1942-02-18

NEW MEMBER

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that the clerk of the house has received from the chief electoral officer certificate of the election and return of the following member, viz:
Of Joseph William Nosewrorthy, Esquire, for the electoral district of York South.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Joseph AVilliam Noseworthy, Esquire, member for the electoral district of York South, introduced by Mr. Coldwell and Mr. Maclnnis.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, respecting the appointment of auditors for National Railways.
He said: This bill is to provide for the appointment of auditors for the Canadian National Railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
HEALTH OF DISCHARGED MEN-REMARKS OF PREMIER OF ONTARIO AS REPORTED IN to-day's PRESS
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): Mr. Speaker, in this morning's Citizen there appears a Canadian Press dispatch referring to Premier Hepburn's comment on the statements made in this house last Monday in regard to health conditions among discharged men. May I emphasize that this statement was officially presented on the records of the assembly at Queen's Park, Toronto. I quote from his remarks:
Mr. Hepburn said he did not blame defence minister J. L. Ralston, navy minister Angus
Health oj Discharged Men
[Stage Direction]
Macdonald or air minister C. G. Power for their criticism of him but he did blame Prime Minister Mackenzie King.
"He (Mr. King) is not the kind to shoot yon verbally but he would buy a gun, hand it to the other fellow and tell him to shoot you."
The report of the same incident appearing in the Toronto Star does me the honour of indicating that the premier also referred to me. I wish to state to this house most definitely and emphatically that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had no knowledge of my intention to make a statement on the subject of health conditions among discharged men. and therefore the statement of the premier of Ontario is absolutely false and utterly untrue in every detail. May I add. sir. in anticipation of further prevarications from Queen's Park, that until the present moment the Prime Minister of Canada had no knowledge of the statement I am making now.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Referring to the matter
mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), I notice that the account which appears in this morning's Citizen of Mr. Hepburn's remarks is headed as follows:
Hepburn Scores Press Reports as "Erroneous."
Ontario Premier Absolves Three Defence Ministers for Criticisms, Placing Blame on Mr. King.
It might be thought that as the Minister of Pensions and National Health is not included in the category to which reference is made, there has been some suggestion made by me to one or other of the other ministers. The article states:
Mr. Hepburn said he did not blame defence minister J. L. Ralston, navy minister Angus Macdonald or air minister C. G. Power iui their criticism of him but he did blame Prime Minister Mackenzie King.
Then referring to myself:
"He (Mr. King) is not the kind to shoot you verbally but he would buy a gun. hand it to the other fellow and tell him to shoot you."
Just in case anyone reading that particular article might infer that I handed a loaded gun to one of my colleagues in the defence departments, I wish to say that I had no knowledge that any minister of the crown was going to make any reference whatever to the subject which was referred to the other day by the different ministers whom the Premier of Ontario has mentioned.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Would you, shoot him
yourself?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not
say whether I think he is worth shooting or not.



INCOME TAX

[Stage Direction]
1941 FORMS-NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCES
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) a question based on a conversation I had yesterday morning with a gentleman in reference to the purchasing of victory loan bonds. He was at a loss to know how many to buy because, he said, he was unable to obtain forms to figure out his income tax and did not like to commit himself without knowing how much money he would have left with which to buy bonds. I saw him again this morning and he was greatly perturbed over an article in this morning's Globe and Mail referring to the fact, I presume, that the Minister of Finance and the Ontario government have not yet come into agreement as to what is to be the situation in regard to the Ontario income tax. I told this gentleman to possess his soul in patience and buy all the bonds he could, but I would like the Minister of National Revenue to tell us when the forms will be ready. I went to the post office this morning, after having this second conversation, and was still unable to obtain the income tax forms, except for the very low brackets. What we do not know yet is whether we will have to pay two income taxes, one to Ontario and one to the dominion.


Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: The hon. member for
Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) was kind enough to give me notice of his question.
In recent years the income tax branch has been collecting income tax for five of the provinces. This required special forms for each of those five provinces. In view of the recent provincial negotiations it was uncertain whether or not these special forms would again be required. The consent of the provinces was necessaby before leaving particulars of the provincial taxes off the forms. As a result the individual forms were not available this year until ten days later than the usual date. Forms T-l, for individual incomes over $5,000, and T-l special, for individual incomes of $5,000 and under, were available in January, together with an informative pamphlet which had been prepared for use in the event of the income tax forms not being available before the end of January. I am informed that 3,000 of the forms T-l, for incomes over $5,000, and
120,000	of the forms T-l special, for incomes of $5,000 and under, were delivered in Toronto in January, and that a total of 218,000 of form T-l and 879,000 of form T-l special have now been delivered in Toronto.

Rubber, Oil and Gasoline
I might point out that it is the practice of local inspectors to supply the demand from their own offices, and then to make general distribution through banks, post offices and other appropriate places. I understand that the post offices and sub post offices in Toronto district have been supplied with forms, following their receipt by the inspector of income tax in Toronto. Whether or not that applies to Ottawa, I do not know, but I shall secure the information for the hon. member. The forms are of course available at the income tax offices.



RUBBER, OIL AND GASOLINE DUPLICATION OP TRANSPORT SERVICES BY BUS, TRUCK AND RAIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. In view of the shortage of crude rubber, oil and gasoline, what steps has the government taken to survey the duplication of transport services by bus, truck and rail, with the object in view of having services which can be dispensed with discontinued, thereby conserving tires, oil and gasoline?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: As my hon. friend knows, the regulation of truck and bus traffic is a matter under the jurisdiction of the provinces. A bill was introduced in this parliament to give the dominion government jurisdiction, but it did not pass. I may point out however that we are not issuing new tires for buses, unless it can be shown that these buses serve an essential war service. I think that as a result of what is being done, coordination will be worked out.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Would the minister use his influence to see that buses do not pass, at a rate of sixty-five miles an hour or more, civilians who are travelling at forty miles an hour? That is happening on the highways.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no influence in that quarter.



ALASKA HIGHWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. A press dispatch this morning from Washington quotes President Roosevelt as warning that an enemy attack on Alaska is a perfectly possible military operation, and
as declaring that there is an urgent need for improving communications between the United States and Alaska. In fact the president is quoted as saying that a decision to start must be made within the next two or three weeks, if something is to be done by January, 1943. The dispatch also states that there have been renewed discussions with the Canadian government with respect to the Alaska highway, or some alternative means of rushing men and equipment to the northern outposts of the continent.
This is a matter of vital importance to Canada, and a statement on the subject from the Prime Minister as to how Canada is cooperating would greatly reassure the Canadian people.


Mr. CHURCH:: And Japan has the command of the sea there.	,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reply to the hon.
memiber for Vancouver South, may I say that the appropriate defence agencies of the two countries have been and are giving close consideration to the .problem of communication with Alaska. I d'o not know that I can say more than that at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: Will the Prime Minister at ain early day make a statement concerning the Alaska highway, or some other means of communication ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say offhand how soon a statement can be made on the matter. But at the appropriate time it will be made.


Thomas Langton Church: The proposed road and air bases there are of little use without sea power.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply, arising out of a telegram received from a representative of the Steel Workers' Organizing Committee at Amherst, Nova Scotia, stating,-
One hundred and fifty men out of work in rolling mills, Canadian Car and Foundry, Amherst, for the lack of rerolling material. Man named Sonnell claims that he can supply material.
Has the minister any knowledge of this situation, and if so what steps does he propose to take to remedy it?
Air Training Plan-India


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice of his question, but I received it only as I was coming into the house; therefore I have not been able to look into it as fully as I should like. I might say however that these small rerolling mills deal directly with the scrap metals trade. Their raw material is scrap rail and scrap metal oi various kinds, and it is doubtful if this operation would come -within the purview of the steel controller. However I shall take the matter up with the steel controller and see if something can be done.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I have had similar telegrams, and I took the matter up with the heads of the company in Montreal and in Amherst. I thought it was more appropriate to do that than to take it up with the minister.



AIR TRAINING PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MaclNNIS (Vancouver East): I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence for Air if the government of India was consulted when the empire air training scheme was set up, and if there are any natives of India at the present time in training in Canada?
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Offhand I would say that so far as I know there are no natives of India at the present time in training in Canada. Suggestions have been coming from time to time from the government of India to the effect that some of their people should come here for training, but these representations have never come to anything.



