1942-01-28

PRECIOUS METALS MARKING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Explain.


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: This is a relatively small matter. While the wording -of the amendment may appear somewhat technical, the purpose of this -bill is to facilitate the marketing of gold-filled spectacle ware. At least 75 per cent of this particular type of merchandise sold in Canada is manufactured in the United States. Over there they must conform to -the Bureau of Standards, whereas in Canada our manufacturers must conform to the Precious Metals Marking Act. There is a slight variation in these two requirements, and in order to facilitate the marketing of these goods without loss of service to the public, it is deemed advisable to make this slight amendment. The amendment has -been approved by the Canadian Jewellers' Association.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Imperial War Cabinet-Canada



CANADIAN FORCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (for the Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to provide for the reinstatement in civil employment of individuals who enlist for service in his majesty's forces or who perform essential war employment.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. McLARTY:: The purpose of this
measure is to implement the undertaking that was given at the time the order in council was passed providing for the reinstatement in their civil employment of those who joined His Majesty's forces. At the time the order in council was passed the house was advised that in view of the fact that this was a measure which would be required not only during but also subsequently to the war, legislation to effect it would be introduced at this session.


Mr. CHURCH:: Any distinction between those who serve overseas and those who work in the offices here but who wear uniforms?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The legislation will
generally follow the order in council, and my recollection is that the only provision is for those who have joined for service in his majesty's forces. I do not think there is any distinction between any classes of the service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the hon. gentleman indicate the number and date of the order in council?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not remember the exact date of the order, but speaking from memory it was passed in the month of June last. I shall, however, be glad to furnish the hon. gentleman with the information.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, on the order paper there appear a number of questions and a much larger number of notices of motion for the production of papers, most of which seek important information relating to the war effort. I believe it will be the consensus of opinion that we should have the information thus sought brought down at the earliest possible date. Under the rules this order will not be called, as I understand it, until the
present debate is concluded. Therefore I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he would seek the consent of the house to a motion similar to that which was passed during the debate which took place in November, 1940, and which will be found at page 240 of Hansard for November 20 of that year. The right hon. gentleman moved this resolution :
That consideration of the special order relative to the debate on the address to his excellency be suspended until the house has proceeded to the orders respecting questions and notices of motion for the production of papers standing on the order paper.
This seems to me a wholly reasonable request, and one which might readily be complied with.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: As my hon. friend was speaking, I had in mind that a similar situation had arisen during a previous session. and that it was dealt with in the manner to which he has just referred. I shall be very glad indeed to instruct the Clerk-indeed, I do so now-to place on the order paper a resolution similar to the one which my hon. friend has read. I have no doubt it will meet with the general approval of hon. members.



IMPERIAL WAR CABINET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. AY. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, I have
received this morning from our high commissioner in London the following text of the statement made by Mr. Churchill in the course of his speech in the House of Commons at Westminster yesterday, the 27th instant, on the subject of dominion representation in the war cabinet of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The statement begins:
Now I come to the question of our own empire or commonwealth of nations. The fact that Australia and New Zealand are in immediate danger zone reinforces the demand that they should be represented in the war cabinet of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have always been ready to form an imperial war cabinet containing the prime ministers of the four dominions. AYhenever any of them has come here they have taken their seats at our table as a matter of course. Unhappily it has not been possible to get them all here together at once. General Smuts may not be able to come over from South Africa and Mr. Mackenzie King could unfortunately stay only for a short time. But Mr. Fraser was with us and it was a great pleasure to have him, and we had a three months' visit from Mr. Menzies who was also a great success, and we were all very sorry when his most valuable knowledge of our affairs and the war position and his exceptional
[Stage Direction]


Imperial War Cabinet-Canada
abilities were lost. For the last three months we have had Earle Page representing the commonwealth government at the cabinet when war matters and Australian matters were under discussion, and also in similar circumstances upon the defence committee. As a matter of fact this has always been interpreted in most broad and elastic fashion. The Australian government have now asked specifically that an accredited representative of their commonwealth government should have the right to be heard in the war cabinet in,the formulation and direction of policies. We' have of course agreed to this. New Zealand feels bound to ask for similar representation, and the same facilities will of course be available to Canada and South Africa.
The presence at the cabinet table of dominion representatives who have no power to take decisions and can only report to their government evidently raises some serious problems, but none, I trust, which cannot be got over with good-will. It must not, however, be supposed that in any circumstances the presence of dominion representatives for certain purposes would in any way affect the collective responsibilities of his majesty's servants in Great Britain to the crown and parliament.
From the foregoing, it will be seen that Mr. Churchill has made a clear distinction between an imperial war cabinet, which, in addition to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, would contain the prime ministers of the four dominions, and an arrangement under which an accredited representative of any of the four dominions will have the right to be heard in the war cabinet of Great Britain in the formulation and direction of policy.
Mr. Churchill's statement makes clear that an imperial war cabinet containing the prime ministers of the four dominions would involve having them all together in London at one and the same time, either periodically or continuously. This, as Mr. Churchill points out, has not thus far, at any time, been possible. It requires no comment to make clear how impossible it would be to form, at the present time, with its seat in London, an imperial war cabinet containing the prime ministers of the four dominions.
The statement also makes clear that since the outbreak of war, whenever any of the prime ministers of the dominions have been in London, they have, as a matter of course, taken their seats at the cabinet table in the war cabinet. On other occasions Mr. Churchill has made it equally plain that this privilege will continue to be accorded to the prime ministers of the dominions.
Mr. Churchill's statement next discloses that in the last three months Sir Earle Page, representing the commonwealth government of Australia, has been accorded the privilege of being present at the cabinet table in London when war matters and Australian matters were under discussion and also, in similar circumstances, in the defence com-

mittee. It is clear from the statement that this privilege, while broadly interpreted, has, however, been extended only as a matter of courtesy. What recently has been asked specifically by the Australian government, and agreed to by the government of Great Britain, is that an accredited representative of the commonwealth government of Australia shall have the right to be heard in the war cabinet in the formulation and direction of policies. Similar facilities, Mr. Churchill states, will, of course, be available to 'New Zealand, Canada and south Africa.
Mr. Churchill's statement leaves no room for doubt that the power to make decisions and the responsibility for decisions made in the war cabinet of Great Britain will continue to rest with the war cabinet of Great Britain. The right being accorded to accredited representatives of the dominions is that of "being heard" in the formulation and direction of policies.
It is clear from the word sent by the British government to the governments of the several dominions to which I made reference yesterday, that this right to be heard relates to the machinery for consultation between the government of the United Kingdom and the governments of the other members of the British commonwealth on matters of urgency connected with the war; further, that it has resulted from the United States entry into the war, and recent developments in the Pacific, and also from the request of the Australian government.
Speaking for the Canadian government, I may say that the existing machinery for consultation between not only the governments of Great Britain and Canada but also between Canada and the governments of the other dominions has, in our opinion, worked exceedingly well. If at any time in the future we should find the means of consultation inadequate to meet the new developments which have arisen or which may arise, our government will not only be prepared but glad to avail itself of the supplementary arrangement to have our views presented to the war cabinet of Great Britain by an accredited representative, in accordance with the procedure which was announced yesterday by the Prime Minister of Great Britain.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Prime Minister? Press dispatches appearing

Pacific Council-Canada
yesterday afternoon quoted Prime Minister Churchill as saying in the British House of Commons that negotiations are under way-in other words that they are not yet completed- to set up in Washington a Pacific defence council, comprising representatives of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands East Indies, and presumably the United States. As a nation at war in the Pacific area, is Canada to be represented on this council, and if not, why not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to send me word that he intended to' ask the question he has just asked. I have a reply which I shall read to the house.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announced in his speech in the House of Commons at Westminster yesterday that it is proposed to set up a Pacific council in London comprising Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands East Indies, which would be able to transmit their united views to the combined chiefs of staff committee sitting at Washington. Final arrangements regarding the working of the Pacific council have not yet been decided upon. Its primary responsibility, however, will, I understand, be to concert the common defence of the countries in the south Pacific which Japanese aggression has placed in the immediate danger zone. The physical and geographical complexities of a world war waged on so many fronts compel subdivisions of responsibility. Our immediate sector of the Pacific front is one we hold jointly with the United States. Arrangements for the common defence of the coast of north America both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific are being worked out jointly by Canada and the United States.


Howard Charles Green: With regard to the answer
given by the Prime Minister to my question, did I understand him to mean that Canada was not asking for representation on the Pacific council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say
that such information as I have about the proposed Pacific council is what I read in Mr. Churchill's speech of yesterday. I have given to my hon. friend the only interpretation it is possible for me to put upon his words, and I believe on reading what I have said my hon. friend will see that the explanation I have given as to the representation on the council being confined to the countries named is due to the fact that it was expected to relate only to matters in the south Pacific, or the zone in which the Japanese are operating at the present time.
44561-8}
With respect to the Pacific on and about the north American coasts, as I have said the responsibility rests primarily between the United States, ourselves and Great Britain. It is just a division of the zones, as I see it, in which there are the several responsibilities. But in any event, now that the matter is before the government in the form in which it is, we, of course, are taking occasion to look carefully into it.


