1942-01-23

TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R, B. HANSON (Yorlc-Sunbury): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the last day of the last session, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to table the agreements proposed to be entered into with the provinces respecting the vacating of certain fields of taxation. On that occasion he said he would like to

Japanese in British Columbia
have time to consider the request-which I thought fair; but in a subsequent statement, as I recall it, he stated:
I am not just sure how far the government should go in submitting draft documents to the house before signature. However, they have been given to the press and I shall give consideration to-
And then I interrupted him. If these documents have been given to the press before they have been given to parliament, I think that is an astonishing circumstance; and I would ask that they be tabled forthwith, without any further consideration on the part of the minister.
Hon. J. L, ILSLEY (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I was interrupted by the hon. gentleman very abruptly when I was making what I thought-
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I am sorry if I was discourteous.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Well, the hon. gentleman is interrupting again. We are at the beginning of a session, and I would request him not to interrupt me as much as he did last session, or as he has started to do this session.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I shall be guided by my own sense of fitness.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am requesting him not to interrupt.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
renewing my request. Are we to have these agreements tabled?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think the agreements should be tabled. As I have said, I was interrupted the other day. One agreement, the proposed agreement with Ontario, was handed to the press in accordance with an arrangement which was made with the provinces at a joint meeting of the treasurers and myself which was held here in December. The other agreements were not handed to the press in their entirety but certain portions of them were. I think it is quite reasonable to ask that anything which was handed to the press should be put on the table, but I want to look at it and see just what it was. I have not yet had an opportunity to do that. As I pointed out the other day, these are merely drafts, and it may be that when the correspondence or certain letters which are explanatory of them are added, it will be a different thing. I have to table just the amount of correspondence and drafts and clauses that will make the whole matter 'intelligible at this stage. That is a matter to which I want to give consideration.



THE WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: May I ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health whether he can make any statement with regard to the government's intentions as to the use of Japanese labour in the interior of British Columbia?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): My only direct connection with the situation was, first of all, as a member of the government; second, as minister from British Columbia, and also by way of being chairman, of the conference which sat in Ottawa for two days discussing the entire problem. As a result, that conference made certain recommendations to the government, and a press release in regard to government policy was given by the Prime Minister's office. The actual negotiations with regard to placements, accommodation and employment are under the direction of the Minister of Labour, who is not in the house at the present time. The negotiations with regard to actual evacuation will be under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
With reference to where they will be accommodated, there is no definite conclusion, but I understand that a committee was sitting this morning on that very problem, and I shall be glad to get in touch with the Minister of Labour or to arrange that my hon. friend get in touch with him, to give him information with reference to the Okanagan. Representations were received by me from the board of trade of Vernon, recommending that 1,500 or so of these men could be used in fruit picking in the Okanagan. I am not sure as to what is the attitude of .public opinion in that district regarding that question. That is all the information I .can offer my hon. friend at the present time.


Grote Stirling: May I ask just another question with regard to removals? The government proposes to move Japanese residents from defence areas. Does that cover males only, or females and children?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: That is not definitely determined. The recommendation made by the conference to the government was that every able-bodied adult male be removed, and most likely the first to be removed will be able-bodied adult males who are Japanese nationals, and whose numbers would be roughly two thousand. There are
The War-Medical Standards

some 1,714 able-bodied Japanese nationals between the ages of eighteen and forty-five -what we call the military age-but it may be necessary to remove those over forty-five who are able-bodied.



CANADIAN ARMY-REVISION OF MEDICAL STANDARDS GOVERNING ENLISTMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: May I inquire of the Minister of National Defence whether the medical categories have been revised so as to admit men now for service in the army who were formerly rejected as medically unfit?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was good enough to send me a copy of the question. The physical standards were revised, and the changes appear in routine order No. 1350 dated October 4, 1941. To give an indication of changes which have been called to my attention, one revision applies to the visual acuity standards; another applies to those who had suffered from a radical mastoid operation; and a third applies to those who had suffered from some infection from a dry perforation of the ear drum. The routine order itself, as my hon. friend will see, because I am going to send him a copy, contains the clause:
Those rejected under the old standards for defective vision, radical mastoid, one side, or dry perforation of the ear drum, one side, should be encouraged to present themselves for reexamination and possible enlistment under these reduced standards.
That revision was made after a study of the United Kingdom and the United States regulations and standards in these respects, and after consultation with our eye-and-ear specialists. I am sending my hon. friend a copy of the order. It is very long, and I do not imagine hon. members will want this long order printed in the answers to questions. I shall be glad to table a copy of it if anyone wants it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I would like to direct a question to the acting Minister of Labour or, if there is no acting Minister of Labour, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Some time ago the minister announced that he had made a submission to the parties in the Kirkland Lake dispute of a proposal of settlement of the strike by referring the matter to the national war labour board for arbitration.

Later the minister announced the acceptance of the proposal by the workers' union on Sunday last; the matter then awaited the acceptance of the proposal by the mine owners. Can the acting Minister of Labour or the Prime Minister tell the house whether the reply of the mine owners has yet been received by the Department of Labour, and whether the proposals submitted by the Minister of Labour for arbitration have been accepted or rejected, or where the matter now stands?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: As the hon. member is aware, the Minister of Labour is not in the house at the present time. I would ask that the question stand as notice and be replied to on Monday. The information I have is that the submission made by the minister has been accepted by the miners, but I have not now at hand information as to whether it has been accepted by the operators. I know that the Minister of Labour is very actively engaged in this matter and has been for some time. I will endeavour to furnish the hon. member with the information in answer to his question on Monday.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture when the farmers may expect payment of bonus under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the wheat acreage reduction regulations, and the general relief bonus? Some of these are now nearly six months overdue, and the farmers are getting uneasy.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 

PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day :
Mr. J. R. MaeNICOL (Davenport): May I ask the Minister of Pensions andi National Health a question along the lines I have asked before? I have had quite a number of letters during the last few days from non-pensioned widows' associations across Canada asking me to inquire-that is, if the minister is able to take the house into his confidence at this time-whether it is the intention to bring down legislation at this session, should such legislation be necessary, in order to make it possible to grant pensions to the widows of soldiers who in their lifetime drew less than fifty per cent pension.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): During the last session I made a definite announcement on this subject. The hon. member for Davenport is aware that the parliamentary committee on pensions recommended at the last session that the government give consideration to the question which he now mentions. The government considered it very carefully and came to the decision that no legislation would be introduced during the remaining part of last session or during this session to deal with the subject. I have also expressed my own opinion, namely, that the objects aimed at by this organization are more related to a national system of social security than they are to any statutes within my jurisdiction for administration.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The answer is no.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.	.
Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) (Translation) moved:: That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Earl of Athlone, Knight of Our Most Noble Order of the Garter, a member of Our Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Grand Master of Our Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Governor General and Commander in Chief of Our Dominion of Canada.
May it Please Your Excellency:
We, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament.
He said1: Mr. Speaker, in. rising to present this motion, I wish to convey to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on behalf of the people of the county of Hull the gratitude they feel towards him for the honour done to their representative. This honour is all the greater for having been unexpected. I welcome it, because the people of Hull are very sensitive to this mark of esteem on the part of the head of the government.
I wish all the hon. members of this house were as well acquainted as I am with the people of my constituency. All of them, whether workers in the city or tillers of the soil, are excellent Canadians and good Christians. The vast majority of them are of French descent, but nowhere else is there to be found more harmony, more collaboration, more cooperation between the two races. The present conflict has imbued them with, a single will, a single spirit, a single aim-to make all the sacrifices necessary to bring about the defeat of the enemies of liberty. I am proud of them and I want to be worthy of their confidence.
On Wednesday last the leaders of the political parties and a number of hon. members paid tribute to the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. I wish to add my tribute to theirs. Scarcely two months ago there died a great Canadian, one of the most illustrious sons of his race. The news of his grave illness greatly affected us and it is with deep sorrow that we learned of his death. One of the best known figures of this parliament is no longer in his place. Our country has lost a devoted and faithful servant. His dying in harness was but the crowning of his career, the completion of his life. For nearly thirty-eight years he gave the best of himself to his country and his people.
Difficulties, contests or illness did not prevent him from doing his duty to the end. What the Canadian nation owes to him cannot, at this time, be appreciated at its true value. History will rank him in his rightful place, alongside, and on an equal footing with, the greatest men of our country. But even to-day, his opponents as well as his friends recognize him as an outstanding statesman. His qualities, his talent, and his work have been eulogized by voices more authoritative than mine, but I wish to join them in saying to Madame Lapointe, to my friend Hugues and to Madame Ouimet how deep is my sorrow

The Address-Mr. Fournier (Hull)
and how much I sympathize with them in their grief. I have lost a friend, a model and a counsellor. The Prime Minister has no longer at his side the man who has so long been his loyal and faithful friend. He will miss the sound advice of the man who always supported him with his eloquent, sincere and ringing voice. In associating myself with his grief, I wish to tell him that we also will ever cherish the memory of the great Canadian who has departed.
Mr. Chairman, I entertain no illusion about the difficulty of the task I have undertaken this afternoon.
We are, with the rest of the world, passing through a terrible crisis. The world is divided into two thoroughly armed camps set on imposing on the universe their ideologies and opinions concerning methods of government. In our own country, we have to deal with a situation, as set out in the speech from the throne, which will upset, especially in my province, many of the opinions for which we have been struggling in past years. I wish to remain calm in the course of my remarks. The great respect I entertain for our adversaries precludes me from saying anything derogatory. I shall not forget, in the course of my speech, that I am a Canadian, living in a north American country which is a part of the British Commonwealth, a country with a population of 12 million inhabitants, that is less than 5 per cent of the total population of the allied countries waging war on ' the Axis. I repeat: I shall speak as a French-Canadian. We are members of a free parliament and we owe this freedom to British institutions; no one may prevent a representative of the people from expressing, with due respect for other peoples' opinions, his views with conviction or his opinions with sincerity.
I intend to speak on the war effort of Canada from 1937 to this day. I had the honour and pleasure of visiting England in October and November last. The impressions I gathered from this trip, I shall expound to you in English. Then, I shall review both the successes and reverses of the allies.
I shall dwell on the most important part of the speech from the throne, that which deals with the request of the government to be released of its promises and commitments in connection with the enlistment of our citizens for overseas service; I shall attempt to express the views at least of the French-Canadians I know and who have set their faith in me.
Canada, as well as all democratic countries, was and remains a peace-loving nation. Democracies do not prepare for war. This would be against the spirit of their institutions.

The debates during the session of 1937 are proof enough of the aversion of free and democratic peoples for any war of territorial or economic conquest. Only when their way of life and their liberty are endangered will they take the fatal step. In 1937, when it had become evident that a part of the world was endeavouring to apply military pressure to impose its ideologies and opinions on the world, the Canadian government asked parliament to increase its military appropriations by 35 million dollars; it succeeded in securing this amount only after a struggle of many weeks.
In 1938, after having witnessed the plundering of Austria, the seizure of parts of Czechoslovakia and the Munich drama, our population began to understand that danger was getting nearer and that it had become necessary to spend money for equipping our army if we wished to defend our own territory and our own lives.
And from 1937 to the fall of 1939, the government organized1 this country's defences. We entered this war at the outbreak of hostilities. Our defence estimates then amounted to no more than $64,500,000. To-day, there is no limit. The last budget called for an expenditure of $1,500,000,000 and the speech from the throne informed us that our war effort will grow still larger. There is but little criticism of the present war effort on the part of the people and I refer here to the province of Quebec. There is no criticism of our country's present war effort. If you take its population and its limited means into account, you will see that our war effort is comparable to that of any one of our allies. In a moment I shall refer to what Mr. Churchill said in this house, barely three weeks ago
We entered this war with France as an ally. Trusting Hitler's word and promises, believing that he would protect the rights of minorities, the small nations thought they were secure behind the ideas of neutrality which then prevailed in the world. Events have shown that this doctrine of neutrality cannot subsist in a modern world, organized as it is to-day. There are no neutral countries left. Still less so is Canada by reason of its situation, of its ideas and by reason of the love of freedom which actuates its people. The events of 1940 have shown that our former motherland was not prepared to enter this conflict, no more so, incidentally, than was England. France witnessed the invasion of its territory and the downfall of its government. It is not for me to discuss the motives of the French generals in disregarding the advice received at the time but I wish to repeat