APPLICATION OF TWENTY PER CENT REDUCTION IN COMMERCIAL USE-WINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) asked me about the reduction in the quantity of sugar available for wineries. I find that the twenty per cent reduction applies in respect to wineries, just as it does in regard to other industrial users.
With regard to beer, which was mentioned yesterday, I find that my answer given at that time is only 99-9 per cent right. In other words, one-tenth of one per cent of sugar is used in the manufacture of beer. The amount is so insignificant, however, that no order was made with respect to it.
' [Mr. Gillis.l



STEPS TO INCREASE CANADIAN PRODUCTION- DEVELOPMENT OF TAR SANDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. In view of the serious situation in the far east, and the possibility of our losing our far eastern oil supply, what is the government going to do to cause an actual increase in Canadian production of oil?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Various steps have been taken. The tax structure was revised at the last sitting of the house to encourage drilling for oil throughout Canada. That revision had a very stimulating effect in the direction indicated. At this time steps are being taken to develop small oil areas for specific uses. Those negotiations are going on at the present time. I do not know that we have gone further than that. But I can say that we think we are developing considerably the production of oil. I have no suggestions to make to the government to enlarge our operations in that respect.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is anything being done with the tar sands?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have a very exhaustive report on the subject of tar sands, and I should be very glad to let my hon. friend have a copy of it. It indicates, however, that the location of the sands and the possibility of development is too remote to be of any great use in this war.



BRUCE COAL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a question asked by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and reported at page 401 of Hansard for February 9.
The hon. member for Temiscouata has raised the question of the Bruce Coal company receiving contracts from the government since it was made public that they were under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
All contracts placed by the Department of Munitions and Supply with the Bruce Coal company were placed prior to the seizure by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, on January 21, of all books and files of the Bruce Coal company, and none have been placed since. The Bruce Coal company is still delivering coal on contracts placed prior to

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's action on January' 21, and will continue to do so until such time as this department receives the proper legal advice to the contrary.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. According to a statement in last night's press, the chairman of the wartime shipping board, Mr. MacMillan, stated that supplies from this country are being held up owing to the lack of ships. Will the minister give further consideration to the proposal that our present shipbuilding programme be augmented by the building of wooden ships, especially as we have the materials and men available?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not understand Mr. MacMillan's statement to be that supplies are being held up because of the lack of ships. I hardly think that that is true. Of course, there is always the danger that our increased output of supplies will outrun the increase in shipbuilding. I may say that the matter of the building of wooden ships has been considered fully by the department and is I think a closed issue.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
PLANS TO ENSURE ECONOMIC SECURITY OF nation's WORKERS
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Gooderham Ross: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Pensions and National Health. First, has the government taken under consideration any pension plans to ensure the economic security in old age of the nation's workers, over and above a subsistence relief plan? Second, if the problem has been considered, has the government evolved a plan which it considers workable? Third, is there any likelihood in the near future of the introduction into parliament of legislation establishing such a plan?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): I shall consider very carefully the question of the hon. member when I see it in print and give an appropriate answer at the appropriate time.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Alphonse
Fournier for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cold well.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong this debate unduly, because I think it has perhaps gone too long already. I was astonished to learn t-hait I am the 136th speaker, and I am included in the previous 135. I was astonished also to learn that of the 135 who have spoken, 95 are supporters of my right hon. friend, including, if I may say so, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) who has constituted himself a party sole in this house. My primary object in asking your indulgence and the indulgence of hon. members is to pay at least some attention to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I desire to analyse his position, although not at great length, and compare his amendment with my own. I shall make other observations, some of which may not be strictly in order. If they are not, then I ask the indulgence of this house. During the course of my remarks, I desire to say something about the victory loan now before the country and to give it my support. I do not intend to proceed precisely in the order I have indicated.
Before going any further, I should like to offer to my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty), who is just departing from the chamber, my congratulations upon his natal day and upon being fifty-three years young. On coming into this house after an absence of five years I found him occupying a most responsible position in the government of this country. He has been universally courteous to me and I appreciate it. With these few brief preliminary observations, may I refer to the course of the debate.
Although I consider the debate has been long, I consider also that for the most part it has been conducted upon a very high plane. Of course, there have been a few glaring exceptions, but on the whole I think I am justified, notwithstanding any criticism that may have been levelled at the debate from outside the house, in saying that I believe most hon. gentlemen have shown a sense of their responsibility, having regard to the distressing times through which we, in common with our allies, are now passing. So far as I am concerned personally I have tried at all times to keep the debate on a high plane and to avoid raising strife, especially racial strife. I do not think anyone can accuse me of doing that here in the past, nor will they
6S8	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
be able to accuse me of doing it in the future. In any appeal I have made in this house or in the country I have tried to appeal to reason alone, and I shall continue to pursue that course no matter what criticism I receive.
Aside altogether from the speeches of cabinet ministers who have participated in this debate, there have been two or three others that are outstanding. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray) upon the manner and matter of the speech he made. I think it took great courage on the part of the hon. gentleman to say what he did. The plane upon which he carried on his discussion was of the highest, and I think it was one of the best speeches we have heard in this house.
I should like to offer a token of appreciation to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore), who I am sorry is not in his seat at the moment, for his address. It revealed to me an intelligent grasp of the problem of government which I do not think is excelled and perhaps not even equalled by any other member of the house.
I am sorry to say that there have been other speeches delivered during the course of this debate which do not deserve such praise as I have attempted to shower upon the two members to whom I have referred. I listened with the greatest regret, and as intently as I possibly could, to the speech of my fellow New Brunswicker, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot), and in my view it was one of the most dangerous speeches ever uttered in this House of Commons during all the years I have been here. I say, further, that I think it was quite unworthy of the hon. member and, from his own personal position, quite unnecessary. The particular part of his speech to which I refer was that portion in which he declared that the issue of compulsory military service was a racial issue. I deny that allegation categorically and with all the force and power at my command. I do suggest that there is no racial issue involved.


An hon. MEMBER:: You made it one in 1917.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was no racial issue involved in this question, now or then or at any other time. It has become a political issue, and for that I am truly sorry. There is raised in this issue only the question of equality of service and equality of sacrifice. The hon. member for Gloucester has made a speech which is designed to set race against race; and having regard to the conditions existing in the province of New Brunswick from which we both come, it may have reper-

cussions which will not help the position of those whom he champions.
I deplore the attitude of the hon. member for Gloucester. He knows, as I do, that the Acadian portion of our people is loyal. I have said so before, and I reaffirm it now, that it has enlisted for active service in far greater numbers than it did in the last war; that as opportunity offered, men came to the colours- an opportunity which was denied them in the early stages of the war by the ineptitude of the recruiting officials of the Department of National Defence, a situation which was rectified after proper representations were made to them. I understand from officers in the army that these young men have made good soldiers. I saw many of them in Britain and I am glad to pay this tribute to them.
One of the difficulties with respect to our young Acadian men in New Brunswick was that in the early stages of the war there was a lack of trained officers and instructors speaking the French language, but that difficulty has, I believe, been overcome in very large degree. I verily believe, and I want to pay this compliment to our Acadian population, that they would have accepted compulsory service without any demur if their leaders, including the hon. member for Gloucester, had shown the way. On the contrary, he has indicated his determination to make this not only a political but a racial issue. I deplore that. How can his action help the cause of national unity? I am going to leave his speech there.


Mr. VENIOT:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: May I ask the hon. member if he has read a book called "Crisis of Quebec, 1914-18," by Elizabeth H. Armstrong of New York?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I have not read it. As a matter of fact I do not think I ever heard of it before. I would not go to New York for inspiration on this question.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have allowed the hon. member to ask his question, Mr. Speaker, and may I now be allowed to proceed with my speech?


Georges Parent: Yes.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker-	.


Georges Parent: Order.

