the taxpayers and the men and the instructors who were appointed for that purpose, would largely be lost; and once more it was the leader of the opposition who first drew attention to the necessity of retaining the services of these trained men, and who put it into words in this form when he was speaking in the house on March 14, on the war appropriation bill;
Under these regulations in a limited sense that is true; but the country has no right under these regulations to use these men to defend this country abroad, and that is the weakness of the whole position. The country has the right to utilize the services of these men in the event of an invasion of Canada. But time and again we have had it explained in this house by the ministry that the first line of defence in this country is not here but over there. Why, then, has the government not had the courage to go the whole way and retain the absolute right to utilize the services of these men for the defence of Canada over there, aftergiving them four months' training and spending the huge sums of money that have been spent on military education? That is going the whole length and putting the thing in a nutshell.
Two months after the camps started on a four-months basis the announcement was made that the trained men would be retained in the active army for the duration of the war.
There are four occasions on which the official opposition pressed on the government schemes and suggestions, some detailed in extent, and urgently demanded in the country, and which, after a lapse of months, were adopted and put into operation by the government. And they were not the only suggestions made to the government. The official opposition was by no
means the only body of thought in this country which was pressing suggestions on the government for a more rapid mobilization of all that Canada had and could use. Those manifestations were growing before 1941 particularly, and hon. members will not forget the statement put forward by the Canadian Legion, which seemed to pick up all those thoughts which were raging through the country and bring them under one head. Let me read one phrase which occurs toward the end of that call, so well-known throughout the country as the Canadian Legion's statement;
Canada needs and is seeking a courageous, a moral and a spiritual lead. You yourself, sir-
The statement was addressed to the Prime Minister.
-have forcibly and repeatedly made known your own clear knowledge of the issues at stake and of the terrible dangers which lie ahead. Canada wants you to implement to the full your inspired pronouncement: "There is only one wav to meet 'total war' and that is by 'total effort'-effort not for a day, or a week, or a month, but every day until victory is won.
I have no doubt that I am not singular amongst hon. members in having been literally deluged with resolutions from societies and associations of every description, who seem to have been impelled, after that call from the legion was put forth, to add their support, by resolution, by letter, by postcard, by word of mouth. They came in every form and description of manifesto that could possibly be used, and indeed another eruption of postcards is taking place at the present time, all emphasizing the same note-total effort for total war. The pressure that the people of Canada have brought to bear on Canada is the measure to-day of Canada's war effort.
Now I come to occasions when greater activity was urged upon the government to provide more materials for war.
On May 28, 1940, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked for a statement from the government on the production of tanks. On the same day the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) alluded to the shortage of tanks for training. He also asked a question on the order paper, followed a few days later by a question by myself, for the relevant papers connected with the correspondence between the manufacturers and the government on the subject of tanks, to which the minister a few days later replied that search was being made but that so far no relevant documents had reached him. The following day the hon. member for Parkdale returned to the subject and gave details of firms capable of undertaking such work if directed to proceed, remarking-so truly- that there was no manufacture that Canadian
Mobilization Act-Mr. Stirling

industry could not undertake if it was directed so to do. That is a fact which Canadian industry and Canadian labour have proved up to the hilt. The gist of the minister's reply was that it was not so far the policy of the government to proceed with the manufacture of tanks; that Canadian industry was becoming increasingly busy in making things which it had never made before; that the difficulties connected with obtaining the necessary raw materials and the designs, tools and machines, were veiy great, but were gradually being overcome. But Dunkirk had been evacuated; France had fallen; the United Kingdom had lost $2,000,000,000 worth of equipment. The policy of the government changed, Canadian industry was directed to make tanks, it was assisted to make tanks, and Canadian industiy and Canadian labour to-day are making tanks. I read in the Montreal Gazette of June 30:
The cruiser tank, made in Canada, is of Canadian design. Its cast steel welded armour plate, which makes the use of rivets unnecessary, presents no flat surface. The rounded contour renders it less vulnerable to direct hits.
Not only is Canadian industry being directed and assisted to make tanks; Canadian industry and Canadian labour are making tanks which are being used on many fronts to-day, and those tanks are actually made to the design of Canadian designers who, making use of the information and knowledge gleaned so far, have been able to adapt their special knowledge to the furthering and the proving of design of these instruments of war.
I go a little further, with regard to shipbuilding. Hon. members will remember that, not so very long after the outbreak of war, Canada embarked on the making of corvettes for Britain and for us, also the making of mine-sweepers, patrol ships and a great variety of smaller craft. But she did not get busy with the building of freighters. The toll of sinkings rose, and every now and again became so intense that it was a larger figure than the output of the shipbuilding yards of the allied countries. The Canadian government did not seem to be ready to go into the building of freighters. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), speaking in this house on June 14, 1940, said-Hansard, page 785:
I would ask the minister if it would not be possible for Canada now to enter upon a programme for the construction of ships up to, let us say, 10,000 tons.
On March 10, 1941-the question was still open after ten months-the leader of the opposition used these words-Hansard, page 1391:

I, believe that the genius of our people and their desire to see a rehabilitation of this industry in the maritime provinces is sufficient to overcome what are insuperable difficulties in the minds of some persons, but which fade into insignificance when one gets down to realities.
The following day the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) said-Hansard, page 1450:
In my judgment ... the minister will find shortly that the whole shipbuilding programme will have to be revamped with the objective of perhaps making it one hundred times bigger than it is to-day.
It would not be so very much bigger, seeing that practically none were being built at that time. On April 1, 1941, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), said- Hansard, page 2077:
If shipbuilding is as urgent as we believe it to be, the number of ships being built in Nova Scotia should be manyfold the number being built to-day. The minister says that the shipyards of Nova Scotia should be humming. Why are they not humming? Because there is no humming on the part of the minister and the government and those associated with them.
There are four instances, over nearly two years, of endeavours on the part of members of the opposition to get the government started on the building of freighters, against the day when the submarine menace-and it has unfortunately come true on the west side of the Atlantic-would be sinking ships at such a rate that the shipbuilding powers of the allies would not keep up with it. Again the minister made his defence. He stated that the difficulty so far was to find the necessary labour to keep the repair yards going, and that until that difficulty had been met it would not be possible in his opinion to proceed to shipbuilding. But that difficulty was surmounted, the registration had taken place, and if it was possible then and in subsequent months to find and adapt the necessary labour, I maintain that it would have been possible a year beforehand to do so.
I do not place these things on record at this time in a spirit of belittlement of what Canada's effort has amounted to-not at all -but because there seems to be surrounding this government a mutual admiration society of supporters who do nothing but nauseatingly stroke the back of the government and place it on record that the government and the government only is responsible for what Canada has accomplished. I do not put this on record for the purpose of patting the opposition on the back-the opposition was merely carrying out its distinct statement to the government of its desire to help-but

Mobilization Act-Mr. Stirling
because through this country there are organizations in great numbers, besides individuals, who from the beginning have endeavoured to bring pressure to bear upon the government to get busy and busier than they had been up till then. And now the government wants to remove the hindrance.
In approaching the question of an amendment to the mobilization act we have listened to speeches from three service ministers and several of their colleagues-most interesting speeches-and the comparing of the one with the other gives food for a great deal of thought. But I notice that in the speech of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) he was expressing some dissatisfaction with what he called the conscript. He used the illustration of the commanding officer of a unit in need of reinforcements who would certainly choose the volunteer before he would choose the conscript. But does he shut his eyes to the fact that in this country to-day units of the Canadian active army are composed in just that way? They are composed of volunteers, augmented by compelled men; and if it is a difficulty in the one case it is certainly a difficulty in the other. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) the other day called the attention of the house to difficulties that were arising in the units within Canada with regard to their training, with regard to their relations the one to the other, with regard to the duties to which they are put. It certainly is not a happy condition and there is but one way in which it can be overcome, and that is by the use of the policy of conscription, which the Prime Minister says was included in the 1940 act at the time of its passing.
I now come for a few moments to the question of what the electors of Yale, whose mouthpiece I am in this house, meant by their vote. The Prime Minister had asserted again and again that they were not asked to decide on conscription, but just whether they were ready to free the government from its commitments. I wonder how many times I was asked: "What does this question mean?" I wonder how many times I was asked "What will the government do if the answer is 'yes', or if the answer is 'no'?" I wonder how many times it was said to me, "Well, I know what I mean by voting 'yes' on this plebiscite". To all these queries there was only one answer I could give; I could only quote the sphinx. They had to take the answer as best they might. But they went to the polls, and they went to the polls in greater numbers than I had expected, in greater numbers than in recent general elections. I had certainly been afraid of the apathy that 44561-249
might have been shown by the people of Canada with regard to this plebiscite, but in all Yale 77 per cent of those who could vote did vote. In the city in which I live, 92 per cent of the people who could vote did vote, and 84 per cent of them voted "yes". In Vernon, to the north, 85 per cent voted "yes", in Penticton to the south 88 per cent, and in all Yale 83 per cent voted "yes".
What do I take it that they meant by their "yes", vote? Judging by conversations, correspondence, resolutions, representations through their press, I take it without any doubt whatever that Yale voted five to one "yes" because it was desirous of releasing the government from anything that stood in its path, so that it might proceed to make use of the very wide powers contained in section 2 of the act, powers so wide that the government is empowered thereby to make use of men and women, their possessions, everything that Canada has and can use, which can be adapted to the purposes of total war. That is what they meant by voting "yes". It is quite true that a certain proportion of those who voted "yes" wanted something more than that. They wanted compulsion for service anywhere. How large that fraction is neither I nor anybody else can say, but I know something of the reasons why those who held that view did hold them.
I do not think it was for the purpose of increasing the size of Canada's military forces overseas. . I do not think they knew the facts sufficiently. They have no opinion with regard to that. What the government had undertaken to do on Canada's behalf, and how far they had succeeded in doing it, nobody knew. We did not know it in this house. We have been listening to the speeches of service ministers and others for months past, interwoven with figures of man-power, and I know that they have baffled me. We asked supplementary questions, and answers were not always given, but those that the ministers considered could be given were frequently for some period which did not fit into the general picture. We could not fit them into the picture of those who had been discharged from the service, those whose medical category had been changed, those who were placed in certain work which it was not proper to divulge to us. So we could not get, at least I have never been able to get, a clear picture in my mind as to how the Canadian military forces are divided, where they are, and in what numbers they are proceeding overseas. I do not think, therefore, that that was the reason why the people of Yale so largely voted "yes."

Mobilization Act-Mr. Stirling

There were three other reasons. One was that they were looking at what they believed to be their best men going and their less worthy men remaining behind, and vacancies in labour being filled by those who in their opinion might have gone. In the second place, they were listening to the stories of their men on leave, their men in their correspondence from active service units, describing just what [DOT]the hon. member for Vancouver South described of what was going on in the active service units within Canada doing their training here. And they even went so far in many cases as to allege that the presence of these compelled men in a unit, who would have to be removed before that unit could be sent overseas, was having the effect of preventing that unit from being included in overseas contingents. The third reason was perhaps the strongest of the three. They did not know the extent of the commitment of Canada's military forces overseas, but they read, and they are proud to read, that it is perhaps the finest and the best trained and best equipped force that modern warfare has ever seen, and they know that when the time comes it will be used in the forefront of the battle. Sadly do I remember that that means casualties, and I wonder how you can possibly fill the vacancies caused by casualties if you do not start now to do the training. If you wait until too late to train these men for modern mechanized war we shall but have a repetition of some of the saddest incidents in Canadian military history. I think there is no doubt, if I read the minds of those in Yale constituency who voted "yes," that the majority of them desired conscription, although I am not in a position to say how large that number is.
There is another phase of this matter to which I want to devote the closing minutes of my time. Some week or two ago in this debate I listened to a speech by the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. McDonald). It was a bitter speech, and I imagine that the old-fashioned way of answering would have been for a similarly bitter speech to be made from this side of the house. Alas! there is ample material for such a speech-but it would have done no good. It would but add another handful of fuel to the flames of controversy. The hon. member told us that seared into his mind there were utterances of his opponents. Does he think he is alone in that? There are certain phrases seared into my mind which were used by a prominent Liberal French leader in the by-election in Rimouski, which was followed a few months later by the by-election as a result of which I found myself a member of this House

of Commons. I do not repeat those dreadful words. I shall not repeat them; they would do no good. But if I am ready to endeavour to forget such things and to move forward on a better road, may I not appeal to the hon. member for Pontiac that he also should endeavour to forget such things as he remembers were spoken by his opponents, so that together, and supported by what I believe to be a tremendous number of people of this country, we should move along a road which will lead to better things?
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), who left his seat in the government because be believed his leader had misled his people. He spoke of the French Canadians having made concession after concession. He surely does not think that they were the only ones who made concessions. He spoke of the accident of nature whereby my blood is apt to tingle when British institutions are in danger, whereas by another accident of nature he has to make use of his reasoning powers before he can express his admiration for British institutions. As he spoke I wondered whether, being no less intelligent than I, he had made use of all his powers in endeavouring to withstand those awful inaccuracies used among his compatriots, that the great war was an imperial war. An imperial war? With British troops, supported by troops from the dominions, endeavouring, shoulder to shoulder with French troops, to repel the invaders of France-and that this war is an English war! Did you ever hear such nonsense? An English war more than an American war, more than a war for the allied countries, every one of those countries that wants above all else to return to a condition under which they may have liberty to think and worship as they will?
On Saturday the United States commemorated their great day. There arrived in Ottawa 200 of their soldiers, and their band, to take part with us in army week. Did they come up here with an idea that this war, in which we and they and seventeen other nations are engaged, was an English war? Surely the hon. member and those other great leaders of French-Canadian thought on whose words his compatriots hang, surely if they had made in the twenty years before 1938 speeches such as some have made since . 1938 we should not be face to face with such a conglomeration of falsehood as apparently rules in some quarters of this country.
I make an appeal to him-


Georges Parent: I am sorry to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Michaud,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on. Finish.


Grote Stirling: May I finish that
sentence?


Georges Parent: If there is unanimous
consent.