The Address-Mr. Fournier (Hull)
to-day, unhappy France has all my admiration. I am French and of French ancestry. I hold a place in this parliament where Frenchmen must be respected and honoured, whatever opinion or opinions may be held or expressed about present-day France and, especially, about the Free French.
In the course of those events, we saw months go by while our war effort increased steadily.
Our army was composed of 4,500 men in 1939; to-day-I am speaking of the active army-it includes 250,000 men who enlisted voluntarily, and a large proportion of those volunteers come from the province of Quebec and from my city. There are 125,000 in England, in Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia, in the West Indies or in other parts of the world, and we have lost over 2.000 of them in Hong Kong. Our recruits continue to appear at the voluntary recruiting offices. And I admit that they are not always given encouragement by those who should extend the greatest measure of help and cooperation to the government.
Our air force was almost non-existent before the war. After the lapse of two years, we have had 100,000 men in one hundred air training schools maintained in this country. No nation in the world has an air training system like the training plan which is now carried out in our own country. That fact is stated over and over again even in Great Britain; we can hear a similar comment voiced in the United States. That training system is a model. Our airmen are to be found in every part of the world, and they are known for their bravery, their courage and their attainments. They also enlisted voluntarily.
Before the war our navy had only 1,800 men and scarcely fifteen ships. Today we have in the Canadian navy 28,000 men and over 300 ships. On every sea lane and over all the oceans are to be met Canadians who help Great Britain in the most useful way. But what I have just stated refers merely to the manpower supplied by us in the great conflict that is now raging. As regards our expenditure, it behooves me to quote some figures-I am not fond of them, but they are helpful for purposes of comparison. I shall have to quote some figures from official documents in order to show the expansion of our industrial and economic effort. Great changes have occurred in our national economy since the beginning of the war. Industry has taken a wonderful development and our commercial activity has constantly increased. National income also shows a huge increase. I know that figures are not very interesting. However, I feel that I am in duty bound to quote some. The
most recent figures show that industrial production in the first six months of 1941 has increased by 12-3 per cent as compared with the same period of the preceding year, while production of manufactured goods has increased by 11 per cent. The volume of business has increased by 12-9 per cent; mining production, by 2-2 per cent; exports, excluding gold movement, by 30-1 per cent, and imports, by 30-1 per cent. The total amount of building contracts awarded represents an increase of 71-8 per cent over the same period of last year. Car loadings have improved by 15 per cent and the gross earnings of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific have increased by 28-8 per cent. The employment index has risen by 21-2 per cent, while employment in the manufacturing industries has soared to a level 24-8 per cent higher. The national revenue has increased by 11-5 per cent.
It has been necessary for the Canadian government to help and finance private industries towards the equipment and expansion of plants and the purchase of materials. Our government, together with that of Great Britain, have guaranteed capital advances amounting to more than 520 million dollars. Twelve war industries are owned and operated by the government. Through the supply board, we buy and ship our agricultural products to Great Britain. Our most important exports are wheat, bacon and cheese, three products that are of first necessity for the overseas population. Our own people have decreased their domestic consumption of bacon by 25 per cent to enable the government to increase the quantities shipped. At the present moment almost all our Canadian plants are busy on war production. Many new factories have been built; others have been expanded. On September 30 last, the total value of war contracts awarded by the government through the Department of Munitions, amounted to $2,600,000,000. A large number of keels have been laid and the number of ships being built will increase as the necessary skilled workers become available.
To-day, we are producing guns, small arms, search-lights, munitions, aeroplanes, trucks and tanks.
Every month, every week, every day, we witness the growth of our war industries. Our efforts in this field will be limited only by the available supply of men and materials.
Our pre-war budget totalled $500,000,000. To-day it is five times higher and the speech from the throne indicates that our future expenditures will be still more important.



The Address-Mr. Fournier (Hull)
In our own country, rather harsh criticism is at times levelled at the government in connection with the war effort. I would like to read here certain excerpts taken, some from Mr. Churchill's speech, others from various sources, in order to ascertain the opinion of the British empire's chief on the Canadian war effort. Here is what Mr. Churchill said in his speech before this house concerning our war effort. I quote from the Ottawa Journal of December 31, 1941:
The contribution of Canada to the imperial war effort in troops, in ships, in aircraft, in food and in finance has been magnificent.
This statement was not made by a Canadian, but by the Prime Minister of Britain.
The Canadian army now stationed in Britain has chafed not to have been in contact with the enemy and I am here to tell you that it has stood and still stands in the key position to strike at the invader should he land upon our shores.
A little farther, in the same speech:
Sir, the Canadian government have imposed no limitation upon the use of the Canadian army, whether upon the continent of Europe or elsewhere ... at Hong Kong, Canadian soldiers of the Royal Rifles of Canada and the Winnipeg Grenadiers, under a brave officer whose loss we mourn, have played a valuable part in gaining precious days and have crowned with honour, with military honour, the reputation of their native land.
And still further:
Another major contribution made by Canada to the world war effort is the wonderful and gigantic empire training scheme for pilots for the royal and imperial air force.
Read further and this is what you will find:
I could, sir, speak also on the naval production of corvettes, and above all of the merchant ships, which is proceeding on a scale almost equal to the building of the United Kingdom; all of which Canada has set on foot. I could speak of many other activities; of tanks, of the special forms of modern high-velocity cannon; of the great supplies of raw materials and many other elements essential to our war effort, on which your labours are ceaselessly and tirelessly engaged.
These words were uttered by one of our allies, indeed, by the leader of our allies. Did he come here to flatter the people of Canada or to recognize the true extent of the effort we are making? I believe he is too sincere and too much interested in the maintenance of the British commonwealth to talk nonsense regarding our war effort. The criticism of our effort comes not from outside, but from inside and from a class of people who never feel at ease when they are out of power.
(Text) In October and November, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of visiting Great Britain on the invitation of the Empire Parliamentary Association. I wish to thank the