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


Clarence Joseph Veniot: -that book is in the parliamentary library.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
thankful for that information, and if I can get around to reading it within the next two or three years, I shall probably do so.
While we have been debating the issues raised in this debate, what has been happening outside? With the exception of the position in Russia, the campaign in every other theatre of war has been going froAi bad to worse. Never since Dunkirk have I felt so upset as I was on Sunday with the fall of the great 'bastion of Singapore, announced by Mr. Churchill. The position in the Pacific has been one of continued deterioration. No wonder that Australia is alarmed!
Then there was the spectacle of the German warships successfully negotiating the strait of Dover in the face of the combined resources of the British air and naval forces-something which had never been accomplished by a foe of Britain in more than a century.
These are things to make one think, and certainly I drew some conclusions. One of them was this. If we do not face realities, we may lose this war. We have a just cause, and the intentions of all of us, this government included, are of the very best. But we cannot win this war with good intentions, even if we have a just cause.
Canada's war effort has passed the organization stage and we are now in production. Great strides have been made; let us freely admit that. But because great strides, on a comparative basis, have been made, do not let us be lulled into a sense of false security. That I fear is happening here. That I fear is happening in the United States, judging by the newspaper reports to-day. That has happened all along in Canada. It is not enough for ministers to make laudatory speeches so long as there remains so much to be done, so long as our position in this struggle is at such a low ebb. I am speaking of the whole picture-not of just our own effort.
Let me illustrate. A few days ago Mr. Ralph Bell, for whom I have a very high regard, told the board of trade in an eastern city that the growth of aircraft production in Canada had been eighty per cent, and he added that it had been "one of the industrial romances of the British empire." That is very fine stuff for an after-dinner speech, but what in fact does it mean? Eighty per cent of what? It really -means nothing in- terms of production. What was our production of planes? Practically nothing before this war-thirty planes a year. It is just that sort of extravagant statement which breeds complacency.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will permit me, he spoke of ministerial statements. Mr. Bell was not speaking for the Minister of Munitions and Supply. He was, as a matter of fact, speaking contrary to instructions issued to all officers of the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does that apply to Mr. Carmichael?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister had better "inspire" him. I do not advocate firing either Mr. Carmichael or Mr. Bell; both are high-class men. If Mr. Bell exceeded his instructions, he must have had a reason for doing it. I am not complaining especially about that statement of Mr. Bell; I am complaining about the effect created in the minds of the people of Canada who have still to be shaken out of their complacency with respect to winning this war. That, and nothing else, is the point of the reference.
I want to say this, and I have said it before, that we have done well in respect of the air training plan. It has been our biggest undertaking. I have often said that we started too late; but that is water over the dam; we have done well, and I want to give credit to the minister who fathered this scheme. He knows what I think about it. I have told him this on many occasions; and as far as I am concerned I do not want to embarrass for a minute either him or any other of the defence ministers; I want to help them.
I sometimes wonder whether the Canadian people will ever wake up to a knowledge of the life-and-death character of this struggle- and for us here in Canada. Sometimes I despair. Can it be that nothing but a blood bath, perhaps at our very doors, will awaken us to realities? Something has to be done to instil into the minds of the Canadian people -the danger which now confronts them.
The house will, I believe, bear with me a few moments while I make some references to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) of January 26. It will be recalled that near the outset of bis remarks he attempted, by banter and otherwise, to belittle the terms of the amendment which I had the honour to move. I confess that his observations left me cold. There is no one in this house who does not understand the purpose and the import of the amendment. As analysed by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) the other day, its purpose is fourfold. First, it condemns and opposes the plebiscite. Second, it proposes a total war effort without any limitations. Third, it emphasizes the necessity of complete mobilization of all our resources for
690	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
total war, without any limitations. Fourth, it regrets that no mention is made in the speech from the throne of proposals for the post-war period.
In the speech which I made on January 26, I did not ask the house to listen to references to the latter part of this amendment. I did not think I could inflict at that time a speech of the length which would be necessary to elaborate my views. I propose to do so, in a very summary way, to-day at a later stage.
But to return to the Prime Minister's gibe, I suspect that its basis was the omission from the amendment of the word "conscription." Now, I ask this question, does not everyone in this house and the country know the import, substance and meaning of the amendment? Call it what you like, it means total and complete effort and, if you like so to describe it, conscription of everything-wealth, resources and man-power; for that is the price we shall have to pay for victory.
With respect to his announcement of the generous treatment which the government has decided to accord Britain, both in regard to the present adverse balance of war accounts to date and also with respect to the gift out of our abundance, in food, materials and supplies, I have nothing but praise and commendation.
So far on the battle front we have not contributed much. I say that in no disparaging sense. The air training plan and our contribution of mechanical transport, and now of munitions, have been both impressive and substantial. The opportunity, apart from the ill-fated expedition to Hong Kong, has not been present. That time will come, and the contribution of our gallant men overseas will be, I feel sure, as important, as heroic and impressive as was the contribution of Canada's sons in the last war.
In the meantime, why should not Canada make this contribution? It is a magnificent contribution. But may I be permitted to remind the Prime Minister and hon. gentlemen opposite that it is the contribution of the Canadian people and not of any political party-a contribution in which every one of us has a share-a contribution given gratefully, with a sense of gratitude not for favours yet to come but-mark you well-for services already rendered to us and ours, for value already received over a long period of years, for protection to us and to ours, for security to our shores over a long period of years, when we looked upon the British navy as our one sure and only defence-a defence to which, be it said and to our shame, we have - not, in the days gone by, contributed a single man or a single dollar.

Yes! Why should we not now in this, the greatest crisis in history, give of our abundance, and for services rendered?
The enunciation of the establishment of two new divisions overseas in 1942 is not a new policy. It is a continuation of the policy heretofore adopted and, I believe, endorsed by the great mass of the Canadian people, although we know there are exceptions. The extension of our active army programme is an extension of the existing programme and is based on the extension of our productive programme. It is creditable to Canada and to the Canadian people, but it is not beyond what we should do.
And it will be welcomed in England; for the danger of invasion is still imminent. Do not let us for a moment forget that. It is much more than a possibility; it is wholly probable that the attempt will be made in the very near future, and Canada will be proud to have two more divisions to aid in that gigantic struggle.
I hope that the government will see to it- I hope that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) will see to it-that adequate reinforcements for these six divisions overseas are provided. When the battle begins, when the casualty lists begin to roll in, then will be the testing time-then will be revealed whether our method of obtaining recruits for service anywhere is satisfactory.
I listened with profound interest to the statement of the Minister of National Defence the other day. The requirements of the active army for the next fiscal year will be substantial. It may be that we shall produce the numbers required by the voluntary system. I am doubtful. I gather that the minister is doubtful too, because he left the door wide open so that he might turn to the other avenue if the present system failed. I observe, however, that he is cheered by the results for the month of January. I wonder whether my hon. friend knows that these results were obtained because of two important factors-Pearl Harbour, and the belief that conscription for overseas service was not only a possibility but a probability. I have concrete evidence of the truth of this latter factor-a personal experience in my own riding.
I do not intend to argue further the point of selective national service. The. government will interpret, it does interpret no doubt, the by-elections as a mandate to carry on the voluntary system. That may be open to question. I imagine that conscription was only one of the many elements entering into the result. There were others. In Welland, I should say there was the most brazen appeal

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
In the way of wholesale bribery to a constituency that we have witnessed for many a long day. We had the spectacle of a minister of the crown, and perhaps his most outstanding executive, telling the people of Welland that, if the Minister of Labour were elected, new war plants would be established in the community.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I base that statement on reports in the newspapers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will the hon. member lay those reports on the table?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I haven't got them with me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am man enough to say this, however-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just hold your horses for a few minutes and listen to me. If the minister pledges his word that neither he nor Mr. Carmichael made any effort at bribery of the electors of Welland, of course I will withdraw.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What Mr. Carmichael said is a matter of permanent record.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister speaks for himself, and I assume he speaks for Mr. Carmichael.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Carmichael's speech is a matter of permanent record in the hands of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. What I said I said in a very public way, and if the hon. member can find one man in the constituency who says that I said what he has indicated, I should like to meet the gentleman.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course 1 will take the minister's statement that he did not say it. My information was quite the contrary, but the minister's word on the floor of the house, under the rules of the house I do accept and must accept.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Where did your information come from?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, now, I am not under cross-examination.
I desire to make one further reference, and a very limited one, to the Prime Minister's declaration on the plebiscite. I do not intend to labour this point further. I do not intend to labour a discussion on the principle of the plebiscite when the bill is introduced, but I
am wondering whether the Prime Minister and the government have taken cognizance of what occurred at St. James street market in the city of Montreal last week and, in particular, the declarations of Mr. Henri Bourassa who, coming out of his retirement, rent the veil of the temple of Liberalism and exposed the fallacies and futilities of the political stratagem behind this gesture of a plebiscite. He announced his unalterable opposition to conscription for overseas service, and he warned his compatriots not to vote to release the Prime Minister from his pledge. To me that is portentous. The strangest part of his speech, to me, and one for which I am sure there can be no foundation, was his warning to his great audience to be prepared for the attempt by the government to impose full conscription, under pressure from Washington, not from London. Well, I have no fear that Washington will attempt in any way to intervene in our domestic affairs here. But that is the sort of thing the government is going to meet in the province of Quebec, and I deplore it.


An hon. MEMBER:: You taught them that in 1911.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not teach them anything. Nobody can teach Mr. Bourassa anything.


