1942-02-03

CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT AUTHORIZATION OP PAYMENT OF $100,000 FOR THE YEAR ENDING JULY 1, 1942

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (for the Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Public Works on behalf of His Majesty to enter into an agreement to pay to the corporation of the city of Ottawa the sum of $100,000 for the year ending July 1, 1942.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at page 211 of Hansard, I asked a question which was perhaps not clear enough or was not well enough understood. It was about the "Committee For Total War." My question was: Is it possible to ascertain how many of the two hundred "Tailors of Tooley Street," Toronto, who signed that proclamation are qualified voters in South York? What I should like to know from the government is how many of these peacocks have a right to vote in South York. I think it is possible to know that.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): May I say to my hon. friend that I am afraid he will have to frame his question in different words if he wishes to have an answer, but I imagine, no matter in what words his question were expressed, that it would not be possible to secure the information.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance when the income tax forms for 1941 will be ready? Will they have to wait until the tax agreements with the provinces are signed?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: All I can do is to bring the question to the attention of my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson). The matter is in his department, not in the finance department.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister when we may expect a statement of government legislation for the session, inasmuch as there is no indication in the speech from the throne that any legislation will be brought down. 1 think he should tell the house as soon as possible what the legislative programme of the government is and, generally speaking, its nature and extent. I assume, of course, that there will be an appropriation bill, but what else will there be?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I shall endeavour to give my hon. friend a reply in due course.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 2, 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. J. G. TURGEON (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, will you permit me first of all, on rising to take part in this debate, to tell you that I am particularly nervous, not only because of the strain which naturally comes from the necessity or thought of making a speech, but also because of the stress which surrounds everyone who takes part in this debate owing to the bitterness which has

The Address-Mr. Turgeon
been aroused, not so much in this house but in the country at large, in connection with the subject matter of any speech made to-day by an hon. member on the motion to present an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to the speech from the throne.
It is my intention to deal frankly and bluntly with some of the questions at issue and with some of the agitation which is being aroused outside of this house.
First of all, however, may I deal with a more pleasing thing. May I join with other members who have spoken by paying a tribute to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) for the excellent addresses with which they opened this debate. I feel that they did better because of the experiences they had among the people of the British isles. It is too bad that it is not possible for every hon. member to do what these hon. members were able to do-visit Great Britain during this time of stress. I did not have the honour of hearing the mover and the seconder, but I read their speeches, and one who heard them or one who read them can tell that both hon. members spoke not only from their own points of view but also from that emotion which was aroused in them because of what they saw among the people of Great Britain. They found men and women like ourselves protecting their lives and their homes, and looking after their children-who after all are like our own children. May I leave this thought with the house and with certain sections of the people of Canada, that these hon. members found in the British isles a people who were not fighting for the spreading or for the maintenance and perpetuation of imperialism, but against the most ruthless expansion of imperialism that the world has ever seen. Neither we nor the people of the British isles are fighting for imperialism. We are defending ourselves against it. And the courage which has been shown by the people of Great Britain is precisely that quality which Doctor Johnson said was the first condition of virtue, because without it there can be no virtue. They were fighting, as some day we may have to fight, for home, for fireside, and for children.
To turn now to another matter, I have noticed lately, in spite of this demand for conscription, of which I shall speak later, that county councils and other organizations are demanding of this government that it stop taking men from agricultural communities into the armed forces of Canada. That demand has been made not only in the province of Quebec-which I mention because
it is on the lips of nearly everyone outside this chamber who has taken part in the discussion of this question-but also in Ontario and other parts of English-speaking Canada. In my own riding of Cariboo there is a shortage of farm labour. Our cattle men do not know how they will make their hay next fall. Our grain growers and our farmers who are dealing with ordinary agriculture are in exactly the same position. I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I feel that at a time such as we are now entering it is the duty of every member of parliament, not only to argue this matter and try to create public opinion, although that is a supreme task, but also to make his position clear so that the people whom we directly represent, and the people of all Canada whom also each one of us represents, shall have no doubt as to where we stand.
It is therefore my intention to state clearly at the outset, though probably I shall return to it later, that I have every intention of supporting the plebiscite proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I voted, when in uniform overseas, against conscription in 1917. I had not the faintest hesitation in voting against it, not because of conscription in itself, but because of the dastardly associations which surrounded it at that time. To-day I am not unmindful of the same associations that some people are trying to weave about it, but I am quite ready to trust this government, and, naturally, particularly the Prime Minister, in dealing with the various situations as they may arise. Again without hesitation, so that everybody will know where I stand, I say it is my intention, after this plebiscite is taken and the people vote favourably upon it, as I sincerely hope they will in every province of Canada, to support every measure of compulsory service-I am not afraid of the word "conscription"-that the Prime Minister and those who are surrounding him in government may think it necessary to bring to the people of Canada.
Wendell Willkie, speaking some time ago, said that democracy rises to its greatest heights at its worst moments. I am afraid that to-day we in Canada are entering upon one of the evil moments, if not the worst moment, of democracy. We talk of leadership.
I wonder if hon. members who speak of leadership every time they make a recommendation which is not accepted, realize that we are so formed that sometimes we recognize leadership only when leadership agrees with * our own opinions, and that we are inclined to say there is lack of leadership when a leader goes in a direction contrary to that in which we want him to go.
The Address-Mr. Turgeon

I intend to say something to-day about leadership, with particular reference to leadership at the present moment, having in mind among other things, naturally, this plebiscite and the leadership that is being given us so that from time to time we may be able to continue the total war effort which we have been making without arousing too many of those basic prejudices which of themselves, when brought to the surface, interfere with our full effort-leadership at the present moment, which after all merges so fast into the future. In speaking thus, one must not forget the immediate past, in spite of the fact that it has been streaming so swiftly by us that all of it to-day is obscured and most of it forgotten.
I remember something of the fateful session of September, 1939, which authorized this government to declare war on behalf of Canada against Germany. As I remember, we met on Thursday; we started the address on Friday, and we closed the house on Saturday by adopting the address, which gave authority to the Prime Minister to advise the crown to declare war on our behalf. I ask any member of this house to-day, who was in parliament then, if he will rise in his seat now and say that if the Prime Minister had suggested conscription at that time we could have finished that debate in time for the declaration of war by Canada on Sunday. There is not a member of this house who does not know that, if we had talked of conscription then,, that debate would have gone on interminably.
Speaking of leadership, I want to ask hon. members what would have been the position of Canada in the eyes of the world, if through lack of leadership the Prime Minister had permitted this country to pass that fateful week-end without the declaration of war. Talk about what is being said to-day! He would have been eternally damned, and he would have deserved it if he had allowed that to happen.
Continuing then with the question of leadership, I would ask you to let your minds go back again. There is without question one man who has captured the imagination of the world to a greater extent than any other man in history, whether in times of emergency or in times of peace. That man is Winston Churchill, the Prim^ Minister of Great Britain. But I ask you this. Next to the things that Winston Churchill has done for us, next to what he has done in the marvellous encouragement which he gave the people of Great Britain after Dunkirk, is there anything that was greater, as a means of helping Great Britain and ourselves in the conduct of the war, than the magnificent

material help supplied to us by the people of the United States through the leadership of President Roosevelt?
I think I am safe in saying that, next to what was done by Churchill, the help that was given us by the United States has been greatest. Now, where did our own Prime Minister come in? Unfortunately, and I say this deliberately, when you listen to some people speaking, when you read some of the newspapers of the day, with reference to the question of leadership, you have to wonder, as I have often wondered, whether some of them hate Adolf Hitler most, or Mackenzie King. I say that deliberately. There are groups of men in this country who are anxious for total war against Germany; but they are anxious for total war against Germany only to the extent that it will not interfere with their total war against Mackenzie King. That is one of the truths of the situation which it is necessary for somebody to bring to public notice-and you will note, I say it is one of the truths of the situation.
I was speaking of Churchill and Roosevelt, and I spoke of the past slipping away so rapidly from us that we are inclined to forget it. To-day we talk about the Atlantic charter, which came from the conference between Churchill and Roosevelt, and we take for granted that help which went to Britain through the lease-lend agreement before the United States was actually in the war in consequence of attack from Japan. What brought about these things? To-day, I venture to say, even m the minds of many hon. members, there is only at best a dim recollection of Ogdensburg, the historic meeting between our Prime Minister and the President of the United States, which took place in August 1940. From that meeting at Ogdensburg have flowed all the things for which to-day the people of the allied nations are thanking President Roosevelt and the people of the United States; and if it had not been for the leadership of our own Canadian Prime Minister, there would have been no Ogdensburg. The lease-lend agreement would never have become an accomplished fact, the meeting between Churchill and Roosevelt would not have taken place, the Atlantic charter would still be a dream of some of us, the aid that has gone since then to Russia would not have been sent. And every part of that is attributable to the man who sits here to-day as leader of this government.
I come from the province of British Columbia, and many who sit here know that in northern Alberta, in northern British Columbia and in the Yukon, there has been constructed a series of airports designed to protect

The Address-Mr. Turgeon
western Canada-both British Columbia and Alberta-against attack from Japan across Alaska or the waters surrounding Alaska, and the Yukon territory. I will say more about that later. But who in this house forgets that the hon. member who then occupied the seat of the Leader of the Opposition, as soon as war was declared, rose in his place, properly so, and asked for some protection against air attack or attack in any other form across Hudson bay. You do not hear much of that to-day. Why not? We have our airports in western Canada, constructed or largely under construction, to protect us from attack from the west. The reason you do not hear much demand to-day for further protection against attack across Hudson bay is that United States troops joined in the occupation of Iceland.
Again I ask you, if the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada had not given to the President and the people of the United States that inspiration which was the foundation of the leadership given us by that president, would there have been an occupation of Iceland by the troops of the United States? There is not a member of this house who will rise and say that he does not see a direct connection between Ogdensburg and the occupation of Iceland by United States soldiers.
There is nobody in this house or outside who will not see in the occupation of Iceland a direct connection with the winning of the battle of the Atlantic. Talk about leadership! What could have been better either for Great Britain or for Canada-and especially for us in Canada-than to save ourselves from defeat in the battle of the Atlantic? That perhaps has been the greatest thing that has yet been done since war was declared in September, 1939. And the saving of the battle of the Atlantic is traceable directly back to the meeting between the Canadian Prime Minister and the President of the United States at Ogdensburg; there is no doubt whatever about that.
I said, Mr. Speaker, I was going to support the plebiscite, and that I was prepared to accept whatever measure of compulsory service may be deemed necessary from time to time by our competent authorities, both civil and military. I spoke of our attitude towards leadership. I have made recommendations to this government which have not been carried out. But am I to rise up and say that because my recommendations were not accepted I am opposed to the government and do not believe in their leadership? What right have I to say that? Yet I have as much right-though none at all-as any other citizen of Canada or any hon. member of this house. But I should
be foolish if I thought every recommendation made by me must be accepted, otherwise I would consider it lack of leadership.
On the day on which Japan made her attack in the south Pacific I telegraphed the Prime Minister of Canada as follows:
As member of Commons House of Parliament I strongly recommend that Canadian government take all possible action against Japan through executive authority without awaiting special session of parliament. I also urge that your government take favourable action upon my previous recommendations, first that ministry for war be created and secondly that National Mobilization Act be extended to include military service in any part of western hemisphere and in Siberia and that further extensions be considered from time to time as circumstances warrant.
That recommendation has not been carried out, but I sincerely hope that in time it will be carried out. In the meantime I am accepting the leadership that says "the time has not come to accept your recommendations." I made that recommendation some considerable time before Japan entered the war; I wanted the National Resources Mobilization Act extended in that manner, first, because I thought it would be of general help, and secondly, because I could see, as every hon. member in this house could see, the coming of war with Japan.
We in British Columbia and those who come from Alberta-the people of these two provinces particularly-are in a dangerous position. I am not so much afraid of a direct attack, unless it be of a sporadic nature, against Vancouver and Esquimalt, as I am of positively planned attack across Alaska or over the Aleutian islands. If I may be permitted to bring to your attention, Sir, the geographic situation of the western coast of Canada, it will be seen that the Pacific coast does not run, as people generally in the east think it does, north and south, but northwesterly. The Yukon and Alaska are considerably west of Vancouver and Victoria, and just across the straits from Alaska are islands leading to the Asiatic mainland, Siberia and Manchukuo, and to Japan. Therefore I say it is our supreme duty to make it certain that we have every possible line of defence available for the Pacific coast.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: What about the military road?


James Gray Turgeon: I am coming to that. I have suggested-and I know this could not be carried out by us alone even if our own civil authority thought it wise-that Canada and the United States should thoroughly train and arm a large force of troops prepared to step into Siberia the moment Russia and Japan become entangled. Because I am

The Address-Mr. Turgeon

warning the government-I do not have to; for we are represented here by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) who naturally has given this same warning-I am warning them again that from the moment Russia and Japan become embroiled that moment will see Japan occupying bases in Siberia and Manchukuo, which are only minutes of time, not hours, distant from Alaska-the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Black) knows that-only an hour or two from northern British Columbia, and only four or five hours at the most from Edmonton and Prince George and Vancouver. Incidentally in 1939 when Japan was making her good-will flight to the United States the plane flew around over the town of Prince George, where there is now one of these protective airports, spoke by radio to the then airport, asked for directions and came right down over Cariboo country and across the city of Vancouver and on to her destination in the United States. That was the line they followed.
Now may I say a word about criticism. I read a speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) the other day. I have the quotation here but I do not need to turn it up. He criticized this government because we did not have an air force available immediately to take its stand on the Pacific ocean for the protection of British Columbia. The hon. member knows that we have not the air force ready.


Mr. GREEN:: The hon. member had better read my speech again, because I did not mention that.


James Gray Turgeon: We have not got it ready because every available airman and every available aeroplane has been dispatched to Great Britain, which in the conditions that then existed was the proper thing to do. No hon. member of this house will criticize the government for having done it. I do not want the people of British Columbia to be needlessly alarmed, and I am sorry for another statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver South, for whom I have-I do not need to tell him, but I am telling the house because of him-a very high personal regard. I refer to a statement about the command on the Pacific coast. I feel certain that our military chiefs know what they are doing, and I think if any hon. member of this house is doubtful of the capacity or the efficiency of any officer commanding it is his duty first to consult the higher military authorities in order to make certain that his doubts are correct before he help create panic among people who know they may soon be attacked

by public expressions of doubts about the capacity of the men in our military command.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James Gray Turgeon: Certainly,


Howard Charles Green: Does he believe in a triple command on the Pacific coast such as there is at the present time?


James Gray Turgeon: What I was talking about then was not what my friend said about the triple command but what he said about the man who is actually general officer commanding in chief on the Pacific. I can mention names; I was thinking of General Alexander, as the hon. member was.


Howard Charles Green: How does the hon. member know whom I was thinking of?


James Gray Turgeon: As far as the Pacific command is concerned-


Howard Charles Green: He should be supreme
commander, shouldn't he?


James Gray Turgeon: All right, but is the hon. member going to blame the military authorities in Canada if through the whole military world it is the custom that there is an army command, a naval command, and now an air force command? I am convinced that there should be a supreme commander. I have not discussed the matter with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), but I have an idea that he will deal with this question himself. Just the same I feel positive that every possible means of coordination has been carried out, so that when the general officer commanding the Pacific command gives an order, that order will be carried out by every branch of the armed forces. If that is not so, the minister will correct me when he dteals with the matter in this house.
A few moments ago someone asked me about the military aspect. Well, I have spoken of the danger of attack from the north and northwest, and of the airports that have been constructed in that part of the country. I am not a military man, but I feel that Prince Rupert should be made a joint naval base by the United States and Canada. It would be presumptuous for me to say that this must be done, but I believe it should be done. I believe that the projected road from Prince Rupert to Prince George should be built by this government immediately, without asking the provincial government to contribute one cent toward the cost. I believe that to be a military road, the cost of which should be borne by this government. I believe the airport at Prince George should be connected by road with the airport at Edmonton. Again,

The Address-Mr. Turgeon
speaking from a military rather than a peacetime point of view, I believe an alternative route should be constructed between Vancouver and Edmonton, taking advantage of what is called the Blue River highway; and I believe the whole line of airports north and east of the Rocky mountains should be connected by highway with Edmonton. Those are my recommendations to the government with regard to highway communication in that great northwestern area of Canada which, make no mistake about it, is apt to be attacked.
Thinking again in terms of conscription, and this plebiscite, I remember that in his very good speech a few days ago the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), speaking of Australia, at page 21 of Hansard for this year, used these words, with which I quite agree:
Every able-bodied man in Australia has been called to the colours. I pray to God that it is not too late. I am afraid that it may be; for how can these men be trained in time for the defence of their shores, men who have never had previous training?
Apparently my mind likes to go back to the immediate past, for when I heard those words I remembered when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), then Minister of National War Services, returned from England, where he saw devastation in the extreme. He spoke in this house, and again on the radio, demanding that more men be trained, and suggesting that industry should be able to carry on without insisting that its employees be exempt from such training. I remembered the uproar that followed. The leader of the opposition condemned the minister for making that statement, and other hon. members did the same thing. We were told that the minister was making threats against the patriotic captains of industry; that he was going to upset the whole industrial programme; that there was no need to train more men, but that the greater need was in industry itself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I never said anything of the sort.