Mr. GARDINER:: I object. The hon.
gentleman cut three minutes off my time the other day.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister.of Fisheries) :: I feel impelled to offer you, Mr. Speaker, my apology for injecting myself into a debate which has been protracted beyond reasonable limits. If I do so, and crave your indulgence for a few minutes, it is not for the purpose of throwing any new light on the subject., because I feel that all that could be said pro and con on the question now before the house has been said. If I take the privilege of placing my views on record it is more for the purpose of preventing my silence from being misinterpreted in the future.
In the few moments which I shall take I shall use the English language. I would much prefer to use my own mother tongue; I would feel more at ease and I would have at my command a much broader vocabulary with which to express the shades of my thought. However I realize that were I to speak in French only thirty per cent of the members of the house would follow my remarks, while by using the English language I am presumptuous enough to hope that all those who are within the sound of my voice will be able to understand what I have to say. The fact that if I use my mother tongue in this instance I would not be understood by seventy per cent of the membership of this house is, under the present circumstances, not without its significance. And it is for the purpose of answering the appeal made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) that I will try to convey my thoughts in a language which is not my mother tongue, but which I have adopted and which I delight to use even in the poor manner which is at my command.
I want to make plain at the outset that I am not speaking for any particular section of the country or any particular group in the country. What I have to express are my own personal views, which I believe are shared by many Canadians, wherever in this country they may happen to live or whatever may be their ancestral origin.
The question now being debated, which has been discussed in this parliament and out of it for many days, has, more than any other matter that has arrested public attention within the last twenty-five years, served to emphasize how difficult it is to administer a
country like Canada, so diversified from the point of view of geography, so diversified from the point of view of the different racial elements composing it, and so diversified because, being a young country, it has not yet attained the full maturity of nationhood and the various component elements have not yet been melted into one nation, thinking alike from coast to coast throughout an area extending for more than three thousand miles. It has also emphasized how difficult it is for anyone to undertake to lead a government such as the government of Canada; to mould and bring together different shades of opinion, the views expressed by different elements in the country, and to arrive at one expression which will be the expression of the whole Canadian nation. Nothing more emphasizes this difficulty than a question such as this. Even in connection with a matter of life and death for the nation, we find people professing to be united as to the object desired, but so divided as to the means of attaining that object that one is led to believe that sometimes the end is lost sight of in the mass of details with regard to methods and means of attaining that end. In order, therefore to indicate fully my conclusions I want again to place the question on record, because one is apt to forget what this discussion is all about if once in a while the real question is not brought back into focus before the eyes of those who have to consider it.
We are asked to approve legislation amending an act of parliament assented to on June 21, 1940, and entitled The National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940. Section 2 of that act, which contains the substance of it, reads as follows:
Subject to the provisions of section three hereof, the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty in the right of Canada, as may be deemed necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of Canada, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community.
Section 3 of the same act, which we are now asked to remove from the statute, reads as follows:
The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
The reasons for which we are asked to remove this section were enumerated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Michaud
June 10, when he moved the second reading of Bill No. 80, which is now under discussion. At that time the Prime Minister referred to the speech from the throne, in which are found the following paragraphs:
My advisers believe 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.
The 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.
Then the right hon. gentleman went on to
say, at page 3227 of Hansard for June 10:
You will observe that there were three purposes in holding the plebiscite. The first was that nothing should be allowed to obscure or impair the magnitude and balanced nature of Canada's war effort; the second, that the administration, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, should possess complete freedom to act in accordance with this judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise in the prosecution of the war; and the third, which has a direct bearing upon the first two, that the government and parliament should not be bound by past commitments, but be free to discuss and to decide, on its merits, the extent of the use of conscription.
Apparently there is unanimity in this house and in the country with regard to the necessity of the government having a free hand and being in a position to take whatever steps are necessary to conduct the war and clear the way for our march to victory. Nevertheless, when we come to consider the means to adopt to attain that end, we find that various opinions are offered and that the nation is apparently divided not simply into two factions but into half a dozen factions at least. May I indicate and underline the main points on which the people of this country, through their spokesmen in the House of Commons, are divided?
First we have a group which suggests that nothing should be done, that section 3 should not be eliminated, that the government should not be given a free hand until finance and industry have been mobilized and conscripted.
We have another group which holds the view and advocates that the government should have no right or power to mobilize man-power for overseas service until industry and finance have been mobilized and conscripted concurrently with man-power.

We have a third group which holds that man-power only should be conscripted, and mobilized by compulsion now.
As between these three sets of opinions there is much difference. There is no one view which commands a strong enough body of opinion in the country to justify its adoption by the government as the expression of the will of the majority of the Canadian people. If the government were to predicate the mobilization of the army upon mobilization of all the other resources in the country, I am sure that would not meet with the approval of the majority of public opinion, because, whatever may be the merits of such a policy, public opinion is not yet ready to accept it. On the other hand, as to total mobilization of man-power now for service anywhere, it has not yet been demonstrated that the need is urgent or that this step is necessary to make the war effort total.
In the face of these divergent views what is the Prime Minister to do? Before going any further, may I refer to another set of views which is held by a large percentage of our population-complete opposition to compulsory service for overseas. In order to understand fully this attitude and these views which are held by Canadians of French origin in this country, let me open up the background and show where these views have their origin and where this opposition to conscription for overseas service takes its root.
It cannot be said that Canadians, whether of French or of British origin, are unalterably opposed to conscription, because they are favourable to compulsory service for the defence of their country. They have approved it in the mobilization act, and they still approve it so far as compulsory service is applicable to the defence of our own country. They are in favour of conscription for the defence of Canada. On the other hand, they are opposed to conscription for overseas.
What does "overseas" mean? To the French Canadian, to those whose racial roots have grown in the soil of Canada for over 300 years, to the descendants of those who came here from 300 to 400 years ago from the land of their forbears to which they never returned and have never shown any inclination to return, overseas means the land of the French revolution with all its terrors, the land of perpetual war and social upheaval, the land whence came their conquerors, the land of the imperialists, whether British, French or German. For a people like the French Canadians, not internationally minded, overseas wars have never had any appeal. French Canadians have never thought that it was

Mobilization Act-Mr. Michaud
their national duty to enlist to fight overseas wars, whether they be for the support of British, French or German imperialism. The French Canadian has never considered it a part of his national duties to accept any obligation to fight in a war beyond the territorial limits of his own country.
In order to indicate the opinion of those who write and are in position to speak for the Canadian people, in order to show how little internationally minded are the French Canadians, I should like to quote an excerpt from an article by the Abbe Arthur Maheux, published in a booklet entitled "Food for Thought", put out by the Canadian association for adult education. I quote:
From the beginning the French Canadians were far from being internationally minded. The first settlers who came from France in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries were mostly craftsmen who became farmers in new France. Even in the homeland their outlook had been local rather than national. They were more interested in Normandy, Perche, Anjou, Poitou, Aunis, Saintonge, than in France as a whole. Other countries were of little concern to them.
In new France they virtually lost sight of Europe. For them Europe meant only wars into which they were forced against their will and against their immediate interests. France controlled their life, dictated policies, and forbade the development of desired industries. The result was that the settlers soon became North American in outlook. That spirit grew stronger with the cession of Canada to England in 1763. Then they were really Canadians in name as they had been in feeling and tradition since perhaps 1698 or the treaty of Ryswiek.
That serves to show some of the background of the French Canadian and explains his objection to fighting either overseas or beyond the limits of his country. Canadians of French origin have always been willing to bear arms for the defence of their country. In 1760 they fought against the British and lost, but sixteen years later they fought with the British in order to prevent the invasion of Canada by another branch of the British family living to the south. In 1812 they again took up arms for the defence of their country and to support the British crown and British authority in Canada. This has happened all down through history. Perhaps I may be permitted to mention another instance where Canadians of French descent fought to uphold the British crown and British traditions in Canada. I refer to the incidents which preceded the signing of the Webster-Ashburton treaty on August 9, 1842.
On August 9 of this year one hundred years will have elapsed since the last regretful incident between the United States and Canada. The Ashburton treaty settled many
questions, but one important one from the Canadian standpoint was the dispute over the international and the north-eastern boundary between the state of Maine and the province of New Brunswick. In 1820 Maine was made a state in the union. A large wooded territory extended to the Quebec border and to what was then New Brunswick, but the exact line of demarcation between the three countries had never been clearly established and located.
United States citizens from Maine came north to settle upon what French settlers, who had been there for several years, considered to be their land. For fifteen years United States citizens tried to take possession of this territory by hoisting the United States flag on the north side of the St. John river. This land was inhabited and settled by French fugitives from old Acadia, by people who about twenty-five years previously had seen their lands and property destroyed. They had had to take refuge in the hinterland in order to escape the persecutions of British bureaucrats who thought it profitable to take possession of their lands and scatter the owners through the forests. For fifteen years this territory had been defended by people of French origin, by people who not long before had been looked upon as rebels, by people who had been chased over the ocean and who had found their way through the forests and had tried to take possession of land which they thought belonged to them. In 1842 this part of New Brunswick and Quebec was saved to the British crown by the loyalty and persistent determination of the French settlers of that country who protected it against the invaders, against the Bostonians as they were called.
It cannot be said that the French Canadians are not loyal, are not true to their land and are not ready to defend their country. Like many others, Canadians of French origin have not yet fully realized that this war is no longer a British or European war, but has become a Canadian and world war. To support this statement I should like to quote not a Canadian of French origin but an article written by Mr. Leslie Roberts and which appeared in the Toronto Saturday Night of January 17, 1942:
From its inception, the war has been hammered home to Canadians as an empire war. We are far less Canadian than we were in 1939. The words "British" and "empire" occur in almost every sentence of the war news and the newscasts. Practically nobody has stressed the fact that this is a Canadian war, which Canadians are fighting in order to save the Canadian way of life for the people of Canada.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Michaud
We have facing us, and we have to contend with, four different suggestions as to what should be the policy of the government in waging total war to save the Canadian way of life. There are those who suggest that material, financial and industrial resources should be mobilized first, and next, human resources. We have the suggestion that all resources, whether material or human, should be mobilized concurrently but that the mobilization of man-power should not take place before the mobilization of material resources. We have the suggestion that the mobilization of man-power should be compulsory and immediate. On the other hand we have the suggestion that man-power should not be mobilized for overseas or for service outside the territorial limits of Canada.
In the face of such a jigsaw puzzle, what is the duty of the leader of the government? What is the duty of the government? It is to find a place for each piece and a piece for each place; and that has been the policy pursued by the Prime Minister. Notwithstanding the fact that he has been attacked from within and without, he has persistently and consistently tried to mould and integrate each set of views so that each should fit in its place and a place should be found for each, so that it would be possible for the Canadian nation to offer to the enemy a picture which would spell in bold letters Canada's total war effort. In the working out of this puzzle the Prime Minister has proceeded on two basic principles: unity and balance. The war effort of Canada cannot be total and complete unless it is properly balanced, unless each department having to contribute to the effort is properly balanced both in materials and in men. The war effort of Canada cannot be said to be total and complete if it is not the expression of the wish and the will and the work of all sections of this country and all elements composing the Canadian nation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel that, notwithstanding the difficulties which have to be encountered, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister and the government have been criticized and vilified for not adopting, to the exclusion of all others, one set of views, by those who are preferring them, I feel that he has followed the right policy. He has followed the policy which has characterized the Canadian statesmen who have achieved something and who have their names on the roll of history. He has pursued the patient, reasonable and tactful way which was followed on occasions not as difficult as

the one we are going through, but nevertheless, difficult according to the times, by Sir John A. Macdonald, by Cartier, by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and also by Sir Robert Borden until he made the mistake of yielding to an element which caused him to bring about during the last war a policy which inflicted such a deep wound in the side of the nation that after twenty-five years it is not yet healed.
So long as our Prime Minister continues to follow such a policy of prudence, of trying to get all the different viewpoints and to induce all elements to unite in the war effort, I shall give him my full support.
So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, conscription, to me, is neither a fetish, a symbol, nor an article of faith; it is merely a method of levying men and goods required to support the war needs of Canada. Whether or when this method should be resorted to depends on circumstances which may exist at a given moment. So far we have been fortunate enough to have , carried on our war effort without having recourse to compulsory measures for overseas service. We have raised an army which is a credit to our country without having recourse to compulsion, and it is my hope and wish that we shall never have to resort to compulsory measures to fill the ranks of our army. Were such a method instituted at the present time, before the Canadian public fully realizes how difficult the situation is, how necessary it is to do everything possible to defend our countiy, it would be suicidal instead of being helpful; it would impair our effort rather than help it. Nevertheless, in time of crisis, I feel-


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Fournier, Hull):: The hon. gentleman has spoken forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In time of crisis, I feel the government must have full and unlimited authority to work for the security of the nation, and the security of the nation should be the ultimate law. That is why I support the measure which the government has presented to the house, in order to give the government, the Prime Minister, whoever may be at the head of affairs, full and complete authority to do the best under the circumstances when they arise.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the time is so limited. I had a few more remarks to add, but I will reserve them until we sit in committee.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, this group has not taken a very

Mobilization Act-Mr. Maclnnis
great part in this debate between two wings of the government party, but an amendment has been moved and we thought we should make our decision on this amendment clear. The amendment was moved on June 18 by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy), and it reads:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This house is of the opinion that the policy of the government respecting mobilization, instead of drawing closer the union of the two races in Canada has fostered dissensions which might cause an internal war, thus destroying the ideal set forth by the fathers of confederation."
This group endeavoured to move an amendment to the motion for second reading which would indicate our attitude to the bill, but in that we failed. However, we must say that we cannot support this amendment because, though we disagree with the bill as it now is, we cannot give our support to the idea that any section of the Canadian people is entitled to oppose legislation that has been brought into being by the will of this parliament. When we do not agree with legislation we state our position here; but when parliament has passed it, then we feel bound to accept such legislation. So we cannot oppose this bill on the basis that it might cause strife within Canada. If any measure is administered equitably, then the will of the majority must always prevail.
As I mentioned, we tried to state our position in relation to the bill as it now stands, and we failed. One of our reasons for opposing the bill is our belief that a conscription measure of this nature is of sufficient importance that all the regulations incidental to it should be placed before this house before they become law.
Within the last few weeks there has come to my notice a scandalous misuse of the national war services regulations in Canada. So, in addition to stating our position on the amendment already mentioned, I wish to draw these matters to the attention of the house because I do not believe that such procedure should be allowed to continue.
During the discussion on the war appropriation resolution I drew to the attention of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) what at that time I believed to be a misuse of the regulations for the purpose of removing a labour organizer from his functions as such. The minister investigated the matter and found that in his opinion the national war services regulations have been used for that purpose; and, acting on what he found, he sent the following telegram to the person indicated1 therein. I am quoting from a return to a motion moved by myself in this house on June 19. I am reading a copy of a telegram from the Minister of National War Services to the Hon. A. M. Manson, chairman of the national war services board, division K, Vancouver:
Re Alan C. Wright: Your telegram dated yesterday received and contents noted. I confirm directions contained in my telegram re this man. Please comply with directions contained therein immediately. Notify all persons concerned that notice to report for military training has been cancelled with cancellation effective morning May 21.
J. T. Thorson,
Minister of National War Services.
I also wish to read from a letter addressed to Major-General L. R. LaFleche, D.S.O., associate deputy minister of national war services, Ottawa, Ontario, and signed by A. M. Manson, national war services board, Vancouver. I will not read the whole of the letter because it is rather long. I will quote two paragraphs which would indicate that if what the boards are doing in other parts of Canada is the same as what the board is doing in Vancouver, it is time the boards were changed and people put in charge of them who have some idea of proper democratic British procedure in such matters. Referring to Alan C. Wright, I quote:
Some nine months ago this board arrived at the conclusion that there were several hundred young men in this province who had come in from other provinces and had not notified the registrar of the fact that they were resident here. We were firmly of the opinion that they had not in all probability notified the registrar of the administrative division from which they had come that they had moved to British Columbia. We have been in touch with the employment service of Canada with a view to rounding up as many of these nomads as possible. We were of the opinion that they were a disorderly element and that the situation was not satisfactory.
I did not know that, if someone considers a person "disorderly" that is sufficient reason to notify such persons to report foi military service. It is not even in the order in council that being disorderly is a reason for being called up for military service. There are other remedies, and the chairman of the national war services board is not the man to put these remedies into effect. It is none of his concern; it is none of his business.
Early in this year we called in the Vancouver chief of police for a conference and asked his assistance in cleaning up the situation; he had had considerable trouble with young men who were at loose ends.
That is, young men who were out of work.
We suggested to him that in all such cases he should have his officers ask men of this class
3948	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Maclnnis
to produce their registration cards and furnish information from these' registration cards to our registrar. The chief thought the idea was an excellent one and has been cooperating with us along these lines. I would just add that all through the depression-
To justify his action the chairman goes back to the depression from 1930 on.