Georges Parent: May I call attention to the fact that the leader of the opposition is now giving his address after listening to 135 speeches and very rarely interrupting. I would ask hon. members to refrain from interruptions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not mind ordinary interruptions, but if they are intended to throw me off my train of thought I do object.
These declarations of this gentleman are rather ominous. I hope the Prime Minister and those who surround him will give thought to their effect in the province of Quebec. To me, one of the most striking statements made, and one with which I fully agree, was the declaration of Mr. Rourassa's belief that Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Meighen were more honest in their attitudes than the present ministers.
In closing this part of my remarks, may I quote just one paragraph from Mr. Bourassa's speech, which was the gem of it all. He said:
The attitude of Prime Minister King is similar to that of the young man who became engaged to be married. Later he came to his fiancee and asked to be given back the ring. He doesn't tell the young lady that he doesn't intend to marry her, but he wants the ring back just in case be doesn't.
692	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: He's Scotch.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think the fiancee will believe him.
I should like now to pay some attention to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). The Minister of Finance made an impassioned address in this debate, during which he elaborated upon the ethnical background of himself and the people he represented. He said in effect that they were British and that they thought in terms of the British empire and, I gather, not as isolationists. These utterances struck a responsive chord in my heart, because his background is my background. My people, too, are British and think in terms of the British empire. Most assuredly they are not isolationists. And then as I listened to his address I could not help but think how unhappy the hon. gentleman, with such a background, must have been in days gone by when he found himself led and surrounded by isolationists, like the Prime Minister, by others of his cabinet colleagues who, like the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), in the not far distant past were not only isolationists, but positively for neutrality-


Mr. THORSON:: That is not true.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that is a matter of interpretation. I think I could prove it. I reflected to myself, as I have so often done during the course of this debate, that party loyalty and party politics make strange bedfellows. Whatever may be said about the Conservative party or about any individuals within the ranks of the Conservative party, it cannot and it never shall be said that the Conservative party ever failed at any time to give adherence to the British crown and the principle of British connection. It has never wavered in that regard, and please God, it never shall. Whatever the consequences may be, and come what may, it will continue to press, as it has from the very beginning of hostilities, for a full-out war effort.
But to return to the minister's speech, it was an apologia or defence of the government's proposal of a plebiscite. In my view he had a difficult job, and he did a far better job than did the Prime Minister. It did not carry conviction, because all the way through it was based on false premises. "It was an intelligent defence of an indefensible project," as one writer has stated. I wonder just how it struck the hearts and minds of the loyal British people of Digby-Annapolis-Kings, whom the hon. minister represents in this house? I wonder whether he has not been hearing from some of the more thoughtful of his own supporters, as I have, men who have 
in the past supported him through thick and thin, and who now write to me that never, never again will they do so. That is what I got from some of them.
The minister appears to have some confidence that the voluntary system of recruiting is a success in producing adequate numbers of recruits for the active army and for service overseas. But the admissions of the Minister of National Defence, which I cited at length in my previous address, as well as those of others, all indicate to me that the voluntary system has reached the end of its usefulness if we are to have those reinforcements and reserves of trained men for the active army when that army finally gets into action and the casualty lists begin to roll in.
Aside from all that, there are strong reasons for abandoning the system. I do not intend to argue that point again, but this question I ask the minister: Why did he not give us a straightforward pronouncement of his own attitude on the principle of compulsory service? It is an open secret in Ottawa that the minister and his fellow Nova Scotians in the cabinet, not to speak of others like the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), are personally in favour of the principle, but that they have consented to a compromise for a plebiscite, and to father it on the cry of "Trust the people." If that be true, it is not a very manly or courageous course.
Searching the minister's speech, there is some evidence discernible that he is in favour of the principle of compulsory service if he were free and not restricted by the theory of cabinet solidarity. There is his declaration that if the plebiscite passes affirmatively, "We shall then be free to act and will act," and I underline those words, "and will act."


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just read the rest of it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
the crux of the statement. The speech will speak for itself. What does that statement mean?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think it makes
much difference, but I do not like to have anyone quoting me stop in the middle of a sentence. My recollection is that I said, "will be free to act in the best interests of the nation in the war effort," or something like that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: "And will act." That is the point upon which I wish to lay emphasis.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I deplore this, Mr. Speaker, but my hon. friend should quote me accurately and finish the sentence.

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister is importunate. I recall that just a few days ago he rebuked me very severely for interrupting him. I should like him to take a leaf out of his own book and not interrupt me. He can correct me later on, if he wants to make another speech.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I did not misquote my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, the words are there, "We shall be free to act and will act." What does that mean? If that is a sincere declaration-and I do not suggest that it is not-if released by the plebiscite, the government will then act to put the principle into effect. "Free to act and will act" means that the government will act affirmatively to put the principle into effect by repealing the limiting clause of the mobilization act. What other interpretation can any thoughtful person put upon that language? But compare that declaration with the language of the speech from the throne, and with that used by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister desired to be free to act, but never did he say that the government would act. On the contrary, the Prime Minister's declaration was a bid to the people to free him of his pledge and then allow him and his government to do as he pleased. Does the minister adhere to that, in the light of his declaration that the government when free to act, would act? The two positions are incompatible. No wonder the loyal people of this country are bewildered by the ambiguity of such a position and such declarations 1
I was glad, Mr. Speaker, to hear the minister address some plain and wholesome truths to . his supporters from the province of Quebec, and, above all, his challenge to their contention that under no circumstances should this nation compel its nationals to undertake military service abroad. What he said needed to be said. Why? Because for twenty-five years the people of Quebec have been taught in season and out of season, by the leaders of the Liberal party in that province and, indeed, by others high in the councils of that party, that they had no national obligation to the state, to the empire, to the world at large in such circumstances as have now developed. He did well to remind our French-Canadian compatriots that this struggle was not one for imperial aggrandizement but a life-and-death conflict between two philosophies of life, between freedom and slavery; and that this struggle will be decided not within the territorial limits of Canada but in theatres of war far distant from our shores. Indeed he might and should have gone much further and pointed out to them that their ideas of
imperialism, which have been so repugnant to them, are ideas which are outmoded and no longer in existence. In this twentieth century, Mr. Speaker, imperialism means trusteeship, not aggrandizement. That is a principle which the minister might very well have brought home to his compatriots, but he missed the golden opportunity.
But on the principle of cabinet responsibility and solidarity the minister backed up and endeavoured to justify the plebiscite, and he announced his intention of supporting it in the country. Having taken a noble stand in the early part of his address, he boxed the whole compass. He started off with the lofty attitude of a statesman; he took his seat with the stature of a party politician.
I want now to put this question squarely to him: If the testing time comes, will he support the principle of compulsory military service? And will the government act? He should make his position clear. The people of Canada want to know. The people of Nova Scotia want to know. They will not be content with a declaration of "wait and see." That policy smacks of opportunism, of putting party politics above the safety of the state, and that is not good enough. The manly course is to say and say now what the government will do if the plebiscite carries. And if the plebiscite fails to carry, what then will the minister do? Will he say, "I bow to the will of the majority no matter if I disagree on a great matter of principle"? If I apprehend the minister's position aright, as disclosed by his speech, he will resign; and he will be right, and his people will applaud him. If the result is indecisive, and if eight provinces out of nine vote "yes" and one great province votes "no", as well it may; what then? Will he adopt one of the only two courses open to him, that of resigning on a matter of principle, or will he proceed on the British principle of constitutional government, which as a student of the law and of the constitution he must believe in, namely, the adoption of a policy on this question, one way or the other, and stake his political life on the position he then takes?
May I commend to him and to this house the authority of a great student and writei on the law of the constitution. Dicey, where in chapter 94 he discusses and sums up the argument against introducing the principle of the plebiscite into parliamentary institutions, and where he advocates the doctrine of the rule of intelligence. The late Lord Asquith was a great lawyer, a great parliamentarian, a great orator and a great debater; someone has said he was the last of the great Liberals. I think I should qualify that and designate the
694	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
hon. member for Ontario the last, at least in Canada, of the Liberals. Asquith said that the referendum would impair, if it did not destroy, the sense of parliamentary government. To use his own words, "It would really destroy the law of government by representation." I commend this dictum to the minister as a lawyer, as a parliamentarian and as a Liberal, if there be such a genus still at large in Canada.
I want now to say a word about the loan; and I suspect that the minister made his speech when he did, and said some of the things he did say, not so much in support of a bad case for the plebiscite but because he was alarmed for the success of the loan, and he had reason for that fear. When I first read of the plebiscite proposal, one of my first reactions was that the proposal, put forward in the form it -was and at the time it was, would be disastrous. The timing was frightful, having regard to the loan. The minister has been hearing from the country, and so have I. The minister made a vigorous attack upon some of those who wrote him. He called them saboteurs of the national war effort, and declared that their action was a strike against the state.
I do not think that calling names will help his position. Rather would I commend to him the appeal to reason when dealing with these people. Apparently a large number of people have been writing the minister, threatening to cancel their pledges to buy war savings certificates, and to boycott the victory loan, as a means of expressing their disapproval of the government's subterfuge of a plebiscite on an important issue.
Human nature being what it is, that is a natural thing for some people to do. I have heard it on many sides. But I deprecate that attitude; I oppose it. On cool reflection I am sure those who have so declared, themselves will reverse their judgment.
Let me make my position and the position of the Conservative party clear on this issue. Notwithstanding our disapproval of the government's policy, notwithstanding our belief that it is a policy of evasion of responsibility, and the negation of responsible government, we believe that the loan should and must be supported to the limit, and I appeal here and now to the great army of loyal Conservatives in this country, as well as to the great mass of our citizens, to rise above the situation which the government has created and which they abhor, and put this loan over.
To them I say: That is the nobler course; that is the patriotic course; that is the course which national obligation imposes; that is the