James Gray Turgeon: Naturally I accept the hon. gentleman's word without question, but I should like to be quite clear. Is he saying that he offered no objection to the statement made by the then Minister of National War Services?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I criticized the statement of the Minister of National War Services, but on no occasion have I ever said that there was no necessity for trained men.
I have tried to hammer that into the minds of the Canadian public and of members of this house since the day I took my seat here.
44561-17$


James Gray Turgeon: I had in mind particularly what appeared in the Ottawa Journal, but the hon. member did denounce the minister at that time. My very good friend the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) had spoken of the matter before the leader of the opposition rose. The hon. member for Parkdale, if I might quote him from memory, said he was shocked1 at the statement made by the minister, and later the leader of the opposition rose in his place and joined in the condemnation of the then Minister of National War Services because of the statement he had made. There is no question about that; and now I say that the very newspapers which are condemning the Prime Minister to-day are those which a-short time ago said that industry should come first.
I have before me two resolutions passed by great organizations of returned soldiers. I refer to these organizations not only because they are great, not only because they both create and express public opinion, but also because throughout this time of stress, particularly during the period when we were working by means of voluntary effort, this country received its greatest support from the men who gave their services in the last war, and their dependents. It seems to be an instinct of nature that makes us love most that for which we have suffered most; perhaps that is why, since the beginning of this war, we have been given more assistance by the returned soldiers than by any other group of men or women in the country. One of the resolutions to which I referred was passed by the Canadian Legion, the other by the Army and Navy Veterans' Association in Canada. Perhaps I may be permitted to put on record first the resolution passed by the army and navy veterans,, because I happen to be a member of that organization. This resolution was passed at Toronto on December 1, which, it will be noted, was before this government announced its intention to hold a plebiscite on the question of compulsory service or conscription. Here is the final paragraph of the resolution:
Be it therefore resolved that the Army and Navy Veterans Association in Canada in dominion convention assembled places itself on record as being in favour of some form of compulsory selective service for all men between the ages of twenty-one and forty, such service to embrace not only the armed forces, but all branches of the war effort.
And be it further resolved that the government of Canada, through its Prime Minister, be advised of this resolution and be requested to institute some form of compulsory selective service, or in the alternative to obtain the opinion of the people of Canada on the matter by means of a plebiscite at the earliest opportunity.
The Address-Mr. Turgeon

Here is the recommendation of the Canadian Legion, or that part of it which is pertinent:
Canada should bring about the complete and scientific mobilization, organization and utilization of all our resources in such manner that our country may be geared to produce essential foods and munitions and to wage war to a maximum capacity.
I say without hesitation or doubt in my own mind that I am completely in favour of those two resolutions. I am completely in favour of them personally as a citizen of Canada. But as a member of parliament I cannot blind myself to the fact that if, as I pointed out a while ago, this government had previously indulged or were now to indulge in immediate conscription of men for overseas service, without dealing with other things, such action would retard rather than advance our war effort.
I see some of my hon. friends smiling, and I know what they are thinking about. I say with the greatest respect that naturally they are thinking, first, that I am wrong. They are thinking, as some of them have lately made themselves believe, that the taking of this plebiscite is the reason there is discord. The taking of the plebiscite is not the cause of the discord at all. The cause of the discord is the discontent, the terrible discontent, of those men who are making the agitation. I ask any hon. member if he is prepared to rise in his seat and say that a government motion to-day for conscription of men for overseas, without dealing with all the other things which are generally meant when you speak of the subject of wealth, would pass the house any quicker and with any less discussion or discord than it will take to pass the plebiscite against which they are objecting.
Every hon. member knows that a motion of that kind would smash this house. It would be discussed through amendment and subamendment for weeks and weeks, and perhaps would not pass at all. What about delay?


An hon. MEMBER:: Nonsense.


James Gray Turgeon: I hear some hon. member say it is nonsense. All right, let us see whether it is all nonsense. What about delay ?


Mr. MacINNIS:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he say that this house is opposed to the conscription of wealth?


James Gray Turgeon: I said nothing of the
kind. I referred to a motion to conscript men for service overseas without dealing with total conscription of wealth and other things that are associated with it. No hon. member over there will say that the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition means the total conscription of wealth.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The total
mobilization of wealth.


James Gray Turgeon: I will digress and say
this, that if the leader of the opposition will rise in his place and officially pledge his party to the total conscription of wealth-


Mr. STIRLING:: Nobody knows what it
means.


James Gray Turgeon: -the new leader who has been impressed upon them will withdraw. There is no question about that. There is no use fooling ourselves.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has
spoken forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


James Gray Turgeon: I thank the house for
the privilege. I shall not detain hon. members very long. I was going to speak of other things which in themselves are contentious, but since I have the unanimous consent of the house to continue with my closing observations I will leave all further contentious matter aside.
I was speaking about delay and discord. In connection with delay I was going to quote only one sentence from a speech made by the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen in 1925. This was the speech in which he made his famous suggestion that there should be no declaration of war without a general election. With the courtesy of the house, 'I should like to deal with that. He said:
This would contribute to the unity of our country in the months to come, and would enable us best to do our duty. It would not mean delay.
That was the sentence I wanted to leave with the house in that connection.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But that was taken out of its context. It was that the country should go on and make its preparation for defence, and the government of the day would stake its whole existence on the election.


James Gray Turgeon: You are right. But, thank God, the country is going on in waging the war, and the government of the day has staked its whole existence on the waging of the war.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a
plebiscite.


James Gray Turgeon: The Prime Minister has announced it. And the most that the plebiscite could possibly deal with is whether we are going to have conscription of everything for overseas service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Heads I
win, tails you lose-that is the plebiscite.

The Address-Mr. Perley


James Gray Turgeon: Mr. Speaker, I express my thanks to you, and through you to hon. members, for this courtesy which for the first time has been tendered to me. May I conclude with an expression of friendliness. We have been told that discord would follow from this plebiscite. Let me give hon. members a'little personal experience. The other day my old friend, the former chief government whip, the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray) spoke, and took a course quite different from mine. If any hon. member thinks that the friendship which exists between him and me is going to be impaired because of that difference of opinion in connection with the plebiscite, then that hon. member is foolishly wrong, because it is not.
In closing I should like to leave a simple message from the grave-and I give this not only to the people of Ontario and of other English-speaking parts of Canada, but also, and particularly, to the people of Quebec who, naturally, are ill at ease because of what might be done in connection with the further prosecution of the war. I was honoured and privileged to enjoy an hour and a half with Sir Wilfrid Laurier only six weeks before he died. He spoke of his approaching death, his passing to the land beyond, and as he spoke, tears welled in his eyes. We had been referring to the conscription issue of 1917, and to the men who had left the Liberal party and joined the Union government. He said to me, "Some of my colleagues are angry with me because I did not become bitter against those who left us." He continued, "Turgeon, I can speak to you; you are younger than I. There is no greater blessing in life than that of forgiving-not that of being forgiven." With that impetuosity which goes with lack of experience and lack of knowledge of fundamentals, I blurted out, "Sir Wilfrid, that is all right; it may apply to those who left us with sincerity; but it does not apply to those who left us from ulterior motives." He said, "Turgeon, do not forget that those who left us sincerely require no forgiveness, neither from you nor from me. If you wish to taste that which I tell you is the greatest joy in life, the act of forgiving, then there is nothing left but to forgive those who left us from what you are pleased to call ulterior motives."


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the mover and the seconder of the address have been congratulated and complimented so often that I do not believe it is necessary for me to deal with that point. Both hon. members were lawyers, and my only comment would be that they made out a very good case for a poor client.
We have just listened to an eloquent address by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon). The hon. member always holds the attention of the house, because he speaks so fervently in that language which is not his native tongue. To-day he excelled himself in the eulogies he showered upon his leader and upon the government. In the early part of his speech he made reference to total war, and said that many of those in Canada who were so anxious to put forth a total war effort-I have no doubt he was referring more particularly to the opposition, and to the public- were more anxious for total war on Mr. King than on total war against Hitler. I resent that. It ill becomes him or any other hon. member to question the loyalty of any Canadian, particularly of any hon. member of this house. I resent what he said in that connection.
The hon. member made special reference to the part the Prime Minister is playing in the war-bringing the United States into it, so to speak. He referred to the Ogdensburg agreement and to various measures passed by the United States government. You would almost think from his remarks that the Prime Minister of Canada was directing the war effort of the United States. I am just wondering what the President of the United States thinks of the latest action of this government in asking for a plebiscite to release the Prime Minister from certain of his pledges.
The hon. member also spoke of the battle of the Atlantic, and took credit to the Canadian government, in association with the United States, because that battle was going successfully in the matter of convoys and so forth. I wonder if the hon. gentleman ever heard of the British navy.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: And the Canadian navy. Don't leave that out.


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), true to form, is beginning his interruptions early in the game. He has not been here very often during this session, but I see he is here now, and perhaps he will be good enough to sit and listen.
The speech from the throne usually sets out the legislative programme of the government, but the speech on this occasion is remarkable in that it mentions a plebiscite which the government wishes to submit to the people in order that it may be released of certain election pledges. I shall not take time to read the reference; it has already been put on Hansard, but I say that this action on the part of the government is making Canada appear ridiculous not only in the sight of our own people but in the eyes of our allies.
The Address-Mr. Perley

I wish to refer briefly to the last session of parliament. It was a lengthy session and was devoted almost wholly to war measures and other government measures, and rightly so. Private members' days were taken away so that the private members had no opportunity to introduce resolutions and discussions upon them. I think at this session private members' days should be restored. There are about 230 members of the house outside of the cabinet, and if private members had the privilege of introducing resolutions and! discussions, many constructive and helpful suggestions would be made to the government. I hope that that will be taken into consideration.
I am sure there is no member of this house who desires to discredit Canada's war effort. We do not belittle it. Far from it. I am prepared to say that I think Canada's war effort has been very substantial in many respects, perhaps even greater than some of us expected. We have been passing through trying times, and I am going to give the government credit for what they have done. Some, however, think that still more can be done. We boast in Canada of the morale of our people. We are going about many of our affairs as usual, and I think we should take up the challenge which the Right Hon. Winston Churchill gave from the very floor of this house when he said that the morale of the people will not produce guns and tanks and planes. It is men who are required for that, and it is men we want. We are facing a crisis which challenges us all. In due course I shall make further reference to that.
Hon. members will recall that at the time parliament was dissolved1 in January, 1940, after one day's sitting, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had a majority of over one hundred in this house, and there was no need for any election at that time. But the Prime Minister plunged us into an election; he came back with the very substantial majority which he has at the present time, and now after twenty-two months in office he brings forth this plebiscite to be submitted to the people to release him from certain pledges he claims to have given to the Canadian people in the last election campaign.
As I said, the government has a very substantial majority in this house. We all know that the war situation has become very much graver in recent months. We believe, and I think the majority of the Canadian people believe, that this is no time for a plebiscite, in view of the crisis facing Canada and the world. It would have been more courageous for the government to bring in a

resolution for the complete mobilization of all our resources in finance, industry and manpower, and I venture to say that such a resolution would have the almost unanimous support of this house and of the people of this country.
I wonder what our soldiers overseas think about this plebiscite. From my own little town of Wolseley, with a population of 830, sixty-four of our boys have gone overseas, and I have an invitation card on my desk to all the boys from Wolseley overseas to get together at the Beaver Club on March 15 next. I wonder what those boys overseas will think of the action of this government in submitting a plebiscite to the people and what they would think of us if we supported the submitting of a plebiscite to release the Prime Minister of his pledges with no understanding of what he will do afterwards. Outside of the man-power available in Canada there are no forces to support our boys overseas. I think I know where they stand, and they know where I stood during the election. They know that I stood for complete mobilization of all our resources, in man-power, wealth and industry, in order to support our boys overseas no matter in which theatre of war they might be engaged. If we fail to do that, we are breaking faith with them.
I said a few moments ago that I wondered what the President of the United States thinks of this plebiscite. The President of the United States received a majority at the last election, after he had given a pledge in the election campaign that no United States troops would be sent outside of that country. But when the war with Japan came, did the President of the United States ask for a plebiscite to release him from the pledge he had given? What did Chamberlain do? What was his record following Munich? Did he think he had a birthright at stake, as our Prime Minister says he has? I think that was a childish reference. The Prime Minister said that he was being asked "to sell his birthright for a mess of their pottage", referring to the opposition to the plebiscite in the press and among the public. But Churchill and Chamberlain did not ask for a plebiscite-and there you have the difference between statesmen and a politician.
One of the reasons advanced for the plebiscite is that it will preserve unity in Canada. The position I take is this. Surely there is not an honest-to-God Canadian citizen who does not want to win this war, and if there is going to be any disunity, we had better see just where those people are. We should know about them.

The Address-Mr. Perley
It has been stated in this chamber, I think rightly, that from time to time both parties have made mistakes. We have heard much about the period of 1914-1918 and the conscription issue of 1917. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that is all under the bridge; we are dealing with the present situation. But in referring to that period mention has been made of certain charges to the effect that the government of that day was corrupt. I know that Right Hon. R. L. Borden "cleaned house" when there was corruption. I recall statements about old horses which were sold down in Nova Scotia, and so forth, but the Prime Minister of the day, as I have said, did a thorough housecleaning. I suggest that before hon. members on the government side make any more references to this subject, they start and clean house too; and if they want to know where to start, we over here can tell them of a few things.


Mr. McNIVEN:: Tell us now.


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes, we can do it now. I would hate to put on record some of the letters I have received and some of the things I have heard this session, even at this early stage. Something may be said about it a little later, and some of these things will come very near the bailiwick of the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven).


Donald Alexander McNiven: Let us have them now.


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon. member may get them before very long.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Let us have them now. No veiled references.


Georges Parent: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: A little later we may give you some. If the hon. member will sit quiet in his seat, we shall get along all right; he will have his opportunity a little later.
Referring to the demand for release from pledges, I can recall many pledges made by the Prime Minister. I remember his speeches following the convention in Winnipeg in 1919. He stated that he was in favour of lower tariffs; he went down to the maritimes with a promise of reduced tariffs and said he intended to carry it out. Did he do so? I have in mind a speech he made in 1926 undertaking to restore responsible government in Canada. Did he carry that out? In 1936 he pledged a greater battle against the moneyed interests. Has he carried that out?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, I am glad the hon. member is satisfied. A great majority of the people of Canada do not think he has. Also he made a statement that he would not declare war without asking parliament. Has he carried that out? I say he has not. And now it ill behooves him to come to this house, at this critical stage in the affairs of the war, with the request for a vote to release him from a pledge. He should come out with a courageous policy and he would receive the endorsation of all members of the house. We represent the people who sent us here; we keep in touch with our constituents; we know what is in their minds, and I venture to say that a vote of this house would be as good a criterion of public opinion as any plebiscite can show.
I might commend to the Prime Minister the memorandum, referred to by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher), presented by the Canadian Legion and the Navy League. I have a copy of it here. It contains some good and worthwhile suggestions. When they declare for all-out war they set out quite definitely what they mean. What they suggest is contained in the amendment to the present motion. It calls for the mobilization of all our resources of man-power, wealth and industry, for a complete war effort. I will not read the memorandum and recommendations of the Canadian Legion, but I recommend them to the notice of all hon. members; if they were followed, I do not think there would be any difficulty.
There must be some reason for the government asking this release or taking this plebiscite. Whatever the facts are, the government know them better than any of us. Why do they not give us the facts and let us discuss the matter here? The Prime Minister said in a statement that the conscription issue should be fought out on the floor of parliament. Why, then, does he not fight it out here? Every one of us is prepared to take the responsibility of doing what he considers to be his duty. I believe that if the subject were properly presented and discussed here it would be unnecessary to take any other vote.
Let me make a brief reference to the question of enlistments. If the rate of voluntary enlistments is not satisfactory we should know about it.