and subsequently Vancouver city has had hundreds of drifters come in from other provinces as far east as Quebec, and they have been a source of great trouble.
Why have they been a source of great trouble? Because the government of this country could not or would not find for them the wherewithal to live.
The letter continues:
I gathered from the press that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police approached the above named Wright some weeks ago and asked for the production of his registration card. That was not done on instruction or suggestion of our registrar or of any member of this board. However it was reported to us that Wright was of callable age and had been in this province for some time and that he had come here from the east. It was further reported to us that he was engendering trouble in our war industry. Upon being assured that we had ao record of a change of address, I personally requested that his registration card should be sent from administrative division B to this registration division; that was done in April and his card disclosed that he was of callage age.
I submit that is not the business of the chairman of the national war services board to ask that any card be moved from one district to another. There is a procedure for that, but it does not lie with the chairman of the national war services board in any division.
The Hon. Mr. Manson was rather peeved at the attitude of and the action taken by the Minister of National War Services. I wish here to congratulate the minister upon the action he took; I doubt whether there is another minister in the cabinet who would have taken the same action upon finding the same condition. So the chairman of the board sent a long telegram, three foolscap pages-I suppose this is an example of war economy-to the minister, justifying his position. I shall not read the whole telegram. It is dated May 22, 1942, addressed to Hon. J. T. Thorson:
Re Alan Chamberlain Wright, K 2683. Respectfully draw attention facts following information given me April 21 last that above-named had been here some time and that he was registered electoral district 166 B division. I requested B division transfer card here which done April 27. Found callable and I then requested my registrar send notice medical which done April 29. Doctor reported May 2 category A and Wright called May 6 for camp May 21. On May 4 registrar received letter from Wright requesting postponement for at least three
[Mr. Maclnnis.1
months and stating resident of Toronto and here temporarily on organization work for steel workers organizing committee and stating reasons postponement. Day or two later board heard two gentlemen who requested permission make representations on Wright's behalf. Day or two later again Wright with four others attended before board for an hour. Board formed very unfavourable opinion Wright as obviously bitter hot-headed and temperamentally unsuited for work on which engaged.
I should like to tell the chairman of the national war services board that perhaps there are two people who are unfit for the work on which they are engaged. Mr. Wright may be, but Hon. Mr. Manson definitely is, and nothing could more definitely show that than his own statement.
The telegram continues:
Later board ascertained this man's activities definitely subversive.
Something had to be found on this man. They called him up so that he could not carry on his work as organizer, and so something had to be found to justify the action taken.
Later board ascertained this man's activities definitely subversive industrial peace in two or three plants. In the first two the government and particularly the admiralty had demanded top-speed production. Later information disclosed that in plant which is one of two in the world producing a weapon which the admiralty regards as the most effective defence weapon available against aerial attack this man's activities had resulted in 25 per cent slow-down of production and some sabotage of tools and materials which almost irreplacable and certainly irreplacable for some considerable time. My hoard realized this slow-down and sabotage would cost the lives of our own and allied men and might easily cost the loss of the finest ship in the British navy. The board unanimously concluded no sound reasons for postponement put forward and request was refused on eighteenth. With this decision representative of national defence department and representative of national labour supply board attached to our board were in entire accord.
But it was not until after they had called up this man and after all the preliminaries had been gone through and after he had been told to report for military service that they found all this out. If this is true as stated in this telegram, Wright's place is not in the army; he should have been arrested and tried in a court of law.
Now I have the minister's reply to Hon. Mr. Manson. I shall not read the entire letter; I shall read just the pertinent paragraphs:
Ottawa, May 23, 1942.
Hon. A. M. Manson,
Chairman, National WTar Services Board, Vancouver, B.C.
Re Alan C. Wright
My review of all the facts with regard to this matter whi ch have been brought to my atten-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Maclnnis
tion has led me to the conclusion that it may reasonably be inferred from the facts that this man's card was transferred from division B at Toronto to division K at Vancouver for the purpose of giving your board jurisdiction to order him to report for military training and thereby to remove him from the labour activities in which he was engaged.
I say again that I congratulate the minister upom his courageous action. The minister goes on:
I do not dispute the statements that this man has been troublesome nor do I have any doubt that you and the members of your board were actuated by motives that commended themselves to you.
On the other hand I am of the opinion that there is grave doubt as to the regularity of the proceedings that were taken in this man's case. The national war services regulations are of great importance at the present time and it is essential that they should be administered with such regularity and uniformity as is possible. Moreover, they must not be administered for any purpose other than the purposes for which they were designed. They must not be made the instrument of settling disputes. They must not, for example, be made an instrument for interfering with or attempting to settle labour disputes. Indeed they must not be used for any purpose which is ulterior or foreign to the true intent and spirit of the regulations.
In my opinion it may reasonably be inferred from the chain of events in this particular case that a definite plan of action was conceived in Vancouver to remove the above from his activities as a labour organizer by the expedient of using the machinery of the national war services regulations for the purpose and that you, as chairman of the national war services board, took an active part in this plan.
I submit that after the minister sends a letter like that to the chairman of a national war services board with an accusation of that importance, the next step for the minister to take is to ask that chairman to resign, because he has demonstrated by his own words that he is unfit for the position he holds. The people, the fathers and mothers of the young men who are called for service in this country and who have the misfortune to come before Mr. Justice Manson, should insist that he resign that position and give his attention to some other work that comes within the measure of his intellect and understanding.


Mr. THORSON:: Would my hon. friend
think it fair to allow one incident, one error, let us say, to offset the excellent service that the chairman of the board has given under very difficult circumstances?


Angus MacInnis: The minister suggests
that this is just one case, one instance. How do I know it is only one instance?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is the only one I have heard of.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, it may be the only
one. In his letter to Major-General LaFleche, I think it was, Mr. Manson said that on this particular occasion they had called up 126 men. Those were perhaps men who did not have the intelligence, the drive and the initiative that Alan Wright had, and consequently did not make an issue of it. But the whole tenor of Mr. Manson's action was to get rid of Wright, as the minister very properly said, because of his labour activities.


Mr. SLAGHT:: I should like to raise a
point of order, if the hon. member will permit me.


Angus MacInnis: I cannot prevent it.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I came into the chamber on purpose to listen to my hon. friend discuss Bill No. 80, because I have regard for his views on many matters. But while the subject with which he has occupied his time may be of interest and may be of importance, it does seem to me that it has nothing whatever to do with Bill No. 80, which proposes to strike out section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act, which section places a restriction on where men who are called up may be sent to serve. Surely we are far afield in this discussion.


Angus MacInnis: Well, Mr. Speaker, surely this short bill, No. 80, cannot be taken by itself. It must be taken in connection with the bill it amends; and the bill it amends gives the government the right to do anything mentioned therein. The calling up of men for military service is mentioned in the bill, and surely the way in which these men are called up is a proper subject for debate when this bill is under discussion.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Again on a point of order, I appreciate what my hon. friend says; but under the present law men are capable of being called up, and the case in question occurred under the existing law, which it is not proposed to disturb at all by Bill No. 80. I still think my hon. friend is out of order.


Angus MacInnis: Until you rule otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I am going to carry on; but if I am out of order, the hon. gentleman is rather late in drawing that fact to your attention, because a great variety of subjects has been covered during the discussion of this bill.
I have another matter to which I want to refer, one which was brought up here the other day, and which is much further removed from this discussion than the matter I have been considering. If this bill passes, the Minister of National War Services will have to administer the National Resources Mobilization Act. I am drawing attention to what



Mobilization Act-Mr. Maclnnis
is happening under his administration now. I might quote just two other short paragraphs from this letter.
The quick succession of events with regard to this man seems to indicate a definite plan to dispose of him under 'the national war services regulations, and so remove him from a field in which it was considered he was creating trouble. This, in my opinion, easts grave doubt upon the regularity of the proceedings taken in this matter.
I think that is sufficient to show that there is something seriously wrong. I have a great deal of material here in the same connection. Mr. Wright was trying to organize the employees of the ordnance plant of the Dominion Bridge company, in addition to some others. I have before me a copy of a notice sent out to all foremen and chargehands in the plant, signed by the manager or superintendent, and reading as follows:
Although apparently it has generally been felt that apart from finish machining operations it has not been a serious matter if the tolerances were exceeded, this is not the ease, as in most instances subsequent operations are dependent on the previous operation for their own accuracy.
Our apparent success in persuading the inspectors to accept material not strictly to drawing may have given the impression that the tolerances given are unnecessary. This is not so, and now we are working on many components on the finishing operations, is reflected in the fact that our rejection percentage is sharply increasing now we are having to work to closer limits.
Will you all, therefore, do your utmost to impress upon your men that these tolerances must be maintained and that a much more rigid inspection must be expected from now on.
Possibly that was what interfered with production, rather than Wright's activities. I have drawn this matter to the attention of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), who has informed me that he will have it investigated.


Humphrey Mitchell: You have not the dodger that Wright circulated among these employees, saying that they had brought the government to terms in the National Steel Car matter? These things work both ways.


Angus MacInnis: Is that a crime, to say that it was this organization which brought National Steel Car-


Humphrey Mitchell: No; the government.


Angus MacInnis: -to time? Possibly that is why the chairman of the national war services board made the statement he did in his telegram.


Humphrey Mitchell: What I want to point out is that my hon. friend knows something about industrial organization, and he knows

that these things work both ways. Sometimes things are said on both sides which should not be said.


Angus MacInnis: Quite right; but that is no reason to grasp a man by the collar and shove him into the army.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not talking about Wright; he can take care of himself. He is in the service now.


Angus MacInnis: Quite so. That is "British principles" again. The Hon. A. M. Manson is a judge, and he should know better. In the last part of his telegram to the Minister of National War Services to which I have already referred, Mr. Manson says:
Respectfully urge you reconsider your wire and discuss with Howe and Mitchell or if need be in council. Meantime shall wait further word. Might be wise consult justice department as to powers under latter half of regulation twenty-two sub one in light of what is now fait accompli.
"Fait accompli"; wonderful words to come from the lips of a judge; the thing is done, so why bother about it. I wonder why the Minister of National War Services should have to discuss a matter of this kind with' the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Munitions and Supply.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I did not have to.


Angus MacInnis: The minister did not have to, but evidently Hon. A. M. Manson discussed it with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Munitions and Supply.


Humphrey Mitchell: I suggest to my hon. friend that his sense of fairness is running away with his discretion, because it was never discussed.


Angus MacInnis: I can only draw my own conclusions, and this smells so strong that anyone can draw conclusions with regard to it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Then I would add that my hon. friend's case smells at the moment.


Angus MacInnis: We have insisted, during this debate, that all regulations putting conscription into effect should be brought before the house. In that connection I believe we are on very sound ground. Many quotations from Hansard have been read here against us in order to show that during the last few years we have changed our opinions. Well, it is no crime for a person to change his opinion; it shows that he has an opinion to change.
I have in my hand an extract from Hansard of June 17, 1920, which I think is apropos of

Mobilization Act-Mr. Maclnnis
the matter we are discussing, namely, that the regulations should be a part of the bill and passed by this house. On that occasion the house was discussing the third reading of a bill respecting the director of coal operations, confirming a series of orders in council and orders of the coal director, and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on that occasion said, as reported, at page 3691 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I should not like the third reading of this bill to pass without once again stating my objections to the measure. In the first place, as I mentioned on the second reading of the bill and in committee, it seems to me that parliament is acting blindfolded in this matter ... It is beneath the dignity of parliament-indeed, it is bringing parliament into contempt-to ask us to enact as a law a code of regulations that we have not even perused. I hope I shall never see the day when as a member of this parliament I shall be prepared to consent to any legislation without knowledge of the particulars to which it is proposed to give the force of legal enactment.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, no one could more strongly support the position which this group has taken than the Prime Minister did by that statement! He said he hoped he would never see the day when as a member of this parliament he would be prepared to consent to any legislation without knowledge of the particulars to which it was proposed to give the force of legal enactment. All I can say is that the right hon. gentleman must have lived too long, because not only has he lived to see that day but he has lived to propose that very thing to this house himself-legislation by orders in council which, as the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) said the other day, would be kept in a drawer after they were passed.
I wish to say a few words about another matter which was mentioned in the house the other day by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill), when there was an exchange of words between him and me across the floor. The hon. member said that this group in 1934 voted for a privately-owned central bank as opposed to a publicly-owned central bank. I disputed that statement, and now I want to substantiate what I said. I said there was no Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group in the house at that time; and I still maintain that, because this group did not come into the house as a group until after the elections of 1935. The position that confronted us when the Bank of Canada bill was before the house was not the choice of voting for a privately-owned bank as against a publicly-owned bank or for or against an amendment that would make it a publicly-owned bank, but of voting for a bank
over which the people of Canada would have some control as opposed to the chartered banks, and the hon. member for Kamloops and his friends voted to leave all banking to the chartered- banks.
Mr. O'NEILL:	The hon. gentleman said,
"the hon. member for Kamloops and his friends." I was not in the house then.


Angus MacInnis: Then I will say, my hon. friend's friends. I am glad of the correction. It was not the first time that he made this assertion. He made it several times in his constituency where the people have not the same access to the facts that we have in this house. When the central bank bill came before parliament in the first instance, the then member for Macleod, Mr. Coote, was at that time with the party known as the cooperating groups in this house, and he moved an amendment to refer the bill back. His amendment read:
That all the words after "that" in the main motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
In the opinion of this house the government should give further consideration to the matter of providing that the stock of the proposed central bank should be owned by the government and that the governor and directors of said bank should be appointed by the governor in council.
Mr. Rhodes, who was piloting the bill through the house, took exception to the amendment and was supported by the present Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition. Mr. Rhodes said:
I am sorry that I am not in a position to say the same to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) who has, I respectfully submit, failed to appreciate the distinction between a debate upon the principle of a bill and the question of the details of a bill, however important or vital they may be, because the fact remains that at the moment the principle which we are discussing is: shall we have a central bank ?
Mr. Mackenzie King: And that is the only principle.
Evidently, to the leader of the opposition at that time and his party, whether the bank should be privately or publicly owned was merely a matter of detail.
Mr. O'NEILL: Mr. Coote voted against you, though, and with the leader of the opposition, the, present Prime Minister.


Angus MacInnis: Quite so. Now I want to-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


Major James William Coldwell: No, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has another five minutes.
44561-250J

Mobilization Act-Mr. Whitman


Thomas Vien: I took the time when the hon. gentleman began. When I called the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) to order, it was exactly ten minutes past five o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: But the minister spoke for a few minutes after you had called him to order. I think I am right in that.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman may proceed only by unanimous consent.