course which we owe to the men overseas and to those we are asking to go overseas to fight for us, to defend us. Any other course is unthinkable-any other course will but play into the hands of the isolationists, the unpatriotic, the disloyal. Let it never be said that this nation stultified itself. The wealth of the nation must be put at the disposal of the state. It must be marshalled and mobilized. Yes, and if needs be, if it means the winning of the war, it must be conscripted. Let there be no mistake on that score.
Many times I have told this house that the people of Canada would give the government the money to carry on the war, give it in abundance and in full measure. They will hold them accountable for how it is expended. That prophecy has been amply justified up to now. It will continue to be justified. I have supreme confidence that no matter how distasteful government policies may be, no matter how much we abhor the lack of leadership so apparent in this plebiscite, the loyal people of Canada, who all along have been ahead of the government in a determination to pursue total war with total effort, will never stultify themselves. I know they will not do it.
I endorse the minister's appeal in this regard. The great army of Conservatives in Canada will respond to the nation's need in full measure.
May I turn now to the amendment which I had the honour to move on January 26, and which is based on two fundamental principles. The first relates to the proposal for the plebiscite. I shall not take time at this point to read it.
I dealt with the question of the plebiscite at considerable length in my previous address, and I do not propose to repeat my arguments to-day.
I would, however, commend to the Prime Minister and to all thoughtful students of parliamentary government the .highly significant and reasoned address delivered to this house on Monday, the 9th instant, by the hon. member for Ontario. I regretted that the Prime Minister was not present to hear that speech. As a student, as a Liberal, he could not have listened to it without some heart-burnings and stirrings of mind and conscience; for the hon. member put the matter of plebiscite and government responsibility before this house and before the people of Canada far better than I am capable of doing, far better than anyone else so far has done. With inescapable logic, with apt phrase and sound reasoning, he exposed the fallacy of the government's proposal.

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
The second underlying principle of my amendment is my attempt to state, in general but unmistakable terms, the principles under which I think this country can and should wage war. I shall not read it, but it is a matter of record.
There is no ambiguity about this amendment. We propose the complete utilization of everything we possess to wage total war and to attain victory. It includes much more than the mere mobilization of our man-power for service anywhere. It visualizes the utmost use of our wealth and material resources to back up our man-power. It means among other things, the conscription of wealth, to accomplish that end. Indeed, we have the power to conscript wealth to-day. Up to date the power has been exercised in a very limited degree, but the power is there to be used and the people of this country are prepared to make this or any other sacrifice if called upon to do so. All they require is to be told what to do. I have scores of letters from men who are capable, willing and anxious to do something, but they do not know where to go to do it. Our people will never refuse this or any other government all the tools that are necessary, including, if needs be, both their lives and their wealth.
There is a great deal of mixed thinking on this question of conscription of wealth.
Taxation-heavy and severe taxation such as that to which we have subjected ourselves -is a form of conscription. The direct deduction of the national defence tax from the mechanic's pay cheque is a form of conscription. The levy of income tax is another form; but it is not confiscation, because any income tax is predicated on the theory that there must be capital and/or services upon which the income is earned and these are to be maintained; else there is nothing to tax. We have conscription in the form of the new Dominion Succession Duty Act.
Yes, let us completely mobilize the wealth of the country to attain total w*ar! But do not believe-and I direct the attention of hon. members to this point-that such mobilization means the complete nationalization of all our financial institutions, as my friends on the left pretend they would have us do. That is socialism, pure and unadulterated.
I reject socialism, because it not only eliminates the principle of private enterprise but contemplates a definite revolution in our economic fabric. Most of us are individualists. I believe we all pride ourselves upon being individualists. I am, and I admit it without shame or apology. But I do recognize that in war time I must subordinate my undoubted rights as an individual to the paramount necessities of the state-even, perhaps, under
the censorship to which we referred the other day. I may for a while not object to the viciousness of a censor. But I am not willing to give up my rights forever.
The official opposition finds it impossible to support the subamendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Let me analyse that amendment. In part it states that:
In the opinion of this house no total effort adequate to meet the present needs of the war, domestic problems, and the preparation for postwar conditions is possible without total mobilization of wealth, industry and finance as well as human resources.
The underlying thought of that section of the subamendment is much the same as that part of my amendment to be found in subparagraph (a) which reads:
(a) completely mobilize the wealth and material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man and woman power of the nation, to the end that the nation may wage total war in any theatre of war.
To that part of the subamendment I can not take exception. While it is not inherent in the literal wording of the subamendment, I suspect that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar intends his resolution to be an endorsa-tion of the principles of socialism as the fundamental agency for governing the nation in war time. But if he so intended, he has not expressed it-


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Meighen accepted it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Meighen did not say so.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Mr. Meighen stated before the York South electors that he accepted my outline for the conscription of wealth on his own behalf and that of the Conservative party.


Angus MacInnis: He accepted it for himself and the Conservative party.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But if the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar so intended, he has not expressed it, and therefore I find myself in substantial agreement with the section of his subamendment to which I have referred. The second paragraph of the subamendment requests that:
. . . the forthcoming plebiscite should seek the support of the people of Canada for the complete and effective conscription of war industries, accumulated wealth and financial institutions, at the same time and on the same basis of sacrifice as the suggested extension of the conscription of man-power.
This section of the subamendment at least tacitly approves the proposed plebiscite and seeks to have an additional question submitted to the people of Canada. This is
696	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
directly inconsistent with the first part of my amendment which condemns the proposed plebiscite as an evasion of responsibility and a negation of responsible government. The submission to the people of the question proposed by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation subamendment would, in my view, equally be an evasion of responsibility and a negation of responsible government. Both the question proposed by the government and that proposed by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation should, in my opinion, be determined by this parliament. If the opposition were to vote for both the amendment to the amendment and the amendment, it would in effect be voting to approve and then to disapprove the proposed plebiscite. We would be directly inconsistent with the principles enunciated in our own amendment, and I reiterate that we have not deviated from the opinion regarding the proposed plebiscite which is expressed in my amendment.
I do not intend to labour this, but may I refer particularly to one principle which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar enunciated: The national ownership, or at least the control of all our war industries to produce everything we require to maintain civilian health and morale and to provide our fighting forces with adequate equipment. How can we who believe in private enterprise subscribe to that principle? We have to a large degree nationalized the war industries of Canada. Are we to go the whole length? Are we to accept socialism as an economic factor in war time and then have it continued in the postwar period?


Thomas Reid: You mean one form of
socialism.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One form of socialism. That is what these gentlemen mean, and for myself I certainly cannot accept it. However, in voting against it we are not to be taken as disapproving "total mobilization of wealth, industry and finance as well as human resources."
The fourth part of my amendment refers to the question of post-war problems. One cannot, within the brief compass of a speech, touch upon all the topics with which one would desire to deal. I put that clause in my amendment because there is definitely no reference to this matter in the speech from the throne. If the Minister of Pensions and National Health will give me his attention, I should like to say that I referred to this in the amendment because I recall that in a speech which he delivered in Quebec city on June 20 last he painted a glowing picture of what was to be at the conclusion of peace-a peace, he

declared, dictated "by the people" and a postwar world where problems will be solved "by the will of the masses of the people." He then proceeded:
Never again, I hope and pray, shall you and I know the Canada we knew before this war broke upon us

when unemployment and relief and distress and hunger and poverty and want were rampant in the richest country in all the world. The new day, the new order, the new plan must bring, and will bring, a remedy for all that.
I can just hear him raising his voice to high heaven. He then went on to speak of a policy of collective security based upon collective force and collective preparedness rather than upon collective idealism. But he failed to sketch the new plan, like so many people who talk about the ideal condition that is to be when this war is over. It is true he gave his vision of post-war Canada, a vision of timed public works, of coordinated municipal, provincial and federal effort, of progressive highway development-nothing new about that; they have all been tried and they will not bring about the millennium-to be ruled by a sound and progressive agricultural policy. We are still waiting for that. He omitted to refer to the soundness of the principle of private enterprise. Has he divorced himself from that? Is he fearful of that?
Then, rising to great heights of eloquence- I can hear him now-he adopted the classic cry of the old London watch: "Watchmen, what of the night?" from the book of Isaiah. And he quoted the answer:
The night is far spent-the long, long night is nearly over-the morning cometh.
And he wound up with this prediction:
We shall soon witness the glory of the dawn.
Magnificent! My heart glowed when I read the report of that speech, but I fear we have not yet witnessed the glory of the dawn and we are not likely to until victory is won. Meanwhile, what of the preparations for the post-war period? In his speech of February 6 the minister stated that the government had submitted to the house a series of far-reaching measures dealing with post-war problems and announced that at least two further important measures would be submitted at the present session. He cited the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1940 as being primarily a post-war measure. I concur in a degree, but no one, even rising to the wildest heights of his imagination, can ever say that unemployment insurance is a cure for unemployment. It is merely a palliative.
He then referred to the post-discharge plan, passed somewhat belatedly, I believe, by means of an order in council, after he had been hearing from the returned soldiers and the