Mr. THORSON:: May I inform the hon. member that voluntary enlistments in the armed forces have been at the rate of almost
20,000	per month during the past seven months -that is, in the army, the air force, and the navy.
The Address-Mr. Perley


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about the army?


Mr. CASSELMAN:: How many were
coerced in?
* Mr. PERLEY: Will the minister say that the enlistments are satisfactory?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They have been, over this period of time.


Ernest Edward Perley: Satisfactory?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Quite satisfactory.


Ernest Edward Perley: Then why need the government be released from any pledge?


Mr. HOMUTH:: Why a plebiscite at all?


Ernest Edward Perley: I repeat, why, if everything is satisfactory, need the government be released from any pledge?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: They will decide in the light of what the future may hold.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said it is not satisfactory.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We were
13,000	down in a four-month period.


Ernest Edward Perley: I wish to mention the voluntary enlistments in the constituency I represent. I referred briefly to the matter in my own home town. In the constituency of Qu'Appelle we have a record of which we are proud. In the matter of enlistments our constituency stands about as high as any in Canada. We have no industry other than agriculture, and I want to pay a tribute to the farmers who allowed their sons to go- young men who enlisted early in this, game, before there was any thought of a plebiscite. The sons of the farmers in the Qu'Appelle riding have done nobly, and great credit is due them. But the supply of farm help is greatly depleted. There should be some selective scheme of service under which every farmer and every man in western Canada would be in a better position to carry on. Some farmers are now in a very critical position with regard to labour. What we want is equality of sacrifice. A great many of our boys are fighting for $1.30 a day, yet we know that in other parts of Canada young men are getting as high as $7 and $8 a day. There are some from our district who have gone east and got jobs at that rate of wages. Such conditions do not represent equality of service or sacrifice.

There are two fronts' on which we are fighting, the economic and the military. On the economic front we have achieved much. I am ready to give credit in that respect to the government. Great quantities of munitions, materials, guns and tanks have been produced. But I am not satisfied: with what has taken place with respect to agriculture. It is playing a very important part but not getting a square deal. The agriculturists of the west are as loyal as any class in the country. They have made a great contribution; they have done their part up to date, and they will continue to play their part in the winning of this war, but they want a fair and reasonable degree of consideration. Western wheat has played a very important part in maintaining the volume of Canada's exports. After the war, if it is saved, and it must be saved, agriculture will play a greater part than almost any other industry in the rehabilitation of Canada. That is one reason why we want a fair deal and equal sacrifice, so that we shall be able to carry on. We want a parity of prices with the products of other industries which the farmer has to buy in order to carry on his business. After twenty-two and a half months, I think we should have what I would term a food production board to give direction. Represented on that board should be farmers and others, who would direct in the production of different commodities.
The Prime Minister has stated, quite correctly, that the wheat surplus will prove to be a great asset in the winning of the war. While the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), may have had a policy in 1940 to reduce wheat acreage, growing less wheat in order to win the war, when he came back from Britain in 1941 his first pronouncement in Canada, and in the west particularly, was to the effect that all this wheat would be needed and that even much better prices than we were receiving then would be obtainable. Why therefore is there a change of policy now? Why not have prices on a parity with other prices in order to give the farmer a chance?
In the last two or three days we have seen in Ottawa a delegation from western Canada numbering 430 strong. They represented
185,000	signers of the petition. Why did they come to Ottawa? They represent the pool of western Canada and practically every other industry or interest in the country that depends on farming-the merchants, the boards of trade, the municipalities, from the standpoint of taxation, and so on. They are representative of various organizations, and I know that hon. members who attended the banquet given

The Address-Mr. Perley
last night in the parliamentary restaurant, and who saw that vast crowd, must have been impressed by their appearance. They are a splendid lot of men. The Prime Minister at least paid them that tribute. They came here because on former occasions when they have sent delegations-and they have done so many times-those delegations have not been properly received and have not been given the fair consideration which is due them. In order, therefore, to put their case squarely before the government and the parliament of Canada they decided to send this large delegation of 430. There is no reason why they should not come here.
Some people have been a little critical of the delegation; they have asked why they should come here and spend all that money. May I point out that taking the subscriptions at twenty-four cents each, that is not very much from each subscriber, and I think the trip was coming to these men. They will appreciate their experience here, even though I cannot say they will go home satisfied with the reception they got yesterday. The Minister of Agriculture more or less tore their brief to pieces, and possibly they will go home a little disappointed. They have not received all that they were asking for. But they were eminently fair in the brief they presented. I have it here but I will not read it. It contains a good many figures, and I am not going to quote figures to-day. I will only speak generally on this occasion, because on a future occasion I shall put the case of the western farmers fully before the house and bring forward such figures as are necessary to substantiate the arguments that I will then advance.
I cannot see why they should not get proper consideration. Their brief asks for a better price, a dollar a bushel. I do not think that is unreasonable. It asks that the 1942 crop be segregated and kept by itself on a quota basis, if you like. That is not unreasonable. It asks that the present surplus, beginning with the 1941 crop, be kept as a reserve following the conclusion of the war or when it may be needed later on-and we know it will be needed. We know what is happening in Russia, where the great wheat-growing plains are being devastated. We know what has happened to their machinery of production. Very shortly they will need this surplus wheat. I have never been concerned about a great surplus of wheat, because we have seen wheat pile up in Canada and then disappear almost over night.
I might refer to another brief presented to the government to show that western Canada is unanimous in the demand for a dollar or
better for wheat. We have from the Northwest Line Elevators association a demand for $1.02 net or a parity price of $122. It is interesting to me to read this brief and to know that it has been presented to the government, because I can recall this organization's attitude to the farmers of western Canada, especially during the period from 1930 to 1935, when they were not very favourable to us in our effort to boost wheat prices. We did not get very much support from them. It is interesting to note now that that organization is asking for a little more than the pool, through their representation, are demanding. I was wondering if there was any significance at all in the fact that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) has played an important part in that organization and is close to it now. I do hope the government will give consideration to at least one of these briefs and give the farmers a fair deal, a parity of prices.
In the brief presented by the pool organizations reference is made to Canada's national income and the fact that twenty per cent of the population of Canada is in the west, in the three prairie provinces, and receives only five per cent of that income. There is something wrong there, and their argument is sound. Many hon. members will forgive me if I make a personal reference to my own record, though the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) may resent it.
When I came to this house in 1930 I was imbued with one idea-that if with my wide experience in farming and also having been in the grain business for a number of years, I could not do something to help western Canada, and the farmers of western Canada particularly, my time would be wasted. Some of my time may have been wasted, but I have a clear conscience in this, that never have I failed to take advantage of every opportunity that has offered to put up a case for the western people. I regret that on many occasions I have failed to receive the support that I had expected when I sat for three sessions as the sole representative of the Conservative party from western Canada. Hardly a Liberal supported me, though Doctor Motherwell did. He supported suggestions I brought forward, and some of them were good, if I may be allowed to say' so. I am glad to say that that gentleman, with a great deal of experience in his favour, and having the welfare of Canada at heart, did see eye to eye with me. But in 1934 and 1935, when the wheat board act was being passed, I fought-I think I may use that word-to have certain clauses inserted. It

The Address-Mr. Perley

so happens that only one hon. member of this house was a member of the committee to which that bill was referred, the Minister of: National Defence (Mr. Ralston). I am sure hie would bear me out when I say that time after time I insisted that certain clauses be put into that bill, taking in coarse grains, providing for price-fixing by a board, and so on.
Again in 1936 hon. members know what happened when I moved certain resolutions. Again in 1938 I suggested the processing tax, suggested a long-term price of ninety cents, possibly a dollar a bushel. I was right then because it is proven now that had we had that we would have been in a much better position and it would not have cost the country as much as it has already.
I made representations from time to time for a reduction in freight rates. In 1940 I had a resolution on the order paper, a copy of which I hold in my hand, calling for at least 90-cent wheat and the processing tax. I have a resolution on the order paper now which I hope will be reached in due course, and at that time I shall give some figures to show that we should have consideration and have a parity price fixed not for one year

this fiddling with the price each year is no use, because a review of the history of the past and of the prices over a period of ten or fifteen years indicates clearly that we can have a price which is nearer parity than the present price.
The Minister of Agriculture, even in 1939, speaking in this house on May 5, on Bill No. 83, as reported at page 3647 of Hansard, quoted Professor Hope to prove that farmers should have an average price of 95 cents to give them a decent living. That 95 cents he agreed should be net to the farmer, which would be about $1.15 at Fort William. He has changed his mind somewhat since, but I have here a quotation showing that he agreed with Professor Hope when he said that the farmers in order to carry on and have a reasonably decent living should have 90 to 95 cents net on the farm. Conditions are worse now; there is even greater reason for it than there was then.
I have here a comparison of the cost of living on the farm and in the cities and towns, taken from the Economic Annalist. Taking 1913 as the base year, 147 items, products of industry that the farmer has to buy, stand now at 143. But wheat is 14 per cent less, at 50 cents, than it was that year taken as the base. To-day industry is working on cost

plus; we know what happened to labour, increased wages and a cost of living bonus; but the farmers are still expected to produce at less than cost.


John Gordon Ross: Is that the Searle Grain Index figure?


Ernest Edward Perley: No, the Economic Annalist of October. The Searle Index gives the 147 items which stand at 143. I have a number of figures here which I might put on record but I will not take the time. I suggest that the government consider adding a processing tax to a fair price; that they consider saving storage that they are paying to-day that they should not be paying to the grain companies, in terminals, annexes and in box cars-that is something I protested against; the average farmer in western Canada does not realize that he is paying for storage on a certain amount of his wheat in box cars; that they save interest by rebating the storage or making it possible for the farmers to store their grain on their own farms. What better asset could a farmer have than a thousand bushels of wheat in a bin secure on his own farm, on which he could realize sooner or later? It would be a splendid thing if the money paid by the government, some $20,000,000 for storage in other places, were to go back to the farmer. It would also result in a considerable saving in interest if the grain were stored on the farms rather than go to the market where it has to be paid for with consequent interest charge.
This is a national emergency, a national crisis that we are facing. This surplus will be needed, I am not worried about that. The government is financing purchases of food for Britain-cheese, bacon, butter, eggs, and so forth. I am not criticizing that at all, but I say they should go further and finance the purchase of wheat and deliver it to Britain at a fair price. That would be a splendid thing; it could come under that splendid offer made the other day by the Prime Minister to give a billion dollars or more to Great Britain.
I am going to support the amendment. It is far-reaching; it calls for complete mobilization of man-power, wealth, resources, industry and everything in Canada in order that we may have a complete war effort in any theatre of war. I trust, however, that the government will take into consideration the suggestions of the pool delegation. Their case was presented in a moderate way; they were fair and their representations deserve consideration. I believe the Minister of Agriculture is meeting with them now. In fact

The Address-Mr. Wright
he sent me a note just before I started to speak, saying he regretted he had to attend that meeting. Well, I regret it too, because I wish he had heard a few of the things I have had to say. However, relief assistance and marketing are two different problems and must be considered from different angles.
All we want is a long range policy which will give the farmers the security and parity of prices which will bring them into their own once again. I trust the government will be courageous. I trust that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) will make an announcement within the next few days-it would be splendid if they could make it while the delegation is here-to assure these men before they return to the west as to what is going to happen next spring, so that they can know what is to be the policy with respect to acreage reduction and what payments they will get for the 1942 crop, and so they can go home ready to prepare for the spring work with some heart. I hope they will get favourable consideration, and I think an announcement should be made at once.
I have a resolution on the order paper that I hope will be reached in due course. I shall then be glad to present figures to show that the case presented by the pools is fair and reasonable.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: I did not have the privilege of hearing the addresses of the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but from the many compliments which I have heard from all parts of the house I realize that they made their usual able contribution to the discussions of this parliament.
It is not my intention to-day to try to deal with the many problems which are opened up by the speech from the throne, but rather to confine my remarks to one or two which I believe to be of paramount importance at this time and which should be dealt with without delay if our war effort is not to be seriously impeded.
First I should like to deal with the matter of the plebiscite, and secondly to say something concerning agricultural production in this country as related to our war effort.
With regard to the plebiscite, in many of the speeches in this house I think there has been too much emotion and not enough appeal to reason. It seems to me that the less we raise sectional differences and strife in this country at this time, the better it is going to be for the country as a whole. I do not agree with the idea of a plebiscite. I think 44561-18*
this parliament was elected during war time to carry on this war to a successful conclusion. In my own constituency some of my best friends came to me after the last election and said they had voted against me and for the government because they believed in a strong government that could carry on the war effort. I wonder what they are thinking to-day. I believe if the Prime Minister had come to parliament, placed all the facts before it and asked to be released from the commitments which were made by hon. members on all sides with regard to conscription, this parliament would have given him that release and accepted the responsibility.
After all, when we were sent here to Ottawa we assumed certain responsibilities, and I think we should be prepared to carry them out. I believe the ordinary man on the street to-daj is saying, "What are those fellows doing down there? Why don't they get on with the job? That is what we sent them there to do." I believe the sooner we do that the better it will be for Canada. I freely admit that this would have been a serious responsibility to assume, but I think most of us would have been prepared to go back to our constituents and defend our action. That procedure could have been carried through very quickly and with a minimum of expense. Various estimates have been made as to what this plebiscite may cost. In my view the greatest expense will be the time and labour that will be involved. It is not the money itself but the effort, the wasted energy, which might be employed to better advantage at this time.
I should like to deal with the three suggestions before the house at the moment. The government say, "We have already mobilized wealth and industry in this country. We have conscripted men for home service, and now we are asking you to release us from our promise not to conscript men for overseas service." I have no patience with those who go round the country belittling our war effort. Let no one be mistaken; we in Canada have made and are making a very valuable contribution to the carrying on of this war. The statement made in this house by the Prime Minister proves that. But I do not think any hon. member can state honestly that we have made our maximum effort, that we have used every dollar, every man and every woman to the greatest possible extent. Only when we have done that can we say that we have a total war effort. The government have conscripted men for home service, but as yet they have not conscripted wealth or industry; they have merely organized them. It is true that we
The Address-Mr. Wright

have high taxation, but as yet that taxation is far from being confiscatory. I believe we should measure our taxation in this way: that we should take in taxes in this country all income which enables any person to employ, either directly or indirectly, the services of any man or woman to do for him something which he is physically able to do for himself. When that point is reached I think we will find a great reservoir of labour and money made available in this country.
Let us look at the distribution of the last war loan, as set forth by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). The total number of subscriptions was 968,259, and the amount subscribed $836,820,250. Subscriptions of $50 and $100 numbered 661,282, or 68-3 per cent of the total number of subscriptions. The amount subscribed in this way was $45,302,650, or 5'4 per cent of the total. Subscriptions of from $50 to $500 numbered 861,046, or 88-9 per cent of the total number. The amount subscribed in this way was $115,300,950, or 13-7 per cent of the total amount. In other words 68-3 per cent of the subscribers invested only 5-4 per cent of the total amount, while 88-9 per cent bought only 13-7 per cent of the total loan. In other words 11-1 per cent of the subscribers took S6-3 per cent of the total loan. This shows those who were able to subscribe to that war loan.
I wonder what the men serving in our army, navy and air force are going to say when they return to Canada and find this situation. Are they going to be satisfied, when the war is over, to find that a small percentage of the people of this country will be able to sit back, clip coupons, and through those coupons, demand the services of the men who fought to make those coupons worth the paper on which they were written?


Mr. McNEVIN:: If the hon. member would permit an interruption, I believe there is one point which should not be overlooked. Included in that smaller percentage of subscribers were several large insurance companies which invested the funds of a very large number of people.