Angus MacInnis: I am in the Speaker's hands, but surely my time should begin from the time I began to speak, and not from the time Your Honour called the Minister of Fisheries to order.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman may proceed by unanimous consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Mr. O'NEILL: I think he should be allowed to proceed. There are only a few minutes left before six o'clock, and that time is no good to anyone else.


Mr. F. P. WHITMAN (Mount Royal):: 
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Will the hon. member read a little louder, please?


Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: I thank my hon. friend for his good advice.
On the part of the French Canadian there has been the pressure of an inferiority complex, and also a lack of proper vocational training, especially in the natural and social sciences. Now that the French Canadians are making good some of their past deficiencies, their English-speaking compatriots must be ready to trust them further than they have done and to accept them as partners. That is the need -really to accept the French Canadians as equal partners in confederation, no more and no less.
In certain quarters we hear of French Canadian domination. It is a myth, Mr. Speaker. If the French Canadian wanted to dominate, he could well do so in the province of Quebec; 'there, he could very well try to impose his views and his ways upon his English-speaking and Protestant fellow-countrymen. Yet it is a fact that these people are left entirely free in their manner of religion, education, language and ways of life. All the French Canadian is asking for is to

enjoy, in this province and elsewhere in the dominion, the same treatment that Englishspeaking people enjoy in the province of Quebec.
Some English-speaking groups express the fear that the Catholic religion will dominate in the Dominion of Canada, and that Canada should not risk domination by Roman Catholicism, particularly of the brand practised in the province of Quebec.
Such fears or such derogatory remarks are certainly quite out of place.	It was the
same derided Roman Catholicism which effectively advised its adherents to stand by the British empire at the time of the Pontiac rebellion in 1764, again during the American revolution, in the war of 1812-15, and against the "patriots" in the rebellion in 1837-38. Its voice was clear and firm during the great war of 1914-18. It is no less clear and firm when it speaks through the mouth of His Eminence, Cardinal Villeneuve, and the whole Roman Catholic hierarchy in the present war. Simply to make good my words, I would quote from the pastoral letter of the Roman Catholic bishops published on the 31st day of May of this 3rear. My quotations will be rather short. One passage reads:
One has only to study the anti-Christian doctrines and principles of nazism in the light of the encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" of Pope Pius XI, and of the statements of the German hierarchy, ..nd of the record of oppression and destruction in every country which has come under the yoke of nazism, to realize the extremities of barbarism, persecution and irreligion to which it would reduce all nations in the world, conquest of which it dreams and towards which it strives.
Is this not a strong statement against our enemies? Again:
Consequently, dearly beloved in Christ, we were not surprised but sincerely and deeply elated at seeing you, from the very beginning of the conflict, generously respond to the call of your country. Truly a glorious page in our history will recall the devotion, courage, and heroism aroused in our people by this present war.
Is this not an appreciation of what our armies are doing in this war? Again I quote:
Our heart with holy and great expectation; generous courage in defence of the fundamentals of Christian civilization, and confident hope in their triumph.
Yes, "confident hope in their triumph". Therefore, in spite of what is being said and written in many parts of the country, the cry and appeal of the Roman Catholic clergy to-day is, first, against our enemies, second, appreciation of our armies, and third, prayers for victory.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott)
In my opinion, had the French Canadians given an affirmative vote on the plebiscite on April 27, the unity of this country and the survival of French-Canadian culture would have been assured for all time; for real national unity is born, not out of eloquent orations but in the utmost collaboration in the common struggle for survival. That is why I was so strongly in favour of a "yes" vote on the plebiscite. But my French compatriots chose to vote "no".
I understand that it is a source of irritation to observe that certain powerful minorities may seem to thwart the wishes of the majority and hamper them in the performance of what they consider their national duty and their national mission. I also agree that this war is not primarily a war for the defence of the tight little island in the North sea. It is essentially a war for the survival of civilization itself, a war to maintain the liberty and dignity of human beings. To help to fight this war, Mr. Speaker, there are two of my sons in the forces-Guy, a pilot in the air force, and Rene a coder in the navy. Both are in the active service without commissions, and both volunteered. I am proud of them, but I am also proud of thousands and thousands of other French Canadians who have volunteered to do the same job. May I also say that I am proud of hundreds upon hundreds of men of all races who have volunteered from the constituency I represent. Among them I want to call attention to one name in particular, the name of Jean Paul Sabourin, of St. Isidore de Prescott, who enlisted at the beginning of the war. He became a pilot in the air force and was sent to England. He fought over Germany and again in Libya, and in both places he bagged numerous enemy planes and was decorated. He is still in Libya as pilot-instructor to teach new pilots who are going to the hot sands of north Africa. He deserves our appreciation.
This is a war which everyone of us as a Canadian citizen must see through to a successful end1. But to-day there is need of the best understanding of our problems in this country. I speak of problems which we have to face, but probably I should change that expression and say that we have to face a situation in Canada as disclosed by the result of the plebiscite. It' is true that the vote gave an immense majority in favour of "yes," but it is also true that the vote in the plebiscite was 2,900,000 "yes," in round figures, and 1,600,000 "no," in round figures. In other words, more than one-third of the total vote was "no." Eighty per cent of the "no" vote was given by French Canadians. I want to emphasize this: they were French Canadians
not only from the province of Quebec but from all over Canada, no matter in what section of the country they are living.
This was not an accident. I say also that it was not the result of the campaign carried on by the league for the defence of Canada for a "no" vote. This result has far deeper roots than that. I said something of what might be the cause in other countries, when a moment ago I mentioned Ireland, South Africa, India and Burma where there are also difficulties. In this plebiscite French Canadians were not voting to choose between two parties or two or more candidates in their constituencies. They were going to the polls to vote according to their national conscience, and according to their past history, traditions and aspirations. They want no conscription for service overseas, although they are willing to cooperate and collaborate to the fullest extent for a full effort in this war. They have good reasons for that.
May I be permitted to quote briefly from the speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) in this debate? On June 16 he said, as reported at page 3391 of Hansard:
Though some would volunteer to fight for France for sentimental reasons, no one would dare to say that it was a national duty for Canadians to fight for France.
I agree with the statement of the minister, for France is no longer our homeland.
I also wish to say that I agree with the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), speaking in this debate on June 11, when he said, as reported at page 3278 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, yourself and most hon. members of this house belong to the British race. You are proud of it, and I compliment you upon it. You have many reasons to be proud of being descendents of the great British race. But it is not your fault; it is an accident of nature. I am a descendent of the founders of Canada, those who first discovered and established this country as a civilized country. I am proud of my race. It is not my fault; it is an accident of nature. But when we come to consider problems such as the one confronting us at the present time, immediately any man who has any elementary knowledge of psychology will understand that your response is going to be much quicker than mine. Why? Because I have to reason in my mind why I have to support the British flag and spend my energies for the defence of British rule in this conflict, or perhaps elsewhere. It is the result of thinking, the result of reasoning, if I come to that conclusion; with you it is the impulse of the heart. Your heart becomes inflamed as soon as the name of England, of the British empire, is mentioned. It is quite natural, it is in your blood; it is your blood that makes that impulse. It cannot be the same with me. It would be against nature. I have to reason why I should take that step or not take it. I hope that my position is understood
3956	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott)
from that point of view. My position being understood, the position of the French Canadian is also understood.
Why? Because England is not our homeland. The same reason applies to France. Our homeland, our native land, our country, is Canada.
When His Majesty the King was making an address' to the cadets last Saturday he said that it was the duty of a citizen if necessary to die for his country and his compatriots. I hope no one will claim that this is not a declaration on which we stand, to say that we are not going to participate in this fight. But if, due to their past history, French Canadians do not want to participate upon compulsion, their viewpoint should have attentive consideration. The two quotations I have made explain clearly why French Canadians do not want conscription for service overseas.
Is conscription for service overseas necessary at this moment? Well, the Prime Minister and eight ministers of the crown all said in this debate that there was no urgent need at present, and that it may never become a necessity; so why amend a law that would so greatly disappoint one-third of our whole population? Are we short of men for military service? The figures given so far in this debate would indicate that we have all the men we can clothe and train in the navy, in aviation, and we have enough men through voluntary enlistment in the army. Our sailors will be found wherever they are needed, our aviators anywhere on the battle fronts of the world, and our French Canadians are willing to do their share under the voluntary system in any of the three services.
When section 3 is deleted from the mobilization act it will stand deleted not only for this government but for any government that may replace this one. It is to be the law of the land, as was said by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres; and any government succeeding the present one, any prime minister succeeding the present Prime Minister will be in a position to apply the principle of conscription simply by order in council. That is the position; so has spoken the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. I approve his attitude on this bill, and I shall vote against the amendment to the act. In the last war conscription for service overseas was considered an error by Sir Robert Borden, as stated in his memoirs. It has been the cause of discord and misunderstanding; so why take this risk again?
French Canadians are willing to do their share voluntarily. Why not let the leaders of French Canada be in a position to appeal with 
force and success to their compatriots in favour of an all-out war effort? Why not continue the good work done by our Roman Catholic French clergy in that magnificent appeal made in their pastoral letter of May 31, 1942?
The war will prevent the celebration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation this year. One thing we can do. We can concentrate our minds on the problem of a better understanding between French and English, between Roman Catholic and Protestant. Our main objective must be to rid our minds of at least some prejudices. Once the ground is clear of bias it will be possible to erect the solid framework of national unity. For this I appeal as strongly as I can to my French compatriots to join the army, navy and air force in large numbers, in order to defend the liberties of mankind threatened in this war. I also appeal to those in favour of conscription for service overseas to scrutinize carefully the point of view of the French-speaking population. I appeal for better understanding and unity between the two great races in this country. I appeal for the building of a nation in Canada, a nation with its own flag, with its own national anthem, a nation where the two great races will have equal rights and privileges all over Canada. Then, for my French compatriots the word "conscription" will no longer be a symbol which means, forced to enrol, to train, to fight and die in some other land for some other cause than that of their own country.


Mr. SARTO FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: This is the second time within a period of twenty-five years that the Canadian parliament has been called to decide upon a measure involving compulsory military service for Canadians overseas. The first occasion was in 1917, in the same circumstances and for the same purposes. Therefore we have a test case of brutal historical fact, a precedent that took place twenty-five years ago, which is a rather short period in the history of a nation, so that no dust has yet accumulated on the memory of this calamitous event. You, Mr. Speaker, know the meaning of "precedent' 'in a British parliament. How is it that through all the speeches delivered by those advocating or supporting a similar proposal to-day no one dared to suggest the repetition of that phase of our history? The reason for this is most simple; it is that we remember, and we know that the people of this country remember. That explains why the supporters of this bill are creating something like a new type of precedent, which consists in ignoring another precedent. By the fact that the whole nation is at war, the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve)
conduct of the war is a Canadian affair; and those upon whom is placed the burden of the responsibility of framing the national policy are bound to be logical and true with themselves as well as with the facts. It would be a crime on their part to forget that great principle of wisdom and common sense, which is as old as the civilized world, that the same causes always have the same effects. What in former times was already recognized by the unanimous consent of the nation as a bad, useless and harmful experience both for the prosecution of the war and for the post-war development of the national life of this country, is still bad to-day; it cannot be otherwise.
Here, sir, experience meets and joins with reason to condemn Bill No. 80, as it is presented by a government which seems to be frightened by the blackmail and the threats of a little group of money makers and blackmailers, to whom the national welfare of the population of this country is the least of their cares; and who, by dint of manoeuvring and bargaining, have succeeded in forcing the hand of the government to the point of inducing them to introduce into this house a measure of legislation which, according to the testimony of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself, according to the evidence given by almost every one of his ministers, according to the testimony of past experience and common sense, is not necessary.
That is the position; but whether we like it or not we have to consider the question properly, upon its merits, in the light of circumstances prevailing in Canada, and take the best possible decision in the interests of the country. Since this question of conscription of men for military service overseas is a war measure closely and intimately connected with the whole problem of the man-power of the nation, it becomes ipso facto a problem of the highest importance. The problem is common to all the nations at war. It is the beginning and end of a nation's war effort. Because of the new aspects created by the unexpected magnitude of the conflict, this question, as never before, has attained a high degree of importance in itself, and of danger and difficulty in discovering a proper solution. No greater organizational problem has ever been faced than the marshalling, the direction and the conservation of all this human effort. In dealing with such a tremendous question, we must remember that we are not simply juggling with figures; we are trying to find a solution as to the best possible use that can be made of the very human capital of the nation. In this connection no error is permitted. Man-power is the number one raw
material of war, the only resource for which no substitute can be found; and it has to be utilized, accordingly, to the fullest capacity and, I repeat, in the light of circumstances prevailing in the country.
These circumstances are not the same everywhere. In Great Britain they differ from the circumstances in Australia; and there we all know to what extent they are contrary to the methods prevailing in Germany, where they have a particular way of dealing with the question, which way does not resemble the methods prevailing in the United States. Here in Canada the very nature of the problem is such as to make it first and last a Canadian problem. Since we have entered this war by the exercise of our own free will, in order to preserve the survival of our Christian, civilized and free way of living, the conduct of the war is a Canadian affair, just as it is a Russian problem in Russia, and different things in the different nations. We cannot be too prudent and take too many precautions in analysing the real conditions prevailing in the country. If we want to do that in a proper and honest way, we must make a necessary distinction between the real conditions as they exist, and some new, artificial conditions shining in the light of statistics newly obtained under false pretences by the holding of a plebiscite which has cast its sense just as at this season of the year the foxes shed their coats.
To take advantage of such artificial circumstances, which do not reflect either the feeling or the will of the nation, is the use of a power which has not been given or authorized by the people but is furnished by statistics only. The figures are there to help the government lead the nation properly; but if the government should decide to give up its duties and its responsibilities and call upon Mr. Symbol, who has no soul and no brain, to lead the nation, where are we going? After all, Mr. Speaker, who is running this country; who is carrying on this war on behalf of the Canadian people? Symbols? Statistics? Newspapers? Political parties? Arguments? The government? No, sir. All these are more or less useful and necessary elements which are supposed to make their contribution to the winning of the war; but this Canadian war effort is actually and really made by the Canadian people; and we have no right to forget its will, because it is the will of the nation.
We could undertake the responsibility of declaring war, organizing our war effort, prosecuting hostilities, and transforming the
3958	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve)
economy of our country until to-day she is rightly considered the arsenal of the united nations. We could raise by way of loans and taxation the enormous sums of money required to meet the expenditures necessitated by our magnificent war effort. We could raise all the men required for the three different branches of our armed forces. We could do all that and excel in many other splendid achievements which have been duly praised both in foreign countries and here in Canada by everybody who knows what he is talking about, and we could achieve all that because behind the action of the government there stood the will of the nation.
For nearly three years we have got along successfully under the voluntary system. But to-day, for reasons that have never been made clear, and in spite of the most solemn pledges given repeatedly time and again to millions and millions of Canadian citizens, the government proposes to repeat the shameful action, the great mistake of 1917, while at the same time stating that it is not necessary. Of course, it is not necessary and it never would be necessary provided the government had the courage to master that big-name, high-pressure, imperialist propaganda campaign which was started two years ago in this country by a little group of people whose patriotism is nothing but the heroism of others. That disaster can be avoided provided the government stands to its initial position and keeps the Canadian war effort geared1 to the will of the nation. So long as the nation refuses to accept voluntarily the principle of compulsion for military service overseas, any attempt on the part of the government to overthrow or crush this legitimate desire of the people constitutes an act of tyranny, a deplorable abuse of confidence, and the official recognition in this free country of that basic principle by virtue of which slave nations are governed. What adds to the danger is the fact that some people are going to be enriched by getting and filling contracts to equip those who are being compelled to die. As one of that younger generation, and' on their behalf, I urge upon the government, before it decides to cross the Rubicon, to consider well the consequences of the act which it is on the point of performing. When Canada is now writing another great chapter in her splendid history, why should we blot a fresh page with the ink of infamy, while those who did this once before, are yet living, buried under the contempt of two generations? When all of us know these things from past experience, surely we should not repeat the same mistake and hazard again the future of our nation for many years to come.