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
country. This gives the benefit of the Unemployment Insurance Act to members of the armed forces and provides certain other measures of assistance to discharged men, and the minister referred to it as a post-war measure of the highest importance. In a degree that is also true, but it, too, is merely a palliative and not a cure for what may be.
He then stated that of the measures to be introduced this session one would deal with a system of land settlement which would be one of the most constructive and far-reaching proposals of its kind ever submitted to parliament. We may expect something enormous. We shall reserve judgment with regard to this announcement, but I should like to say this to him and to members of the government: Be sure to benefit by the history of the past. I lay it down as axiomatic-it is no use putting a man on the land who does not have his roots deep in the soil and a love for the soil. Furthermore, any man put on the land should have had some knowledge of farming prior to his enlistment. Over and above all-as important as any at all events- before asking a man to go on the land the government of this country and the provincial governments should propose and put. into effect, by coordinated effort if possible, policies which will result in farmers receiving for their products such financial returns as will make it profitable for them to go on the land and remain there. This is fundamental, and if you do not do that, no land policy will succeed.
Most people in this country are and have been fearful that when the war is over and a lasting peace, let us hope, is attained, large numbers of our people will find themselves out of jobs and that we shall experience a depression far greater than that after the last war and greater even than that of the great depression period.
May I suggest that these prophets of calamity bear in mind that the biggest job on our hands apart from the war, and as big a job at least as that of defence, will be waiting for the people of Canada-the job of rebuilding our national economy-and that a depression need not occur unless by private and official folly one is created.
In this connection may I refer hon. members to a speech made by Mr. W. J. Cameron on the Ford Sunday Evening Hour on October 12 last, in which he deals with this matter and deals with it realistically. He said:
Look at the factors. First, a production plant largely obsolete for years, never able to supply all our people, is now being modernized and enlarged.	Second, a general stock so
greatly reduced by defence restrictions on manufacture and purchases that, with defence secured, the demand for all sorts of merchandise will require every man and machine we have to satisfy it.	Third, new industries like
aviation being firmly established, the use of plastics extended, older industries rejuvenated and a closer partnership formed between larger and smaller businesses. Fourth, with its production mechanism smashed to pieces, where can Europe look for the means of rehabilitation after the victory, except to America? Why, it will require twenty years of shipbuilding alone to replace the bottoms that have been sunk the last two years! These factors unless we are hopeless fools, will help to accomplish the transition without hard times.
Then he goes on to state that a depression was in the cards following previous wars, but that this time it is not in the cards, that conditions are different. Many minds are giving forethought to preventing a depression, but nothing can protect us or our nation against ourselves. Then he adds this wholesome admonition and preaches the doctrine of thrift which I should like to have every man, woman and child in Canada take to heart:
Let those who are earning more money put some of it where they can get it back. A spending panic is as bad as a hoarding panic. We can protect our nation and we can protect ourselves if we assert and believe, on the basis of facts, that a post-defence depression is not necessary and can be avoided.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for having spoken so long, but perhaps the house will bear with me for about five minutes more.
To me the plebiscite is as objectionable as when it was first announced. But the government will not alter its course. It will pass the address notwithstanding the opposition which comes from various diverse elements, and for various reasons. That being so, we should next await the government's proposals with respect to the modus operandi of the plebiscite. Let us examine them judicially with a view, if possible, to improving them. During this debate we have not had much light thrown on this topic-the discussion has centred around the principles involved. Let us then turn our attention to the proposals, and examine them as business men, not as partisans. I shall then, I hope, have crystallized my views on what I think I should advise our people to do.
Then we can turn to the general business of the session. I have offered the government, and I renew this offer, constructive cooperation in its general war programme. I have tried to follow a consistent course in that regard, no matter what certain critics have said, and I shall continue to do so. I may not be a Willkie, but no one will ever be able to say that I and those who sit round me have sabotaged or obstructed the government's war effort. On the contrary, we have sought and shall seek to help the government by constructive criticism, but we must not be ex-
698	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
pected to submerge our opinions on matters of principle. That we shall never do. That we should not be expected to do.
I listened on Sunday, as all hon. gentlemen no doubt did, to Mr. Churchill's speech in which near the close he announced the fall of Singapore. I listened to it with mingled feelings. Here was disaster; here was defeat. But I was buoyed up with his soul-stirring message to us and the other nations, and I shall close by quoting one paragraph from his address which sank into my heart, my mind and my soul. He said:
This, therefore, is one of those moments when the British nation can show its quality of genius. This is one of those moments when it can draw from the heart of misfortune the vital impulse of victory. Here is a moment to display that calm and poise, combined with grim determination, which not so very long ago brought us out of the very jaws of death. Here is another occasion to show, as so often in our long history, that we can meet reverses with dignity and with renewed accession of strength.


Georges Parent: The question is on the amendment.	

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-*couata): Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition and I intend to say a few words.
It seems to me it is important to give the house an idea of the real feeling and sentiment of the province of Quebec. Members who live one-half of the year in their constituencies have one superiority over those who have not the same advantage on account of pressure of business. They meet thirty, forty, fifty people each weekday-people who tell them about their joys and their troubles and ask them for information and help. Of course all those who come to the office of a member do not give information about personal matters. Some come just to ask for a recommendation, or a word of encouragement. But others have sufficient confidence in their member of parliament to tell him about very personal matters, to open up their hearts to him and ask for advice. They also inform the member about the general feeling of those who live near them and of the community in which they reside. Therefore a member of parliament has the advantage of knowing well the feeling and sentiment of his constituents. So that when the opinion of members of parliament is asked by the government, it is very easy for them to inform the government about the soundness or unsoundness of any policy.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, hon. members exchange gibes in this house. They try to break the monotony and dullness of the proceedings with some repartee; but though this happens at times I must congratulate very heartily and very warmly not only the mover and seconder of the address but all my colleagues who have taken part in this debate, from the Prime Minister down. We realize the seriousness of the moment, but what I cannot comprehend is the use of commonplace sayings when each of us should be at liberty to speak with more freedom than ever in expressing his own views. Whether or not my colleagues share my views, there is one thing I must and will do; that is, respect their views.
With the loss of our mutual friend, the late Minister of Justice, this House of Commons reminds me of the Quebec seminary where I was a student, after one of the greatest educators in Canada, Monsignor Mathieu, had left that institution to become the first archbishop of Regina. At times I have seen the broad smile of the former Minister of Justice, even while I was speaking; and once I remember he told me he had been told by someone sitting in front of him not to smile when I was speaking, because he was encouraging me. As I rise to speak to-day, sir, I
remember some events of my political life, particularly the day when the former Minister of Justice, Mr. Lapointe, came with my leader, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the house in which I live, at Riviere du Loup. Though notice of this event had been given only a short time before, and the weather was bad, some eight hundred people from my county came in to pay their tribute of respect both to my leader, the leader of the Liberal party, who was then leader of the opposition, and to their old friend the Minister of Justice. The Prime Minister, I am sure, must remember the kind faces of those good people. Many of them were farmers; and they all said how delighted they were to have the privilege oL shaking hands with him. Among them was an old gentleman who died a year or two ago at the age of ninety-four, who had voted for my grandfather, for my father, and for myself, and who used to preside at my meetings. He was a dear old gentleman, tall and with a long white beard; and I introduced him to my leader as the Liberal patriarch of my county. The Prime Minister was thoughtful enough to send that old gentleman birthday messages of greetings and good wishes each year until his unfortunate death.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not an exceptional case. I am proud of my people. I respect them. When I speak to them, and when they do me the honour of listening to my speeches, I consider it a very great privilege. It is a great sacrifice for me to remain in politics. I could have an easy life otherwise, but it is my duty in time of war to stand by my people and show my appreciation of the confidence they have placed in me during the long time I have represented them in this House of Commons.
This afternoon I listened to the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson)-I wonder if he is still acting, or if he is the full leader? He said, "If we do not face realities we may lose this war." I agree with that. Then he added, "We, the loyal people, are bewildered." It sounded like, "We, the people of England; the 'tailors of Tooley street.' " Is he the only person in Canada who is not complacent? Speaking of the plebiscite he said it was neither the manly nor the courageous course, and then he spoke of the probability of the invasion of England. The question is not whether the plebiscite is a manly or courageous course. The question is whether the plebiscite is the best course to follow at the present time, bearing in mind also that the plebiscite is closely related to conscription for overseas service. Then the hon. gentleman said the province of Quebec
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