right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) most sincerely for designating me as a member of that delegation, which consisted of six members of the House of Commons- the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), leaders of their parties in this house; the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman), and three Liberal members, my neighbour the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght), and myself.
We spent three weeks in Britain. I may not tell you everything we saw during that trip, but I do wish to say a few words about the audience which was granted us by Their Majesties the King and Queen at Buckingham Palace. After touring Britain we were received by their majesties. For forty-five minutes we were in intimate conversation with them, and when we left we were under the charm of their simplicity, their naturalness and their interest in what was going on in our country. They spoke to us of their personal experiences; and as a French-Canadian I must state that nearly all the .time I was there Her Majesty the Queen spoke to me in French.
I recall that she mentioned her visits to Quebec, Montreal and Ottawa. She referred to her speech at the laying of the cornerstone of the Supreme Court building, in which she compared the laws of Scotland, her own country, to those of the province of Quebec. The last thing I remember about that meeting was the statement that after this war was over it would be a pleasure for them to come back and visit the Canadian people again, this time bringing the children.
We saw the damage that has been done to the cities over there. It is extensive, very extensive. We met the people going on with their ordinary work-grim, determined, ready to meet the foe. We saw something of the preparation that has been made for the defence of the island. We saw the conditions under which the people live, and what particularly struck me was the food situation. I may . not give the details, but perhaps we do not always remember that they are rationed over there, and rationed most severely. In our country we are just talking now about making sacrifices, about depriving ourselves of some luxuries, or perhaps some necessities. Well, over there they are living under a rationing system, and that is not the most pleasant or agreeable experience. The blackouts are terrible things. Perhaps I could stand not eating so much, but to be unable to go out after dark; to be closed in-in London, where I wanted to see everything-had a bad effect on my morale. I was surprised to find that

The Address-Mr. Fournier (Hull)
Englishmen were glad to endure the blackout, but they endure it because they were toldj and it is true, that it was good for the safety of all.
I came back from Britain with some impressions, the strongest of which was the love of king, flag and country shown by those people. They do not speak about aggression. They speak about preparing their own defences, right there. One cannot find anyone in Britain who has not uppermost in his mind the defence of the island. That was quite an example for Canadians, and especially French-Canadians. Loving one's country, being ready to sacrifice one's life and fortune to help the community as a whole-this, applied in my country and my province, Would be a great thing. In this country we may be of different races and religions, but we all believe in the freedom of British institutions. We believe, too, that in this parliament we may speak freely.
The second impression I gained was the tolerance shown by public men for each other. They criticize one another, of course, but one public man never doubts the loyalty of another. They do not impute motives; they do not doubt the sincerity of their opponents in public life.
Another point which struck me was their familiarity with the situation in Canada. That is why we read and hear from Britishers words of praise of our war effort. Lastly, I found that the history of French-Canadians and the people of Quebec is well known in Britain. They know exactly our past history. They know what we think of the British system. They know that we believe in their fair play. They know that in my province many people do not want to have our constitution amended in this parliament, but prefer going over the seas, where questions may be discussed far away from the seat of trouble. They know all those facts. Moreover, to my surprise, I did not attend one function where those sitting to my right and left did not speak to me in French. They insisted on doing so. I tried to speak English to them, but they always came back with French.
I reached England in the company of my good friend the' hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. He was born there, and upon arrival went home to see his own people. In our party also there was the hon. member for Brantford City, who travelled through Scotland, where the name of Macdonald is well known. Then there was the hon. member for Lethbridge, whose father was born in England, and the hon. member for Rosedale, who had been in England on many occasions. In the party was also the hon. member for Parry Sound who has made part of his fortune in Great Britain, through his appearances before
the privy council. These men seemed to know everybody over there, while I expected to be a stranger. After a few days, however, I saw that all these people were my friends, and I have come back to Canada with another opinion of the English-speaking people. Do not think that they showed us the things they did not want us to see. The trip was well organized; they told us what they wanted us to hear. But they did it so nicely that we came back elated with the trip.
What are the chief criticisms against the government with regard to Canada's war effort? I read the papers while in England, and I know the criticisms made over there, against their government. Sometimes I thought they were worse than the criticisms made against this government. But I say this: In this country, do not sneer at national unity. It is the greatest need of our time. People who do not believe in national unity are not working for the best interests of their country. Have hon. members ever visualized this country invaded by the foe? We have read the papers. We read a statement made two days ago by Mr. LaGuardia to the effect that air raids on coastal towns were imminent. Four ships have been sunk off the Atlantic coast of the United States. Two ships have been sunk off our own Canadian coast.
Why, we are in danger-imminent danger- if we believe what we read in the papers, and the statements made by people. I can think of some day when we may be fighting on our own soil against the foe. When that day comes, do you want a united country? Do you want the French and English peoples going forward hand in hand against the foe, or do you want machine guns pointed against one part of the population by the other part? Just think: if you are working in the interests of Canada, you work for national unity.
In a moment or two I shall revert to the French language, but before concluding my observations in English, I wish to state from my place in the House of Commons that the
3,500,000	French-Canadians in my province are asked to make one of the greatest sacrifices they have ever been called1 upon by their country to make. In the speech from the throne we are asked for national unity and we are asked to consent to releasing the government from its pledges made to the country in the last election. We are asked to say to the government: "If in your judgment necessity arises, you may be free of the promise you made to the people of this country"-one which was not contradicted even by our opponents-"that there would not be compulsory selective service for overseas."