I wish now to deal with the same problem considered from the angle of actual war reality. Modern technical warfare is based on three main principles which have conditioned and determined the outcome of every battle which has taken place since the outbreak of the war. They constitute the basis of the value of an army. They are horsepower, man-power and brain-power. Since all these three are equally essential and, therefore, absolutely necessary, it is the duty of the government to see that our armies are sufficiently provided with them in adequately balanced proportions in order that we may have an effectively and intelligently directed effort down to the last unit of man-power that can be mustered.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, future historians of this war will rightly point out that the reverses suffered by our allies were due to a lack of equipment and machines, to insufficient horse-power. We have never possessed until now the physical power, the necessary requirements in horse-power. If I may be allowed to do so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you an idea of a modern army's requirements from the point of view of horsepower. I shall take the liberty of quoting an excerpt from an address delivered last December, in Detroit, by Mr. Paul Garrick, vice-president of the General Motors Corporation:
War now is a war of horsepower. In 1918 an infantry division had equipment of 3,300 horse power. Now an armoured division has 400,000 horse-power.
Mr. Speaker, we are short of horse-power. So far, our armies have lacked physical power or strength. That explains the downfall of France. France did not lack men; she had all the soldiers she needed; neither did she lack courage or patriotism. She fell, vanquished by twenty thousand German soldiers. At that time she had at her disposal two million soldiers. But France fell because she lacked the necessary equipment, because she did not have the required machinery, because she was short of the horse-power without which modern armies have no chance of success.
If Italy has lost so many of the battles she has fought since the beginning of the war, the explanation is not that she lacked horsepower, that her forces were inadequate, that she was short of machinery, or that she lacked men-in these respects she was amply provided with everything she needed to vanquish her opponents. Italy has suffered humiliating defeats because the Italian nation lacked brain-power, because her soldiers would not shoot at British or French soldiers, because

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve)
never, or at least for quite a number of years, the Italian people never had any serious differences with the French or the British. But horse-power and brain-power can neither be conscripted nor coerced. Conscription measures written into the statute books of our country cannot increase the effective power and horse-power of any army sent overseas or elsewhere; such legislation cannot inspire our fighting men with the essential virtues of valour, courage and dauntlessness. The passing of a measure such as is now submitted to the house had already been forecast for a later date at the time of the plebiscite, as was so ably pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). It was to come later! That apparently meant, in the minds of those who made the statement and in the explanations which were given to us, when it should become "necessary", when new events should occur to render it absolutely necessary. Now these events have not come to pass, Mr. Speaker. Circumstances have not changed and yet this bill is upon us, this measure will be adopted, and "later" has become "to-day". On a matter such as we are now discussing, when the government is asking for power to adopt conscription, to enforce conscription in the country at any time, I fear that the word "later" when used during this debate offers no safer guarantee than it did at the time of the plebiscite. When one considers, Mr. Speaker, a modem army's great need of proper equipment, how it has to be in the pink of condition, it seems there is need and great need for increasing, improving and adding to the equipment supplied at present to our armed forces both at home and overseas, whether they are made up of volunteers or not.
The word has long gone around: Remember Hong Kong! We shall not fail to remember Hong Kong, but wishful thinking can be of no avail, even though coupled with a desire for vengeance. We shall not forget that disaster due to the insufficient training and especially to the lack of equipment under which' our men laboured unsuccessfully at Hong Kong.
Do we realize, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to equipping our own forces we must equip the British and Russian armies, send men and equipment to Australia and that over and above what we have to give to our own allies we shall probably have to send equipment to still other allied nations? Let us not be astonished at the disaster of Hong Kong. Let us not be surprised at the quick defeat which met our troops there. Should we send troops elsewhere, in any part of the world, under the same unfair conditions, with
the same training and with the same equipment; should the same conditions prevail in the future, fresh disasters await our Canadian armed forces. It is not the number of soldiers that counts, it is brains and brawn, whether that army be large or small. But what is needed above all is equipment.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what number of men can we reasonably contribute to this war, whatever our system of recruiting, whether conscription or voluntary enlistments? What is the potential capacity of the Canadian nation as regards man-power for our armed forces? Mr. Speaker, the problem of a nation's man-power has this in particular that it may be accurately appraised, accurately determined and calculated, and it may be defined in a practical way. No one can tell what the limit to our production of raw materials may be nor to what extent our soldiers may be courageous, but it is possible to determine the number of men it is convenient for us to raise. With regard to army requirements our maximum contribution may be determined. Mr. Speaker, in so far as our soldiers are concerned, we cannot go beyond certain limits.
Our American friends are a practical people. They started by taking a national census on the basis of their war needs. The census indicated a total population of 134 million inhabitants. Then they went about it logically, properly asking themselves how many men, how many women out of the total population must produce something for the immediate needs of the war. They left out children under sixteen years of age and persons over sixty, they left out married women whose duty it is to remain at home and look after the education and health of their children; they eliminated those living in hospitals, the weak and gaoled criminals.
After all these deductions, they found that the man-power, the effective strength of the American nation is about 71,700,000, or 54 per cent of the whole population. Canada has a population of about twelve million. If we take the American basis-and we can safely take it-if we take 54 per cent of the whole population of our country, we find that we have in man-power an effective strength of 6,500,000. How many of these people shall we send on the battlefields? How many shall we take into the army? We have to employ some in the mines, in the workshops, in the industries and all the other activities which are essential to our national life. Of these 6,500,000 men and women, how many shall we induct into our army as fighting strength?
3960	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve)
I have before me, Mr. Speaker, a circular letter issued by the Royal Bank of Canada which no one has yet taxed with ultranationalism. The officials of the Royal bank analyse in that booklet published in May, 1942, a certain aspect of the man-power problem in a nation. I quote:
We are often told of the highly technical nature of modern warfare, and of the necessity for organization of the home front to support the fighting services. Calculations have been made, showing that every man on active service must be supported by the efforts of eighteen men at home, in industry, agriculture and transportation, while only five workers were required for every fighting man in the world war of 1914-1918.
According to the Royal Bank of Canada, eighteen men are needed on the home front to maintain and reasonably equip a man on the fighting line. Others suggest that eight would be sufficient. I believe that both these figures represent extremes. It would seem to me much more fair and reasonable to strike off an. average, to use a middle term, and say that thirteen persons are sufficient to maintain a soldier fighting for our defence on the field of battle.
Our effective man-power of 6,500,000 people should therefore enable us to have an army of 500,000 men. But we have that army, Mr. Speaker, or we should have it. However, according to the figures quoted the other day by my hon. friend the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) our actual man-power is inferior to what it should be; instead of having 6,500,000 people to draw from, we have only five millions. Where are the others? Where are the missing 1,500,000 persons? I would like to know. No one yet has been able to give us the answer. Yet, the health of our people cannot be inferior to that of our neighbours. The figures given by the Minister of Munitions and Supply indicate that we are below the average, and those given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) reveal a still worse condition.
It is stated by the Minister of Agriculture that we soon shall have 750,000 men under arms. On the other hand, the Minister of Munitions and Supply states that our available man-power, as regards our war needs, amounts to five million persons.
It is plain, Mr. Speaker, that we have not very many more persons behind each soldier than we had during the war of 1914-1918. We must have a full war effort in every sense of the word. We must therefore use common sense, intelligence and justice. It is a mistake, a terrible blunder and an injustice to send our fellow citizens to the front without giving

them the full guarantee that the country will provide them with all they need to accomplish their purpose.
Our cause is just; we must defend it and it must triumph by fair means. In all justice to our soldiers we must guarantee that behind each one of them stand at least thirteen of his fellow citizens who spend their days and nights to support him, to feed him, to provide him with the necessary tools and the mechanical power he needs to fight with a reasonable chance of success against a powerful enemy.
The courage of our soldiers and the superiority of their equipment alone will give them victory. No legislation will give us that. And, in that regard, Bill No. 80 is unfair, useless and humiliating to the Canadian people.
Several members have tried to explain why Quebec objects to conscription; many theories have been expounded; it was even claimed that the province of Quebec was against conscription because her political leaders had deceived her for over twenty-five years.
Yet, Messrs. Lapointe, Dandurand and Cardin were always honest with the people of Quebec. Those who would have us believe that we were deceived are precisely the ones who are trying to mislead us to-day.
The province of Quebec was not deceived before, but it is being deceived right now. It is not being deceived by its own representatives, but by people who are interested in doing so. We have always been and still are against conscription for overseas service, because our reasons for opposing conscription still exist. This piece of legislation is unjust, useless, stupid, and it will prove just as disastrous as ever.
We are against conscription because we do not suffer from megalomania, because we have retained a sense of proportion and because we know it is useless to ask the people to give an effort so violent that it will prove impossible to sustain should the war last a few years longer.
It has been stated that everything we have we owe to the mother country. Indeed, we share that opinion. But the mother country, as we understand it, is nowhere but in Canada. There is our only and our true mother country. This land is where we wish to live even as did our forefathers before us. As Russian soldiers fight for Russia, the English for England and Americans for the United States our fellow-citizens in the province of Quebec fight for no other country than Canada. For the defence of Canada no more devoted, no more understanding and no more enthusiastic citizens are to be found than those who live in the province of Quebec.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Hoblitzell
We have voluntarily entered this war for the defence of our country, that of all Canadians, and not to service as tools for the enemies of our race, our faith or of our religion. Our disdain for them is equal to theirs for us. We know their mentality is not characteristic of the majority of our English fellow-citizens. They talk of a show-down against us at the very moment when the nation is fighting the most redoubtable foes it has ever known. Quebec, for them, is Canada's first line of defence in this country. It entails no danger [DOT] for them, they are not risking one cent. Theirs is a special brand of courage! they seek for a fight which will not take place and they know it beforehand. May history be kind to them.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding these humble remarks, I would like to quote a few lines of a speech made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in this house on July 24th, 1917:
I oppose this bill because it has in it the seeds of discord and disunion; because it is an obstacle and a bar to that union of heart and soul without which it is impossible to hope that this confederation will attain the aims and ends that we had in view when confederation was effected.
All my life I have fought coercion; all my life I have promoted union; and the inspiration which led me to that course shall be my guide at all times, so long as there is a breath left in my body.
This explains perfectly the sentiment of the people in the province of Quebec and the position they have taken on the bill that the government now asks us to pass.


Mr. F. G. HOBLITZELL (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with my remarks on the issue before the house, may I express
my appreciation of and the gratitude of my constituents for your indulgence in permitting me to speak at this time, because every normal avenue and procedure to do so was obviously purposely barred to me by the Liberal whip appointed under democratic parliamentary rule to facilitate the opportunity for a representative of the people to speak before this honourable assembly.
May I say at once without any doubt or hesitation that I support Bill No. 80, repealing section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has told us that support of the bill now-before the house does not mean conscription for the present-that it may never mean conscription. The people of Canada thought they were voting in favour of conscription, no matter what statements may be made to the contrary. The constituency w-hich I have the honour to represent, Toronto-Eglinton, polled the largest percentage of "yes" votes of any
constituency in the dominion. From the hundreds of letters I received I know the vote meant only one thing to them-the immediate application of conscription. The people of Quebec were sure they were voting on conscription, and posters throughout that province asked them to vote "no." For that reason our allies and# our enemies believed that we were voting for conscription, and in friendly countries the press announced that we had voted overwhelmingly in favour of an all-out effort. I opposed the holding of a plebiscite because I believed it was the duty of the government of Canada to adopt the one fair course and to assure equality of service and of sacrifice in every field of our war effort. Everything that has happened since has convinced me more and more that it was a sorry day for Canada when the government decided to side-step its responsibility by adopting this device. Now we are going through the last stages of the colossal confusion.
During the plebiscite itself the people of Canada were exhorted to vote "yes" as a national duty so that the government would have a free hand toward an all-out war effort. A second group were demanding a "no" vote to make sure that there would be a definite limitation to our effort. Not being told definitely what the vote was intended to mean, the people made it clear what the vote did mean to them. When the people voted "yes" by a huge majority in most of Canada they left no doubt about the things they said, that they were instructing the government that they wanted no further delay in dealing with conscription.
We have now before us a bill to remove any limitation on the field of service of those who are drafted under the National Resources Mobilization Act, and at the same time we are told that if the bill is passed it means nothing for the present and may never mean anything at any time. We have been told by the Prime Minister that the passing of this bill does not mean the adoption of conscription; in other words, the debate is not to decide conscription. Nevertheless we are asked to debate conscription so that the issue will be decided once and for all. The course we are now following is just as indecisive and just as far from reality as was the plebiscite itself. We are asked to debate conscription and then to vote on something else. We are asked to say when and how compulsory service should be adopted, and at the same time we are told that what we say and our vote on the bill itself will have nothing whatever to do with, when and how it is adopted.
That sort of indecision and uncertainty in parliament has destroyed democracy before

Mobilization Act-Mr. Hoblitzell
and it can destroy democracy again. It is time this parliament realized what effect this is having on our people and on our friends. We have been told that conscription is not needed to supply man-power for our forces already overseas, and that it is possible it may never be needed. But if we wait until it is needed it will be too late. We must not blink facts any longer. A Canadian army has been created in England. If that army is engaged in direct contact with the enemy, we might need 100 per cent in numbers of the total force as reinforcements in one year. We have not that number of trained reinforcements outside of the units now in other divisional formations in Canada. It is possible that I have far underestimated the requirements of reinforcements. But it is certain that we cannot go on assuming that our land forces are going to suffer no substantial casualties. Wars are won by fighting, and in the fighting which will lead to victory the unhappy truth is that we cannot avoid heavy casualties.
But there is another point which is not being considered sufficiently in the discussions which are taking place. Even if it were certain that we would not need to send another man overseas for a long time to come, there could still be no excuse for not putting conscription into effect without any limitations. We have now a draft system which invites a form of compulsion which I think is a disgrace to every Canadian, Talk to any young men in the training centres and they will tell you of the methods that are adopted to force men drafted for home service to enlist for service overseas. I do not suggest that this is done under instructions from national defence headquarters. It is the inevitable result of placing young men side by side, some of whom are available for service anywhere and some who have been drafted under a system which limits their field of service.
That creates a sense of unfairness in the minds of those who may be called upon to go anywhere, and they adopt methods which young men find easy to devise to persuade other .young men to do their will. We have even heard the strange doctrine voiced in this debate that conscription for service anywhere on the north American continent is acceptable, but not conscription for overseas. It would indeed be a shameful day for Canada when it became the accepted policy that we were quite prepared to conscript our young men for service in foreign lands but were not prepared to apply the same principle to our partners in the British empire.
We are not fighting only for Britain when we send troops to Britain. We are fighting for that partnership of free men to which we

belong as a sovereign nation. It happens that Britain is the bastion of freedom which is holding back the armed forces of Germany from our shores. Where better can we fight for the defence of Canada than there? When the time comes to launch the offensive to crush the hated hun, where can our men start that offensive better than from that line of freedom on the British coast?
It is time for us to stop talking apologetically about our men being in Britain, as though we were ashamed of that partnership. Every Canadian who has helped to maintain the freedom on the soil of Britain has helped to maintain our freedom in Canada; and even if we were not fighting for ourselves, why should we not fight side by side with Britain when they have fought side by side with us to give us that place in the world which we hold so proudly to-day.
There is another thing we must not forget in this debate. Our Prime Minister himself has told us of the value of our friendship with the United States, and how important it is that we should be held in high regard by the people of that great country. He has told us that it has been possible for him to be of special service to Canada because of his friendly contact there. How, then, can we ignore the attitude of the people of the United States? Surely no one is any longer in doubt about what they are saying there. They do not understand all these fine arguments about the advantages of voluntary service. They are very proud of their own institutions, and they believe that their freedom and their way of life are second to none.