Howard Charles Green: I would point out to the
Prime Minister also that in reading the extract from Mr. Churchill's speech the Prime Minister did not read the succeeding paragraphs, which said that Australia and New Zealand had asked that the council, instead of being set up in London, should be set up in Washington. The Prime Minister's statement a few moments ago was to the effect that it was to be in London. Apparently the negotiations are looking to setting up the council in Washington.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe a
reading of the text bears out what I have said, namely that the announcement made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain related to this council as being located in London, but it was to have its views transferred to the chiefs of staff in Washington. There has been, I understand, since the original conference with New Zealand and Australia, some request on their part that the council itself should be located in Washington, but what answer has been given to that request I am not in a position to say at the moment. I believe what I have said will cover what my hon. friend has in mind.


Thomas Langton Church: Will the Prime Minister
table all the correspondence both of this year and of last year on this matter and respecting the empire war council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect
to this particular matter, there is no correspondence that I am aware of.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
the hon. member is referring to something else.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Sometimes I
have difficulty in catching the purport of my hon. friend's questions. But generally with respect to the tabling of confidential correspondence, may I say that before it can be tabled the consent of all governments concerned will have to be obtained. In any event, where it is thought that it would be inadvisable to make public any part of correspondence at a time of war, that part should not be made public.
10S
St. Pierre and Miquelon



QUESTION AS TO THE SHORTAGE OF BOXES AND MILK CANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. It has been drawn to my attention that there is danger of a serious shortage of cheese boxes, owing to the failure of the controller to release material for manufacture. It has also been drawn to my attention that the same condition exists in regard to milk cans. It is pointed out that there is an insufficient quantity of tin to coat the cans. Have any representations been made to the minister on this subject, and if so, does he intend to take action?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, my answer is that I have not recently discussed the question, just as it has been put, with officials. Only this morning I discussed the general question whether there was any difficulty in regard to materials generally which might be under the control of the boards. I was informed that there are no insurmountable difficulties, and that everything is being arranged satisfactorily.
I shall, however, make definite inquiries with respect to these particular matters, and if there is any further information I shall give it to-morrow.



ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON DEPORTED NEUTRALIZATION FOR DURATION OF THE WAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speake.r, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. I have not been able to give notice of it, because it has just come to my attention. A report appearing in the New York Times of yesterday, January 27, states that a solution has been reached in London for the neutralization of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon for the duration of the war. The article continues:
Canada, it was indicated, will be asked to assume the responsibility for the protection of the neutrality of the islands, and Admiral Muselier will withdraw his small force.
Is the statement contained in that dispatch correct, and if so what is the nature of the solution which has been reached with respect to this vexed question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter to which my hon. friend has referred, as he is aware, is one of very grave importance, and the time at which an announcement in respect of it

should be made is a matter which should be taken into account. I shall be pleased to give the house a statement in the matter as soon as I am advised by the governments of Great Britain and the United States that so far as they are concerned it will be quite satisfactory that a statement on which they are agreed can be made in the Canadian House of Commons.



PRINTING BUREAU


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. BOUCHER (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask of the Secretary of State. I am informed that upwards of eighty employees of the printing bureau between the ages of 65 and 70 years are shortly to be retired from the service without pension. I should like to ask the minister if this is so, and if in view of the present state of affairs he would not consider it to be in the public interest to retain the services of all who are still competent to carry on their duties, even though approaching the retiring age.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member for Carleton was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. The figure which he mentioned of 80 employees over the age of 65 is somewhat too high. Actually there are 33 over 65 who are now employed in the printing bureau. The matter of the extension of the term of employment rests primarily with the treasury board. But I believe that under existing circumstances such employment has been continued and, unless ill health intervenes, it will be the policy to continue it in the immediate future.



WAGE CEILING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Norman Alexander McLarty: Yesterday the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) asked a question about the setting up of regional war labour boards, and at the time I advised him that I thought that these had all been set up. I have confirmed that information. The regional war labour boards, which, as hon. members of this house know, were to be appointed for each province, have all been appointed, the first on December 2 last and the last on January 9.

Sugar Rationing



JOINT DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Yesterday I directed a question to the Prime Minister and he said that it would have been more appropriate to direct it to the military authorities. I assume that the Minister of National Defence is the highest military authority, and I will ask him whether he is prepared to answer my question. I shall repeat it if necessary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend misunderstood my answer if he believes I said that he should not have directed his question to me. Directing his question to me was quite all right. What I did say was that before the question could be replied to, I thought the military authorities of the defence department would have to consider it.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I may have misunderstood the Prime Minister. May I hope, then, to have a reply to the question from him?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: The hon. member for Parkdale inquired yesterday if units of the sixth division would be available to be sent to the assistance of the United States. That question is a rather large order. Whether they would be available of course would depend upon the military circumstances at the time, and the need for them. There are a great many troops in Canada which might be utilized besides the brigade groups of the sixth division. I want to say to him, however, that the units of these brigade groups would be available if it were considered advisable and necessary to send men to the United States, less any home defence personnel who were in those units who did not volunteer for that duty.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Speaking for the air force, all the air force is available for service in the United States if the necessity should arise.
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): That is true of the navy.



RATIONING IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES- BEET SUGAR CAPACITY-CONFECTIONERY INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should give an answer
to a question asked on Monday by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). The first part of his question was:
Why has the sugar ration in Canada been set at three-quarters of a pound per person while in the United States it is fixed at one pound?
The answer is supplied by part of a press release issued by Mr. Leon Henderson on Monday, from which I quote:
Consumption of sugar this year-
He is speaking about the United States.
-should average close to one pound per person per week. This does not mean that under the rationing plan now being proposed it will be possible to buy that much per person each week for home use. Actually, the initial sales under the plan may not be more than three-quarters of a pound per week per person; since sugar will have to be provided for people who eat in hotels, restaurants and institutions, sugar so consumed will help make up the annual total of fifty pounds per person. . . .
The ration of three-quarters of a pound per person in Canada relates to home use and therefore is consistent with the rationing plan adopted in the United States. The latter part of the hon. member's question was:
Again, have any steps been taken or has any plan been made to increase Canada's beet sugar productive capacity by the building of factories? If not, why not?
If the hon. member is asking that consideration be given to that question, I can assure him that consideration will be given to it. _ I may say, however, that the sugar administrator advised the beet sugar industry some time ago that they should do everything possible to bring production of beets up to the maximum capacity of their factories. If this were possible in the case of the two factories in Alberta, it would mean that beet sugar production would exceed the total requirements of the three prairie provinces.


Richard Burpee Hanson: While the minister is dealing with this point, and if I am in order, I should like to ask whether any decision has been reached with respect to the allocation of sugar to confectionery manufacturers. During the ten long years of the depression I do not think there was any other industry that suffered more than this one. Most of the confectionery manufacturers had to absorb the sugar tax. In arriving at any decision I hope consideration will be given to that fact. Has any policy been announced or adopted with respect to the allocation of sugar to this industry?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to make inquiry from the wartime prices and trade board before I can answer that question.
The Address-Mr. Abbott



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Alphonse Fournier for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. DOUGLAS C. ABBOTT (St. Antoine-Westmount): Mr. Speaker, I should like- to add my tribute to those which have been paid already to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has already said, from the point of view of both substance and the manner of presentation their speeches were outstanding. Of course, I may say that that is no more than I would have expected from two such distinguished members of my own profession.
I propose now to place before the house certain views which I hold on two rather controversial questions, the question of conscription and the related issue of the plebiscite. May I say at the outset I realize that for some months there has been a feeling in my constituency that I should have made a public statement of my views on these questions. I have been in public life for only a short time, and, rightly or wrongly, I decided that any statement which I might have to make on a matter of public policy of a controversial nature would be made in the house and not before service clubs or in "Letters to the Editor." So far I have adhered to that rule. I am now taking advantage of the first opportunity I have had of placing my views on these questions on record.
Like most returned men, I am personally a believer in conscription. Those are my personal views and, I think, the views of a good many others, including the majority of my constituents. But I am satisfied that had an attempt been made to enforce this policy at the outset of the war, the result would have been disastrous. I am convinced that it would have split this country from one end to the other, and that our war effort to date would not have achieved anything like it has done.
So far as I am concerned, the question which I must ask myself, and which I think every hon. member must ask himself, is: What policy will result in this country putting forth its maximum war effort? I am prepared to

support any policy which I believe will accomplish that object. I intend that any remarks which I shall make to-day with reference to conscription shall apply to conscription for the armed forces. That is the field in which the controversy appears to be most acute. As the Prime Minister indicated in his speech on Monday afternoon, the war effort of this country covers a pretty broad field. The army aspect is only one aspect of our war effort. It is evident to me that in a country of this size there must be a top limit to that armed force effort.
That top limit is something on which I do not feel qualified to express an opinion, and I doubt whether there are very many people in this country, or, for that matter, in this parliament, who are in a position to give an informed opinion on .that question. It depends obviously, it seems to me, on a great many facts which of necessity can be known to only a few people. As was stated here, yesterday, we are a nation of some eleven and a half or twelve million .people, and as an editor friend of mine wrote the other day, a considerable number of those people have either not yet cut their eye-teeth or lost them forever. Therefore, if we accept the statement which has often been made that it takes anywhere from twelve to fifteen men or women to support one fighting man, it does not require any knowledge of higher mathematics to realize that our armed forces cannot be as extensive as some of our more enthusiastic citizens would lead us to believe.
I take it that the purpose of conscription or compulsory service is to provide an adequate body of trained fighting men; and, of course, since the training takes time, that training cannot 'be deferred until the need at the front becomes urgent. We have at present in this country a considerable number of men in training under the compulsory system. We can call up and train more, and it seems to me that the controversy in recent months has turned entirely on the question whether we should now adopt a policy of saying that these men will be liable for military service elsewhere than in Canada, or whether that decision should be deferred until the need in the fighting areas becomes apparent. At the moment the men we are calling up are not, of course, available for service outside the territorial limits of Canada. The provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act provide that they shall not be so liable. So far as training is concerned, the result is the same. The men are being trained; but as matters stand at present, when trained, if they are required outside, they cannot be sent. That is because the government went before the people of this coun-