The Address-Mr. Fournier (Hull)
So that there may be no misunderstanding among my English- or French-speaking friends, let me say that my stand in the house, in my own riding and in my province, is that I am supporting the policy of the government. I will say to the people of my province, "If you want national unity now, make this sacrifice." I do not know whether those who have spoken against the French-speaking people in Canada would make the same sacrifice.
Our second reason for favouring the new policy is that when we in our province become friendly with somebody we stick to him through thick and thin. In Quebec we have been supporting the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the last twenty years. Just look at the membership of the house and see where the largest number of his supporters come from. Well, we are going to see him through in this fight, and we are going to support him. We are going to ask our people to forget the past and to rely on the judgment and the patriotism of the man who is now leading the destinies of our country.
(Translation) Since the opening of hostilities, the postion of this country has certainly changed. At the beginnig we had on our side our powerful ally, France, which has since fallen by the wayside. We had with us all the small nations surrounding France-Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway-which, in spite of their policy of neutrality were invaded and conquered. For a time England had to carry on the war against Germany and Italy all alone with the support of the dominions and colonies. Until the 22nd of June, 1941, Great Britain's position, if not desperate, was at least extremely dangerous. Germany's attack upon Russia gave the British a few moments of respite. There was a let-up in bombing. Great Britain was able to develop her war industries, train her soldiers, manufacture munitions and prepare the defences which I saw myself when I was there in October and November last.
On the 7th of December last the war spread to the entire world. Without warning, Japan attacked American possessions in the Pacific. She also attacked Great Britain, and to-day, except for a few small nations, the whole world is at war. In what position do we find ourselves? A small nation of twelve million souls, we need allies in order to protect our lives, in order to ensure our survival on this north American continent. We need to make all the efforts and sacrifices which patriotism dictates.
I am aware that the speech from the throne contains a reversal of policy concerning which the people's representatives cannot lightly

adopt a definite position. I admit that in the minds of my colleagues from the province of Quebec various arguments may arise to justify their attitude one way or the other. Personally, I have adopted a position, and my chief reason is that I am in favour of the doctrine preached for so many years by the late leader of the French Canadians, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. He has appealed to us, from one end of the country to the other, to be united in the face of danger. He has pointed out to us the need of national unity if we wish to preserve our institutions, our religion and our language, because in the event of defeat all these privileges, all these rights would1 vanish.
I say to my colleagues from the province of Quebec that the teachings we have received from honest men, who for years have preached in my province'a certain doctrine, were given openly, sincerely and above-board. These men were not contradicted even in 1940, by our opponents from the other side of the house. Everyone was against conscription. The people voted as a whole against -conscription.
To-day the government is asking to be relieved from its commitments and promises.
The government requests a free hand, if this should become necessary, in order to be in a position to send some of our men abroad. They do not say that, to-day or to-morrow, conscription will be imposed on this country. They ask to be released of the obligation they had assumed and their present attitude is that of honest men. They have made promises. Now circumstances prevent, or will prevent their keeping them. They want to be released from them. They again appeal to the people who have placed them in power. If I am in this house, I owe it to the people, to those who supported my candidature in past elections. If the Prime Minister occupies his seat and represents the people to-day, he owes it to the members of this house and, ultimately, to the people. He has no wish to follow the advice of those who say: "Yours is the responsibility of establishing your government's policy. It is your duty, with no regard for the people, to pass a law of conscription." No, as an honest man, he says: "I shall again go to those who sent us to this house and ask them to be relieved of our promises." Circumstances have changed or may change later. We are in' peril, our country is in danger. I could adduce in support of this policy, the opinion of many people -from my -province. In the face of imminent danger, who will refuse to give his all for his country s salvation? I have said in English, and I now repeat, that I will support in this house as I will outside the house, in my constituency as anywhere in the province of Quebec, the government's request embodied in the speech from

The Address

Mr. Macdonald (Brantford)
the throne. I shall lose no friends. In remaining honest, one never loses one's supporters.
(Translation) I shall go back and tell my constituents: "You have repeatedly sent me to the House of Commons. I made a promise to you; I ask your leave to disregard it whenever the situation is deemed such that extreme measures become imperative. Please, therefore, grant us permission to enact the extreme measure which is requested." There is nothing illogical about my attitude. It is easily accountable.
Before closing, I must discuss an issue which I had long believed dead: that of union government. In the last few weeks, some people have been roaming about beseeching in Heaven's name for a voice in the government. They offer their services. They are eager to sit on ministerial benches but, at the same time, vehemently condemn all that the government has done to this day. They say: "You are mistaken." They use language that is far from parliamentary. Read this morning's papers. You will find in them such words as "cowardly," "dastardly," and "indignantly." And those are the men who would calmly lead the destinies of the nation. Their language denotes no self respect. How then can they claim to command the respect of the people?
In the province of Quebec, the idea of a union government is distasteful to us. The French Canadian people were never so unhappy since confederation as they were during 1917, 1918 and 1919.
At no time since, confederation have machine guns been trained on French Canadians, except under a union government. Never have bayonets threatened French Canadians as happened when, under a union government, some of them crossed the Interprovincial bridge in 1917 to voice their protest, at Ottawa. And can it be believed that we would support the movement in favour of a union government? Well, I pray Providence, I pray God that our country be spared that misfortune, and I ask, not only for myself but on behalf of the French Canadians that such a calamity should not befall us.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that in the course of my remarks I have not forgotten myself and used language which I might have to regret.
I have expressed my sincere opinion. The stand I have taken is that of a free man. I. believe that my attitude is logical and necessary if we Canadians of various extraction, creed and race, do not w'ish to suffer the fate of the European countries overrun by the Germans, and become the slaves of Hitler.


Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honour for me to be privileged to second the motion which has been moved so eloquently by my very dear friend and colleague the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), that an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, offering the humble thanks of this houce to his excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both houses of parliament. Would that I had sufficient knowledge of the French language to understand fully the hon. member's words. Unfortunately, we who understand but one language must be content only to listen with rapture to the music which always flows whenever French is spoken.
The honour which has come to me in seconding the address is in truth an honour to the great industrial city of Brantford which I represent. Brantford is famous for many things and more particularly for the fact that the telephone, which is the basic principle on which wireless and radio has since been developed, was invented in the city of Brantford. Doctor Graham Bell made his home on the banks of the noble Grand on the outskirts of our city, which is therefore aptly known as the "telephone city."
In days of peace Brantford, with a population of thirty-two thousand, made up mostly of loyal, honest, thrifty, law-abiding workingmen and women, was the fourth export city in this dominion. To-day, with commercial exports at a minimum, Brantford is sending to all the battlefields large quantities of armaments of all kinds, and I would particularly call the attention of hon. members to the fact that a very substantial percentage of the motor equipment used in the recent victorious campaign in Libya was manufactured by Brantford workingmen in Brantford factories.
Recently it was my privilege, along with my hon. friend the member for Hull, who has just spoken, the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght), the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman), the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), leader of the Social Credit group, to visit Great Britain at the invitation of the United Kingdom branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association. My very good companions, when we left Canada, were known to one another as little more than acquaintances; but after flying the ocean, after being in Britain and mingling with the British people, after being received by their gracious majesties and spending the greater part of an hour in easy conversation with them, and after
14	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford)
being in Portugal and visiting or flying over other foreign lands, we have established friendships with one another which will be as enduring as life itself.
Shortly after my return, to Canada I, along with every other Canadian, learned with deep regret of the passing of one of the most gifted and tolerant, broad-minded and understanding men who ever sat in this house, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. He loved Canada more than life itself and gave his very life for that great love. He in turn was loved by most and respected by all. He was proud to call himself a French-Canadian, and truly indeed might he be proud of that great race who now number almost one-third of our total population, who were the first settlers in this great dominion, and who during the wars of 1775 and 1812 gave of their very lifeblood in order to save Canada for the British crown. Ernest Lapointe loved peace, and with an enthusiasm born of conviction he joined with our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in giving leadership to Canada in order to secure peace for the world and to keep war from our shores.
Canada has contributed greatly to the forces which have kept war from our shores. The total number now serving in Canada's armed forces who have volunteered to serve anywhere in the defence of Canada has reached nearly 400,000. Actually more than 150,000 of these are now serving overseas. May I be permitted to make a comparison between this war and the last war? At no time during the last war did we have more than four divisions in France, which would total something less than 100,000 men, so that to-day we have more men outside Canada, trained and ready to serve, than we had in France at any time during the last war.
May I be permitted to make another comparison? I have stated that nearly 400,000 men are enrolled in the active army, the navy and the air force for service in any part of the world. There are some 360,000 in the active army and the air force, without counting the navy. I mention this figure because it affords a basis of comparison with the projected military effort of the United States. The United States Secretary of War has recently announced that it was planned to increase the strength of the United States army in 1942 up to 3,600,000 men. It should be remembered that the United States has no separate air force. The greater part of its fighting airmen are enrolled in the army air corps. In other words, Mr. Stimson's figure of
3,600,000	for the end of 1942 includes both the army strength and the greater part of the air strength planned for the United States

a year hence. This is only ten times the present strength of the Canadian Army and air force, although the population of the United States is almost twelve times the population of Canada. What does this mean? It means that so far as military and air strength goes, Canada actually has to-day a greater strength in proportion to its population than the United States expects to have at the beginning of 1943-and we are not stopping at the point which has been reached to-day.
I could carry the comparison a stage further. Canada has some 130,000 men already serving in the army outside Canada. We do not know how many Canadian airmen are overseas, but we know the numbers are reckoned in thousands. The present strength of the United States army and army air corps was given by Mr. Stimson at 1,700,000. In other words, in proportion to our population, we have as many men serving outside Canada to-day as the United States has altogether in its army and army air corps, and it should not be forgotten that the greater part of the United States army is still in the United States, and that much of it is in a less advanced stage of training than the Canadian Army

the Canadian Army which is still in Canada. It is perfectly natural that Canada, after more than two years of war, should be farther advanced than the United States after less than two months of war, but at the rate of progress Canada has made, and is still making, it is going to take a long time for the United States to overtake us.
These comparisons are made in no unfriendly spirit. Every Canadian welcomed the entry of the United States into the war. Every Canadian will welcome every increase in the armed strength of the United States. Every Canadian will be happy to see the day come when the effort of the United States is proportionate to Canada's effort. But those Canadians who, in an attempt to discredit the government of their own country, are ready to belittle the magnificent effort of Canada, should at least get their facts straight. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is about time that Canadians stopped belittling their own country, and began taking some pride in its military achievement.
When this war started, our air force consisted of very few aeroplanes and a small but valiant personnel. To-day the British commonwealth air training plan is an accomplished fact. There are ninety-two airports actually in operation, with an enlistment of over
100,000	men. What was originally a trickle of pilots has already developed into a great stream. Many of them are serving with the