should understand that this war is a conflict between two philosophies of life, freedom and slavery. A friend of mine who occupies a high post in the government of Quebec told me once that French-Canadians are not strong for abstraction. There is one point however I should like now to suggest to the government. I have already made the suggestion, but unfortunately it was not accepted. I suggest that a radical change be made in the information service of the government.
Why do we have trouble and agitation on the part of people in Toronto and elsewhere who have advocated total war? We have it because the information service of the government is totally inefficient, and because it is headed by a man who has been loaned by a big company and who receives at least SI 5 a day for expenses, while at the same time receiving salary. He is a neurasthenic and a fascist. How can fascist propaganda be dear to the hearts of French-Canadians in Quebec, any more than to the hearts of the good English-speaking or French-speaking citizens in other parts of Canada? This I do not understand. There should be a radical change in that regard. Moreover, with regard to information, the province of Quebec should be given the same brain food as any other part of Canada. We are all citizens of the same country, and I cannot understand why one story should be told in Quebec and another in Ontario, the maritimes and the west.
There is one other point I have stated before; let me repeat it. The day when our English-speaking oompatriots will have with regard to Great Britain the same views we French-Canadians have toward France. That day we shall have a perfect union of hearts in Canada. As we are at war it is essential to have enough courage to take the necessary steps to bring about a most efficient war effort. What do I mean when I say that? I mean that each one should be at his place, so that he can do the best possible to help the country win the war.
There are farmers' sons who would like to enlist but who cannot. They are in the same position as any young man who has a beautiful and charming sweetheart he cannot marry now because he has to take care of his old parents. That applies to many farmers' sons. Although my offer to recruit a whole regiment in my constituency was turned down two years ago, yet from the city of Riviere du Loup, with a population of only 9,000, over 1,200 boys have enlisted in the three branches of the service. From Cabano, a town in my constituency with a population of
2,000,	over 250 boys have enlisted voluntarily in the army.

Very often farmers are confronted with the problem of choosing between entering the army and putting a padlock on the old homestead or the old farm which for generations has been cultivated by the same family. Everyone knows that Great Britain can live only with the supplies shipped from all parts of the world. What the farmers are doing for this country-and when I refer to this country I include the army as well as the civilian population-they are doing for Great Britain. They are doing the same even for Russia, since the invasion of the fertile plains of the Ukraine by the barbarous huns.
Our friend Mr. Lapointe, the former Minister of Justice, lived in my constituency for many years. He was born there, and he loved it so much that even last summer he paid it a visit, as he had done each year, to spend some months of relaxation. In August, 1940, after the National Resources Mobilization Act was passed, he had been working very strenuously in Ottawa, and proceeded to Temiscouata county to take a vacation. While he was away from Ottawa, regulations were drafted in virtue of the mobilization act, and according to those regulations farming as well as other essential occupations were classed as seasonal. Mr. Lapointe was not here when those regulations were approved by order in council. They were drafted by men who knew no more about agriculture than the fellow who sees a horse and then says, "What a nice cow!" or sees a cow and says, "What a fine colt.!" They knew positively nothing about agriculture.
What happened afterward? Members of parliament had to carry on the fight with the authorities to have opportunity given farmers to stay on the land and continue their work -a work which is not "secondary", but which is essential.
Listening to speeches in the house and reading them in Hansard I have been pleased to note that even hon. members favouring the conscription of man-power have suggested the exemption of farmers on the very ground that their work is essential to Canada in a time of war as well as in a time of peace. May I pay tribute to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson); to his very able deputy, General LaFleche; to General LaFleche's associate, Major Benoit; to the registrar at Quebec city and his staff, and, now that some improvement has been made in the commission of our district, to the commission itself.
Members of parliament are deluged with requests, and they are reasonable requests, from farmers for delay in their training. I am ready to do any useful work for my constitu-

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
ents even if I have to work day and night. I am ready to argue the case of the farmers in my constituency with any official in the Department of National War Services or the Department of National Defence. But this is a ridiculous burden to be placed upon members of parliament; these cases should be taken care of automatically. As soon as the man can show that he is farming in earnest, that he is able to do his work well as a farmer, that he is contributing to feeding the army and the civilians of this country, he should be permitted to continue to do his work without being disturbed.
I should like to read a few remarks made by my leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), on June 19, 1940, as reported on page 922 of Hansard. He said:
An hon. member on this side of the house made the statement publicly this morning that he felt he could go into his constituency and, by making it known to his constituents that this measure had to do with the protection of Canada and our own Canadian soil, bring forward in a very short time men from the forests, from the fields and from the factories, all prepared immediately [DOT] to join the Canadian forces to resist any possible invasion, and that he would be prepared to guarantee that that could be done in constituency after constituency throughout the country, once it was understood that there was the necessity of defending our own Canadian shores. I pointed out to him that in doing that he might be making the greatest mistake possible with respect to the national interest; that, to win this war, we might wish to keep at work in the forests the men who are now working in the forests, to provide the timber which will be required for docks and wharves and required immediately; that the men who are working in the factories may be a thousand times more useful to the government of this country in giving their skilled labour to the manufacture of aircraft, munitions, or other weapons of war than they could possibly be in lining up and presenting themselves for military service; equally- that on the farms, if we are to perform what will be expected of us, we shall need all the production that can be effectively and rapidly carried out on the farms of our country.
That was expressed much better than I could say it. I urge hon. members to read this in Hansard to-morrow. I do not find it absurd to have to come to the assistance of farmers, farmers' sons and farmers' helpers. What I find absurd is to have to do this work, sometimes without satisfactory results, when the matter could be definitely and automatically settled. These farmers should be allowed to continue to do their work in peace until the war is over, and even afterwards. Our farmers, settlers and farm hands are the most stable element we have in this country. Moreover they are the ones who have time to think and to think right. No government in this country can expect to serve us, no party
can expect to serve us, unless they keep faith with our farmers.
Why did the Conservative party headed by Sir Robert Borden lose the confidence of the Canadian people? Because they broke the pledge they gave to the farmers that conscription would never be imposed upon them. When the farmers came to Ottawa they found that the doors were shut against them. They were not received then any more than they were received afterwards when Mr. Bennett was Prime Minister and had the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with loaded guns waiting to receive such peaceful people as the farmers of our country.
I do not want the Liberal party to fall into the ditch where the Tory party has been stagnant since the last war. I sincerely believe that the Liberal party is the only force that can maintain order when this war is over and after we have won it.
We were told the other day by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) that in the province of Quebec we did not understand the meaning of a total war effort. My fellow citizens of the province of Quebec understand quite well what is a total war effort. They apply to this -country the well known proverb that charity begins at home. They want to s*e this country well protected in the east as well as in the west and in the centre. They are good Canadians and they understand that their duty is to defend the shores of British Columbia as well as the shores of the maritime provinces and their own. They are ready to do anything they can to help Great Britain win this war, and the proof of this is the number of French-Canadians who have enlisted from my part of the country. But they want this country to be well defended. Before any move is made to impose conscription for overseas service they want the defence of this country to be complete and assured.
After consultation with some of our colleagues, it is my duty as the private Liberal member for Temiseouata to move, seconded bv my hon. colleague and friend the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lizotte), the following amendment to the amendment:
That all the words after the words "this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers", in the said amendment be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
are contemplating, with regard to conscription of man-power for overseas service, a reversal of policy yvhich is uncalled for, untimely and detrimental to the defence of Canada;
I should like the farmers of York-Sunbury to see the grin on the face of their member at this moment. Not one of them surely would vote for him if they had seen him this after-
The Address-Mr. Lacombe

noon grinning as I spoke of the distress of the farmers. I continue the reading of my amendment:
This house further holds the view that the defence of Canada should always have priority over any commitment with or in favour of any other country and also that it would be in the. interest of Canada and our allied countries as well that farmers and farm hands should be exempted from the military service.
I regret, sir, that the only way open to me to carry out what I propose is to move a subamendment. I do know that some officials of some of the departments hold the same opinions as I and many other members have, regarding the necessity of exempting farmers and farm hands from military service because their work is really a war work. But on account of the stupidity of so-called experts this has not yet been decided upon. That is to be regretted. For the common good it should be made easier for the farmers to continue with their work in peace. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but with so many countries at war and out of production it is all the more necessary for us to stop this policy of cutting the acreage under production, and instead, to get more and more farm goods produced. We do not know what will happen after the war, but certainly it will take time for many warring countries to recuperate and produce enough even for their own consumption. Therefore I urge the government to appreciate that what is being done now by the mover and the seconder of this amendment is not anything that is detrimental to the Liberal party or to the welfare of this country, but rather it is something that should have been done two years ago when we declared war. At that time it was mentioned vaguely, and I congratulate the government upon having changed the regulations of the national war services department to provide, by order in council, that farming is an essential as well as a seasonal occupation. But that is not enough. It was a mistake to state in those regulations that farming was a secondary occupation. It is not. The farmers have to work from dawn to dusk in winter as well as in summer. I urge the government to strike out the word "secondary," leaving in the word, "essential." I earnestly hope that the government will accept the subamendment as their policy with regard to the farmers of this country.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has just moved to the amendment has my unqualified support. I will vote for it with satisfaction, knowing that I shall be performing a great duty towards agriculture. The agricultural industry is and re-