Mr. FLEMING:: The hon. member is
reading his speech.


James Arthur Ross: The member for
Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) read his speech, too.


Thomas Vien: I must point
out to the hon. member that it is against the rules to read speeches.


Frederick George Hoblitzell: I am just following some notes very closely the same as some other hon. members, and I hope the same privilege will be extended to me.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. gentleman states that he is only consulting his notes, I must accept his statement.


Frederick George Hoblitzell: How do you think, Mr. Speaker, the people of the United States regard the suggestion that there is something shameful and improper about compelling young men to serve their country anywhere at any time that the enemy may be destroyed?

Mobilization Act-Mr. Laflamme
The people of the United States know that they have been at war for six months and more, and that their men are drafted for service anywhere at any time. They cannot understand why we are not willing to put aside our prejudices. All these distinctions between compulsory service for the defence of our own country and for service elsewhere are meaningless to them. Their young men are being drafted without any limitation upon the field of service. Already large numbers of them are in Australia, in Alaska, in Ireland, in England, in Africa and the far east. It is only necessary to read the press of the United States to know what they think about the matter.


Thomas Vien: Order. I do not believe I can accept the view that the hon. member is only consulting his notes; I think he is consulting them very assiduously.


Frederick George Hoblitzell: All the speeches that have been made about the value of Canadian contracts, the number of men in arms, and what these would mean if multiplied by the number of times their population exceeds ours, fall on deaf ears. Let there be no mistake about it; we have a very poor press in the United States at the present time. That will not be cured by high-paid agents writing stories about Canadian industrial production and what our men will do when the time comes. This one issue of conscription hangs like a cloud over everything.


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. gentleman should deliver his speech, not read it.


Frederick George Hoblitzell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am following my notes. It is not fair that the flower of our youth should answer the call of duty-


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member has heard the ruling?


Frederick George Hoblitzell: while others who do not hear the call of duty so clearly remain at home to take over the jobs of those who have gone. We are told that man-ipower is needed. Of course it is. But the way to assure manpower is to have a uniform system of compulsory service that will place every man in the job that he can do best.


Thomas Vien: Order. I shall have to ask the hon. member to resume his seat unless he obeys the ruling of the Chair. The hon. member may not read his speech.


An hon. MEMBER:: Unless he supports the government.
Mr. J. LEO K. LAFLAMME (Montmagny-L'lslet) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the bill now before parliament calls for the repeal of section 3 of the Mobilization Act, 1940, which limited- to Canada the mobilization of manpower. It is under this act, that the authorities have already called to the colours a considerable number of young men.
According to the report of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) 312,649 men have answered the call to report for medical examination. With the exception of those who enlisted voluntarily, we may say that almost every young man of military age has been called up.
The reason put forward for the repeal of that section is that as a result of the plebiscite we must remove any limitation in the government's power to mobilize all the country's resources, particularly its man-power. Even if the plebiscite has given a majority of "yes" votes, the government, in my opinion, is not justified at this time in moving this amendment. Since the affirmative majority vote is construed in most places as a vote in favour of conscription, we may wonder if the majority vote given in the province of Quebec against the plebiscite was not cast against this method of recruitment, against conscription for overseas service.
There is no gainsaying, Mr. Speaker, that when war broke out, a part of our population favoured immediate participation in foreign wars, especially under a system of conscription for overseas service, while another part opposed such participation and the recourse to conscription. We were told by our leaders that both groups had come to an agreement and that this agreement should be respected. May I quote, among other statements, that uttered in a radio broadcast on October 9, 1939, by the late Mr. Lapointe who said:
I am opposed to conscription now as I was then. I stated in the house that I would never be part of a government which would impose conscription and that I would never support such a government. The Prime Minister has stated, that the present administration wrnuld never resort to conscription. My colleagues and I enjoy the respect of our colleagues from the other provinces and I feel justified in saying that I enjoy the confidence and regard of my English-speaking fellow citizens throughout Canada, and I believe I have been successful in convincing them, and that we have convinced them, that Canadian unity demands that there be no compulsory service overseas.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this statement of the former leader of the province of Quebec is sufficiently explicit and worthy of belief. He said: "We have convinced them, we have

Mobilization Act-Mr. Laflamme
managed to convince them, that Canadian unity demands that there be no compulsory service overseas.
Inasmuch as our section of the population fulfilled its end of the bargain, I wonder why the other section should fail to do the same. If there are serious reasons for a change of attitude in that regard, it is fitting that such reasons be divulged. So far, everything has shown that the voluntary method of raising men for overseas service has been highly successful. It does not appear necessary, under the circumstances, that the method be changed; nor does it seem imperative, since the voluntary system has been successful, that we undertake new commitments with our allies.
Recent events have shown that the enemy does not want our country, any more than the United States, to be used as an arsenal for our allies fighting on other continents. It follows that our country can play a very important part in this war by steadily producing the tools of war, as Mr. Churchill requested that we do when he visited us, and especially by steadily supplying man-power under the voluntary system of enlistment. A close study of figures showing the number of men called up and of those likely to be so, enables us to state without exaggeration that, at best, coercion or conscription of man-power would enable us to raise a force of some
50,000	men. Is such compulsory contribution worth while under the circumstances, endangering as it does the country's unity? Is not national unity really much more valuable than this enforced contribution of man-power for military service?
One of the reasons put forward for drafting men for service overseas is that there must be equality of sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that there can be no equality of sacrifice when sacrifices are made under compulsion. Sacrifice is the voluntary renunciation of liberties and privileges which we hold dear, in order to give anmple proof of courage and self-denial. It is not through coercion that we can induce men to agree to equality of sacrifice, and I believe that the generous offer to serve made by our volunteers cannot be compared to the spirit of those who might be forced to do likewise.
There is another argument set forth by some people and, although it may lack cogency, it is nevertheless worth looking into. Questions put on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, clearly show an ever-recurrent desire to criticize the province of Quebec in connection with the country's all-out effort. Some seem to complain about our province not supplying men in sufficient numbers under the fMr. Laflamme.]
voluntary system, and this is being used as an argument in favour of conscription. I sincerely believe that those who hold this view are greatly mistaken and that they entirely disregard certain facts which show that the effort made by our province has no doubt been important and genuine and that if it is not as great as one might have wished, this is because a very important factor is being ignored in this effort.
Let us remember that most of our young men from the city as well as from the country speak only French. It is hard for them to be enthusiastic about the army especially when military training is given in English. Our young men who don't know a word of English feel lost among the rest. Moreover, as the great majority of our people speak only French, discipline seems very irksome to us when orders are given only in English. I am positive that if the authorities took pains to consider seriously that situation, it could be improved and that they could establish staffs of officers comprising only French Canadians. It would be easy to teach military discipline to my compatriots through the medium of their language, if care were taken to train bilingual officers and non-commissioned officers able to transmit the orders given by the higher authorities. If that were done, I am convinced that this important section of the Canadian army where French-speaking Canadians would form the majority, would play a great part and would certainly show itself worthy of those who preceded it at the different war fronts. I wonder if certain people do not apprehend a repetition of the glorious history of the 22nd French-Canadian regiment.
No one can seriously claim that it is impossible to do this. Do our friends, our allies, the Free French not receive their training in their own language and do they not perform in this conflict a praiseworthy and enviable effort. Do our Norwegian, Polish and Dutch allies not have their separate units? Yet their effort is second to none. Therefore, I believe it is possible to improve the voluntary system and, without making any other pledges to the allies, we can establish a truly Canadian army by giving even more consideration to the French-speaking element.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has devoted his life to the establishment of national unity in this country. His constant efforts are an example and it would certainly be unfortunate should present circumstances destroy all the good work that has been done. One cannot conceive national unity without understanding between the different groups and particularly

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lajontaine
between the two main ones, the Englishspeaking and the French-speaking groups. Events prove to those who wish to see that the British empire, as some still call it, cannot survive the serious blows it is receiving.
Nevertheless, one forgets that there exists at present, especially since the Westminster statute, an association of free peoples which is a commonwealth of British nations composed of England and her crown colonies as well as the various autonomous and independent dominions. Even though they are associated, the latter have the right and the duty of remembering that should history repeat itself and should the British empire disintegrate, they must ensure their own security and organize the defence of their own territory for the very purpose of constituting anew, after the war, that same association of autonomous nations under the British crown. There is no lack of loyalty but rather a true manifestation of it in giving material and financial aid by every means at our disposal, and in contributing volunteers, while attending to the protection of each country.	.
In any country, if the citizens are to share in a common conception of the nation, one way to attain this result is to have a flag representing the country in the eyes of each citizen. So long as our country proves incapable of having its own flag, so long shall we find it difficult to reach unity of thought, a common conception of country and a common view concerning its defence. Let our English-speaking fellow-citizens seriously ponder this point, and let them remember that when our American neighbours invited the French Canadians to join them at the time they were seeking to achieve their independence, our people turned them down. Let them also remember that in spite of the vexations to which they have been subjected, our people have rejected the subversive ideas which have been spread in this country during the last few years. We have done that because our country, Canada, is the prime object of our love. We are proud to live in it and we claim for others as well as for ourselves freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom to act in accordance with our conceptions, our traditions and our racial characteristics.
Some day it will be possible to assign the responsibility for the situation now existing in this country. There is no doubt that statements made to the Quebec people, especially since 1917 when the Liberal party was represented, at least with the implied approval of Liberals from other provinces, as being opposed to conscription for overseas service, will weigh heavily in the balance
when the time comes to assign such responsibility. Those who have fostered the separation idea, especially for some time past, will also have to bear a considerable share of that responsibility. But it should not be forgotten that our English-speaking fellow citizens will also be held responsible for having consistently refused to recognize the French-speaking group in Canada.
The decision I have taken is based on my personal conviction that compulsory service outside our borders should not be enforced in this country; that the voluntary system, properly organized, will yield all the men we need to help our allies. Realizing those facts,
I cannot agree to vote for the amendment, that is for Bill No. 80 amending section 3 of the mobilization act, because it would mean endorsing the principle of conscription for overseas service.
Personally, I believe the majority of Canadians oppose this method of raising men for military service outside of Canada. I find it impossible to consider that conscription will help us win the war, but I remain convinced that national unity, realized through the observance of pledges given at the outset of war, will contribute to an allied victory and I believe my attitude is the best under the circumstances.
War will always be the most terrible scourge visited on the human race. The conflict we are now engaged in is accompanied by confusion and disastrous contradictions. An instance of this is evident in our own country at the present time. Were we really imbued with the Christian principles for which we claim to be fighting, we would first apply them in our own country. Our national life is a denial of the very principles we aspire to uphold. All things considered, we should not hope for victory without reparation and without relying on divine Providence.
Mr. JOSEPH LAFONTAINE (Megantic-
Frontenac) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the bill now being considered by the house is of such grave import and its consequences are so far-reaching that I believe it my duty to voice here, at this time, an opinion which is shared by almost every one of the constituents whom I have the honour to represent.
My decision to participate in this debate on Bill No. 80 was not arrived at with a view to delay the proceedings of the house. Last week, certain hon. members, and particularly the leader of the opposition last Tuesday, showed signs of impatience at the length of the discussion on this measure. Still, Mr. Speaker, there have been lengthy debates on other matters and we from the province of

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lajontaine
Quebec have sat through them without complaining, or at least without overtly alluding to their tediousness in the house.
This is the first time I have taken the opportunity granted to each member of expressing his views as well as those of his constituents, and in doing so I intend, Mr. Speaker, to comply as far as possible with the rules of the house.
We are free to disagree on the subject of this measure which, if passed by the house and subsequently enforced, may undermine the very foundations of our constitution and even bring about serious changes in our national life. We are free, I repeat, to disagree without being for all that hostile to the cause of the united nations.
If such differences of opinion were not respected in this house and country, the sacrifices already made and those we are about to make in support of the effort Canada is putting forth to ensure the survival of all freedom-loving peoples, would be to no avail.
On the ultimate goal to be reached, there is and can be no discussion. Certainly no one in this house dares to imagine that any member, whatever his views on this question, may be pulling for an Axis victory. No, Mr. Speaker, we all want to win the war although we disagree at the moment on a measure whose purpose would be to uphold our war effort, in view of the needs of our allies and especially of the trend of present day events. Yet we must bear in mind the peculiar position in which Canada finds herself, give special attention to the essential problem of national unity, and remain true to the principles of our federal constitution as well as to the pledges given the Canadian people on more than one occasion.
Any discussion is idle unless we admit that those who are against Bill No. 80, as I am myself, are just as sincere and honest as those who are in favour of it, and that we are seeking as loyally as they do a solution to the difficult problems which confront us in this period of our history.
Since the beginning of this debate I have followed the discussion closely; I have listened attentively to the numerous speeches delivered, many of which I have read over several times. I have weighed the arguments advanced in favour of this measure, and I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that these have not shaken the opinion I had formed at the time the first reading of this bill was moved in the house.
I still feel that I should oppose this amendment to the National Resources Mobilization Act because Bill No. 80 involves the principle of conscription, because this amendment grants