The Address-Mr. Abbott
try in March, 1940, and expressly pledged itself that, if returned to power, it would not enforce compulsory service for the armed forces overseas.
This brings me to the second part of my lanarks, namely, the proposed plebiscite, which in effect is asking, as we all know, that the government be given a free hand, that they be released from that pledge and be in a position, if the situation demands it, to send our armed forces whereever they may be required. We pride ourselves, Mr. Speaker, that we are living in a democracy, and we say that we are fighting to preserve that system. The whole basis of that system, as I have always understood it, is that the will of the majority shall prevail. As I said a moment ago, the government of this country went before the people less than two years ago and made an express statement that it would not enforce compulsory sendee for overseas. The government was returned on that basis. It has frequently been referred to as the pledge of the Prime Minister, but in my view the pledge is not the pledge of the Prime Minister alone but the pledge of every Liberal candidate who offered himself for election.
So far as I personally am concerned, conscription was not an issue in my riding. I do not recall that it was referred to at any time during the campaign. It certainly was not referred to by me; nevertheless I consider I am just as much bound by that pledge or commitment as any other Liberal member who was elected in March, 1940. One reason, by no means the only reason, but one reason wdiv the present Prime Minister of Canada has retained the confidence of his fellow Canadians for a longer time, I think, than any other Prime Minister in the history of this country is that the Canadian people know that when he gives a pledge or makes a commitment, it will be respected.
I have no sympathy with the view that political pledges are made to be broken; I do not particularly care what the circumstances are; it savours too much to me of the doctrine that the end justifies the means. The government is charged with evading responsibility. If insistence on respecting a pledge solemnly given is evading responsibility, the charge is correct, but that does not coincide with my definition of that term.
On this question of responsibility I should like to say a word or two about the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). As we all know, the minister has gone through a long illness, and we are delighted to see that he has made such a splendid recovery. I do not think anyone in this country could have criticized him had he decided that he had
already given generously of his time and ability to the public service, and that for reasons of health he should now retire to the side-lines and leave responsibility to someone else. He has not done that. I do not know, but I strongly suspect, that his return to the duties of his office and in this house are much against the advice of his medical advisers. Whether that be so or not, it does not strike me as being an evasion of responsibility, and I commend his action as an example to those numerous critics who are always so willing to define other people's responsibilities.
I have heard other criticism of the plebiscite on the basis of the effect it will have outside. I think the hon. member for Duf-ferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) said last night that it did not matter what effect the plebiscite had on our enemies, but that it did matter how it affected our friends, and I presume he had particular reference to our great neighbour nation, the United States. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is a form of criticism which does not carry very much weight with me either. Anyone who listened to the speech of the Prime Minister the other day-as a matter of fact he did not need to listen to that speech because he knew it before-must realize that the war effort of this country is a magnificent one. We sometimes worry too much about what other people think about us and not enough about what we are actually doing. It is what we do that counts, and I venture to say that the war effort of this country will stand comparison with that of any other. So far as the United States is concerned, I would be the last to minimize the efforts they are putting forward, but from the outset of the war their interests were just as much at stake as our own. They have come in now. They are in, and I think it will still be some little time before, either on a proportionate basis, or on any other basis you wish to take, their effort will come up to ours. I have no doubt it will, but in the meantime we need not worry particularly about whether our war effort will be misunderstood in the United States.
I should like now to make a brief personal reference on this question of plebiscite. I have had a certain number of communications, by telegram, letter and otherwise, intimating that the stand which it was assumed I was taking on this question was dictated by considerations of political expediency or party loyalty or the like. Well, I am almost forty-three years of age, and except for some two and a half years I served overseas in the last war I have lived all my life in this country. I suppose that on the basis of the mortality tables I may have another twenty or twenty-five years to go. I have three young children
The Address-Mr. Abbott
[Stage Direction]
who, I hope, have considerably longer. If anybody tells me that the stand which I take or the views which I express on questions such as we are now considering, relating to the prosecution of this war, are dictated or actuated by motives such as I have suggested, I will say to these people that they are talking utter rubbish.
I know that in war time we are in danger of giving our emotions free rein, and we have to make allowance for that; but I believe we could do with a lot less high-powered emotion and a lot more careful analytical thinking. ' In that connection I was struck by a phrase that occurred in a sermon I listened to last Sunday in Montreal. It was delivered by the Reverend Mr. Wilkinson, rector of the church of St. James the Apostle. He was discussing this question of thinking, and he said: "Some people who think they are thinking are only rearranging their prejudices."
I was very much encouraged to read in the press on Saturday night the statement made by Mr. Alex Walker, Dominion President of the Canadian Legion, of which I am a member. Mr. Walker said that all branches of the legion would work to secure an overwhelming result at the polls so that this plebiscite would be transformed into a weapon of victory. I congratulate Mr. Walker upon that statement. I think it is an example of clear thinking
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: What else did he say?


Mr. ABBOTT:: -such as I have referred to. I congratulate him and commend that attitude to some other organizations such as committees for total war and the like.
It seems to me that no useful purpose is going to be served by interminable debate in this house or outside as to the desirability or otherwise of this plebiscite. We are going to have it, and, in spite of what some people may have to say, it is a thoroughly democratic procedure. I spoke a moment ago about responsibility, and I suggest that the people of this country as a whole now have an opportunity to assume their responsibility, to turn out and vote and show each other, and the rest of the world if you will, that democracy can be made to work even in war time. So far as my own constituency is concerned, I have no doubt as to the result. I cannot believe that it will be other than an overwhelming affirmative answer to release the government from its pledge and to give it a free hand to conduct the war as it sees fit.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBB (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the government has made solemn promises and

parliament has no power to release it from commitments which induced our population to return it to power. It is for this reason that I shall again revert to the ticklish question of conscription in order to hammer a truly Canadian mentality into the minds of the ultra-loyalists, if such a thing is possible. Allow me to recall to them the recent political history of our country, which is also theirs.
Speaking on 'conscription, the Right Honourable Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on March 30, 1930, made the following statement before this house, as you may read on page 2426 of Hansard:
One strategic fact is clear: the crossing of the oceans is not likely to recur. Two years ago, I expressed in this house the view that it was extremely doubtful if any of the British dominions would ever send another expeditionary force to Europe.
One political fact is equally clear: in a war to save the liberty of others, and thus our own, we should not sacrifice our own liberty or our own unity. Planning and coordination would be essential, but the necessary coordination could be made, and if this government were in power it 'would be made, without sacrificing those vital ends and conditions of our existence. Profits could and would be rigidly controlled, and profiteering suppressed. But men's lives and men's wills cannot be put on the same basis as goods and profits. The present government believes that conscription of men for overseas service would not be necessary or an effective step. Let me say that so long as this government may be in power, no such measure will be enacted.
On the following day, the right hon. Minister of Justice made the following statement, recorded on page 2468 of Hansard of March 31, 1939; this is his greatest title to glory, in spite of all that may be said by Ernest Lapointe's self-seeking eulogists who are now attempting to exploit here his brilliant career in order to enhance petty interests implacably branded by his whole life. The former Minister of Justice used the following words:
Now I am going to touch a subject which is a delicate one. The French Canadians will never agree that any government has the right to force them to military service on the other side of the ocean. In 1917, that was my view, and I have never altered it. I believe that conscription, in 1917, was a blunder of frightful magnitude, and that we are still reaping the sad and sorry results of that ill-conceived policy. I was pleased that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) said yesterday, what I have myself learned, that the results did not in any way justify the taking of the risk; because in the end very few conscripts ever saw the front lines during the war. All should be reconciled to the doctrine which I have just expounded. The best way, the most effective way of helping is not the way that would divide our country and tear it asunder.