Percy Ellis Wright: I quite agree, but even taking that into consideration I believe I am more than fair in saying that less than thirty per cent of those subscribing took more than seventy per cent of the last war loan.
I believe the sooner we in this house take a more realistic view of what is happening in Canada to-day, the less trouble we are likely to have in the post-war period. Only when we have conscription of accumulated wealth and industry, as well as of man-power, shall we have a total war effort. Let us take two

men who started out thirty years ago. The one man raised a family; the other did not. To-day we say to the man who has three sons, under our selective service system-and I believe in selective service-that his boys must serve where they can make their greatest contribution. To one we say, "You must serve in the army;" to another we say, "You must serve in the air force," and we allow the third to remain at home. What do we say to the man who did not raise a family and who, perhaps partly because of that fact and partly through fortuitous circumstances, was able to accumulate a certain amount of this world's goods? Do we say to him that he must give his money to the government? No; we institute expensive war loan drives and advertising campaigns to coax it out of him. This is entirely unnecessary. We should conscript wealth as well as the young men of the country. If we have compulsory service, it is necessary that we have compulsory interest-free loans, levied according to ability to subscribe.
Let us now consider the amendment moved by the Conservative opposition. It reads, in part:
This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have not seen fit to recommend to parliament without delay additional measures designed to
(a)	completely mobilize the wealth and material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man and woman power of the nation, to the end that the nation may wage total war in any theatre of war;
(b)	supply the imperative needs of agriculture, industry, and the fighting forces of the nation; and
(c)	prepare for the post-war period.
This sounds very good. I could support that amendment myself if I were sure just what is meant. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) stated the other day that the substance of the amendment and that of the amendment to the amendment moved by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation were practically the same. I am afraid he was not using his usual keen sense of perception, otherwise he would not have made that statement.
To begin with, to mobilize means to organize. To conscript means to control and to operate. There is a vast difference between organizing an industry to produce as efficiently as possible, but for a profit, and controlling and operating that industry to produce as efficiently as possible, without profit, and for the state. That is the difference between the amendment moved by the Conservative party and the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The hon. member for Lake Centre said the only difference was in the

The Address-Mr. Wright
method. As I said before, I do not agree with the method being used in connection with the plebiscite. I believe the question being asked is not a fair one. We believe that along with that question there should be another one, as outlined in our amendment.
First let us consider the mobilization of wealth and industry. The government states that it has already done that, and I have not heard one of the leaders of the Conservative party state publicly that he would go farther in that respect. In fact I have seen reports of speeches by Right Hon. Mr. Meighen in which he has stated that we have gone too far. The present leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has stated in the house that he believes the excess profits tax is as high as it should be at the present time. He objected to many aspects of the succession duties tax. Yet they do not believe that we have gone far enough in the mobilization or, should I say, regimentation of labour, and the conscription of man-power. With regard to the second and third proposals may I say that I am in entire agreement.
Let us now consider the amendment to the amendment moved by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. It states:
This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have used the sweeping powers conferred by the National Resources Mobilization Act mainly for the conscription of men for home defence, and in the opinion of this house no total effort adequate to meet the present needs of the war, domestic problems and the preparation for post-war conditions is possible without total mobilization of wealth, industry and finance, as well as human resources.
Therefore this house respectfully requests that the forthcoming plebiscite should seek the support of the people of Canada for the complete and effective conscription of war industries, accumulated wealth and financial institutions, at the same time and on the same basis of sacrifice as the suggested extension of the conscription of man-power.
There is no pussyfooting about that. We say, in effect, that we are realists. This is a total war, and the way to meet total war is by total effort. Let us put everything we have into the conflict-every dollar, every factory, every resource, every man and every woman, on an equal footing, at the same time and on the same basis of sacrifice, without hesitation and without quibbling. And when the war is over and victory won, let us start on an equal footing to build a better Canada, a better and saner world to live in. That is what the people of Canada want, and that is what the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation stands for.
We do not believe that when this war is over any individual or group of individuals, through holding accumulations of war bonds,
or by owning the factories and natural resources of this country, should be able to say to the people of Canada, "You must work for us. We own the tools with which you must work, the materials you must use. We control the tokens you must use to provide yourselves with the necessities of life. You must pay tribute to us."
For a short time I should like to deal with the matter of agriculture. Speaking in this debate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is reported to have said this, at page 34 of Hansard:
A vital aspect of Canada's war effort is our contribution to the food supply of Great Britain. This contribution has grown steadily in importance. Britain cannot feed herself, and her own great and growing armed forces. Still less can she feed the ever-increasing numbers of men we are sending from Canada to add to her armed strength. In the present war, unlike the last, her sources of food, on the continent of Europe have all been closed off by enemy occupation. Canada is the nearest source of food deft open. Without our food the people of Britain might starve. Without our food the Canadian army in Britain would be a handicap instead of a help. In a literal sense the very lives of the British people and our own armed forces overseas depend upon the exertions of Canadian farmers and fishermen. In prosecuting the war, theirs is no secondary role. As time goes on, the demands upon Canada for supplies of food for the allied forces and, later, for the peoples of the now subjugated countries are certain to increase.
I would call particular attention to these last two sentences:
I have mentioned food production separately because I doubt whether the country is fully aware of the vital importance of food regarded as a munition of war. Otherwise, it might well have been included as a phase of the productive aspect of our total effort.
Whose responsibility is it that it has not been included as a phase of the productive aspect of our total war effort? Whose responsibility is it that Canada is not aware of the vital importance of food, regarded as a munition of war? We have in the government a Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) who is in charge of publicity. If the country is not aware of the importance of food in our total war effort, then it is the responsibility of the government to make it aware of that fact. Knowing all the facts, why is it that the government has not made the production of food a phase of our total war effort?
Every hon. member who has been in Great Britain has stated that Great Britain needs all the concentrated foodstuffs we can produce. Nevertheless for the last two years the government has continued to treat agriculture as an industry of secondary importance. It has by economic pressure deprived agricul-
The Address-Mr. Wright

ture of its labour, and has increased the cost of the tools it must use to produce. We have not reached the maximum of our possible production in Canada, but I believe we have reached the limit of our present possible production, unless we are to supply either more labour or better tools with which the farmers may produce.
We have been asked for more dairy products. The only way in which we can have more dairy products is to pay a price for them which will enable the farmers to compete in the market for the available labour, and also to provide the necessary laboursaving devices. When the government wants more munitions, more guns, more aeroplanes, more tanks or more clothing, it assists the manufacturers to re-tool their plants and to produce those commodities as effectively and economically as possible. All agriculture asks is similar treatment.
During the past war there was a demand for wheat. Large areas in western Canada which never should have been broken up were put under cultivation. Farmers under the stimulus of increased prices bought equipment and assumed obligations which they could never fulfil. What guarantee has the farmer to-day that if he equips himself to produce dairy products, hogs and other requirements, he will not again be left holding the bag?
Industry has stated in no uncertain terms: If you want more plant or equipment than we can use in peace time, then the government must build it and we will operate it for you. This government and the British government have accordingly erected some 600 million dollars' worth of such plants. How much assistance has been given the farmer to construct new plant or equipment to produce food? How much, assistance is to be given him this year to see that he is able to procure Labour-saving machinery to replace the men going into the army and into industry? These are some of the questions the government must answer if they are to get greater production.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is asking the western farmer to grow more coarse grains. I will tell him -how he can get more coarse grains sown. Just guarantee to the farmer that he will receive the full cost of production, including depreciation, replacement and a fair return on capital investment. At the present time there is a maximum price on coarse grains but no minimum. Every farmer knows from sad experience over the past twenty-five years that if he grows a bumper crop of coarse grains this year and the speculative market is left open, the price

will go below the cost of production. What incentive, is there, then,	to increase
production?
If the government want greater production of coarse grains, all they have to do is to close the Winnipeg grain exchange, announce that the present maximum price will also be the minimum price and that the premium on malting barley will be increased to ten cents a bushel. If they do that, they will get greater production.
Last fall there was a demand for malting barley in the United States, and considerable quantities were being shipped. Then this government stopped the export, and immediately the price in this country dropped. The government stated that we needed for feeding purposes all the coarse grains we had in Canada. Anyone knows that wheat can be substituted for barley for feeding purposes, and we have plenty of wheat. The breweries are using large quantities of barley. They cannot substitute wheat. Did they bring pressure to bear on the government to stop the export so that they could: get cheaper barley? If there is a real shortage of barley for feeding purposes, would it not be better to use it to produce bacon for Britain rather than beer for ourselves? The speculative market, whatever may have been said in favour of it in peace time-and I do not think there was anything to be said in favour of it then-certainly in war time serves no good purpose. It only confuses and discourages the producer. We are told that the law of supply and demand controls our prices, but anyone who has followed prices in this country of agricultural products in particular knows quite well that that is not the situation. Let me give you an instance.
In July of last summer a neighbour of mine shipped two animals, a two-year-old heifer and a herd sire, to the Winnipeg market. For the heifer he received $8.25 per hundred pounds, and for the sire $6.50 per hundred. Six weeks later, another neighbour made a similar shipment. He received $8.20 per hundred pounds for the herd sire and S6.50 per hundred for the heifer. I am sure that the people of Canada had not changed' their eating habits during that short interval. The government to-day are the largest purchasers of a number of products, and the only basis there could be for assuming that the demand had changed would be that the government needed: more boloney to feed to the Canadian people through its propaganda department. How is the producer to know what are the requirements, with the market jumping in this manner?	.
We have had in Ottawa this week a large delegation from Saskatchewan to present to

the Address-Mr. Wright
the government what the farmers believe to be the just demands of western agriculture. Their demands have received the approval of the organized farmers in both Manitoba and Alberta and have been approved by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. They have also received the support of the towns and cities of the west. The requests of the farmers are moderate-the minimum, in their opinion, on which western agriculture can continue to produce. If the Prime Minister's statement, that food is needed and will be needed in increasing quantities, is correct, then I believe this government should see to it that necessary action is taken to give effect to their requests. I consider that there is something seriously wrong with our democracy when any section of this country finds it necessary to send such a delegation to Ottawa. Either we who represent them have failed to place their case fairly before the government, or the government, knowing the case, have refused to pay any heed to it. Surely the government knew of these conditions.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture both represent Saskatchewan constituencies. Last summer I attended in the Prime Minister's constituency a public meeting called for the purpose of protesting against the present price of wheat. The largest theatre in the city of Prince Albert could not hold the crowd, and hundreds stood on the street listening to the loud-speakers. The chairman of the board of trade, the mayor of the city, along with the reeves of the municipalities, stood on the platform and openly supported the demands which the present delegation are bringing to Ottawa. The farmers of Saskatchewan do not want to be paid treaty money; they want a price for their products that is equal to the cost of production. They would like to see the present Prairie Farm Assistance Act so amended that it will become a comprehensive crop insurance plan. After our experiences over the past twelve years in Saskatchewan, we realize that crop insurance must be a part of any plan for the rehabilitation of western Canada.
Three things I believe are essential if we are to get increased production: (1) a parity price;	(2) the labour situation must be
rectified, and (3) provision must be made for supplying up-to-date machinery and1 repairs at reasonable cost. If these things are done, I am sure that we can materially increase our present production of needed food.
First, as to the parity price, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture what formula was used in determining maximum prices for agricultural products. We know, according to the bureau of statistics, that over thirty-three
per cent of the population of Canada were engaged in agriculture in 1939 and that they received only eleven per cent of the national income that year. We also know that since the war our national income has probably doubled1, but agricultural income has not kept pace with this advance. Using as a base 100 in 1926, we find that grain products to-day stand at 57-9. Animal and dairy products have reached an approximate parity. There is certainly no equality in such a situation.
This government, instead of developing a balanced, equitable programme for agriculture during the war, has simply drifted along trying to deal with each separate situation as it arose. We have an agriculture committee of this house. The first time it was called together during the life of this parliament was when it was invited to the banquet of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture last Thursday. We enjoyed the banquet. We heard there a speech from Mr. Evans, chairman of the AAA farm programme in the United States, who outlined the comprehensive programme which they have adopted. They have been developing it for the last eight years. When war was declared last December, it found agriculture in the United States prepared to take its place in the war economy and do its full share on an equal basis with labour and industry. Agriculture in Canada asks similar treatment.
I would advise every hon. member who is interested in agriculture to-day to make a study of what they are doing in the United States. I am sure there are points in their programme which can be copied in Canada to our advantage. Their price is based on an equality with wages of labour and retail prices. In the United States to-day they have a guaranteed price of SI .17 a bushel for wheat, while they are able to buy their implements and tools of production at from fifteen to twenty-five per cent less than we can in Canada. They have an ever-normal granary programme whereby thirty per cent of the normal crop of non-perishable foods is kept in reserve. They have a land conservation programme and a comprehensive crop insurance plan.
Second, with regard to the labour situation in Canada, if we are to increase the present production of the foods we need for Great Britain, some form of selective service draft will have to be introduced immediately. I believe that we have drawn from the farms of Canada all the men that we can by our present methods without seriously affecting production. If it is essential that more be called, then we must make provision to replace them by other labour.
The Address-Mr. Wright

Now, just a word with regard to agricultural implements. Their price has for years been out of line with the price of agricultural products. The government have known this. It is ancient history. They appointed a commission, spent thousands of dollars, ascertained all the facts, and then took no action. I am not going to enter into a discussion of this matter this afternoon. I should like to point out a greater danger at this time. Last year it was becoming increasingly difficult for the farmers to get repairs for farm machinery. Unless the government see to it that companies make proper provision for this, I am afraid many of them may concentrate on the more lucrative production of war materials. Now is the time to take steps to prevent this. If we wait until the situation becomes acute next fall, it will be too late. I would ask the government to make the necessary investigations at once and to see that this situation does not develop.
I know the farmers of Canada; I have farmed in both eastern and western Canada. They are willing and anxious to do their share. They ask for no special privileges. They demand equality. Given that, they are prepared to make all the sacrifices which may be necessary to secure victory.


Mr. G. T. FULFORD (Leeds):: Like so many hon. members who have preceded me, I wish to take this opportunity of complimenting the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It is indeed fortunate that the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) are men of superior intelligence and modesty, otherwise I fear that enlarged heads might require new hats, at a time when we are asked to limit our purchases as much as possible.
It is my desire to-day to plead with this house for tolerance and a better understanding in this great dominion of ours. Often, however, in attempting to be tolerant, one becomes impatient of those who are intolerant. This I shall attempt to the utmost of my ability to avoid.
We must all strive to understand that each section of Canada has its own particular problems. We have one of the longest and, thank God, the most friendly boundaries of any nation in the world. But the very fact that we have such a long boundary, stretching well over three thousand miles from the Atlantic to the Pacific, means that we have more than ordinary problems to face. In the maritimes they have difficulties which are peculiar to those three provinces. Quebec has its own difficulties. Ontario has questions which are of vital importance to that province.

We know that the three prairie provinces find themselves in a dilemma to-day chiefly as a result of world conditions affecting wheat. We know also that British Columbia is facing great difficulties. It is therefore, during time of war, more important than ever that we try to understand each other, that we bury our differences, that we comprehend Canada not in a narrow sectional way but as a nation as a whole. In that way we can overcome once and for all, for the duration of the war and, I hope, for all time, sectionalism and distrust.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has consecrated his life to the task of unifying the dominion, and up to the immediate present no other man has succeeded to the same extent that he has. When he assumed office in 1921 Canada was disunited and resentful, but through his indefatigable perseverance a degree of unity was approached such as this country had never known. Some weeks ago I was telephoned by a member of the committee of two hundred which was meeting in Toronto at the time with the alleged object of advancing Canada's war effort. I was asked if I favoured the policies advocated by this committee. I said in reply that if what they were after was national selective service with complete mobilization of all our man-power and. resources, I was heartily behind them', but that if it was only conscription of men for overseas service, I was diametrically opposed to that. Unfortunately, as time goes on, the only issue which appears to be advanced is that of conscription for overseas service. It is being used as a smoke-screen to hide all other Canadian achievements and problems.
Some had high hopes that with the second coming of George McCullagh and his two hundred prophets a great deal might come out of Canada. I said "some", not all of us, because all too many of us remember his leaderless-I beg pardon, Mr. Speaker-his Leadership league and how it evaporated into the mists.
More recently another voice a few blocks away from the office of the Globe and Mail has been heard not only across Ontario but throughout the length and breadth of Canada. I refer to the premier of Ontario, who has on several previous occasions tried to split the Liberal party, but who to-day is trying new and far more sinister tactics and, with his uncalled for, unjustifiable and contemptible remarks, is in danger of splitting Canada. Well do I remember when he referred to Ontario as the milch cow for the rest of Canada. I wonder how the other eight provinces felt about that. As a citizen of Ontario I did not feel happy about the remark. I remember sitting in this house when he

The Address-Mr. Fuljord
scuttled the dominion-provincial conference on the Sirois report, a little over a year ago. Whether one believed in the recommendations of that report or not is beside the question; the fact remains that these delegates were asked to stay when the report was thrown out and discuss any problems of vital importance concerning each province in the dominion in relation to the dominion as a whole, and this same man who sets himself up on a pedestal in Ontario would have nothing to do with it. Instead of listening to reason and trying to contribute something to the conference, he caught the first train back to Toronto in a huff.
To-day we see him in Welland, and I shall quote a few remarks of his as published in the Ottawa Citizen of this morning, Tuesday, February 3, 1942. I quote:
The premier criticized the federal government for what he said was a "policy of appeasement in every critical issue before and since the war began", termed the calling of the plebiscite a "criminal act" of reneging on the government's commitments and declared "this government at Ottawa has been a sham government."
Compare that with the remarks made by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, probably one of the most outstanding men of to-day, leader of the British empire, when he said in this very house on December 30 last:
The contribution of Canada to the imperial war effort in troops, in ships, in aircraft, in food and in finance, has been magnificent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He was talking about the people of Canada, not the government.