to the present government or to any future government powers so vast that it may, simply through an order in council, send overseas not only our volunteer troops but every man who has been called under the 1940 mobilization act and to whom that act was a guarantee that he would be compelled to serve only in the defence of Canada and her territorial waters.
This would mean a breach of the pledges given by the Liberal, the Conservative and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation parties during the 1940 election campaign.
The only party whose platform included conscription was the Social Credit party, one of whose members, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw), told us on June 23rd how proud he was that his party had taken such a stand and that it should have advocated ever since 1937 the enforcement of conscription for overseas service in case of war.
Mr. Speaker, once this bill is adopted, if the present government or any other government avail themselves, as was done in 1917, of the powers granted by this act, we shall have conscription. Whether it be in 1942, 1943 or 1944, if the measure is enforced it will still mean conscription.
If I were to support a measure such as the one now submitted to the house, if the powers requested were to be exercised, that is if conscription for overseas service was adopted by order in council, my electors and fellow citizens would consider me as an imposter. I do not hesitate at times to take an attitude that does not meet public approval. I have done so more than once, but I will not take up the time of the house in recalling those instances. I will say though that on such occasions I always strove to fulfil my duty as I saw it. Such has been my line of conduct in the past and I intend that it shall be so in the future. Moreover, if I stand opposed to this measure embodying the principle of conscription and also to the enactment of such legislation, selfishness or personal interest have little to do with it for, as the hon. member for Prescott mentioned a moment ago, I have two sons in the armed forces. I am only fulfilling a pledge and honouring commitments made to my constituents.
It has been said time and again that the present amendment is the logical result of the affirmative vote of April the 27th last, and some hon. members even claimed that the electorate voted then for conscription.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept such statements because in none of the speeches delivered during the plebiscite campaign were the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lajontaine
voters told that an affirmative vote would mean the striking out of article 3, nor were they told that an affirmative vote would mean conscription for overseas service. I look upon this matter in the same light as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the hon. member for Algoma-East (Mr. Farquhar) who in their speeches had the courage to point out to the house that the results might have been different if the issue had been put squarely, if the voters had been asked to say if they were for or against conscription. In my constituency, although only a few affirmative votes were cast, I can assure you that the number of such votes would have been much smaller if the question had been squarely put, because those who voted "yes" were not voting for conscription, far from it, or for the cancellation of article 3.
The minority, some claim, must not be allowed to dictate our course of action. All the minority in this country desires is the honouring of the pledges it has received. It has been said too that the opinion of the majority must prevail in this country. The report of the director general of the plebiscite is very interesting in that regard. It appeared in a special edition of the Canada Gazette dated June 23.
The report shows that, with the exception of Quebec, the other provinces were more or less indifferent. Here is the percentage of the votes in each province compared to the number of voters appearing in the list:
Per cent
Ontario	 63 * 9
Quebec	 75*75
Nova Scotia	 45*46
New Brunswick	 62*9
Prince Edward Island	 57*2
Manitoba	 67*0
British Columbia	 68*7
Saskatchewan	 59*9
Alberta	 64*9
Yukon Territory	 6T9
Percentage in all provinces	 66*5
With the exception of Quebec	 62*87
Am I not right in saying that outside of the province of Quebec the voters remained more or less aloof from the question? Although the leader of the opposition and the members of his party say that they made a vigorous campaign in order to get a "yes" vote, which I do not doubt for a moment, let me tell them that theirs was not a wonderful success if we take into consideration the total number of voters on the lists. For example, the leader of the opposition, in his own constituency of York-Sunbury, succeeded in bringing to the polls only 15,474 voters out of a total of 25,603, which means that more than
10,000	did not heed his pressing appeal.
What about Nova Scotia where the votes numbered only a little more than 45 per cent of the names entered on the lists. Mr. Speaker, taking into account the total number of voters entered on the lists, we find that the "yes" votes represent only 41*44 per cent. Consequently the "no" votes added to the number of electors who did not vote represent 48*46 per cent of the total. Which shows that even if all the affirmative votes were given to approve conscription for overseas service or to amend the mobilization act, they do not represent the majority of the voters listed. I think we should cherish no illusions concerning the meaning of the plebiscite vote on April 27 last, notwithstanding what has been said. If the question had been squarely put, a goodly number of yeas would have turned into nays, and a large number of those who abstained from voting would have replied in the negative.
I maintain that Canada has magnificently done her duty since the declaration of war. She has done as nobly as any other country of her size. Has it ever occurred to you, Mr. Speaker, to draw a parallel between Canada's war effort and that of the United States, with due regard to the population figures of both countries? Granting that Canada has about 12 million inhabitants and the United States approximately 140 million, the latter should have 1,200,000 men under arms for every
100,000	that Canada can muster. Now since the Canadian armed forces, army, navy and air force, numbered 502,340 men on June 1 last, the United States should have 6,000,000 men in its armed forces at the moment.
This comparison gives a true picture of our war effort and shows that the United States still has far to go before surpassing it, although it is still voluntary.
Since then, certain statements have been made contrary to the principle involved in Bill No. 80, suggesting that circumstances have now changed and that events have occurred which require new measures. But these changes have not taken place outside Canada only; some have occurred also in our own country. What I find astonishing and quite disconcerting is the number of people who seem to have eyes only for what is happening outside this country and who are blind to everything that goes on here at home. I am of the opinion that Canada's effort to date far surpasses anything that would have been thought possible at the beginning of the war and this effort is constantly increasing as time goes on. There are nevertheless people to be found who are still unsatisfied, who judge our effort insufficient. Pity the blind!


Thomas Vien: Is the hon. gentleman raising a point of order?


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Yes, I would like to know what the hon. gentleman is reading from.


Thomas Vien: That is not a point of order.


Mr. POULIOT:: He is quoting from a speech by the hon. member for St. Paul's.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. member is raising a point of order will he kindly state his point of order?


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must state what he is reading from.


An hon. MEMBER:: Chiang Kai Shek.


Mr. LAFONTAINE (Translation):: The
Quebec people voted according to their convictions and their conscience as they always do. But in 1939 when the premier of Quebec, anxious as he was to hide the shameful abuses of his administration and in his desire to trick the people into renewing his mandate, announced a provincial election under the pretext that the province of Quebec should have an opportunity of protesting against Canada's participation in the war, as approved by the Canadian parliament, our ministers in the dominion government took a very active part in that campaign. They explained to the voters of our province that our participation was voluntary and that compulsion for military service overseas would never be enforced in Canada.
At that time there were no editorials with the caption "What is the matter with Quebec?" There were no such editorials when the Quebec electors turned out of office the leader of the "Union Nationale" because of his isolationist policy. No, there were no editorials asking "What is the matter with Quebec?" Mr. Speaker, Quebec was then lauded for its good work. Let this underground effort to pit the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Healy
English element against the French Canadians come to an end, and national unity will strongly benefit therefrom.
The French Canadians do not oppose the sending of Canadian troops overseas as suggested in certain quarters. No, Mr. Speaker, they have supported that policy and they will continue to support it, but they are opposed to conscription for overseas service believing as they do that if they must fight, shed their blood and die on foreign soil overseas, they should do so voluntarily.
Before I conclude, may I say to the advocates of conscription that such a measure would not speed up our war effort but would rather tend to hamper it, that it would endanger national unity which is so essential in these critical times.
I have a last word to say, Mr. Speaker, before I resume my seat. I wish to tell the Prime Minister how sincerely I sympathize with him.
While I must vote against this bill, I still trust that with his tact, his skill and his sound judgment, he will be fortunate enough to lead us safely through the perils which now beset Canada.


Mr. T. P. HEALY (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to express to this house my views regarding the deletion of section 3 from the mobilization act, I do so realizing that the remarks I am about to make are of a most serious nature affecting the present and future of our dominion.
The Quebec riding which I represent in this house is one of the oldest on the island of Montreal. Close by my home stands a school-house which the good Sisters of Notre Dame, founded by the revered Marguerite Bourgeoys, erected over 244 years ago and in which were instructed Indians and French Canadians, the original settlers of our country.
We had migration to our land of many nationalities, and to-day my riding is composed of 50 per cent English-speaking, 40 per cent French, and the other 10 per cent Polish, Italian and Ukrainian.
During the plebiscite campaign I asked the people of my riding to vote in the affirmative. I explained to them that it was not a vote for or against conscription. It meant exactly what was marked on the ballot, "Are you in favour of releasing the government from past commitments?" Those commitments, it will be recalled, were made by both parties during the last election campaign in the year 1940.
I should like to be permitted to read a letter which I had published in the French and English press of Montreal on April 25. The heading is:
Healy urges "yes" in St. Ann division.


Ernest George Hansell: Who is Healy?


Thomas Patrick Healy: The member for St. Ann. The letter reads:
Monday the people of Canada will go to the polls to register their decision on the appeal of the government for a release from commitments made during the election campaign of 1940.
As your elected i epresentative in the House of Commons, I urge you as true Canadians to give this matter very serious consideration and to cast an affirmative vote.
In the last general election the people of Canada by an overwhelming majority placed their confidence in Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and the Liberal party to guide the country in its war effort. Since that time the whole aspect of the security of the entire world and especially that of our country has undergone a great change and our shores on the east and west coasts are in grave danger from enemy aggression.
If at that time you had confidence in your leader the same should apply in a greater measure today as our country together with the allied nations are in greater peril than ever before in our history.
I appeal to you, ladies and gentlemen, electors of St. Ann's division, regardless of your political belief or of race, creed or religion to go out and vote on the 27th and to see that all the members of your family also do their duty as citizens of our dominion by exercising the franchise-a privilege denied to so many people in Europe because of nazi aggression. I know that in voting "yes" you will show Hitler and his satellites that Canada is united with the other allied nations in the determination to defeat him and to bring peace once again to the world.
The future of this country depends to a large extent on the result of this vote and I feel that the people of St. Ann's division will join with the rest of the dominion in voting an overwhelming "yes" and giving to our government a free hand in the prosecution of our war effort.
I am anxious to see the people give an answer worthy of our glorious past. We are all sons and daughters of the same country. This war is our war. We must be united.
The government has stated that the voluntary system has been successful so far and that under that system we are getting enough men to satisfy the quota needed for our armed forces, and it has been repeated by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other members of the cabinet that conscription is not necessary and that the voluntary system is the best method.
It will be noted that in the speech delivered by the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) in this house, he said that after the next call for men for the army there will not be many more eligible men who can be spared from essential activities in connection with the war effort to the armed forces.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Healy
In my riding I received a majority for the "yes" vote on the plebiscite, and I feel that I am expressing the wishes of the majority of my people in voting in favour of this bill to give the government a free hand in helping to conduct our war effort and join with the allied nations in bringing this war to a successful conclusion.
Our worthy leader and other members of the cabinet feel that conscription is not necessary at present, and I am prepared to accept their word. I am sure that the compulsory method would not accomplish a great deal in my riding, because thousands of the young men have joined either the army, the navy or the air force, and many more of them are engaged in essential war industries. French Canadians and those of English-speaking races work in harmony, and I would not want to see any dissension among them after all the efforts that have been expended to create the unity which now exists.
As the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) stated, conscription in the last war did not accomplish anything like the voluntary system is doing at present.
Our worthy Prime Minister and his cabinet also know what it accomplished. That is the reason why it will not be put into force unless it is absolutely necessary for the protection of our dominion, and I am sure that no hon. member would object to have our boys protect our Canadian homes, and our women and children.
Canada's contribution to the war has been acknowledged as an outstanding one, and, as Winston Churchill said in this House of Commons, "Canada is doing a magnificent job". Also, quoting Mr. Balfour, he expressed the sentiment that Canada's war effort is wonderful. In every manner we are helping the allied nations, and for a young country with fewer than twelve million people we are doing everything possible to help to win this war. We have at present over half a million men in the armed forces and 800,000 working in essential war industries supplying guns, tanks, boats, planes, and other war machinery and dispatching these commodities to the places where they are most needed.
When our Prime Minister and his government kept their promise to ask the people, through a plebiscite, to release them from commitments made by both parties in 1940, it was an assurance to me of the sincerity of the government, and I am prepared to accept their word that the compulsory method is not yet necessary. The long record of our leader in public life is sufficient assurance for me, and I am prepared to support the bill.

May I conclude with a plea for national unity and for a united effort of all Canadians and a sympathetic understanding of the problems of all.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Mr. Speaker, conscription is the result of our participation in the war outside of Canada. On September 9, 1939, I moved the following amendment to the address, as reported at page 73 of the debates of the second session of that year:
That this house regrets that the government did not deem it fitting to advise His Excellency the Governor General that Canada should refrain from participating in war outside of Canada.
At that most critical moment I declared, as reported at page 70 of the debates of the second session of 1939:
Does anyone really believe that our contribution will be limited to voluntary enlistment? Should the war be a long one we shall inevitably have conscription.
My first vote was cast against any participation by Canada in war and against the odious conscription act of which I was an unfortunate victim along with the men of my own generation. Twenty-two years will soon have elapsed since the day I began to fight against the compulsory Military Service Act, which unfortunately was adopted after a desperate fight in which deceit and falsehood vied with the pathetic seriousness of the hour.
In the fall of 1917 I put forth all my small ability and the ardour of my youth-God knows that one has plenty when one is twenty years old-to ensure the triumph of a Canadian mentality and to contribute as far as possible to the safeguarding our young men, who soon afterwards were to be ostracized, pursued, tracked down, and torn from their homes, to be thrown into barracks by conscription. Even when hostilities had ceased, prison terms were imposed on young men whom the government were unable to force into service-shameful reprisals, unworthy of a power that had boasted of having contributed to the triumph of liberty and civilization. However, like the youth of to-day, young men of twenty years ago were loyal to their king; but, likewise, they believed that they could best serve him in no other place than Canada, their only country.
As happened twenty-five years ago, the young farmers of this country are being tracked down now and torn from their homes, after having made an application for postponement which was very often unjustly refused them. Agriculture being essential to the upkeep of the armies and the welfare of the civil population, why not create exemp-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lacombe
tion tribunals in each constituency in the country to investigate each case of a young farmer on its merits?
The actual events constitute a solemn confirmation of my position. They show that I was right on September 9, 1939, when I asserted:
t Should the war be a long one, we shall inevitably have conscription.
I was right also on June 18, 1940, in stating in this very chamber, during the debate on the mobilization act, as reported at page 874 of the debates of the session of 1940:
This parliament has no right to order the mobilization of man-power and wealth because it lacks the necessary mandate. The Canadian people whom we represent in parliament never endorsed such mobilization. On the contrary, they voted on March 26, 1940, for a moderate voluntary and free war policy. Consequently I am strongly opposed to such a mobilization so long as the Canadian people have not endorsed it. Besides, has it been shown that voluntary enlistment is not sufficient for the defence of the country? Until such time as proof to the contrary has been adduced to the people I shall have the feeling of discharging a sacred duty towards my electors and my country in opposing that policy with the utmost vigour.
Moreover, on the same day I moved the following amendment, as reported at page 874 of the debates of the session of 1940:
That all the words after the word "that" in the bill be struck out and replaced by the following words:
"The war policy of the Canadian government must remain free, voluntary and moderate."
The day after, on June 19, 1940, I moved a second amendment, as reported at page 924 of the debates of that year:
That all the words after the word "whereas" m the preamble of the bill, be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"The government's war policy must be free and voluntary."
This amendment was ruled out of order as was the other. I appealed from the ruling of the Chair, and the ruling was confirmed by the following vote: yeas, 202; nays, 2.
Mr. Speaker, it was the so-called generous help which we received in connection with our opposition to that measure, which was exceedingly serious. My hon. colleagues in the Liberal party will permit me to call their attention to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in this very chamber on June 19 last. He asserted that conscription had existed and exists in this country since June 21, 1940. Once more the Prime Minister's statement and the actual events constitute the solemn assertion that I was right in opposing the mobilization act with the utmost vigour. However, it is a most deplorable fact that in these extremely serious
times I receive from my hon. colleagues, who have asserted time and time again that they are opposed to conscription, such poor support. On June 17 last I made an appeal to them. I repeat my appeal at this moment: Join our ranks without any further delay. Join the Canadian party now, in the best interests of Canada. I know my hon. colleagues are all true Canadians; that is why I implore them, because they assert very often in this parliament their anti-conscriptionist feelings, to join our exclusively Canadian party.
I seconded the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gaspe which reads as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"This house is of the opinion that the policy of the government respecting mobilization, instead of drawing closer the union of the two races in Canada, has fostered dissensions which might cause an internal war, thus destroying the ideal set forth by the fathers of confederation."
In the name of national unity which must survive in Canada I beseech my colleagues to support that amendment, because the welfare of Canada and our people demand that we do so.
I should now like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Jean) on June 18 last. My hon. friend asserted that we voted unanimously for participation in the war. Such a statement is absolutely contrary to the facts. The hon. member cannot deny that on September 9, 1939, I moved an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) that Canada should refrain from participation in war outside of Canada. The people of this country have the right to know the truth, all the truth concerning this capital question of participation in war outside of Canada. The population has been betrayed long enough with false statements regarding past and present political events.
(Translation): When Sir Wilfrid Laurier died in February, 1919, disowned by a group of conscriptionist Liberals, the present. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was chosen as leader of the Liberal party. Hon. members recall the convention which was heldi in this capital city in the early summer of 1919. The Hon. Mr. Fielding was a candidate to Laurier's succession, but was defeated by the majority of the delegates for his opposing his leader on Borden's conscription policy. The present Prime Minister was elected against Mr. Fielding and so, by their condemnation of Mr. Fielding's anti-Canadian attitude, the majority of the delegates then and there proclaimed their unalterable opposition to conscription. How ironic fate can be! To-day,
Mobilization Act-Mr. Lacombe