The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford)
Royal Air Force, and in addition we shall shortly have in operation in England twenty-eight all-Canadian squadrons of our own air force. It is unnecessary for me to tell of the heroism and devotion to duty of these pilots, observers, air gunners, radio men and other aircrew, of whom many have already given their lives in the service of their country.
Our navy has grown from fifteen ships, with a personnel of 1,800, to approximately 350 ships with a personnel of 27,000, and these Canadian seamen on these Canadian ships have assisted in convoying more than 7,000 ships across the Atlantic carrying 42,500,000 tons of cargo to the British isles. Our navy is engaged in active operations against the enemy wherever he can be found upon the high seas. Unfortunately we have lost ships on account of enemy action, but in all encounters the Canadian navy has proven itself more than a match for the enemy, and that enemy now has the same respect for the white ensign which flies on the ships of the Royal Canadian Navy as it always had for that same ensign when it was flying on the ships of the British fleet.
At home our factories are working night and day, turning out great quantities of field guns, anti-aircraft guns and naval guns. Bren guns are being produced at the rate of thousands a month. Our shipyards are busy turning out combat ships and cargo ships. Our aircraft factories are to-day turning out fifteen different types of aircraft, while other factories are making tanks and motor vehicles of all kinds. It is impossible for me to mention our complete line of production, but I must not fail to state that one of our greatest achievements is the production of explosives of all kinds. Numerous arsenals costing millions of dollars have been built in Canada, and to-day are manufacturing a continuous supply of the most deadly explosives.
We have also made a great contribution from our farms. In spite of difficulties, farmers have been able to produce foodstuffs so urgently needed in Britain, and when the history of this war is -written it will be recorded that the farmers of Canada, in spite of great scarcity of labour and other difficulties, produced the food which fed the men who won the war. This contribution made by Canada to the allied cause has been, to use the words of the great Churchill, "magnificent". Some have suggested that we should be at the top of our production now. They forget that it takes years to start from nothing and attain the maximum of munition production. Winston Churchill himself, speaking on that subject in the British House of Commons, on December
2,	1941, stated, "first year, nothing at all, second year, very little, third year, quite a lot, fourth year, all you want."
Canada, when one considers that at the beginning of this war we had very few dies, tools, or blue prints, can scarcely be said to be beyond the second year. Nevertheless, instead of producing "very little" we are producing "quite a lot". Credit for that rapid expansion and that great accomplishment must be given to the ministers directly responsible, to their officers, to the many officials who head the various boards, together with their associates and subordinates, and to the executives, directors, and managers of our industrial plants; also, and more especially, to that great body of working men and women who have toiled long hours to make that production possible.
But without leadership all this would have been impossible. There is one man who has given this leadership, one man who has coordinated the activities of the various departments, one man who has kept Canada united. That man sits in parliament to-day. He is one whom I am proud to call my leader, and whom all Canadians, in this testing time of our history, are fortunate to be able to call our Prime Minister. History will record that, at the commencement of this war, he called parliament in the shortest possible time,' and in two days parliament, under his leadership, voted unanimously to march side by side with Britain in the defence of world freedom. Under his leadership this parliament passed the National Resources Mobilization Act, which placed all the wealth of Canada, human and material, at the disposal of the government. With a boldness required of a war-time leader he announced regulations which controlled industry and fixed prices, and thereby saved Canada from a disastrous era of inflation. On December 7, 1941, Japan treacherously1 attacked the United States. On that same day, before the United States or Great Britain had taken action, Canada asked His Majesty's approval of a proclamation declaring that a state of war existed between Canada and Japan. Throughout his public life the Prime Minister has advocated measures which would tend toward bringing about a feeling of friendship between our empire and the United States. Within the last few weeks he has seen the culmination of his efforts in the visit of a British Prime Minister from Westminster to the President of the United States at Washington.
With the entry of Japan into the war, new problems1 have arisen. We are fighting not only on the Atlantic but also on the Pacific. All the world is now involved in this war, and Canada is fighting for its very existence. We
16	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford)
are fighting beside the other freedom-loving democracies. We have a definite part to play in this struggle. We know that we cannot win without the proper equipment; man-power alone will not do.
Churchill has said, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." Our own Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen are now saying to us, "Give us the tools and we will help to finish the job." Our first task, therefore, is to turn out armaments of all kinds. Those armaments will to a large extent, for the time being, be sent to our gallant allies the great Russian people, who by their devotion and courage have taken a tremendous toll of the nazi liordes. More and more ships must be built, not only for our own defence, but also because our responsibility in the north Atlantic is to-day greater than ever before. It is obvious that unless the Atlantic passage is kept open, Canada will hot be in a position to bring her armies and air force to grips with the enemy.
I cannot stress too strongly the necessity of producing as many aircraft as possible, and training men to operate those aeroplanes. No battle in this war has yet been won without air superiority. Three factors contributed most to the successful evacuation from Dunkirk: The English channel was calm; the British people who manned the small ships, and the sailors and soldiers, showed undaunted courage; but had it not been for our temporary air superiority, all this would have been in vain. The allied powers are depending to a large extent upon Canada to bring about, through the commonwealth air training plan, permanent air superiority.
Britain, likewise, as I have already said, has cast a great responsibility on Canada to supply food not only for the forces but for all the millions of brave people on that island fortress.
In order to carry out our gigantic task, the total wealth of our country, that is everything we have-our wealth, our natural resources, our man-power and woman-power-must be mobilized as rapidly as can be accomplished, in an orderly fashion. We are already regulating industry, and are telling manufacturers what they may or may not make. We must now go one step further and organize our human resources so that each one, in so far as it is possible, will be placed where he or she can serve best. Those men who can contribute best to the defence of Canada in the factories must be kept in those factories. In many instances it will be found that women can replace men and that both men and women doing non-essential work can be transferred to industries working on essential war contracts.