George Taylor Fulford: But the government are
regulating the affairs of the people.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
people are supplying the money and brains.


George Taylor Fulford: The people would not
have had an opportunity to make this contribution had it not been for the policies of the government. Whose opinion are the people generally of Canada to take, that of a little man in Toronto who desires more power than his mental capacity is equal to, or the opinion of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Right Hon. Winston Churchill?
I wish to quote some more remarks of the premier of Ontario.
The calling of the plebiscite, Mr. Hepburn said, was the "crowning instance" of the federal government's appeasement policy. . . . Mr. King had attempted to appease the west as well, Mr. Hepburn said. "To appease the west we speculated in wheat and the wheat board announced the other day that we had lost nearly $80,000,000 on our speculations. Then we bonused the west to grow wheat and after that we bonused the west not to grow wheat."
Does that sound like a man who is trying in this time of crisis to unify the country- pitting one section against the other. Further:
"The trouble is that we've been loaded down with a policy of appeasement", the premier declared.
He referred also to appeasing the province of Quebec-another jab at another province. I do not believe that even Mr. Hepburn's most intimate friends and associates are in sympathy with the stand he is taking to-day. He has let his party down; but worse, far worse, he has let his province and his country down.
At the beginning of my remarks I pleaded for tolerance, but there is one thing that no tolerant person can overlook or forgive, namely, betrayal and treachery; and that is what we see in the premier of Ontario to-day. To those sitting opposite, I should like to offer a word of advice regarding this political chameleon. At present he professes to back the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen; but let me read what he had to say at the nomination meeting at a by-election in the provincial riding of Hastings East, in the village of Madoc, on Thursday, December 2, 1936. I have no doubt the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) will remember that day. I remember it because, when Mr. Hepburn rose to speak, bedlam was let loose. I have never heard so many people shouting so loud in so many different veins, some boos and some cheers, but always to a general confusion such as one seldom sees anywhere. Allow me to read what Mr. Hepburn thought of Mr. Meighen on that day. This is reported by the Canadian Press and comes from the files of the Montreal Gazette. It is dated: Madoc, December 2:
Premier Hepburn, speaking here to-day in a joint debate with Conservative leader Rowe, reiterated Liberal charges made in the 1934 Ontario general election about Senator Arthur Meighen dealing in Ontario Power Service Corporation bonds while a member of the hydro commission.
"Meighen had $300,000 of these bonds" said the premier. "He violated his oath of office. He bought $90,000 more."
The reference to Mr. Meighen was made in the course of a criticism of administration of Colonel George Drew, former Ontario Securities' Commissioner.
I want hon. members to get this tie-up:
"During Drew's administration of his office there was more graft and corruption practised in Toronto than ever before," the premier said. First act of Colonel Drew's successor, he added, was to oust 91 "high pressure" stock salesmen from a Toronto hotel.
Colonel Drew, Conservative campaign director, sat on the platform and heard the premier
The Address-Mr. Fuljord

repeat last night's challenge that he get any responsible mining men to endorse the Drew administration of the commissioner's office.
"I telephoned Mr. MeCrea (Charles McCrea, former Ontario mines minister) _ to-day and he declined to comment," the premier said. "His very silence is its own condemnation of Drew."
Mr. Hepburn charged $12,000,000 had been taken from the Ontario investing public because Colonel Drew failed to act on information placed before him in connection with investment trusts with which Mr. Meighen allegedly was associated.
"Western shareholders asked Ontario to investigate manipulations by the trust and made charges of fraud," Mr. Hepburn said. Attorney-General Price sent the file to Drew who was being paid $10,000 a year. He reprimanded the shareholders publicly and said the matter was not in his jurisdiction.
"After that Meighen met Price and you can't tell me Drew didn't have his ear to the keyhole. The Tories stick together in milking the public. These custodians of justice-Drew, Price and honest George Henry (former premier) got together. They said, 'What will we do for little Arthur? He's in a bad way'. And they decided to buy Ontario Power Service bonds. Meighen was on the hydro commission and the commission took over at $18,000,000 bonds which had a market value of $6,000,000.
"Meighen had $300,000 of these bonds. He violated his oath of office. He bought $90,000 more. He was reprimanded by Mr. Henry who himself was a participant in the worst swindle ever put over on the people of Ontario."
I understand that Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, Premier Hepburn and Colonel Drew are all to be on the same platform to-morrow night. Strange bed-fellows 1


Richard Burpee Hanson: You used to sleep with them, didn't you?


George Taylor Fulford: Yes, and I have regretted it ever since. I notice, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen to-day, Mr. Hepburn said he had hung his head in shame when the announcement of the plebiscite was made. I hang my head in shame when I think that I was the chairman of the meeting that chose Mitchell F. Hepburn to lead the Liberal party in Ontario. I further hang my head in shame to think that I was a member in the Ontario legislature for three years and four months suffering the indignities imposed upon the private members of that body by the dictator of Ontario. I believe that the people of not only Ontario, but of all Canada, of the other eight provinces that he has insulted time and time again, will realize, once and for all, the calibre of man that he really is, and stop listening to his silly palaver.
The remarks of Mr. Hepburn regarding our Prime Minister are beneath contempt and an insult to the intelligence of the electorate of Canada. The Prime Minister has been spoken of as a coward. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that no man is a coward who can

withstand the tirades and insults emanating from certain sources in Toronto. He has conscientiously and courageously withstood those taunts from that section, taunts that are unwarranted, unnecessary and unbelievable. When the voice of the people is heard through the plebiscite, those hysterical screams and screeches will be drowned for now and for all time.
No one in this house, or, for that matter, in Canada, can help being thrilled when he reads of Australia and the deeds of her soldiers, sailors and Royal Australian Air Force, many of the latter of whom were trained in Canada under the empire training plan. History will acclaim for all time the bravery of Australian soldiers in Libya, Greece, Crete, and, more recently, Singapore. The defiance by Australian sailors of the enemy throughout the seven seas, and the exploits of her airmen over Germany and the conquered nations of Europe, over Libya, Singapore and the Dutch East Indies, and over the Japanese and British mandated islands in the south Pacific have covered them with glory.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe has referred to the plebiscite as being un-British. But Australia had two referenda in the last war. I shall quote from Chambers' Encyclopedia the definitions of "plebiscite", "initiative" and "referendum":
A plebiscite is often used in Britain for an attempt to secure an expression of opinion on some special point of local interest by all the inhabitants of a district.
An initiative and referendum-the political institutions under which the people of a nation may initiate measures to be enacted by their own votes into laws.
The fundamental difference between the two is that a plebiscite allows a government to change acts or laws, whereas a referendum requires that the laws be changed'; but in principle they are very similar and in no sense can either be termed "un-British".
In this war Australia has no conscription for overseas service. South Africa has no conscription; India has no conscription, and the people of northern Ireland are just talking about it now. Is it not an insult to our sister dominions and other parts of the empire for us in this country to condemn the government of Canada for not introducing it here when it is not introduced generally elsewhere within the empire? Let us remember that every time a thrust is given this government, there is also given a thrust against the government of south Africa, northern Ireland, India and Australia.
Now that Australia's position is desperate, she is mobilizing her man-power up to the age of sixty for home defence.

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)
I should like to suggest that even before the plebiscite, Canada begin total mobilization of man-power and resources. I know that this is under consideration, and I have no doubt that before many months have passed, it will be brought before the public in concrete form. We have heard from several hon. members from British Columbia of the danger in which the west coast finds itself, and we know that German submarines are operating off the Atlantic seaboard. I believe that before the coming of summer even greater dangers will assail us from the powers of evil. We must be prepared for any emergency. We must even accelerate our industrial and agricultural production. But, above all, we must be ready to meet, to the extent of our capacity, any and all demands made on us by the empire and the United Nations.
The outposts of the United States have been struck; Singapore and our sister dominions of New Zealand and Australia are in grave peril, and our own seacoast may be and can be invaded. We must, therefore, be ready to strike and strike hard. But this we cannot do unless Canada is united as never before. Let us, therefore, back this plebiscite to the limit of our ability-and I appeal to all parties in this respect-to assure the Prime Minister and the government that the voters of our dominion are fully conscious of the gravity of the situation. The Prime Minister, his ministers and supporters, must be released from a pledge made before the subjagation of Europe by Germany, before the entry of Italy into the war, and before that most treacherous of all attacks made by Japan in this most gigantic and horrible of all wars.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Fulford). He made a wonderful speech; in fact I think he must have been taking lessons from the Prime Minister, because his speech was 99 per cent politics.
No matter where we go to-day all we hear is the plebiscite. We hear it on the streets, on trains, and everywhere else. I have been speaking to men in the navy, the air force, and the army, and that is all they are talking about. Many questions are being asked: Is the Prime Minister in earnest about this plebiscite? What will be done if the answer is yes; and what will be done if the answer is no? Will he go through with it, or will he just get the machinery for a plebiscite in shape and then, at the last moment, spring a general election? If he does that, the people of Canada will not only rebel; they will be
very much disappointed in the Prime Minister and the government. They want to know the reason for the delayed action. Why does the Prime Minister continue to play politics? Does he know something he is not telling the people? Will the plebiscite create unity or lunacy? That was asked me by a soldier. The other day I was speaking to a lady who has three sons in England. She said she did not think the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives and sweethearts of the men in the armed forces would appreciate the fact that here in Canada we shall be marking crosses on plebiscite ballots while crosses are being raised over the graves of those brave men who are fighting for us.
Instead of taking a plebiscite, I wonder whether it would not contribute more to the unity of Canada, about which we hear so much, if the government raised the pay of the armed forces to a level equal or nearly equal to that of the men and women in our munitions plants. If that were done, I believe, after talking to a number of men working in those plants and also talking to soldiers, that there would be absolutely no need to talk about conscription because all the men needed could be got without it. They would sign up to fight in Canada or anywhere in the world they might be needed. At the present time they get SI.30 a day, with S20 a month deducted for their wives or mothers. Then, if a man from my city, for instance, wants to go home on twenty-four hour leave, it costs him $5.50 to go from Ottawa to Peterborough. The other night I picked up two air force boys at Port Hope. They had paid $5.50 for a ticket from Ottawa, and there they were left stranded, thirty miles from Peterborough. The rate seems to be the same whether they go to Port Hope or Peterborough, and there they were left with thirty miles to walk. One of these air force boys said that if the government paid the soldiers more money, eventually the government would get it all back again. The soldiers spend their money on train fare, for one thing, and the government owns the railway. Every time they buy anything the government gets part of the money in taxes, and those taxes are pyramided, what with the corporation tax, the excess profits tax, the sales tax and everything else. Certainly that money would come back to the government not once 'but perhaps twice over. The munitions worker gets a bonus, but the pay of the soldier has not been raised. The men and girls in the munitions factories believe they are getting something extra by way of the bonus, but in reality their purchasing power is not increased at all.
276	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)
I have a little verse, written by a member of this house, dealing with the plebiscite. It reads:
Oh, Mr. Churchill, don't you fear,
Canada is voting again this year.
Voting for to fight the foe?
Oh, no, Mr. Churchill; just to spend the dough.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: From
what kindergarten did you get that?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The one down in Northumberland.


William Alexander Fraser: Well, you have been around there enough to learn something.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is perfectly true; I have been around Northumberland a great deal lately, and I hope to be there again soon.
One person suggested to me that if the plebiscite is to be taken, it should be held on April 1, because anyone voting on the plebiscite, whether they vote yes or no, would be fooled, because the answer they would never know. It has been said that, relatively speaking, the civil service is growing faster than the army. Most of those in the civil service have been given bonuses, but that is not the case with the soldiers.
I have been speaking of the soldier and his pay, but now I should like to mention the dependents of those in the armed forces. They should get a bonus also.


Mr. MARTIN:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Thank you for agreeing; I know many hon. members will agree with that. The government has allowed the' dependents of those holding the rank of warrant officer and under to obtain extra allowances if they have three or four children; the dependents of a soldier holding the rank of lieutenant or higher do not get it. That is right, perhaps, because the officers are receiving higher pay. One hon. gentleman says what they get is scandalous, but the soldiers get a scandalously lot less. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the dependents of our soldiers should receive this bonus. I believe the increase in soldiers' pay would take care of any shortage in men. The men already in the armed forces would know that we have not forgotten them, and the men who are enlisting would know that they had been treated fairly.
I hope the government will increase the pay, and also forget about this plebiscite.
I believe we should have complete mobilization of all our natural resources, both material and man-power. When I refer to material resources I have in mind what is commonly known as the conscription of wealth. But

by that I do not mean that the farmer should have his farm or his cattle taken away from him. I do not mean that the workers should have their homes taken away from them. Some farmers have homes, but they are mortgaged to the hilt. As I have said before in the house, the farmer is the forgotten man. I do not mean that the worker who has saved a few dollars should have those few dollars taken from him, as some hon. members to my left seem to think. He should be allowed to keep what he has.
When I refer to conscription of wealth I mean just that. We should use absolutely everything necessary to the winning of the war. If you and I have to do without an extra shirt, then we should do without it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That would be a small thing.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know that because of heavy taxation many hon. members have had to plan their lives much differently from last year, and if this year's budget is anything like what I expect, every hon. member will have to cut down to an even greater extent.
An hon. member to my left said to-day that any one who is employing a person for work he could do himself should fire that person. I would understand from that observation the hon. member meant that domestic help should be discharged. I believe that is practically what was said to my left this afternoon, and that is the meaning the people throughout the country will take. His statement meant that domestic help should go. I do not believe in that principle.


Mr. GILLIS:: The hon. member who is reputed to have made that statement is not at the moment in his place, but if the hon. member who is now addressing the house will read Hansard to-morrow, he will find that his interpretation of the statement made by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) is not correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a matter of opinion.


Clarence Gillis: The statement Wright made- and I was listening to him-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just a moment; I am making the speech.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member's statement is incorrect, and should be corrected. The hon. member for Melfort said that anyone who has some one working for him should let

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)
that person go, and do the work himself. The hon. member should stick to that statement, it seems to me. That is what was said.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am not going to have any hon. member contradict me on that, while I am talking.