The Address-Mr. Lacombe
We are not alone in that view. Australia has always been against conscription. South Africa will never have conscription, Ireland would never have conscription. I think I am true to my concept of Canadian unity when I say that I shall always fight against this policy; I would not be a member of a government that would enact it; and not only that, but I say with all my responsibility to the people of Canada that I would oppose any government that would enforce it. I agree with what was said yesterday by the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister, and what was said by Mr. Bruce of Australia, that the time for expeditionary forces overseas is certainly past, and it would not be the most effective way to help our allies.
These grave statements have been accepted with satisfaction by the whole country. At the general election of March 26, 1940, the Canadian electorate overwhelmingly approved a thoroughly Canadian policy and nothing else. Of the two main party leaders engaged in the struggle, one claimed that the Canadian government's war policy was inefficient on account of its moderation. However, he stated that it should remain on a voluntary and free footing. The other laid down as a principle that our war effort should remain moderate, voluntary and free. Of two evils, the Canadians chose the lesser. The popular vote of March 26, 1940, expressed a choice of a thoroughly Canadian policy more than anything else. However, neither of the leaders had thought that a time would come when war contingencies would alter the situation. War remains indifferent to all political machinations and no one, even though he be the greatest genius, may foretell its emergencies. Once war is declared all its consequences must perforce be accepted and endured. The soldier deserving of the name never spares even his own blood. Only war profiteers measure their efforts by their value in gold, for they are too petty to rise to the heroism of the soldier who stands ready , to make the supreme sacrifice.
Military and financial imperialism, the petty interests and criminal hypocrisy of war profiteers should not be allowed to impose conscription on a whole nation who condemned it scarcely a year ago. Let the government deal, once for all, with these fomenters of national disunity and these war profiteers! Those -who clamour for conscription are abusing the government of the people for the people and are insulting democracy, the defenders of which they claim to be. Wilfully ignoring the will of the electorate, as clearly expressed on March 26, 1940, they set themselves up as would-be dictators of Canada. A country which, through the might of her resources and the valour of her blood fights dictatorship must, by all means, free public
opinion from the hateful theories of those fosterers of discord and disorder. They are the ones who are truly sabotaging the war effort and the national defence.
I shall now demand, once again, exemption from military service for farmers. The ultrar loyalists should not construe this request as the expression of a feeling peculiar to my province. There is no better evidence for that fact that the letters I have recently received from many places. Of whatever race they may be, the writers, like the majority of true Canadians, wish to save our agriculture from disaster and our nation from bankruptcy. Loyal and true to their King, they believe that they can serve him best on the very soil where unprecedented efforts and sacrifices are being made. The warning cry sounded in the letters written to me by those people is as follows:
I should like to read a letter which I have received from New Brunswick;
Royal Road,
Feb. 21, 1941.
Mr. J. B. L. Lacombe,
I saw by tfye paper where you are going to ask for exemption for people engaged in agriculture. May you meet with every success.
My husband is a cripple, he lost his leg two years ago when his team ran aw'ay with him on a reaper. Our only help and support is a son and if he has to go in training, we don't know what in the world we are going to do. May you get every support.
Yours truly,
Mrs. William Neailis, Fredericton, R.R. No. 1, N.B.
That is from the constituency of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson).
Another letter which I should like to read is from Saskatchewan:
Balcarres, Sask.,
March 1, 1941.
Mr. J. B. L. Lacombe,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,
An item on Feb. 26,. issued of Free Press Prairie Farmer that all farm youth be exempted from training. I beg to ask why parties in my position cannot obtain help to get back to another start. I am married, 44 years of age, *wife and two children, girl 16, able to work and boy 11, school age. I have tried to exist on $7 municipal relief and such odd jobs as I could pick at very small wages for the last three years. Lost nine horses through disease, had to sell other stock. Have applied to governmental service, also offered to join the army but not fit. Now I must vacate the building I live in with nowhere else to go as mortgage company wishes us to move. Then I have no money for advance rent on house in town also need clothing, fuel and groceries, etc. for family use which I cannot get work nor money to pay for. I was drafted off a farm while the sole support of my parents in last war and saw thirteen months army service. I have tried
The Address-Mr. Lacombe

every branch of government service for employment to no avail. I and my family are badly destitute. I would like to know why something cannot be done to give families in my position another start even in agriculture work. There are two or three in the same position in this district. I would like to buy more certificates but would also like to be in position to make a fair living for my family. Also hoping something can be done to give in this matter chance, I beg to remain,
Respectfully yours,
D.	T. Young,
Box 1095, Balcarres, Saskatchewan.
I may add that similar representations have been made to me by a great number of English-speaking farmers from Ontario, the mariti-mes and the prairies. However, the letters containing those representations were confidential and I would be unfair to the writers if I were to state their names.
History repeats itself. During the last war, thousands of- Canadian farmers of every racial extraction, over eight thousand of them in fact, laid before Sir Robert Borden in this capital of Canada, a unanimous petition urging the then prime minister to exempt their sons from compulsory military service. They met the head of the nation during the winter of 1918 at a huge meeting that took place in one of the theatres of this city. Sir Robert Borden rejected the petition presented by the farmers, who in turn defeated his successor at the election of December 6, 1921. In the prairies and in Ontario', the Progressives and the United Farmers returned a considerable number of members, and as a result, for nine years the Liberal party itself would have been unable to remain in power without their support. Almost a decade elapsed before the Conservative party again took power on July 28, 1930.
Those events should teach a lesson to those who might be tempted to repeat the frightful blunder of 1917. The common people's reactions would be still more dreadfu-l in a second post-war period.
At a time when the farmer is the most affected by the minimum prices regulations, and when he is deprii'ed of the help he needs for cultivating his land, it is important to exempt from -military service farmers' sons, farm labourers and all persons who are working in industries related to agriculture. Exemption courts should be set up in all constituencies. Invested with the necessary powers, such courts would be instructed to seek the most efficient means of preserving agriculture, our first line of defence.
The letters I have mentioned express an opinion held throughout the country by those who believe in the survival of Canada through agriculture. Those letters show how

well-grounded are the demands which I have felt constrained to submit again to parliament. As regards conscription for overseas service, the great majority of Canadians, from whatever race they may be descended, are against it. That is evidenced by the vote given by the young men in all Canadian universities. Canadian citizens, whatever their age, their condition, their calling or their residence, have rejected conscription in the past and they are still condemning that measure. The financial sharks, who through their unbridled greed have rearmed the axis powers, are alone in again supporting conscription. Those traitors to their country who were branded by Winston Churchill himself scarcely four years ago in the British House of Commons, are still demanding conscription. Those rascals who have plenty of money will only be satisfied when they have fully appropriated our resources, our incomes and our blood. I say again as emphatically las I can "Our first line of defence is in Canada." And if, unfortunately we were sooner or later to face an invasion, those who have neglected to rearm our country for the benefit of military and financial imperialism shall have to bear the dreadful consequences of such an invasion.
Here is a letter sent to me by a Toronto citizen. It is a good illustration of the true Canadian national sentiments shared by all those who believe that our main duty is the protection and defence of our own shores.
I will read a letter from Toronto:
172 Oakmount Road,
May 9, 1941,
Toronto, Ontario.
Liguori Lacombe, M.P.,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,
It was most refreshing to read your recent speech against conscription. I had long ago given up hope that any of our representatives thought the same way that I and many of my fellow citizens do.
The imperialists will probably ruin our country financially but, as long as you are championing -Canada's rights, I do not think they will desiccate our national unity. This war is following the same pattern as the last one, and the imperialists are again preparing to fertilize Europe with Canadians. When are we going to assert ourselves as a Canadian and American nation?
With best wishes, I remain,
Sincerely,
John V. Newton.
I shall read another letter sent to me by an honest Ontario farmer, requesting, for his sons working on the farm, exemption from compulsory military service and training. This letter is worded as follows:

The Address-Mr. Lacombe
Springfield, Ontario, February 20, 1941.
Dear Sir,
I read in the London Free Press to-day of your resolution exempting all young men who are engaged in farming from military training, and I want to congratulate you for your stand. Not that I think that farmers or their sons are any better to fight for their country than anybody else, but I do think that a good many of them can serve their country better by staying on the land. It does seem to me that there are some at Ottawa who do not understand conditions pertaining to agriculture. Now I would like to state, and you can use this if it will be of any benefit in getting your resolution through. One year ago last fall, my wife and I bought one hundred acres with the understanding that our son was to take it over when he was twenty-one. Well, he went on and worked it last year, cleaned it up for accredited cattle, has sixty acres ploughed;'he has a contract signed to grow peas and beans for the canning company. Now the point is, what is he going to do. He will be twenty-one in June. Under the present law it would seem the only thing he can do would be to sell his stock, which we have been trying to build up for years. I might add that this farm is three miles away from my own farm, and I have all I can possibly do to work my own farm.
Yours truly,
Harvey Nigh, Springfield, Elgin County, R.R. No. 1, Ontario.
(Text) Let me add just one word on agriculture. Every hand is needed on the farm, and the farmer plays an essential part in the war effort. Farmers, farm labourers and all persons employed in industries relating to agriculture should, therefore, not be called up for military training. Whether the farmer be engaged in the production of food, in the raising of live stock or in lumbering, he provides our fighting men with food, clothing and shelter. I urge that we exempt the farmers from military training.
Concerning the matter of conscription for overseas service, I believe I am justified in repeating what I said in this house on April 30, 1941. The adoption of such a measure would endanger the very foundation of national unity. It would imperil true Canadianism which must be prevalent and alive in all our people and their leaders. Let us not repeat our past monstrous mistakes.
Before concluding, I beg to remind the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government of their commitments toward the people of Canada. When Canada was on the verge of declaring war upon Germany, that is on September 8, 1939, the Prime Minister stated in this house, as reported at page 36 of Hansard for 1939:
I wish now to repeat the undertaking I gave in parliament on behalf of the government on March 31. The present government believes that conscription of men for overseas service will not be a necessary or an effective step. No such measure will be introduced by the present administration.
Even a few months after the last general election, the Prime Minister made the following declaration, as reported at page 966 of Hansard for June 20, 1940:
Those who were anti-conscriptionists were against conscription for service overseas, and as long as this government is in office we are going to maintain that position and see that effect is given to it. That is just one of the reasons why, in carrying out the will and the wishes of the people, we do not propose to take into this government any of those whose object in coming into the ministry would be to see that conscription overseas was again made one of the issues in this country.
As to the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition, I do not approve of it, and my constituents could not approve of it either. This amendment deplores the plebiscite on conscription for overseas service, but it is not opposed to conscription itself. Therefore, as I have always been against conscription, I will not, in this difficult moment, shun the fulfilment of my duty. I request the government to respect its pledges and the terms of the anti-conscriptionist mandate, which it received from the people of Canada on March 26, 1940.
Will the most powerful administration which the country has had so far, withdraw before the invasion of the howling mob of rotten financiers? Behind the ramparts threatened by the assault of conscriptionists, will our leaders stand up in front of the enemy, who wants to sacrifice at all costs the defence of Canada upon the altar of military and financial imperialism? Will they respect their pledges and the mandate which they received from the people? This is what we shall see. Personally, I will not free the government from its commitments and promises because, in accordance with the terms of its mandate and1 the constitution of the country, it may and must administer the country during at least three years without imposing conscription. I will not free it from any pledge it has given against compulsory service overseas, because our total war effort must be directed more thap ever to the total defence of Canada before all. The leader of the opposition stated that our line of defence was everywhere in this confused universe. He grieved over the fate of Australia, which is dangerously threatened. He fears that Halifax, Saint John, Vancouver or Quebec may meet with the fate
The Address-Mr. Lacombe