mains our first line of defence. We should ensure the defence of Canada first of all by protecting our farmers through exemption from military training and from compulsory military service.
The hon. member for Temiscouata need have no regrets. He is moving in the right direction, and I follow him with pleasure on the path of Canadianism and of honour.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I must protest against ithe amendment just proposed by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lizotte). I do not know what the people of the old country can be thinking of us and of Canada at the present time. If it were not for the glorious British army, navy and air force, that slumbereth not nor sleepeth while Canada talks, the enemy would have descended upon the St. Lawrence before this and blown down the citadel at Quebec.
May I say to my hon. friend the member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), who wants to change the flag, that he had better hang on to the union jack because if Hitler comes over here-and the enemy is not far from our shores at this moment-it will be the black flag that will be hung on the citadel at Quebec and on the parliament buildings at Ottawa-and there will not be any referendum about that either. I protest against this amendment. The city of Toronto sent 55,000 men to the last war, 4,700 of whom lie buried in France until the resurrection morning. They fought for Canada, Britain and the glorious country of France, which in the last war did so much to ensure that freedom and liberty and civilization shall not perish from the earth. Let me say to my hon. friends from the province of Quebec- and I have a great many friends amongst them-what I said when I first entered this house, that no city in the world is less bigoted than the city of Toronto from which I come. Nowhere do protestants and catholics and all races and classes of our people get on better together than they do in Toronto. Toronto subscribed one-third to the victory loan and enrolled of its citizens who enlisted from there and in other cities across Canada nearly one-third of the recruits for the army, navy and air force. They did not need to be conscripted. They did not need to be sent to the war because our young people rose as one man to serve, and if we had had a proper system of recruiting in this country we would have had a million men now under arms under the voluntary system, although the other system is fairer and more equitable to all.

The Address-Mr. Church
I object to the principle of this amendment. Farmers' sons in our province in the last war did not want to be exempted. The farmers of Ontario showed their patriotism in going to the war, and they were patriots at the ballot box on election day when they asserted the rights and privileges of the people of Ontario in respect of the reciprocity treaty of 1911-that much-attacked province which is contributing more men, money and munitions than any of the other provinces.
The enemy is not far from our shores at the present time. But for the British fleet and air force, Quebec, the maritimes and Ontario would long ago have had first-hand experience of the concentration camp, the loud-speaker, the sergeant-major, the spy, the tramping of feet, the gestapo, the whip, the spirit of barbarism, brutality and savagery. I repeat that but for Britain we should have known these things long ago in Canada from coast to coast; yet we sit here day in and day out, debating such things as this amendment, refusing to pay a tribute to the people of the mother country who are bearing the brunt of the war and, up to the last summer, were bearing it alone over the whole civilized world, fighting our battles on the Atlantic, in the Mediterranean, in Libya and every other place. There is no such thing as home defence as applied to Quebec, or Three Rivers, or Montreal, or Ottawa, or Winnipeg, which can have any bearing on our future. The defence of Canada will not be at those cities; it will be decided in Europe and Asia. There is, indeed, no such thing as home defence in modern warfare. We must go wherever the enemy is. The fate of civilization for the next two hundred years is being decided on the shores of Britain, in Russia, in the Mediterranean, on the sands of Libya, and in the Pacific-that great ocean which is lost to us to-day, in which Japan is dominant in sea power-and the fate of freedom is in the scales. Talk about building a road to Alaska; all the bases which may be belatedly constructed at the Pacific coast will not count a snap of the fingers without sea power to back them up on the Pacific, because without control of the sea you cannot transport either troops or food or munitions or anything else to the endangered areas in the Pacific without a base. If the battle of the Atlantic is lost, the same consequences will follow.
For over two years of the war Britain had to fight and go it alone. Later we found two new allies-Russia and the United States. The latter country was not ready for war; like Canada, she had been listening to the babble of the pacifists and isolationists. Canada urged Britain to throw away her army, navy
and air force, and did the same herself, with the result that when war came we were not prepared. We threw away our defences and our friends.
All this talk about home defence and the plebiscite which the hon. member for Temis-couata mentions in his amendment is just a smoke-screen gotten up and thrown out at the last moment to cover up the mistakes some of whose consequences we have seen in the Pacific-Singapore, Hong Kong and other places. As I understand the hon. member's amendment, he wants to exempt farmers' sons and railway employees. They are not asking to be exempted. I have spoken of one province where the farmers are going to the war. The hon. member stated that a plebiscite is a reversal of policy. There I agree with him. It is true. Did you ever know this government to carry out any of their pledges, either as regards trade, defence, immigration, armaments, or anything else? I never have. They had posters on the billboards, "Beat Bennett and Bad Times". Well, they beat Bennett but they did not beat bad times. "End Unemployment; Vote Liberal". The people voted Liberal but the government did not end unemployment. So much for their pledges to get in on, but never to stand on. If there is a reversal of policy, it is just an afterthought at the last minute to tide things over until such time as the situation rights itself, and to save the wrath of the people.
What are the people of eastern Canada depending upon for their defence? Are these hon. members representative or typical of opinion in Quebec and Ontario? I admit that these two provinces have done very well, but the enemy would have been here long ago- in the spring of 1940 they would have come up the St. Lawrence by air and sea, but for that one agency, the mother country, which has protected our shores in peace and war alike, ever since we have been a country.
I concede that the hon. member who moved this amendment possesses some likable qualities. Sometimes he speaks out, like the former house leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Woodsworth) on behalf of the underdog and the common people; sometimes, I think, he goes too far at times about Conservatives, and in this motion to exempt the sons of farmers, and railway workers, he has gone too far. Nor do I agree with him in his plea about home defence. I can tell him this, and the government likewise, that there is no such thing as home defence. We found that out on the Pacific coast. We threw overboard our old ally, Japan, which had been a good friend to us and to the empire; we threw Italy over-
The Address-Mr. Church

board; we supposed that we could discard our own defences and our friends as well-with the results which are now evident in the Pacific. The situation is very grave at present for the people of our great Pacific province, and it is not going to be cured by the sort of home defence which is indicated in this amendment, or by holding secret meetings of this house which will cover up our mistakes. As I said yesterday, secret meetings about what? About home defence? About nothing. There is nothing to hold a meeting about. The British people in their own house, as is evidenced in ninety-five pages of Hansard published last January, have gone into the whole trouble at Singapore, Hong Kong and other points in the Pacific.
Our people are getting sick of this talk of home defence and plebiscite. Canada is being injured in the eyes of our empire. Last session I asked the minister to produce papers on the subject of home defence for cities, and he replied that it was a matter for the localities interested. They might lend them a few magic-lanterns and some sirens and whistles to blow, or fireworks, but as for providing an army, navy or air force, there is not a thing for home defence in any city in Ontario, excepting the black-out. There is no use in fooling the people into supposing they are secured by measures of this kind or any other provision for local defence which is simply no home defence at all. Home defence simply and mostly consists of one local volunteer company, the police, the girl guides and the boy scouts, and it can be nothing else, even though the people of the good county of Temiscouata should send five or six members to the House of Commons. All Canada is dependent on the mother country to defend us.
There is no doubt that the plebiscite is a reversal of policy, not mentioned in the 1940 election. Even lion, members who support the government knew nothing about it until the proposal was introduced to the house. Did you ever hear of such a thing? The people of this country know that, in the first year of the war, without a plebiscite, mechanized hordes swept over Norway, Czechoslovakia, the low countries,-Belgium, Holland, Denmark-France and all Europe, all of which countries had been talking about home defence One of the countries which was overrun, Luxembourg, had a police force of 250. In the second year of the war the enemy conquered Jugoslavia and Greece. Their "home defence" fell to the ground and amounted to nothing. I can tell you this: but for the agency I have named, Britain, the enemy would long ago have been in the

maritimes, in the province of Quebec, and through Ontario right to the head of the lakes.
I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I object to the remarks which have been made about the soldier city of Toronto. We are not sitting up all night long worrying about Quebec. I know the people of Toronto; I was born there. They are hard-working patriotic citizens. I have never had any bigotry in me, nor have I ever met a bigoted citizen there, and I am only one of five or six hundred thousand persons similarly conditioned. We are not worrying about Quebec or any other province; our only worry is to win the war. We like the people of Quebec; they are our own kith and kin; they have done a great deal for Canada, and in this war they have done better than they did in the last-the records speak for themselves. But let me say that I hope that in the speeches in this house we have heard the last of home defence and shall hear more of what we owe to the mother country, which has protected our shores and ourselves from the same air forces and mechanized hordes which overran the small countries of Europe, and threatened the very life of freedom and civilization.
On motion of Mr. Neill the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 19, 1942