Mr. HANSELL:: Read the statement.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: As soon as I get Hansard. I wish to say here and now that Canada has done wonderfully well in the production of munitions and supply.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: All right, all right. Men for the armed forces? -they have got them in the navy and in the air force. I will acknowledge that, and' I give due credit to the ministers of those departments. But at the same time those same ministers should allow criticism in the house. If they do not want criticism we should be permitted to have a secret session before which they could give us the facts, instead of keeping members of parliament in the dark.
One hon. member from British Columbia said yesterday that he was not allowed to go where Japanese were allowed to go. That is not fair, and hon. members have not been treated fairly by the government. Hon. members on the government side have not been treated fairly, either.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are not complaining.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
know; hon. members on the government side are afraid to say anything. They have a taskmaster who makes them behave and toe the mark, every time. The hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) had some views which he expressed-and then he made a speech at the opening of the session when he expressed views which were just the opposite. "Toe the mark"-I have not the words, and I do not think old Dan Webster ever had the words to express that sort of thing. I am not even going to try to.
Hon. members should not resent criticism, and the House of Commons is where it should be made. In the British house Winston Churchill said that he did not want to listen to any mealy-mouthed persons. I do not think we should have mealy-mouthed people in this chamber, either. We should have facts before us all the time. Politics got France
into a jam. Yes, it even got Norway into a jam, and it will get Canada into the soup if we don't watch out.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are in it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: One hon. member says we are in it now. That soup is boiling: watch out.
Resolutions have been passed across the country with respect to the plebiscite. I have one before me, addressed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) from the county council of Peterborough. It reads as follows:
The following is a copy of the resolution passed by the council of the county of Peterborough, November session, 1941, which I have been instructed to forward to you:
"Whereas Canadian agriculture is an essential war industry charged with the vastly increased responsibility of producing food for the people of Great Britain.
And whereas munitions industries have been attracting farm help to the cities, depleting the man-power of agriculture to the extent that many farms are now lying idle, causing a steady reduction in farm products.
And whereas the government of Canada assumes for the agricultural industry greater contracts for the supply of foodstuffs to Great Britain, a duty which farmers wish to fulfil to the utmost extent of their ability, but which they know cannot be accomplished under the present loss of farm help for military service and city employment.
Therefore be it resolved that this council petition the federal government to give immediate consideration to this agricultural problem, especially in stopping at once the drafting of necessary farm help for military service; that we favour the mobilization of man-power, so that the greatest use may be made of available labour; that foodstuffs be placed on a higher price in order that agriculture be placed on an equality with industry; and that agriculture be represented on any boards set up to deal with the matter of obtaining men for active service."
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



HONG KONG


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the house, if I may have its unanimous consent, I should like to make a statement with regard to an item which appeared in a Toronto morning newspaper this morning respecting the report of an address made by
Hong Kong

Reverend B. C. Eckert, of London, at Welland. It has to do with casualties at Hong Kong, and I feel that it makes a rather serious charge. But what I am more concerned with is that I am afraid it will have the effect of seriously adding to the distress of those who are waiting for news from Hong Kong. I should like to make a statement with regard to it.
I have noted the statements said to have been made by the Reverend B. C. Eckert, as published in a report in a Toronto paper this morning. The report reads as follows:
The initial address was made by Reverend B. C. Eckert of London, who charged the King government with deliberately withholding the Hong Kong casualty lists until after the February 9 by-elections.
Ottawa knows them, and more are buried in the blood-stained soil of Hong Kong than are in Japanese prison camps.
The statement made by this reverend gentleman at W elland, to the effect that information regarding casualty lists was being deliberately withheld until after the February 9 by-election, is absolutely false.
I can state that no casualty lists have been received respecting the Canadian expeditionary force at Hong Kong except those which have already been published by the press.
Regarding the statement which directly implies that the number of dead exceeds the number of prisoners of war, the government has no information which would afford foundation for any such statement In view of the distress which this statement will cause, I have thought it advisable to give the house the following circumstances: We pressed the embassy at Chungking for information regarding Canadian troops from the reporter, MacDougall, who was reported to have escaped, and received a reply that casualties were difficult to estimate, particularly due to the fact that communications had ceased with the Royal Rifles, and the message then said:
Guess but only guess one-third of fighting strength killed, wounded or taken prisoners during fighting, remainder presumably taken prisoners on capitulation.
I consulted with the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Power) who, as the house knows, is personally and very intimately interested in this Hong Kong expedition, and we considered that what was emphasized as [DOT] being a pure guess was not the sort of speculation which ought to be given to the public, at least without further efforts to get something reasonably definite and reliable.
Since then we have been straining every nerve to get further information, and what 
we finally got yesterday was another message which had been sent to the War Office. It
stated:
Casualties whole British force Hong Kong "very rough guess 4,000 killed and wounded."
I may say that we estimate that the whole British force would number nearly 12.000. You will note that this message was even less informative to us than the previous one since it made no reference to Canadians, and it was also emphasized as a very rough guess.
I again consulted with the Associate Minister of National Defence, and we decided that no good purpose could be served in making public such unsatisfactory and inconclusive reports. Neither of these statements gave any particulars whatever; there would be neither definiteness nor reliability in the statements; they would give no genuine information to Canadians and might needlessly increase the distress and anxiety which is now being endured.
Even in view of the statement by the reverend gentleman, I have hesitated to give these uninformative and possibly misleading reports. However, his statement means in effect that more than half the force were killed. What basis he has for this I cannot imagine. We have nothing whatever to indicate any such situation. The guesses to which I have referred certainly do not.
But after consultation with my colleague we have decided that a statement of this kind made by a clergyman would, if left unanswered, only add to the terrific burden which the friends of those who were in the Hong Kong expedition are now bearing, and that is why I am now giving the house the substance of the indefinite messages, guesses though they are.
Actually, I am afraid we have erred too much in the direction of giving information without confirmation. As a result of this, in one deplorable case a cable which appeared to show an officer as killed proved, on our receiving further word, to give good ground for belief that this conclusion was incorrect.
I deplore deeply the occasion which has made it seem advisable to give the wholly incomplete and unverified surmises contained in these messages. Only a desire to counteract as far as possible the additional distress which will have been caused by the statement made by the reverend gentleman would have led me and my colleague to change the considered view which we arrived at that we were not justified in publishing these guesses without verification and where they might only increase needlessly the anxiety which we all share.

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to thank the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) for his frank statement with respect to Hong Kong. I think it will clear up a lot of misunderstanding.
When the house rose at six o'clock I had just finished reading a letter from the county council of Peterborough in which mention was made of the mobilization of man-power. There should certainly be a check-up of our man-power throughout the whole country to ascertain just who are doing their bit, and who are not doing their bit but want to do it. Some of these latter have applied for work at a good many plants but have been turned down on the ground that they are not young enough. They are as old as I am, perhaps a little older, fifty years of age and older. These men want to help, and women of that age also want to help, but they are turned down because they are too old. Something should be done to put these people in places where they can help.
Places should also be found for men who have been thrown out of work because the jobs which they have held for years are now no more-automobile salesmen, for instance, tire salesmen and salesmen in other lines which have been absolutely cut out. They should be placed in positions. They should not have to go hunting for them. The government should find places for them in industrial plants or elsewhere. There should be a thorough organization of all our man-power and woman-power in Canada so that each can be put in his or her proper place.
Last Sunday a man came to see me. He usually employs fifteen people, but at the present time he has only five employees, including his wife, daughter and thirteen-year-old son, who help him run his 'business. He is carrying on and will carry on. He has one son in the air force and another likely to join. There are many of these people who are willing to carry on, and there are some who could have had good jobs but find them taken by people who are not naturalized. Quite a number of people in Canada who are not naturalized hold well-paid jobs. Mobilize
man-power for the munition plants and for the farms and pay a decent wage to the soldier, and we shall have not only an army, but the supplies to keep that army going.
I noticed in the paper the other day that the dairy farmers in Ontario are organizing. The cheese producers have already organized; we have an Ontario federation of agriculture; and I sincerely hope that before long there will come into existence a real farm organization from one end of Canada to the other, taking in all lines of agricultural products. Let dairymen, cheese producers, hog and cattle raisers and farmers unite in one big union, as the factory workers have done, and so get their rights. One farmer said to me, "The trouble with the farmer is that he does not stay mad long enough to make the politicians think. All he gets are promises." / Agriculture at the present time all over Canada needs a new set-up, with a new scale of prices. There should be a new wage scale for labour on farms, because the farmer does not work just eight hours a day; his day begins at five or earlier and ends when he is through, which is generally not before eight or nine o'clock at night, while his returns are much smaller than those of the man in the factory.
Personally I believe that this plebiscite is the government's baby. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should know if we need conscription. He should know if we do not need conscription. If we need it, why the plebiscite; and if we don't need it, why the plebiscite? The "baby", or the decision, is the government's. Does the Prime Minister know just how to look after this baby?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: How could he? He is a bachelor.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If he is a bachelor, why should he ask the public to play nursemaid to this baby? During the last few w'eeks I have received hundreds of letters with reference to the plebiscite. Only three were not opposed to it, and each of the writers said, "Why talk against having a plebiscite, because the government will have it no matter if fifty, sixty or a hundred voices are raised against it in the house; they will do as they dashed well please."


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why not! You have 180-odd members-[DOT]


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mostly odd.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Speak for yourself.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They can put through anything they want. Why not do it by one more order in council?
280	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)
Because I believe it would require a good tabulating machine to calculate how many orders in council the government have put through, and I doubt whether there is any minister who could tell you what is in half of them.
I should like to read the following extract from one letter I received:
Yesterday I overheard an elderly widowed lady, who has a son overseas, discussing the plebiscite, and she wept bitterly because of the unequal sacrifice she is enduring under the present situation and the needless delay in obtaining needed reserves of man-power.
The views expressed here are not only my own but are held by the majority in my circle of friends and acquaintances, who represent both major political parties. You have my support in opposing the taking of this plebiscite.
The writer is a well known business man in the city of Peterborough.
Many hon. members have mentioned during this debate the cost of taking this plebiscite, but it did not really come home to me until last Saturday, when a schoolteacher in my riding asked me these questions. First of all, she said, "How can I ask the children of my class to buy war savings certificates? They have been buying them every week since the campaign started; and now the government is to spend some millions on a plebiscite. How many bombers could be built with the money which this plebiscite is going to cost? How many tanks would this money buy? How many armoured units would this money equip? How many guns for the Pacific coast would it provide? How far towards building the Pacific coast highway would it go?" She asked also, "How many candy bars will the children have to do without in order to pay for this plebiscite? What extra taxes will the already tax-burdened people of Canada have to shoulder in order to provide for it? And how are the children of Canada going to feel about this?" I say, how are we all going to feel about it?
I have seen in the different military camps young ladies in uniform, and I am pleased that the government has at last recognized women in the service. It has taken them a long while to wake up, and I hope they will remain alive to the importance of this branch of service, because the women can help. One suggestion I have to make concerns munitions factories. I believe that in each of these factories there should be a woman in charge of interviewing the women applicants and checking on them. I believe that this would lead not only to an increase in the number of applicants but would attract some whom one would never get otherwise. There is a reason for this, which I cannot explain in the house, though I should be glad to do so to
[Mr G. K. Fraser.]
the Minister of Labour at some time. There is a definite need of having women in the factories to interview women applicants.
The other day the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) spoke about the proposed highway from the United States border to Alaska. I am glad he did, because I mentioned it some time ago in the house. It is a subject which interests me, partly because I have travelled on south American, central American and all United States of America coast highways, and I have studied the project as far as it affects the other end of the highway. The hon. member for Macleod is anxious, of course, that the highway shall pass through Edmonton. Personally I should like to see it go through Peterborough, but I know that is out of the question.


Mr. ROWE:: Not very much out of the way!


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, it is a long way out of the way. For military purposes, which is a main object of the road, you should have a highway which, though not too far from the coast, will be far enough to prevent its being wrecked by gun-fire; which can be a feeder for the different airports, and which can be used by the United States government as well as by the government of Canada. I mention this road because at the present time the government has available labour to build it. I refer to the Japanese in British Columbia. They can do the work. We do not want one Japanese in Ontario for the logging camps or for anything else, because if they got in here, they would find that Ontario is such a beautiful country they would want to stay here. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) told us that he has seventy-five per cent of them in his riding-


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: No, I didn't.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: -and I do not think he wants them any longer. Nor do we in Ontario want them. They should ;be put to work and kept under the eye of the police. They could do the rockcutting and other digging on that roadway. At the present time the government, I know, cannot secure machinery to build a road. The road machinery is all engaged in the building of airports in Canada and the United States, and I do not believe there is any machinery available at the present time. I say we do not want the Japanese in Ontario. One reason is that we already have enough people coming into the province from outside and taking jobs without having any more.

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Peterborough)


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: They would hot stay in Ontario anyway.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, it is the most beautiful province of Canada, and we do not want .them. The Japs should be taken from the Pacific coast at once. I know that an order in council has been passed for the purpose, but I do not know whether it has been acted upon. The other day I asked a question with regard to radio transmitting sets, cameras and firearms. I wanted to know whether they had been taken away from the Japs. I doubt whether even to-day this has been done. I know that the day I mentioned it, Thursday, January 29, it had not. I wonder what would happen to us if we were in Japan. Would we be allowed cameras, transmitting sets and radios? We would be lucky if we had a coat to cover us and enough food to eat.
A military road built at the present time would be of service not only to-day but after the war. Its construction would help to take care of soldiers returning from the war, because there would be work for them. A road built now would be a purely military road, with no fancy trimmings, and it would eventually become one of the tourist highways of the world. It.would draw tourists not only from the United States, but from central and south America as well, and if hon. members have studied the road maps of those countries, they will know what is being done there. There is only one spot, in Ecuador, and another in the Panama section, that are really stickers. In the Panama section there is a stretch of 300 miles not built yet, and only one white man has ever made the continuous trip through it; but it can and will be straddled. That road would open up all the natural resources of the country.
The other day I asked the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) whether he could name one man who had reaped a fortune out of this war, and he said, "any coupon-clipper who to-day reaps profits out of this war." The hon. gentleman sitting directly in front of him then said, "saboteur".
I do not think that any man or woman clipping dominion government war bonds is a saboteur. Many of these bonds are bought by widows and soldiers' wives.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes; they are bought by widows and soldiers' wives.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Many.
An. hon. MEMBER: How many?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Ask the government how many. They are bought by widows and soldiers' wives.


An hon. MEMBER:: There are eleven of them.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Eleven what?


An hon. MEMBER:: Eleven widows.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: These widows should be praised for buying war bonds and certificates instead of being ridiculed by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, and I say that because some of these women helped their husbands to save when they were alive, amassing what to them seems a fortune, perhaps $1,000-and all they get from clipping coupons is $30. Yet they are called saboteurs because they clip coupons worth $30; whereas hon. members to my left get that much in a day and a half in government indemnities, as members sitting in the house, though the other day for an hour and a half there was not one Cooperative Commonwealth Federation member in the house. These people will wonder why the government has asked them to buy war bonds and certificates when a member of this house says they are saboteurs.