of Pearl Harbour. If that is true, our first line of defence more than ever is on our shores, and our first duty is toward Canada.
The leader of the opposition, in his amendment, is asking for a total national war effort and for the mobilization, in any theatre of war, of our complete effective in man and woman-power. He also requests the total mobilization of the wealth and material resources of the country to be used for war purposes throughout the world. He does not speak of the defence of our shores.
Are Halifax, Vancouver, Saint John and Quebec adequately protected, or is their defence merely casual? Are the more thickly populated cities of Canada ready to face an air invasion from the enemy? These matters do not seem to interest the leader of the opposition or the government. They believe that we should fight in Europe, Asia, Africa, the South Sea islands and undergo the utmost sacrifices in natural resources, munitions and man-power, even if Canada must neglect its own defence and suffer the same fate as the countries dominated and subdued by the enemy. The commonwealth of Australia is seriously threatened, while its heroic soldiers are facing death in Africa and thousands of others were mowed down by the enemy in Greece and in Crete less than one year ago. Did the government and the opposition come to an understanding to reserve the same deplorable fate for Canada?
From their former actions, from their former statements, I can only arrive at the conclusion that at present we are facing the most antiCanadian and imperialist policy which the country has seen so far. Therefore, fully aware of my responsibilities toward my constituency and my country, I will vote against the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I will vote against the amendment and against the amendment to the amendment, because the latter also calls for the conscription of man-power for overseas service, as well as for the conscription of wealth.
When the rules of the house allow it and when hon. members have voted on the amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), seconded by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), I will immediately move an amendment to the amendment requesting that the government keep its pledges and the terms of the mandate which it received from the people of Canada during the general elections of March 26, 1940, against conscription for overseas service.
I will close with the following statement: The formation of a Canadian party is neces-

sary. I will adhere to this party which was originated to-day in this House of Commons. Other hon. members also will adhere to it, together with all true Canadians. Our policy will be directed toward the prime defence of Canada, toward the best interests of the country in the economic and social domain. This doctrine, believe me, will not be the exclusive prerogative of one province. It will shine over the whole country and over all loyal Canadians, faithful to His Majesty the King of England, who is also the King of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, may the extreme inequalities of wealth which have led our democracy to the verge of the abyss disappear from this world. Was not this wish expressed in the war aims of the allies, as approved by His Majesty the King, by the Archbishop of Westminster, and again recently by Prime . Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt when they drafted the charter of the Atlantic? May the war profiteers and the thieves of Val cartier camp who took away from our worthy soldiers the food which was intended for them perish also. May the corrupters of democracy perish in order that we may save whatever good and praiseworthy elements are still left in it. May the traitors to our country perish, those who have rearmed Japan and the axis powers to the prejudice of the allies and Canada. Let us sever the last link which ties us to those renegades who have forsaken their sacred pledges, and let us join the Canadian party which has just been created in this house. We shall soon set forth the doctrine of the new Canadian party which has been established in the best interests of the country.
The new Canadian party requests better remuneration for our land, sea and air forces. The wages received by employees of our war industries are two, three and even four times as great as those received by our soldiers. Those employees work only eight hours a day. The soldier who gives his life, who sometimes wrecks his future when he outlives the battle, gets but a meagre compensation. No soldier, airman or seaman should receive less than $4 a day, exclusive of his uniform, upkeep and food. The first duty of the Canadian party will be to retain the farmer on the land, to produce munitions and supplies, to organize the defence of Canada before all, and to give the defenders of our country the fair remuneration to which they are entitled.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Mr. Speaker, I have on my desk the speech from the throne. We usually look upon that speech as the legislative menu card for the coming session, but a careful study of this

The Address-Mr. Homuth
document almost leads one to believe that this menu card was prepared in a country which was on very severe rations. One item that we had expected to see on the card is not there, and in its place is something that is certainly not palatable to most people of the country and is absolutely nauseous to a great many. I refer to the question of the plebiscite.
There will be opportunities to deal with other departments of the government as the session proceeds. I want to deal particularly with the questions of man-power and money as they affect our war effort, and with the suggestion that we are having a plebiscite to relieve the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) from a promise which he made.
In the first place the voluntary system has fallen down. I think every hon. member in the house will admit that that is so. The proof is to be found in the radio addresses and speeches of high ranking army officials and important members of the government. Anyone who attends the recruiting meetings that are being frantically called throughout this province will realize only too well how the whole system of voluntary recruiting has fallen down.


Mr. MUTCH:: That is pure nonsense.


Mr. HOMUTH:: It is not pure nonsense. If it is pure nonsense, then my hon. friend's leaders in the cabinet and the various officers who are out recruiting are not telling the truth.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It is either nonsense or sabotage; the hon. member can have it either way. I know something about it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: So do I. I know a lot about it. The hon. member will have an opportunity of expressing his views.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Make him withdraw "sabotage."


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I did not hear him say it. Oh well, no one pays any attention to what he says anyway.
The very fact that the government have decided that we should have a plebiscite, the very fact that they are asking the people of this country to release them from their promises with respect to service overseas, should be ample proof that the voluntary system has fallen down. Certainly if they were getting all the recruits they needed, the Prime Minister would never suggest having a plebiscite on this question.
If the situation is so serious, there is only one answer-national selective service. We have to get them in; we must have men to
fill up the ranks when the time comes. If we cannot get them in voluntarily, then we must have national selective service. All we expect is that the government of the day shall have the courage to see to it that the men who have enlisted for overseas service, the men who have already left the shores of Canada, are not going to be deserted. Certainly no hon. member would suggest that the ranks of these men who have gone overseas should, when the time comes, be decimated by any failure to give them the necessary support. Surely no one would expect us to say to them: We have no more men to send to support you; so far as that phase of our war effort is concerned we are through.
When we declared war on Germany, and I was one of the members of parliament who sat here and voted for the declaration of war on Germany, did we say to Herr Hitler: We are declaring war on you and if you ever dare come near our shores we will slap your wrist and send you back? Or did we say to Germany; We are declaring war on you and we are going to fight you anywhere to drive from the face of this globe the vicious philosophy you preach. Isn't that what we said? There is only one way in which we can do that, and it is to fight our enemy where-ever he can be found. When we declared war on Japan did we say to Japan: We are going to wait until you come here before we fight you? Did we say that to any nation with which we declared ourselves at war?
I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the reluctance of the government to take the courageous move they ought to take in order to get the required number of men. The only reason they give for not doing so is that the Prime Minister made a certain promise. Certainly he made a promise. But does that mean that no matter how serious this war may become, no matter how closely it may approach our shores, no matter how many men we lose, the Prime Minister is not prepared to fill up their ranks because of that promise he made; that instead he is going to take a plebiscite? That promise was given by the Prime Minister before the ravage of Norway and Denmark and Holland and Belgium. It was made before Dunkirk; it was made before Greece; it was made before the murderous attack by Japan, not only on'the United States but on ourselves, in which we lost two regiments at Hong Kong.
If this were the only political promise the Prime Minister had ever made, or if he had been in public life only a short time, then I would say that in trying to keep such a pledge he was taking a real statesmanlike responsibility. Or if he had carried out all the promises that he has made in his long
The Address-Mr. Homuth

political life, then we might unhesitatingly say that this is just what you would expect him to do, to be consistent with the course he had followed during all his political life. But, Mr. Speaker, his political life is cluttered not only with broken promises but with promises that he has made and failed to carry out and never will carry out.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Name them.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I will name some of them right now. But no promise he ever made had the political significance or the political repercussions of this promise with regard to compulsory service for overseas. I could go back to 1919, and to the various elections held since then, and quote promise after promise that the Prime Minister made which he has never tried to carry out and has no intention of ever carrying out. But let us come to more recent days, to the election of 1935. Many of the members of this house will remember that throughout this country at that time large camps had been established in which unemployed young men were housed and clothed and fed and trained. During the campaign of 1935 the present Prime Minister directed attention to these camps every time he made a speech, and he always referred to their military aspect, to the fact that they were administered by the Department of National Defence. He tried to sow in the minds of the people of this country the idea that these camps were simply a military move, and that the boys were there under military rule and discipline, which might mean that eventually they would become soldiers. He was going to close all of these camps. He was going to take the boys out of the camps and give them lucrative employment. He painted a glowing picture of these boys marching out of the camps and working on the railways and other great public projects throughout this country. He closed the camps all right, but what did he do with the boys? The boys were left to wander up and down the highways and byways of this country, unwanted by anybody. If that was a sacred promise of the Prime Minister, and it certainly was a promise, he did not carry it out.
Again, speaking in the wTest before he went to England, the Prime Minister made another promise. He reiterated his stand on conscription for overseas service. He told the young men that they ought to get into the army or the finger of shame would be pointed at them as long as they lived, and then he added: "I give this pledge, that there will be no coercion for overseas service." Is there any hon. member of this house who will stand

up to-day and say there has been no coercion in Canada for overseas service? Why, Mr. Speaker, I said during the last session of the house, in November, and I repeat now, that we have had in Canada the most cowardly system of coercion for overseas service that was ever conceived, because the boys who were taken into the training camps were shamed and humiliated and everything possible was done to drive them into active service for overseas.