Our farms must be worked to provide food for our people, our armed forces and our allies; and man-power and woman-power must be provided to produce these foodstuffs. All this will be controlled through complete mobilization.
In my earlier remarks I stated that most of our armaments must in large part, for the time being, go to equip our gallant allies. When, however, we are in full production we should have a surplus with which to equip our armies in Canada. Some have suggested that we immediately call up large numbers of men for our army. By large numbers I mean tens or twenties or hundreds of thousands, as has been suggested. That, in my opinion, would be fatal to our war effort. It would necessarily take men from war-equipment manufacturing plants and, if the men are to be trained, it would take equipment in which the allies now are so woefully weak. Manpower for our army is not now our most pressing need. It must be remembered that if no battle has been won without air superiority, no battle has been lost from a lack of men, but rather from a shortage of equipment. Canada's place to-day in the allied plan for victory is primarily the providing of mechanized equipment, ships properly manned, aeroplanes with trained crews and large quantities of food. Some may take exception to that statement and say that we now have the equipment; and, as the British Prime Minister has stated, the crisis of man-power and woman-power is at hand, and will dominate the year 1942. By that statement he did not mean that Britain would recruit larger armies but that more men and women will be needed for replacements and to turn out armaments. Here are his words:
The crisis of equipment is largely over and an ever-broadening flow is now assured. The crisis of man-power and woman-power is at hand and will dominate the year 1942. This crisis comes upon us for the following reasons: The great supply plants have largely been constructed; they are finished; they must be staffed, and they must be fully staffed. We must maintain the powerful mobile army we have created with so much pains both for home defence and foreign expedition. We must maintain our armies in the east and be prepared for a continuance and an extension of heavy fighting there. We must provide for the expansion of the air force in 1942 and the far greater expansion which it will take in 1943. We must face a continuous growth of the navy to man the great numbers of w'arships of all kinds coming steadily into service. We must provide modern equipment for the large armies which are being raised and trained in India.
Apart from our own needs, we must keep our engagements to send a substantial supply of tanks, aeroplanes and other war weapons or war commodities to Russia in order to help

The Address-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
make good the loss of munition making capacity which Russia has sustained by the German invasion. We have had also to forego very important supplies we had expected from the United States but which have now, with our consent, been diverted to Russia.
In 1940, this parliament passed the National Resources Mobilization Act. This act gave the government full power to conscript all the wealth of the country whether owned by individuals or companies. Therefore our government now has, what few people realize, full power to conscript wealth and send it in whatever form it is deemed advisable anywhere in order to defend Canada. Under that act, however, we cannot send our man-power beyond the shores of Canada unless they volunteer to go even if it is necessary to do so in order to defend Canada.
But events are happening very rapidly and to-morrow we may be living under entirely changed circumstances. Who can tell but that it may be imperative for the defence of Canada to send large forces of men to fight nazism wherever it may be found? Personally, I feel the government should be empowered to do so. This government, however, and every hon. member who supports it, and in fact most if not all members of this house, gave their solemn promise to the electorate that they would not require men under any circumstances to go beyond the shores of Canada unless they should go of their own free will and accord. Under nazism, the promise of a leader is nothing but a scrap of paper, but under our democratic system of government it is as binding as any bond under seal.
Some may argue that we should ignore our pledge given to the people and change the law without consultation with them. I greatly fear that such a course would result in tearing Canada asunder, and surely it is patent that we cannot fight one another at home and hope at the same time to defeat the enemy abroad. If the government, if hon. members themselves are to be released from their pledge, only the people themselves can do the releasing. We must trust the people or the people will not trust us. We shall have kept faith with the people, we shall accept the verdict of the people, and democracy, holding high its head, will drive nazism with its broken promises into the abyss of shame and defeat.
One more thought and I am through. During this session, as in the past, the Prime Minister will doubtless receive many suggestions as to how Canada can best contribute to the winning of the war. It will doubtless be suggested that we should form a national
government. It will doubtless be pointed out that Mr. Roosevelt has taken into his cabinet two republicans, Mr. Stimson and Mr. Knox, and is considering taking Mr. Wendell Willkie into his cabinet. Why should Mr. Roosevelt not take these men into his cabinet? For months before Mr. Stimson and Mr. Knox went into the cabinet they were openly opposed to all those who were objecting to the national defence policy of the president, and we all remember that immediately after the last election in the United States Mr. Wendell Willkie forgot partisanship and gave his full support to the president. If there are those, within or without this house, belonging to opposing parties, who would serve, let them follow the example of Mr. Wendell Willkie and give our Prime Minister the support which he so justly deserves. I cannot do better than admonish critics of this government to follow the example set by that great statesman, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who, while leader of the opposition during the last war, said:
Let us here and now sink passions, prejudices, vain and idle recriminations. Let us, when criticism is needed, criticize without bitterness, only by appeals to reason, and above all, let us bend our energies towards making Canada an effective factor in the struggle..
Mr. Speaker, let us be proud of our great country, of our leaders and of our people; and let each one of us, irrespective of party, creed or race, resolve that until this war is won we will support our leaders, support our workers and support our fighters, and that as individuals we will give unstintingly of our best to make Canada's mighty war effort mightier yet.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move the adjournment of the debate, may I offer my personal congratulations to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) for the manner in which they have acquitted themselves this afternoon. I expected good speeches from both of them. Both belong to the legal profession; both have had a long training in public speaking; both are leaders of the bar in their own communities; both have had long experience in this parliament. The manner of their performance this afternoon was in keeping with the training which they have both had over a long period of years. I offer them very sincerely my personal congratulations.
I was greatly interested in that part of the speech of the hon. member for Hull which I was able to follow. My regret is that I could

Petroleum and Naphtha Act

not follow his whole speech, because I have not sufficient familiarity with the French tongue to catch more than phrases here and there. I was especially interested in his references to his visit to England, and the impressions he formed of the British people. I should like to suggest to him that he could perform no more useful mission as a public man than to repeat in his own province and elsewhere in Canada a statement of the impressions . which he formed of the magnanimity of the British people. I commend that suggestion to him.
May I also say this to him, that the part of his speech in which he discarded his notes was the better part. I make the same suggestion to many hon. members of this house, and apply it also to myself: I pray that they throw away their manuscripts. If the hon. member for Hull had thrown away his notes his speech would have been a still better speech.
To the Prime Minister I especially commend that portion of these two speeches which was, to say the least, most flattering to himself. I say this in no spirit of satire at all. Surely those two speeches should commend themselves to the Prime Minister, and the reward should be, shall I say, a seat in the cabinet, or at least a judgeship, or at the very least a senatorship.
On motion of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) the debate was adjoumed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 4.50 p.m.
Monday, January 26, 1942