Georges Parent: I must point out to hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor may not be interrupted without his consent.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: We don't mind it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: These people will wonder what's what; but knowing that it comes from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, as an hon. member in front of me suggests, we pay no attention to it, and I hope the widows and orphans will not. The party to my left pretend to stand up for the man who is down and out. Do . they? I do not think there is a man in this house who knows more about the working people, the men who are down and out, than I do-and many others are in the same boat. They go among these people in their ridings and try to help, and they do not relish such criticism from any hon. member.
In closing, I sincerely hope that the government will forget the plebiscite and get down to business and constructive work. In fact I would say, have a secret session so that we can all get together.
2S2
The Address-Mr. Fair


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: It seems to be customary in this house for a member who rises to speak to compliment first of all the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and then for those on the opposing side to break his nose or black his eyes or to do something of that kind. I am not going to do that to-night. I reserve the right to break noses if necessary, but I am not extending compliments in that direction. I should like, however, to compliment the hon. member behind me, the member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka). I am not competent to pass judgment on the subject matter of the address he gave, but his presentation was excellent. As regards the people on whose behalf he spoke, I have only the highest commendation to offer, having lived among them and worked with them since coming to this country a number of years ago. I found them to be hard workers, people who have been doing their share to build up the country, and who have been playing their part in the effort to defeat the enemy overseas.
Let me now refer to the old age pensioners. We have heard a good deal in the past in this house and on the street, and we have read in the press, about the condition of our old age pensioners. The question was dealt with by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) on November 14 last. After giving a number of reasons why the government could not do anything for these people, either by way of a bonus or by an increase in their monthly pensions, he went on to say, as reported at page 4429 of Hansard of that date:
Indeed the government is prepared to consider going further than this. It believes that, for the reasons already outlined, it would be impossible to justify an increase in the maximum rate of pension payable if the whole cost were to be assumed by the dominion, and that such cases as appear to present immediate difficulties can be met by the provinces on the basis of established individual need. If, nevertheless, all, or substantially all the provinces should make representations to the dominion government in favour of some increase in the maximum amount of pension payable, the additional cost to be shared between the dominion and the provinces on the same basis as the present cost, I can assure the committee that the government will be prepared to give consideration to such representations.
I do not think it would be very hard for any of us, if we were inclined that way, to find reasons why old age pensioners should be given a cost of living bonus, or a permanent increase in the rate of pension. This legislation I believe went into effect away back in 1927. At that time the cost of living index stood at about 120; to-day it is close to 116;
[Mr G. K. Fraser.]
and the minister gives this as one reason why they are not entitled to a cost of living bonus. I would point out that in arriving at the cost of living index, quite a large number of items are taken into consideration, whereas in the old age pensioners' buying of supplies a very limited number are involved, and we find that the price of those goods which are purchased by old age pensioners has increased much more than the average
Then, again, I would say to the minister that if he wants to find excuses for giving something to the old age pensioners, he might look over the living allowance paid to some of our dollar-a-year men. That runs anywhere from $10 to $15 or, in some instances, more a day. Then, again, we find that others who are on very large salaries get up to $35 a day living allowance. That has happened in the past. Surely something along that line, although not that much, could be done for the old age pensioners. Some of our judges who give service for a certain number of years and are pensioned off get pensions ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 a year. This means that they have a pension of from $13.70 up to as high as $27.40 a day, and we were told not very long ago that this cannot be reduced. Perhaps that is because we have so many lawyers in parliament.
There is another group of pensioners, I would call them, not very far from here; I do not know what their qualifications are for their positions, but they are on the pension list. It is not called an old age pension or relief list, but they get a pension of almost $11 a day for life as well as other things that cost the country quite a lot of money. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) could take some of these matters into consideration when again dealing with the question of cost of living bonus or increased pensions for old age pensioners.
I consider that this government and governments that have been in office in past years are responsible for the condition of many old age pensioners to-day, because these governments have passed and supported legislation which permitted exploiters in Canada to take advantage of and legally rob these people who to-day find themselves in need of old age pensions. Therefore I am of opinion it is now the duty of the government to take care of them in at least a reasonable manner.
In connection with that part of his statement in which the minister said that if all or a substantial number of the provinces want to do something about it, the government will give it consideration, I believe a start along this line has already been made by Alberta

The Address-Mr. Fair
and British Columbia; and I hope the other provinces will see that a start is made in the very near future and that this government will give it the consideration to which it is entitled.
We go on to another group of Canadians who, I believe, are also entitled to a cost of living bonus. I refer to our teachers all across the dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We have been told in the past that teachers are working for very low salaries, and that condition still exists to-day. I do not know whether hon. members all realize that we are entrusting the training and education of our children to these teachers for the greater part of the day during at least five days a week. We expect the teacher to live and dress respectably and when setting their rate of salary, seldom think of the many other duties for which the teacher is made responsible. In order to bring them up to the same level as some of our industrialists and civil servants who to-day are receiving a cost of living bonus-about which I am not complaining-I think we should at least extend the same privilege to the teacher.
The provincial governments are having quite a hard time at present to pay the cost of education, so I suggest that the dominion make a grant to each province in order that they can pay a cost of living bonus to the teachers. The teacher's position to-day, I believe hon. members will realize, is not any better than that of a great number of civil servants, and not as good as that of many common labourers in industry at the present time.
There is another group that I might mention. There are many people employed in the smaller stores. In the larger establishments I understand the help receive a cost of living bonus, but in the smaller stores, where only a few are employed, the cost of living bonus is not paid, or at least it is not compulsory. But if we look around we find that employees of all stores buy on practically the same market, so that if those employed by the large firms are entitled to the bonus, why not ' those in the smaller stores?
Then there is another group that I believe is also entitled to a cost of living bonus. This group comprises about one-third of the population of Canada. I refer now to the farmers. I am wondering whether some people believe that the farmers are entitled to a cost of living bonus. I remember when I came here first in 1936, we were told by someone who perhaps knew better, that the majority of farmers went to California or some other better climate in the winter, that each family had two or three cars, and a number of other such silly statements.
An hon. MEMBER; He must have been a Liberal.


Robert Fair: The gentleman to whom I have reference did not sit very far from here at that time. He is not in the house now, and I hope he is happier than many of us here to-day are. Taking farmers and their families as a whole, I think the delegation that came here from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba is a very fair sample of the average farmer of the west-and, I believe, the east as well. I think you will not find any of them lying around the streets drunk. I have not seen any. You do not find them wearing expensive clothes or doing anything that a respectable citizen of Canada should not do. Many compliments have been paid as to the calibre of these farmers and their wives. I believe they are entitled to great consideration at this time.
In the cities and towns we find that the man usually makes the living, while his wife looks after the home. That is so on some farms, but in many instances we find that the wife and children must get out and work so that the family may eat, pay their taxes and retain their home. Many of those farm homes are not as good as they should be; that is true in a large percentage of the cases. Some people on farms seem satisfied to do with less, and they are expected to do with less than people in the towns and cities. Why this should be so, I cannot understand, because, after all, farming is the basic industry of this country, and if you took away our farming, you would take away the lifeblood of the whole country.
Dealing with the question of wheat, we find that away back in 1935 the initial payment was 87| cents a bushel, basis No. 1 northern at Fort William, with participation certificates. That figure remained unchanged in 1936, with the restriction that the farmers could not use the wheat board unless the price of wheat fell below 90 cents a bushel. The same condition existed in 1937. In 1938, however, for some reason or another, the price was reduced to 80 cents a bushel. Perhaps the farmers were getting a little too prosperous; perhaps they were painting their homes, or something. Whatever the reason, the initial payment was reduced to 80 cents. In 1939 the first legislation brought in cut down the price to 60 cents a bushel; but after a great deal of controversy, with many speeches made in this house, over the radio and at meetings throughout the country, that was increased to 70 cents a bushel. At the same time there was introduced in this house the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which provided for a bonus if the crop was less than twelve bushels to the acre and the year was declared by the government to be an
The Address

Mr. Fair

emergency year. That policy was continued in 1940, but that year we had the additional payment of storage on wheat kept on the farm. In 1941 the same situation continued, except that the storage applied only to that undelivered portion of the quota which was held on the farm. In that year we also had regulations brought down under which farmers were encouraged to cut down their wheat acreage, and those doing so were given a bonus called the wheat acreage reduction bonus. I am not going into that to-night, but only a couple of months ago another bonus was announced. People call it by different names; I call it a general relief bonus, and I believe it was paid because the government felt so guilty. They must have felt guilty for a number of years past, but this year, because farm income was so low, they gave another general relief bonus to all farmers, grain growers, stock raisers or anything else.
This, it seems to me, is an open, frank admission by the government that their agricultural policy is not one on which Canada can live. I do not know of any body that should realize the plight of agriculture better than the government, and now they come along with another little hand-out to keep us dragging on a little longer. I would point out, however, that the latest bonus of 75 cents an acre, even with the other two bonuses to which I have referred, will not solve our wheat problem. There are two distinct problems. In the first place, the man who has no crop at all will not benefit in any way from a higher price for wheat. He will benefit through the payment of bonuses, provided they are high enough, but they are not high enough at the present time. On the other hand, a man who has a crop averaging more than twelve bushels to the acre does not benefit by any system of bonuses that may be put into effect. Therefore, to satisfy + lie man who has an average crop of twelve bushels or better, a higher price for wheat must be put into effect.
During past years several delegations have come to Ottawa trying to get something of benefit to the farming industry. It is realized by everyone in Canada that agricultural conditions are not satisfactory, and this applies to eastern as well as western Canada. I am not speaking of the west alone, as in the past some of us have been accused of doing. I believe the eastern farmers understand that their plight has been realized by the government also, since the government has agreed to pay the freight on feed grain coming from Fort William or points further west. So eastern farmers also are on the relief list. Let them not forget that; let them not think

we in the west are the only recipients of aid. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the wheat pools have come to Ottawa on various occasions, and each time I believe they were told that their demands were reasonable and would be given consideration by the government. But that consideration does not put any money into the pocket of the farmer. It does not pay his taxes; it does not buy shoes for the baby, or bread for the family. We must have a little more than consideration. During the time the government has been giving our problems consideration, our debts have been piling up, and no attempt has been made by the government to cut down interest rates on the money we owe in bank loans, mortgages and so forth.
We find also that the cost of machinery has continued to go up. This government held an investigation into that matter; the government of Saskatchewan also looked into it. On one occasion threats were made by the Minister of Agriculture, on behalf of the government, that if the machine companies did not bring down their prices, the government would take drastic action. The response of the machine companies was; one increase during the investigation, another immediately after it, and a number of others since that time, of which I have not kept track. Therefore the government does not mind at all if the farmers' costs go up.
Again, in some provinces, and particularly the province from which I come, attempts were made to ease the burdens of the farmers. But as soon as legislation was put on the statute books for this purpose, it was either done away with by the governor in council or referred to the courts, and there destroyed. If we look back to 1937 we remember that the President of the United States had to take certain action in connection with the supreme court of that country. He could not get his legislation into operation, and had to take action to make way for progressive legislation. I am not sure whether it may not be necessary to resort to action of that kind in this country in the near future.
Looking back over a period of sixty-four or sixty-five years, we find that the average price of wheat at Fort William was $1.17 a bushel, basis No. 1 northern. In the United States I understand the farmers at present are being paid $1.17. That is what they are guaranteed. We are guaranteed 70 cents. The Minister of Agriculture told us that the farmers could not expect to get rich during the first two years of this war. Now we are getting into the third year, and some of us think it is about time we started at least to make our expenses. During the third year

28S
The Address-Mr. Fair
of the first great war the average price of wheat was 82.06 a bushel, basis No. 1 northern at Fort William. As I have said, to-day we are guaranteed 70 cents, or approximately one-third the average price during the third year of the last war. We find that at that time, in the third year of the first great war, we could buy a binder for 8167. To-day the same binder costs 8347, or more than twice as much as it cost back in 1916. I believe this illustration will serve to show that the farmer has been caught both going and coming.
Conditions are not improving; they are gradually growing worse. At the present time there is a delegation in Ottawa seeking parity prices for agriculture, as well as other things. We wonder why we are not getting treatment similar to that received by other people in Canada. I believe most hon. members will recall that back in 1939 a limit of 5 per cent was placed on profits to be derived from government contracts. Because that was not sufficient for the industrialists, we find an order in council passed in the third week in August of 1939 which destroyed that legislation. To-day labour enjoys the same level of wages as obtained between 1926 and 1929. It has also an additional cost of living bonus. I am not objecting to that. In my opinion the workers are entitled to good pay. They work hard, and I do not object to the pay they receive. But I certainly must object when we as farmers are placed in a position where we have to produce at about half the cost of production. If industry is entitled to a removal of profit restrictions, if labour is entitled to the same wage level as existed between 1926 and 1929, with a cost of living bonus added, then I suggest that surely the farmer is entitled to the same level of prices as existed at that time.
The high price for wheat, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William between 1926 and 1929 was $1.61 a bushel. The average price in that same period was 81.35. Yet, although we have been told on different occasions that we are seeking equality of sacrifice in Canada, we are receiving a guaranteed price of only 70 cents a bushel. We find that in 1937-38 the average price for the year was 81.314 a bushel. Perhaps we would not mind so much if those low prices were necessary. But, looking over some of the literature I have, I am led to the conclusion that it is not necessary. I find this at page 14 of a booklet issued by the Searle Grain company:
It is interesting to note that one of the most eminent world authorities on the international wheat situation, Mr. Broomhall of London, said in an editorial in the Corn Trade News of August 27 as follows:
"Farmers in producing countries would have legitimate cause for . complaint if, in creating reserve supplies the price level were allowed to suffer by an artificial disparity between supply and demand."
With Mr. Broomhall's conclusion we most heartily concur, for we all know that the disparity which exists to-day between supply and demand has not been brought about by the free and open market, but is entirely the result of highly artificial conditions.
Again I ask: Why does the government allow that condition to exist? Again, by way of comparison: in 1928 the farmers of Canada received for their wheat crop 8441,000,000; and in 1941, even with the addition of the wheat acreage reduction bonus, the prairie farm assistance bonus and the general relief bonus, we receive approximately 8150,000,000
The delegation in Ottawa at the present time advocating, as I said before, a higher initial payment for wheat, and other matters along that line, are supported by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the western wheat pools and several other organizations. We find also that the northwest line elevtors' association has sent to the government, on at least two different occasions, briefs advocating an initial price or payment of 81.224 a bushel basis No. 1 northern, Fort William, and the Seaille Grain company advocates 81.20 a bushel.
Some people wonder whether we are entitled to that. I believe we are. As is known, at the present time the government is giving orders for the manufacture of certain war materials, and so forth. The people of Canada will have to pay for those things. They will have to pay the profits to industry, and the high wages now enjoyed by labour. We as farmers either directly or indirectly will pay a large percentage of those costs.
We find that on February 19, 1941, by order in council the government made an agreement with the grain companies whereby their handling and storage charges were guaranteed until the end of July, 1943. Was any such policy laid down or guaranteed to the farmers of Canada? No. In this connection I would add that this was asked for by the grain trade, but was not asked for by the wheat pools of western Canada. The pools were asked to come in on this, but refused to have anything to do with it. To-day the Saskatchewan pool is responsible for a large delegation which, I believe, the government should be ashamed to allow to come here to make its demands known, or try to do something about it.
We are producing food. I do not think there is any need for anybody to complain that that food will not be needed1. Prime
The Address-Mr. Fair

Minister Churchill has been quoted in the house on different occasions, and I intend to quote him again. On August 20, 1940, Mr. Winston Churchill said:
We shall do our best to encourage the building up of reserves of food all over the world so that there will always be held before the eyes of the people of Europe, including the Germans, the certainty that the shattering of nazi power would bring to them all immediate food, freedom and peace.
And the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on October 18, 1941, said: "Wheat held in reserve constitutes an invaluable war asset." The farmers of Canada are willing to produce. They complain at home, through their members and now by delegation. But we have not found them going on a sit-down strike. They continue to produce, anyway, and they are doing everything possible in the war, even to the extent of sending their last son over there to fight. I know that is true in dozens of instances. Why are we treated in this way? I believe that since the delegation came to Ottawa, it has been successful in meeting the government. I hold in my hand a clipping in point. It appeared in yesterday's Ottawa Journal, and states, in part: ''Renewed, helpful and I believe fruitful consideration" will be given the representations of prairie wheat farmers, Prime Minister Mackenzie King to-day promised four hundred farmer-delegates who came to Ottawa. . . .
And so on. Let us hope that this consideration will be far more fruitful than some of the other things the Prime Minister has attempted in earlier days. We hope that will happen. Then, later in the article:
Finance Minister Ilsley-he was one of those who heard the farmers' submissions-had to meet financial requirements and consider petitions like that of the wheat growers, with relation to the broad financial needs of a dominion at war, Mr. King added.
The Prime Minister, speaking in confidential manner to the men of the west, said the government had not given any closer attention to any question than agriculture. He felt that Canadian farmers would agree no branch of agricul-ure had experienced more difficulty than the wheat-growing branch represented by Saskatchewan.
We are to get fruitful consideration.


Charles Edward Johnston: We hope the tree bears fruit.


Robert Fair: Yes, and that the fruit does not disappear before it reaches the farmer. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) agreed' that the requests were fair-


Charles Edward Johnston: And
reasonable.