Mr. MARTIN:: Quote the Prime Minister's statement which you are talking about.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Look it up in Hansard.
You have more time than I have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The fact is you have not got it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There are two promises
that were made by the Prime Minister.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask hon. members not to interrupt.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not mind, Mr. Speaker. Again, the Prime Minister on many occasions has declared that he and any government that he was leading would never declare war on any country unless parliament was first called.


Mr. ROWE:: The hon. member for Essex
East (Mr. Martin) cannot deny that one.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Yet over one week-end
he declared war on four countries-Finland, Roumania, Bulgaria, Japan-


Georges Parent: There is a conversation
going on across the floor which is not fair to the hon. member who has the floor, and I would ask hon. members not to interrupt.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The Prime Minister made the statement that war would not be declared on any country unless parliament was first called. He enunciated it at every election. But he did declare war on various countries without summoning parliament. What made him declare war in those cases without calling parliament? Something unlooked for, something unprecedented, something he had never thought of when the promise was made. Yet was that promise not just as sacred as his promise on the question of compulsory service for overseas? When the Prime Minister declared war on Japan he gave out the statement that he had consulted with the leader of the opposition about declaring war. In fact I understood he had consulted with the leaders of all the groups in the house. But let me tell the Prime Minister this, so far as his promise was concerned: that the leader of the opposition and the leaders of

The Address-Mr. Homuth
the other groups sitting on the opposition side of this chamber are not the parliament of Canada.
This is the parliament of Canada and this is the house which he said would make the declarations of war. But these are things affecting more or less the material welfare of the people, whereas the question of conscription for overseas, the filling of the ranks of the fighting forces, have to do with the actual life of the person. If we took definite action right now and did it as quickly as possible it. might save more lives than anything else we could do. Is it not plain to all of us that the Prime Minister's attitude now is no excuse for him? Are there any bodies of Canadian citizens who are prepared to say now that they are against an all-out war effort? Are there any people in this country who are prepared to say that we are going to desert the men overseas? From the riding I represent there are a thousand men who to-day are serving beyond the shores of Canada, and there are many more enlisted for active service. What are we going to say to them? What am I going to say to the mothers and fathers of these men?
Reference has been made in this house to the dynamic leadership of those two great leaders, Churchill and Roosevelt. The hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) has referred to these leaders-and incidentally, in his speech the other day he completely swallowed himself so far as his attitude to this question is concerned, because he certainly expressed different views a couple of weeks ago in the county of Waterloo. He referred to that great man Roosevelt-and a great man he is, and a great friend to us and to the empire. But when Roosevelt was elected there was no idea of the United States being embroiled in any war in Europe, or in any war at all. They would not send men outside the United States. Well, is he any less democratic than the Prime Minister of Canada? Are his promises any less sacred?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: He said, "any foreign war."


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Certainly. Now he has changed his mind because he has seen the danger as we see it here. And the very man who is leading England and the empire to-day, the most outstanding figure in the world, has done a great many things in this war, in the House of Commons in England, which time after time parties had pledged themselves against.
Now the Prime Minister says we will take a plebiscite. I asked him the other day, and
then what? I said, after the plebiscite, what? He would give no answer. It was simply an evasive answer. He is not pledged to do anything; he is not going to pledge himself to do anything.
What if the people of Canada vote against this? What if the people vote not to release the government from its promise? What then are we going to do? What is Canada going to do? Hon. members speak of this plebiscite as if it were a foregone conclusion that it will carry; and yet within the last two days we have heard opposition to the plebiscite from the government side, and how some members are going to work against it and vote against it. This very plebiscite itself is bringing about national disunity, because this vote will end simply in a fight on conscription; on one side you will have the conscriptionists and on the other the anti-conscriptionists. The country will be split wide open; and after that, I say, what then? What is the government going to do? What is the Prime Minister going to do?
We are going out in the course of a few weeks to urge the people of Canada to invest in the war loan. We are going to plead with them to put up every dollar they can. We have gone into various industries in the country and pleaded with the workmen to give everything they can in war savings. I was asked if I would address a couple of meetings in my riding on behalf of the war loan, and I know that one question is going to be: How about the cost of the plebiscite? For someone will have to take charge of the work-and it is going to be a great opportunity for a large band of Liberal workers, from one side of the country to the other, to have a job for a few days. Someone will have to take charge of it, and money will have to be spent to explain the thing to the people. Money will have to be spent to organize the people-or is it going to be an unwanted baby, and are the people going to be left to vote just as they like without anyone taking the initiative? When I ask these people to invest in the war loan I shall have to say to them: Well, the first four or five million dollars will have to be raised anyway to pay for this plebiscite so that you people can decide whether or not the government is to continue in this war so far as man-power is concerned. From one end of the country to the other there is sweeping resentment at the spending of this money on something that the government itself should have the courage to do.
If there is behind the Prime Minister any large group of members who are opposed to national selective service, I think the time has come when the Prime Minister should say to
The Address-Mr. Homuth

them, "We have come now to the parting of the ways; we have now come to the point where we have to do the brave thing on behalf of the country, and if you cannot see eye to eye with me, then we shall have to part company." The Prime Minister can be assured of sufficient support in this house to put any such bill through. In fact, I think he should go further than that. I think the Prime Minister should be prepared to-day to say, "I am going to form a truly national government in this country so that I can wage war against the aggressor with every dollar, with every man and every woman and every bit of material wealth that we have in Canada, and it is not going to be the responsibility of any political party, nor is it going to be hampered by any political expediency, but all the parties in the Dominion of Canada are going to be behind this war effort"-as they are.
Hon. members opposite sometimes laugh when we mention the question of national government. The Prime Minister on more than one occasion, and the late Minister of Justice, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, on one or two occasions, referred to the great Liberal following in the House of Commons-180 members. And* the Prime Minister said: "What could be more national than that? What could be more of a representative national government than 180 members out of 245. representing constituencies * from Halifax to Vancouver?" It may be true. But the peculiar part is that when he wanted a minister of national defence for naval services there was apparently no one in that great national group fit to fill the job, so he went outside to get a minister for the navy. Then he wanted a minister of justice. Now, I have met and associated with a great many of my right hon. friend's legal friends from the province of Quebec; bright men, smart men, men with long experience in politics, men with long experience in the courts of their province. But apparently not one of them was fit, in the eyes of the Prime Minister, to be minister of justice; he had to go outside of the elected members to get a minister of justice.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why did you go out of the house to get a new leader?


Mr. McDONALD (Pontiac):: And a discredited leader.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Let me remind my hon. friend that the new leader has served a long time in parliament and was still part of the parliament of Canada. Then the government wanted a minister of labour. Certainly they have tried many of them in the last couple of years, and one was no more successful than the other; they have bogged labour down,

they have messed up all the legislation concerning labour; it is in a worse mess to-day than it was two years ago. They wanted a new minister of labour, and none of the hon. members on the other side of the house who have been associated with industry or have had something to do with labour was considered fit. I see the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). I say and have said before they could not have got a better man in the cabinet for minister of labour or anything else, because he is the most dynamic personality I have met for a long time. He may be ruthless in his politics, but from long association with him I would say that he never went after anything that he did not get.
There, Mr. Speaker, is the picture that we have of this great national government.
The hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray) referred the other day to the farmers. This is becoming a serious question. In our district farms are being sold out; farmers are being taken to the training camps; their sons may get two postponements and then they are told there will be no further postponement and they do not know what to do. These men do not want to shirk their duty. All they want is for someone to say: "This is the job you ought to do." They say: "Let them tell us whether we should stay on the farm or go into the army, but at least give us some leadership." But there is no one to do it. Every time one mentions selective service the idea of conscription comes up, and everyone thinks: That means we are going to grab all the man-power in this country and put it in the fighting forces. It is nothing of the kind. Hon. members know that. We should select men and women for the job they can do best in this war. There is a great army of men, fifty to fifty-five years of age, who cannot get into industry, who cannot get into the armed' forces. These men want something to do. They feel disappointed and frustrated because they cannot get into something that will help the war effort. Yet when men are needed for special war jobs and the civil service is filled up with thousands of extra employees, these men are given no consideration because they are too old to come under the act. Since these jobs are only temporary, these are the men that should be taken into the service, thus releasing others who are young and can go into the forces or into other jobs.
I referred to the fact that recruiting had fallen down. We are facing a very serious problem. Now the government are trying a new scheme; they are going to issue dress suits for the soldiers. The hon. member for