we see Laurier's successor himself endeavouring, at a single stroke, to do away with our last legal protection against conscription. This from the man who, between 1919 and 1939, unfailingly repeated that never again would Canada take part in any external wars. Needless for me to recall his many solemn promises so often quoted in this house. Here is the very same man who, with the help of the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, was the choice of the 1919 convention, ready to trample down the sovereign right of parliament of which time and time again he declared himself the protector. It is the present Prime Minister who will deal a fatal blow to responsible government by the repeal of section 3 of the mobilization act of 1940, thereby vesting in the cabinet the right to send willy-nilly our soldiers overseas, far away from our first line of defence.
What extraordinary event has happened? How can one explain the Prime Minister's cynical reversal of form? It can be explained by the predominance in Canada of military and financial imperialism. Our foreign policy is dictated by London and Washington. The government of Canada is a mere puppet in the hands of foreign powers. We are no longer self-governing. In less than three years, our nation has lost all the privileges it had acquired after years of struggle. The Westminster statute is nothing more than a joke to our Prime Minister who sacrifices day after day a portion of our right to selfgovernment. The so-called administrative commissions and an invidious bureaucracy have everywhere replaced the representatives of the people. Responsible government has all but vanished under the leadership of William Mackenzie's grandson.
The repeal of section 3 of the mobilization act will empqwer a servile cabinet to conscript our sons, not for the defence of Canada, but for the protection of wealthy and powerful nations and their colonies all over the world. The repeal of section 3 is equivalent to sacrificing the very nation for the benefit of foreign countries to the detriment of our own defence. Never shall my name be associated to such a betrayal. I have always condemned such a vile policy, and I can never have too much contempt for it. The imperialists have brought Canada to the brink of ruin. The conscriptionists will give her the "coup de grace."
All true Canadians must unite to crush the head of the conscriptionist viper which hides under the green foliage of civilization and liberty, ready to dart forth its poisonous fangs into our constitution and our rights.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) is the solemn warning given by Canadians worthy of the name to all those who believe they would better serve Canada by emasculating her own defence. On this seventy-fifth anniversary year of confederation, we declare that millions of Canadians will never consent to compulsory service for overseas. I say that confederation would not survive such disregard of the liberty of this country conquered, developed, settled, civilized and evangelized by our people. We are masters in our own house and we will not emigrate to a wretched Europe with our last cent, our last son and the last shred of our Canadian country.
These politicians who have gained power by hatefully deceiving the people had better resign themselves to the inevitable: the unity of the country will survive only if all races are assured equal rights. [DOT] Proud of their respective pasts, the Anglo-Saxon and the French races have but one sacred heritage to defend. It is the spiritual and material heritage of a united nation. It is the constitution, the religion, the language and the rights of a nation and not of a vassal in the tow of the empire. It is the only country we have, Canada.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) reads:
This house is of the opinion that the policy of the government respecting the mobilization act, instead of drawing closer the union of the two races in Canada, has fostered dissensions which might cause an internal war, thus destroying the ideals set forth by the fathers of confederation.
This debate has been rather lengthy, and I intend to say only a few words on this amendment, which has been supported by the hon. member (Mr. Lacombe) who has just spoken. We have heard a great deal about national unity from various corners of the house. That expression was discovered by Mr. Bennett; once when he had nothing else to say, he declared that we should have national unity in Canada. I remember that speech, which went into the waste-paper basket some time ago. But later those words became a slogan. Everything was to be done for national unity. Everything was to be done on account of the province of Quebec, because the feelings of the province of Quebec were supposed to be different from those of the rest of the country. That was a great mistake. The feelings of the province of Quebec are exactly the same as those of any

Mobilization Act-Mr. Pouliot
other part of Canada. The only difference is that the people of Quebec sometimes stop to think and reach their own conclusions, which would be the conclusions of the good farmers of western Ontario, the prairie provinces, the maritimes and every other part of Canada, if. they did the same thing.
The trouble is that we live in atmospheres. To-day we have the atmosphere of sacrifice, while during the plebiscite campaign we had the atmosphere of treason. All those who were not supporting the government were supposed to be traitors, as those who do not agree with the government here are not supposed to be generous enough to make sacrifices to win the war. I find it all wrong. All things should be considered objectively. We all realize the atmosphere that exists in this house. It requires someone with the armour of determination to rise and disagree with any government measure here. It also seems to be bad manners to disagree with the government, though what we tell them is for their own good; and even though they do not listen to us, later on they recognize that we were trying to help them. It was the same during the last plebiscite campaign; and I do not think this bill will do any more to destroy what is called national unity in this country than was done during the plebiscite campaign, when committees which were subsidized by the government were picturing those opposing the plebiscite as friends of Hitler, who had medals pinned upon their lapels by Hitler himself. That was done by the government; it was paid for by the government, but it was destroying national unity. I remember the lady member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) comparing the French Canadians to Quislings. Later she tried to make love to us, but without success. That is the way we were spoken of; and even a minister of the crown said that Hitler would vote against the plebiscite, meaning that those who voted against it were friends of Hitler. That was the propaganda which was used, the propaganda which was subsidized by the government. It was just as bad as that of Ti-noir Desjardins twenty-five years ago, when he tried to blow up Lord Atholstan's house at Cartierville. They were agents provocateurs.


Mr. McCANN:: On what does the hon. member base his statement that this propaganda was subsidized by the government?


Jean-François Pouliot: I can tell the hon. member that there were national committees, and if they were not subsidized by the government they were not disapproved by any minister of the crown.


James Joseph McCann: That is entirely different.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman, who is fair-minded, knows very well that a minister of the crown said that Hitler would vote against the plebiscite.


James Joseph McCann: If the hon. gentleman will allow me another question, would he not agree that the word "subsidized" presupposes the payment of money; and was any of this propaganda paid for by the government?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes; and I will quote
another example, one that I have already mentioned here. It is the case of one of the men paid by the government, who is in the information bureau and was on the plebiscite committee, who tried to give some explanation to the effect that he was addressing himself to those in the province of Quebec who did not love England, meaning that the French Canadians of Quebec do not love Great Britain. I complained about that.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Who said that?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is on record, and I can give it to the hon. member if he wishes. It is in a publication which I received under the frank of the Secretary of State. Later the wording of it was changed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like it now. Who said that?


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend will be kind enough to wait until the house adjourns, I will give it to him. It is no secret. It was published and later changed by replacing "England" with "empire", or something like that, after I complained about it. But when I mentioned the name of the man concerned there was no contradiction by anyone. I mentioned that name in public, and it was reported in several newspapers. I know very well my hon. friend the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) would never use language like that. I know him as a fair-minded Canadian citizen, who does not like or appreciate things like that, which are beneath him. But those things should never happen in this country. They create ill-feeling between those who should live together like brothers. One may disagree with someone else and both may remain friends, provided they discuss the matter objectively.
My idea on rising to-night is precisely to discuss these matters objectively and to address myself through you, sir, to all hon. members who are open-minded and who have not already formed an opinion on the matter. The province of Quebec has been misjudged from beginning to end. We are all in the same boat. If Canada wins the war, we all

Mobilization Act-Mr. Pouliot

win the war; and if Canada loses the war, we all lose the war. Therefore we all have a common interest in winning the war. But in trying to win the war there is one thing we must not lose-we must not lose our heads. A pertinent remark was made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) in 1940 when he said that we should discuss everything relating to the war with calm and with clarity of mind. That was indeed a very good suggestion. We should not get excited over any matter which comes before us, because that may have a bad effect on our judgment and decision.
During the plebiscite campaign we heard speeches that were like the overture to Tannhauser. Some speakers talked one way, while others at the same time said something entirely different, although both were pleading for the same answer, an affirmative vote. But to some people a "yes" vote meant no conscription, while to others "yes" meant conscription. I admit that even some speakers may have been deceived by the explanations given to them; but nevertheless the Canadian people were greatly embarrassed how to answer the question. I am told that an old gentleman who was in the inner councils and who died not so long ago said that the question asked in the plebiscite was purposely ambiguous to give the speakers an opportunity to say everything about it. It reminds me of the conundrum, "what is round like an egg, has a shell like an egg, has a yolk and a white like an egg, and barks?" The answer is "an egg." "Oh," you will say, "an egg does not bark." Quite so, but putting that in makes the conundrum a little harder. That is the way in which the question was put to the people in the plebiscite.
Here is something that is very interesting. It is a report of the Prime Minister's speech over the radio on April 8, 1942. The heading in the Ottawa Journal says, speaking of the Prime Minister:
Pleads for affirmative answer to the plebiscite question-Mackenzie King declares it essential that Canada send an army overseas.
The headline across the top of the page reads:
Final battles may be fought in Canada.
I have another headline from the Montreal Gazette of April 25:
Premier King makes plebiscite test of confidence.
He said in that speech that the draft is not an issue in the plebiscite campaign. That speech was given wide publicity and was made over a national hook-up on the Friday before the plebiscite was taken, and the report of the speech appeared in every Canadian news-

paper on Saturday, two days before the voting. Of course, a correction was made of the statement that the plebiscite was a test of confidence, but the statement was distinctly made by the Prime Minister that . the draft or conscription was not the issue.
Here is a headline from the Montreal Gazette of April 28, the day after the vote was taken:
Premier states will of majority prevails- says plebiscite was "national expression of view on national issue," and should be viewed in all its aspects. Declares vote was taken in democratic fashion.
The vote was taken in democratic fashion, if by that is meant merely the polling of the vote. The people, I presume, went to the polls and put their ballots in the boxes, and in that way may be said to have voted in democratic fashion. But the appeal to the people to vote "yes" on the question submitted was most undemocratic, because the people were told that it was in their own interests to vote "yes", and publicity was spread all over the country to inform them that if they did not vote "yes" they would be traitors and would be voting just as Hitler would have voted had he been a Canadian citizen. That was pretty hard, and the consequence was that English-speaking Canadians were biased and prejudiced by such appeals. The campaign was not waged at all in accordance with real democratic traditions. I regret that, sir. It was to my great sorrow; I have never been as sorry over anything else that has been done in politics as I have been over this matter.
The question is now before us to repeal section 3 of' the mobilization act. Section 3 reads:
The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
The marginal subtitle is as follows: "Limitation in respect of service overseas." In addition to the propaganda that was used during the plebiscite campaign, I know there were lobbies by propagandists of almost every description who tried to make the members of the government forget that Canada is our country and that in war we should have as our policy, Canada first, which of course does not exclude any help being given to our allies in this war.
The mobilization act, part of which we are being asked to repeal, is legislation which was not absolutely in accordance with the traditions of the Liberal party, for this reason,
, that all the leaders and all the members of the Liberal party, including myself, had said during

Mobilization Act-Mr. Pouliot
a quarter of a century that with the Tories in power we would have conscription, but with the Liberals in power we would have none.
There was no distinction made between conscription for overseas service and conscription for home defence; it was conscription that was objected to by the leaders of the party as well as by their followers. In spite of that, after the capitulation of France when the government came out with a measure of conscription for home defence, I supported the measure, because in my view, as in the view of French Canadians, Canada was my country. We are not different when we express a view like that. The defence of countiy is a national duty. No one can be accused of being narrow-minded or parochial when he says, as the French Canadians have said, that the shores of British Columbia and the maritimes as well as any part of central Canada shall be defended at the cost of his life. That is their understanding. Propaganda to lead the Canadian people to believe that anyone is parochial because he is opposed to conscription is wrong. Such propaganda has been inspired by nefarious paid agents who want to destroy patriotism in the hearts of Canadian citizens?
What is patriotism? Patriotism is love of country, the country in which one was born or the country which one has adopted to make it his own, and which must be considered in the first place when making any important decision. The view is expressed at times that the duty of legislators is to lead the people. However, a distinction should be made, because one of the most notorious leaders of men is Hitler. He does not give his people an opportunity to think; they must follow him and abdicate entirely their personal views. If they do not do so they are considered guilty of a crime, the penalty for which at times is death. Under the democratic system everybody is supposed to be free to express his own opinion; everybody has the right to say what he thinks.
If the plebiscite had any meaning, it was a confirmation of the theory that the people are at liberty to give their own views to the government. If the government desires to ask the views of the people, it should take advantage of the answer only when the question asked is clear enough to be understood by all. If that is done, then you get the real opinion of the majority of people in a democracy. If this question had read, "Are you in favour of conscription for overseas?" and if there had been a majority of "yes" votes, I would not be speaking to-night. I would consider that the people had spoken and I would respect their views. But it is because the plebiscite campaign was carried on as it was that I must protest. The result of that plebi-
41501-251 j
scite does not give the real opinion of the Canadian people about conscription for overseas service.
I admit that opinions are free, but there are some that cannot be expressed without thinking of a certain decency. There are some men who have a right to say that they are in favour of conscription for overseas service, but I contend that that right does not belong to all citizens of the country. It belongs only to those who served in the last war or in this war in a theatre of war, or to those all of whose children of military age are now in active service in a theatre of war, and a theatre of war includes the navy. A bachelor who did not serve during the last war or who is not serving in this war in a theatre of war, or a married man who did not serve in the last war or in this war in a theatre of war, or a married man all of whose children of military age are not at present fighting overseas or on the high seas is not qualified to say that others should be conscripted for overseas service. The greatest preaching is by example. Most hon. members will probably remember the Latin poet who said suave man magno. It is a pleasure to look at those who are on the high seas when a storm is raging, provided that you yourself are under shelter safely on the shore.
On motion of Mr. Pouliot the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, July 7, 1942