The Address-Mr. White
Halton (Mr. Cleaver), in a speech in his own county, before the Burlington Branch of the Canadian Legion, said that there will be no difficulty after these new suits are issued; we will get plenty of recruits for the army then. Well, I do not think it is going to have that effect. But I suppose if it fails the next thing we will do will be to give each soldier a wardrobe trunk and a valet and see if that will help.
There is a very serious aspect to this matter. We are going to supply the soldiers with an extra uniform. When this was decided upon was it simply a promise by the Department of National Defence without taking counsel with the Department of Munitions and Supply? I warn this government that within a few months if we are not careful, there will be a serious shortage of the wools required for military goods; we may not have any more of them in the country. Our men do not want this dress suit, and it would be far better for the government and more pleasing to the soldiers if the government said: Here is the price of that suit; take it and use it for yourself."
So, Mr. Speaker, I think I am expressing the feeling of the great majority of the people of Ontario when I say that the people of this country would be satisfied and glad to have the government say to them in this all-out war effort, "We are going to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act and see that every available man and woman is used in this war in one way or another." The government have power already to conscript -if you want to call it that-money, factories, material wealth.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are not doing it.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But they have the power. That is another promise they are not carrying out. All they have to do is get the added power to use the man-power of this country for overseas service. I am prepared, I know every hon. member in this party is prepared, and I think most hon. members on this side of the house are prepared, to support the Prime Minister in such a move. If he will bring down a bill to-day to that effect we will give him wholehearted support. I am prepared to support him or any other leader or any party in this house that will see that we have an all-out war effort. We are not fighting to-day simply to protect territory that is ours; we are not fighting an aggressor who has only territorial designs; we are fighting the bloodiest bunch of bandits ever let loose on this world. To-day we see the march of this militant godless force, and it is
going to take everything we have to conquer it. Let us then do the job that as freemen we should do.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer briefly to two matters only, the questions of man-power and the plebiscite, both of which were mentioned in the speech from the throne.
It must be apparent to everyone to-day that the question of the proper allocation of manpower to provide the proper men for the farm, the forest, the mine, the factory, the fisheries and the army, is the most vital question facing this house. During the past few months high ranking military officers have made many speeches throughout this country with regard to the need of men for the armed forces. To any hon. member who resides in an agricul-tral district the sorry plight of the farmer to-day must be clear. In the county of Hastings, in which I reside, they produced over
9,500,000	pounds of cheese in 1941, the record for all Ontario, and an even greater production is planned for 1942. But I would point out that in my county many cheesemakers have been called up under the present system of selecting men for compulsory service. It is quite true that these cheesemakers may obtain exemption for short periods, but, as we all know, these exemptions finally come to an end, and sooner or later the cheesemaker must report to the training centre. One must realize that cheese factories must plan their production for at least a year ahead; and if these factories are to maintain this enormously increased production, they must be assisted. The same thing applies to the farmer, who has been asked and encouraged to increase his acreage under cultivation, to increase his stock, and so on. In many instances he finds that no help is available, while his sons are called up for training. The same thing applies to the lumbering industry in the counties of Hastings and Peterborough. Many camps are not operating there during this winter, for the simple reason that no men are available, and also because the lumber operator cannot compete with wages paid by industrial concerns.
A proper system of selective compulsory training would have the effect of placing every man and woman in this country in the place where he or she can best serve to further our war effort. As long ago as March, 1941, I advocated in this house a policy of that kind, and even urged that conscription for overseas service was the only way to fill the need with regard to supplying man-power.
The Address-Mr. White

At that time it was almost treason even to mention the word "conscription" in this house, and I was told by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) that my words would tend only to create disunity. Yet to-day the minister himself must know better than any other hon. member the serious need and lack of men for the army. He knows of the strenuous efforts being made by the various district officers to obtain the men required. Our general staff must know of the situation. Why, then, are we waiting to take the proper action that will ensure all necessary manpower for our armed forces? The Hong Kong expedition is only one incident showing the serious lack of trained men; and our so-called reserve army units, which the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) so loves to set out in his monthly blue-book, in many instances exist only on paper. Perhaps it would be just as well not even to mention the equipment the average reserve unit has for training purposes. The methods used at some of the training centres, which pride themselves on obtaining one hundred per cent of their men for active service, are little credit to a democratic country. The .underhand methods of compulsion and coercion would be more credit to the government of nazi Germany. But this is just another example of the tragic need of men for the armed forces and the lengths to which this government will go to obtain these men instead of facing the true facts.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other hon. members may make excuses and explanations, may becloud the issue with smokescreens as lawyers and politicians love to do, but the fact remains that men are needed at once for our armies overseas. You may call it conscription, selective service or whatever name you choose, but the need for man-power is the vital, urgent need of the hour. Why, then, should we not, as members of parliament, face this paramount issue and here and now set up the proper machinery to ensure all branches of our armed forces a steady, regulated supply of man-power? When the government of Canada declared war in September, 1939, and decided to send a force overseas, I submit that every member of parliament and every citizen of this dominion assumed an obligation to support those boys with clothing, food, arms, equipment, and the finest of weapons in unlimited quantities. We assumed the further obligation to support them with all needed reinforcements for any emergency, no matter how drastic.
The Prime Minister has spoken about broken pledges, and no doubt much more

will be said in this house on the same subject. I should like to point out to all hon. members that a pledge, express or implied, was given by every member of this house and every citizen of Canada on the day war was declared, to every man and boy who enlisted for overseas service. I submit that this pledge must have preference over every other commitment or pledge, and must be honoured to the full limit of our resources. This country is facing a grave national emergency, the first in our history. At such a time, when the very existence and safety of the state are at stake, the rights and privileges of individuals, the observance of pledges, commitments, promises and everything of that kind, must be ruthlessly cast aside, and the proper authorities must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the preservation of the state.
Have we then, as members of parliament and as citizens of Canada, no duty to our men overseas? Are we at this late date to waste more precious time and money in the holding of a plebiscite to determine whether or not we are going to supply those boys with reinforcements? In the event that the majority of the people of this dominion vote in the negative, what is to happen? Are we then to withdraw all our forces from beyond the seas? Or are we to say to the boys, "No further aid will be sent you. You will get no further help from home. You will just have to do the very best you can with what you have?" Surely no hon. member will even attempt to argue against supporting our troops in every possible way, to the very limit of our resources.
Many hon. members are veterans of the war of 1914-18. I appeal to them, irrespective of the party or group to which they belong, to rise in this house and denounce this treacherous betrayal of our boys overseas. Such hon. members know what war means, because they helped to pay the ghastly price that all free men were called upon to pay between 1914 and 1918. Many hon. members still carry on their bodies marks and scars which formed part of that price.
Any hon. members who went through the battle of the Somme, who took part in the fighting at Courcelette, the fighting in Death Valley, or the storming of Regina trench or Sugar trench will easily recall what their unit looked like when they returned to Tower hill or the Chalk pits. They will remember the immediate need of new clothing, new equipment, and, above all, the need of immediate reinforcements to enable their unit to carry on as a fighting force. Or do they recall that grim Easter morning in the snow-storm at Vimy Ridge? Many units had tough going

The Address-Mr. White
that day, and the days that followed. And they will recall that many reinforcements were urgently needed.
Any member of this house who went through Passchendaele will never be able to erase the memory of the mud, the filth and the slime of that man-made hell-on-earth, for Passchendaele showed better than any other scrap how men and equipment can be used up. Hon. members who went through these scraps, what would you have thought if, after coming back from Courcelette or Passchendaele, with your unit cut to pieces, you had been told by your commanding officer that the parliament of Canada had decided to hold a plebiscite to decide whether or not further1 help or reinforcements should be sent to aid you? If anyone had dared utter such words you would not have been able to find fitting and proper language in your extensive army vocabulary to express your disgust and contempt for such a cowardly course. But you knew in those long-ago days in France that the parliament of Canada, the people of Canada, your own kinfolk, would not fail you. Why? Because they were Canadians all through, people who had bom and bred into their beings the finest of traditions which, through the ages, have brought imperishable glory to our empire, traditions which have carried our flag through the centuries, across the seven seas and to the far-flung corners of the earth. Our flag has always come back, untarnished and unsullied, because it has always stood for justice and freedom.
So to-day all hon. members who are war veterans have a double responsibility; for to-day the boys of the new generation are facing even greater odds than we faced in the last war. As members of parliament you now have the authority in your own .hands; for this parliament is the only legal body in Canada clothed with authority to take the necessary steps to provide and supply all needed aid at once to our troops overseas. You now have the opportunity to protest in the house against this shameful betrayal of your comrades. You have the opportunity to place yourself on record as disapproving of this betrayal, and by so doing you will not be branded for the rest of your lives as persons who shirked their responsibility, as persons who failed in their duty to their war comrades. Can hon. members who are war veterans feel that they are holding high the flaming torch thrown to us from failing hands? Are we, as war veterans, holding that torch high? Are we living up to the high ethical code set by our former comrades who sleep to-day in foreign fields, under the nazi heel? We state that we fight for democracy, to
preserve our way of life, our democratic way of life. One of the things we wish to preserve is our free parliament, one of the symbols of democracy. Yet we are asking those boys, who at this very hour stand guard at the outposts of our empire, the boys who man the ramparts of that little island called Britain, which has been described by one writer as the last outpost of freedom in the old world, boys who are willing to give their very lives that we may remain free men, to fight with their lives to preserve this parliament- a parliament without enough back-bone or courage to take at once the necessary action to ensure adequate support for those boys! I can easily imagine what the boys overseas will think and say when they hear about the plebiscite. I can hear their expressions of contempt and disgust for this parliament. No doubt, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should visit the troops again, he would get a reception slightly different from the last one. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the whole question of national selective service can and should be settled by this parliament at once, and should not be submitted to a plebiscite.
Much has been said in this house during the past year about national unity, but I submit that if the plans for this plebiscite proceed, such a wedge will be driven through this country that we shall never again in our lifetime know what unity in Canada means. To hon. members who come from the province of Quebec, I would say that I have heard many speeches in the house and have read other speeches in the press delivered by leaders of your church and state in which they have emphasized the desire, the need and the right of the French race to preserve all those things of life which are so dear to them, such as your religion, your language, your customs, your culture and all the other traditions that made France a great nation. I do not quarrel with those speeches. It is only natural that you should wish to preserve those things, but I would point out that those very things you cherish so much are the things you will lose in the event of defeat; for under the so-called new order of Hitler and Mussolini there is no place for those things you wish to preserve. Your rights and privileges, which have been preserved and guarded under our democratic government, would vanish. Are they not worth fighting for to-day? No matter what your political leaders have told you in the past, the opportunity is given to-day for the two great races in Canada, irrespective of the material things which may divide them, to unite in this great crusade and side by side destroy this barbarian Hitler who threatens to destroy us.
The Address-Mr. White

An opportunity is given that may never come again to unite the whole of Canada. All our past differences, all our past hatreds, prejudices, self-interests, and quarrels may be forever eradicated in this new common sacrifice to preserve all those decent things of life that free men and women cherish. If we all unite in this crusade-all classes, all creeds, all races-we shall demonstrate to the world and to ourselves a unity that the years to come will never be able to break.
On the other hand if you refuse to join, and unreservedly place all your resources of wealth and man-power at the service of the state, in the common cause, such action in my opinion will only drive the wedge deeper through the national life of this country, and there will emerge after the war such bitterness, hatred, and division that no leader, no government or group will ever again be able to achieve even the semblance of unity in this Canada of ours.
The function of a government is to lead, and this government has failed in that vital respect. A government that promises its people and its allies a total war and a total war effort, and then for any reason fails to make it, is guilty of a betrayal, and is worthy of the disdain and contempt of all honest men. During the past two years we have seen so many governments fall, and, worse, betray their people into bondage, because they failed in the purpose of government, and failed to carry into action the fine promise of their words. All men in free-thinking countries to-day regard France as having been betrayed internally by a weak and blind government policy, by a government that talked and had great efforts on paper, and that was pitiably weak and rotten behind a Maginot line, also great and impregnable on paper. These men who betrayed France are condemned to-day, they are called traitors to their country. Is any man in any country who follows those policies of inertia and procrastination and talks instead of acts any less a traitor? I say that behind the Maginot line of the Pacific and the Atlantic this government is deliberately fostering the same supine belief in its efforts and programmes that led to the fall of France. Time and action are on the side of the enemy, and he who wastes time and leadis astray the effort of his country is a traitor to his people.
To-day our kinfolk in Australia cry aloud for help, for men and material, and we, supposedly a proud nation, give her what? We give her words, not men; a plebiscite instead of weapons; resolutions instead of action. At Hong Kong those gallant boys from Canada added another name to the scroll in Canada's

hall of fame. Against terrific odds those boys of Canada played the part of men on the world's stage. Were the men who fought and died or were taken prisoners at Hong Kong comforted in their dying or in their prison camps with the thought that the help they so badly needed may come some day, if and when our government can play the part of a government? Those gallant men who have been fighting in Malaya, dying in the swamps and jungles for lack of support, for lack of men and weapons, will it comfort them to know that after a plebiscite, after months of delay and waste, this government may give the total war effort it has pledged already to its allies?
Within two days after the attack on Pearl Harbour, our good neighbours to the south were further ahead with the allocation of manpower than we are after nearly thirty months of war. At this late date, with the yellow rats from Japan daily coming closer to our shores, we are to have a plebiscite to decide whether or not we shall do anything about fighting them before they reach our shores. How can we expect our good neighbours to the south to have any faith or confidence in us or respect for us as an ally? Are we Canadians the type of people who are content to sit quietly with folded hands and criminal complacency and allow our allies, the Russians, the Dutch, the Chinese, the Aussies, the New Zealanders, the British, the boys from South Africa and the Yanks to do our proper share of the fighting?
If this plebiscite is held, for years to come the people of Canada will be looked down upon with scorn, contempt, disgust and hatred by all decent free people throughout the world because of our cowardly action at this critical hour. Does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) expect that the spending of millions of dollars on a needless plebiscite will help him in raising the needed money for the new war loan or help the future sale of war savings stamps?
In conclusion, I wish to place on record the expressed feelings of the citizens of my riding and myself as being absolutely opposed to this plebiscite. We condemn in every way the action of this government in having plebiscite which is a comtemptible, cowardly betrayal of our boys overseas and an abrogation of the rights of responsible government.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, in conformity with convention and in all sincerity I wish to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address upon their eloquence and the subject matter of their speeches.

The Address-Mr. Gershaw
During the last few months the hand of death has been laid upon this house. The honoured senior member of this house, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, has passed on and has left a vacancy which will be hard to fill. He was a comparatively young man who had endeared himself both to the members of this house and to the people of this country. He had reached a high place in the councils of our land. It goes to show that-
The glories of our blood and state Are shadows, not substantial things;
There is no armour against fate;
Death lays his icy hand on kings.
We are engaged in the greatest war in the world's history. Whatever causes there may have been for this war in its early days, it is now clear that it is one of aggression, that our enemies are out for the domination of the world. This throws upon people living in this age a great obligation, the obligation of resisting aggression in the name of religion, in the name of our way of life, in the name of the freedom and the liberties which we have enjoyed. Surely we are the custodians of what has been gained in the past, and we must save for posterity some of those precious rights which were gained by our forefathers at great cost. This is the critical stage, and those who may live in this world long after we have gone will look back upon our actions at this time. A great responsibility has been thrown upon us, but at the same time a great opportunity has been given to us. Perhaps I can express this in a few lines of poetry:
Ye that have faith to look with fearless eyes Beyond the tragedy of a world at strife, And trust that out of night and death shall rise The dawn of ampler life;
Rejoice, whatever anguish rend your heart, That God has given you for a priceless dower, To live in these great times and have your part In Freedom's crowning hour;
That you may tell your sons who see the light High in the heavens-their heritage to take- "I saw the powers of Darkness put to flight,
I saw the Morning break."
In this titanic struggle we have twenty-six nations banded together. We have the gallant fighters of Russia; we have the democratic English-speaking nations all in the fight together. At this time no one can doubt that the fostering of good-will, of friendship and of neighbourliness between Canada and the United States was statesmanship. No one can deny that Canada, acting as a liaison between the British commonwealth and the United States, was working out a great and glorious accomplishment. The one man who deserves striking credit for that accomplishment is the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). The names of Churchill
and Roosevelt will live long, but with them will stand out forever the name of the Prime Minister of Canada.
I believe I express the views of practically all hon. members in this chamber when I say that the ambition of the people of Canada is to contribute to this war to the utmost limit of their capacities. The only question is how this can best be accomplished. There have been those who have emphasized unduly certain aspects of the war effort, but we know that up to the present the organization has been magnificent. Pressing toward the goal we must make decisions in the light of the knowledge we have and of the circumstances that exist at the time. We are going to have a plebiscite, whatever the result may be; and surely in furtherance of our determination for an all-out war effort we should give those who are in the best position to know the facts a free hand to decide how best we can make our contribution.
I wish to take advantage of the latitude allowed in this debate to draw to the attention of the house certain subjects which are of interest to the district whence I come. The beet sugar industry is one of which I have spoken many times. The investment in this industry means a great deal to the irrigated districts in the drought-stricken area. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) has promised that serious consideration will be given to the expansion of that industry. In rural districts the people are very active at this time. In the very smallest communities there are Red Cross organizations where you will find women knitting comforts for the soldiers, and war savings campaigns are carried on continuously. The people are also very much interested in the salvage campaign. Up to the present it has been difficult to accomplish very much because of the high costs of getting salvage from where it is available to the place where it can be made use of. Recently as a result of many conferences. between the department and the railway officers a very reasonable freight rate has been arranged for carload lots of 30,000 pounds and upwards, and some sixteen sorta-tion centres have been selected in different parts of Canada so that the salvage of rubber, bones, bottles, shoes, metals, paper, magazines and things of that sort can now go on, and there is reasonable prospect of making a contribution that is really worth while.
There is a great deal of discouragement and dissatisfaction among the farming people of this country. Within a few days, Mr. Speaker, a delegation of some 400 or 450 farmers, mostly from the province of Saskatchewan, will arrive in Ottawa. There has been col-
The Address-Mr. Gershaw


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, January 29, 1942