Robert Fair: -and reasonable. It is up to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to find the money. During the past two and a half years the Minister of Finance has been finding a lot of money, much of which has gone for purposes of destruction. We are also told that we shall be called on for far greater sums. If the Minister of Finance can find money to pay cost-plus to industry and to pay wages, through industry, to labour, he should also make it his business to pay at least the cost of production plus a small profit to the farmers. If the minister has not learned enough about money to know how to do that, I would suggest that we forgo the services of our member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) for a little while so that he may advise the minister how and where he can get this money. The minister, no doubt, has a fountain pen, and he will find out that it will work just as well for the Bank of Canada, to create credit, as it does for the chartered banks.
In the Western Producer of January 29, 1942, there are one or two items in a letter in the open forum, which I should like to read. Here is the first one:
About 1912 the Grain Growers' Association sent a delegation of 400 men to Ottawa to lay our demands before the government of that day. After we had dropped all our bombs, Wilfrid Laurier only talked to them for three minutes and in other words told them to go home and the government would run its own business. In 1920 our demand for a wheat board became so urgent that we built a new political party known as Progressives. Every candidate was pledged to support a wheat board policy when he took his seat in the house at Ottawa. We swept this province (Saskatchewan) clean save for one Liberal (Mr. Motherwell). During the last week of the campaign he figured his seat was slipping so the paper with the people's viewpoint, the Leader Post, came out with a front page advertisement: Vote for Motherwell and return of the wheat board. When he got to Ottawa Mackenzie King made him minister of agriculture and he proved to be an enemy to a wheat board. The Progressive party landed in Ottawa after the 1921 election with 64 members, mostly all from the west.
The Liberal high command had seen this storm brewing in the west, so Tom Crerar was sent out in the guise of a believer in this new movement. He led his army right into the battlefield at Ottawa and then deserted us. In the terms of to-day he would be known as a fifth columnist and was just twenty years ahead of King Leopold of Belgium, who also turned his army over to the enemy.
I believe there is one way in which the farmers can get something better than they are getting at the present time. They have been promised consideration for a number of years, but their plight is becoming worse the farther we go along. My suggestion to the

The Address-Mr. McLean
farmers is to organize. During the last election some were quite satisfied to vote for 70-cent wheat, but to-day the farmers of the west are coming here with a petition in the one hand and a hat in the other pleading:
' Won't you give us something better?" As soon as they send true representatives here, they will probably get some place. We are not satisfied to-day with 70 cents a bushel for wheat, either on the farm or at Fort William. For some years past the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) has had a resolution on the order paper asking for 95 cents a bushel, basis one northern, at the local elevator, and he has now a resolution on the order paper reading as follows:
Whereas the prices of farm machinery, all costs of living and farm wages have increased due to the war:
Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this house parliament should immediately take such steps as are necessary to ensure the farmers of Canada a fixed price of not less than one dollar ($1) per bushel for number 1 northern wheat at their local elevator for a farmer's delivery quota, as defined by the Canadian Wheat Board.
And to take care of the man who does not have a crop, I have the following resolution on the order paper:
That in the opinion of this house the government should introduce such amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act that it will become a sound crop insurance scheme.
In conclusion, might I suggest that the first duty of any government is to look after the welfare and happiness of its people? In this I believe this government has failed miserably. Since this government came into office in 1935, there have been great numbers of men and women who could not get work, and there are still thousands to-day who cannot get a job. The farmers have been allowed to work, but we cannot get the cost of production. So what is the use of working, some people say. The government has failed to prevent production costs from going up. In view of the fact that farmers directly or indirectly pay most of our Canadian taxes, I think something should be done on their behalf, and done right away.
I believe the government should also take better care of the soldiers of the last war and their dependents, as well as the soldiers of this war and their dependents. I believe a completely new deal should be given the soldiers of the last war who are still labouring under the policies of the Soldier Settlement Board. I shall deal with this later.
There are several other matters I should like to mention, but I have not the time to-night. I would, however, ask that the organized farmers' representatives be given a
place on all boards having to do with farmers' problems, and when I say "organized farmers", I do not mean that any political party friend, whether or not he is a success on his own, should be given a place on these boards.
Parity prices for wheat and all other farm products should be guaranteed, and there should be an amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to provide a sound crop insurance scheme, which is badly needed. In addition, I believe that the Winnipeg grain exchange should be closed because it is a gambling den that has no place in Canada to-day.
All these things and more can be done by making proper use of our financial system, whereby credit and currency will be issued in terms of public need, as advocated by the Prime Minister prior to the 1935 election when he said:
A national central bank is necessary in order that currency and credit may be made available in terms of public need to meet the domestic and industrial requirements of the Canadian people.
If ever that time has arrived, it is now. The farmers of Canada are not asking for charity and do not want it. All we want is treatment equal to that given to other Canadians, and we must be granted that treatment; We cannot have Canadian unity, so often pleaded for by the Prime Minister and others in this house, as long as one section of the population feasts while another goes hungry. Hitler of Germany must be licked at all costs. But we have Hitlers in Canada who must also be licked if the Canadian people are to enjoy to the fullest the liberties to which we are entitled and the abundance at our disposal.


Mr. G. A. McLEAN (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the motion before the house has now continued for about eight days. But, as I am sure hon. members will agree that nobody has shown less inclination than I have to prolong debate or to indulge in* tiresome and vain repetition, I am impelled on this occasion to crave your indulgence, sir, and that of the house while I try to give expression to a few thoughts.
The first words I would utter would be words of tribute to our fellow citizens who at our call and on our behalf have undertaken the heavy, heavy task of combat-the men of the army, the navy, the merchant marine, the air force, and the women of the nursing services. This is not the place, I know, where hon. members are wont to give expression to their deepest feelings, and I am not going to indulge in heroics, but I do think it is due to these valiant men and women that from our plac*
The Address-Mr. McLean

as members of the parliament of their country we tell them, not once, or twice, that we remember them; that we recognize that the task laid on them is different, very different in kind from that of all others. I believe that the words which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) used in this house on May 20, 1940, could well be repeated time and again. He said, as reported at page 49 of Hansard of that year:
Everything that we can do, every help that we can give, every contribution that we can make, every comfort, great or small, that we must surrender is as a grain of sand compared with the treasure which they offer on the altar of humanity.
Or the words of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), spoken when he was Minister of Finance. I do not remember whether it was when he was delivering the budget speech or the speech on the war appropriation bill, but on some such occasion he gave expression to words which I have never forgotten, and which I think should be heard and remembered throughout the war by every citizen of Canada. I am not sure that I can recall the exact words, but they were to this effect, "I shall not disgrace the word 'sacrifice' by applying it to anything save the gift of life itself."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander McLean: I wish, Mr. Speaker, that it were possible for the response to those words from every corner of the house to be heard by every member of our armed forces, wherever he or she may be found. I wish it were possible that they could penetrate to those who are languishing in prison camps and in hospitals far across the sea. For those who have passed forever beyond the reach of all human expression, we can only offer tribute to their memory, and to the homes from which they have gone, sympathy, for which I shall not try to find words.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the method of enlistment for service in our armed forces overseas should have become a contentious one. I believe that this question has been magnified out of all proportion to its importance. There is no use, however, in indulging in vain regrets over what we would like to have had; we must take the facts as they are. . I am bound to recognize that, in the words of the speech from the throne, our war effort is being impaired by controversy raging over what has now become a contentious question. Up to date I have refrained from discussing this question either in Ottawa or in my own riding. I have felt that no

good could come from my stirring up questions on which people were likely to have sharp differenees of opinion. During my election campaign I intentionally and resolutely kept it from being made an issue in my riding, largely for the sake of the character of the riding. I thought it would have been unfair, perhaps unfair to my opponent, if I had tried to make that an issue in my riding. But I must confess that, in common with nearly all members of both Liberal and Conservative parties, I am bound by the speeches which were made by the leaders of both these two parties prior to the last election. It is under these circumstances that I wish to take a few minutes to make my position clear to the members of the house and to my constituents.
I want to say a word first about the compulsory selective service in connection with civilian occupations. I am only going to touch on it, because I do not think there is very much difference of opinion, certainly on the principle. As the Prime Minister pointed out, authority for this was given by the National Resources Mobilization Act. The only question is how soon, in what manner, and to what extent that ought to be put into effect. Personally, I think that prompt action should be taken. In my section, as in many others, the farmers are having a very difficult time. I find men enlisting from some of our factories whom I think it would have been better to keep in the factories. On the other hand, I even know of toolmakers-mechanics who are perhaps scarcest of all-who during the depression went out to operate little farms and are still on those farms. As I say, I am not going to dwell on this question, but I shall await with great interest the statement which I expect we shall hear from the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) as to the plan he has in mind. I would suggest this, however, that the temporary postponement in connection with farm help is not sufficient and not satisfactory. A farmer must be able to plan his work somewhat ahead. There are some farms where population is fairly large though they are not very good farms and not producing very much. On the other hand, there are very good large farms where production is very high; the farm is well operated, but help very, very scarce. The same treatment should not be given in both those cases; and I do not think it is possible for a man in the office of the district registrar to deal with these; I think there ought to be somebody closer to the farmer, closer to the community, in a better position to judge of the circumstances surrounding each case. As I have said, however, nearly everything I have

The Address-Mr. McLean
to say on this question is merely repetition, and I do not want to weary the house by repeating what has already been said better than I can say it.
Coming to the question of compulsory service for the armed forces overseas, I always have believed and I still believe that the voluntary system is best. I have listened with great attention to the arguments of those who take a different view. I respect their opinion, and I do not for one moment question their sincerity, but, for reasons which I shall give, I still retain my preference for the voluntary system.
Having said this, however, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the preservation of our country and our empire, freedom, everything which is now in imminent peril, must be placed before any and all other considerations; and if and when, in my judgment, based on facts which become apparent to me or on information that I receive from those I consider best able to judge, whether inside or outside the cabinet, I consider the time has come when we can more effectively prosecute the war by compulsory enlistment for overseas in our combatant forces, I shall not hesitate to change my position and shall support it. Because I want to be free to take that changed position if and when circumstances warrant it, I am in favour of a plebiscite by which the people will free me and the government from the solemn pledge given under very different circumstances.
I am in favour of the voluntary system because of the effectiveness of the army itself. After all, victory is what we want-victory in a fight. All considerations of what is fair or logical must be subordinated to that-victory in a fight.
Our army must be trained, it must be well equipped, it must be given arms and munitions, and all that. But after you have trained it, supplied it with equipment, and given it proper leadership, it still has to fight; and it seems to me that in our discussion far too little consideration has been given to the fact that the men have to face the terror, the horror, the bloodshed and the violence of battle. They must face dismemberment and even death, and still go on and fight and fight and win victory. That takes something that is simply not in the coward; it takes something that is simply not in the slacker; it takes something that is simply not in the sort of man of whom I have heard some member speak, the man who says, "I am willing to go, but I am going to wait until the government tells me." It is not in the type of man or the man who hangs around for a year or more trying to get a commission or some other preferment.
I speak from experience as a private soldier in a Canadian infantry battalion, and as a platoon commander and company commander in a British regiment, commanding both volunteers and forced recruits; and I say that when a unit finds itself in a desperate position, its members do not want to feel that, scattered among them or supporting them on their flanks, are men who have had to be forced to fight. They want to feel that they are supported by men who are imbued with the same spirit as themselves, men who will come promptly, quickly and voluntarily when their countiy calls them.
When men tell me that because I am in favour of the voluntary system as against the compulsory I am not true, not loyal to the men who are at the front, I sometimes wonder whether these people have any conception of the sort of job we have given these men to do. We admit that as far as the air force and the navy are concerned, and especially the air force, we shall not have compulsion. Why? Well, I suppose it is because it is thought that men in the air force should be of the very highest type of valour and daring. Will any man tell me, however, that of the humblest private soldier who carries a rifle and bayonet into battle there is not going to be demanded the utmost in the way of human valour and endurance? And those qualities are required in a much higher degree in this war in which men are acting very much on their own-much more so than in the last war when to a large extent men fought in large masses.
I have heard it said by some members of the house that the voluntary system has been a failure. I do not admit it. I cannot give exact figures to date, but I believe that between 400,000 and 430,000 men have volunteered in the various armed forces for service in any part of the world. I believe that during last year somewhere between 150,000 and 180,000 men similarly volunteered. These were accepted in both cases, after those were rejected who were unfit physically or otherwise. I have not the total figures for my own riding, but I have approximate figures for my own home town, of between nine and ten thousand. In that town almost if not quite 800 men have voluntarily enlisted and been accepted for active service in the various branches of the armed forces. Of these, 200 at least are now overseas and about 200 in the air force.
But, Mr. Speaker, if enlistment has not been all that some might have expected, I do not put the blame for this on the young men of the country. I do not, I cannot, and I never will believe that our men are so lacking in

The Address-Mr. McLean

patriotism that they will not respond when their native land and the native land of their fathers is in peril, if that call is made clearly and in a proper manner to them.
A number of factors have militated against enlistment. In the first place, in some districts there was quite a long delay before the local non-permanent active militia units were mobilized. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that a different system was adopted in this war from that which was followed in the last war-and a much better one. In the last war units were mobilized without identification except for a number, and men were enlisted in them from all over the province. In this war the late Minister of National Defence, Mr. Rogers, instituted the system of retaining the identity of the non-permanent active militia units in the establishments of the active force in order to preserve the county spirit, the town spirit, the regimental spirit in the active overseas units. That was a good idea. But the necessary result was, of course, that in some districts men waited sometimes months and more than a year before their unit was mobilized. They waited with a good deal of impatience, and many men lost a good deal of the zeal and fervour with which they were imbued when the call to arms first came.
I remember very well the situation in the counties of Grey and Simcoe. The Grey-Simcoe Foresters were mobilized finally as a unit of the 4th division. These men pleaded with members to ask the Minister of National Defence that they be mobilized. They begged for months and months to have this done. The same thing happened in connection with many other units, and this was one of the factors that did have an effect on enlistment.
Another feature was the opinion, pretty commonly held before and for some time after the war, that because of a change in the nature of warfare it was very unlikely that there would be any occasion to send a large expeditionary force overseas-not as a matter of policy at all, but as a matter of war strategy, or whatever the proper military term is. There was also the idea that Canada was to be the arsenal of the empire, and that idea naturally turned men's minds to the duty they owed the country to remain in the occupations in which they found themselves, agricultural or industrial.
I have heard the suggestion that the government itself did not give that clarion call for enlistment to arms which it might have given. I am not going to enter upon any debate on that point, but I do say that the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister, and others, did make very strong appeals

which I thought did not receive the attention and the publicity in headlines in various sections of the press which they might have been given. .
Be that as it may, however, there were other voices in influential positions which did not speak in the accents that we heard in 1914. Let me give an example. The president of one of our large universities was reported, shortly after the war broke out, to have advised his students not to be in a hurry to enlist, but to finish their courses. I am not saying he was wrong, but I cannot help contrasting that with the attitude adopted by the president of the great university of Toronto in the autumn of 1914. I well recall how Sir Robert, then Doctor Falconer, called his students together in the autumn of 1914. He did not speak to them of the value to themselves or the country of their academic career or the places they were going to fill in civilian life. He put the issue clearly before them; he told them that they, of all classes, owed more to the country and to the way of life that was threatened, and he pointed out very clearly and forcefully that to them first of all the call to arms came. And how they responded! The voice was different from that of 1939. They enlisted in very large numbers. There was no waiting for commissions; there was none of that. Scores of them never came back, and of those who did very many never realized aspirations of their student days. There are hon. members of this house who were members of the classes of 1914, 1915, 1916, and I am sure there is nothing of which they are more proud than the lead given by their president in those days and the way in which those men responded to it.
Another feature is the popularity of two branches of the armed service-the navy and the air force. Someone may say that this is not an important matter, but I think it is. Men in the navy and the air force have been in action much sooner than those in the army, and naturally ardent youth is more anxious to get into the branches which are in action first. I suppose there is something more spectacular about those two branches. If all those who have been waiting to enlist in the air force and the navy should be added to those who have enlisted in the army, the figures would look very much better.
While speaking of that, I want to compliment the Minister of National Defence very highly upon what I understand is a proposal to give a dress uniform to the men of the army. I sincerely trust no single voice will be raised against that on account of the expense. The battle-dress no doubt is a

The Address-Mr. McLean
splendid dress for battle, but it must be admitted that it is not a dressy uniform; it looks rather slouchy and does not do justice to the men when they are on the streets of our towns and villages. It is not fair that when men of the air force or of the navy come home for a week-end and go out to some social function, they have smart, neatlooking uniforms of which they are proud, while the poor chap in the army has to wear this slouchy-looking battle-dress. When men come out of our factories and off the farms or out of the mines and attend some social function, they can take off their working clothes and put on a collar and tie and a neat suit; and if civilians can afford to dress up in that way, I hope there will be no voice raised against the expense of giving to these men who are going to fight our battles a dress of which they may be proud and which will encourage them to hold their heads higher when they are off duty.
There is another factor which has had a great deal of influence on recruiting. Ever since the first voice was raised in this house- on the eve of a recruiting campaign, as it was-calling for conscription; and as that voice was taken up by the press, by public speakers and, in gome instances I am told, even by military officers assigned to the duty of recruiting, the chilly, deadening effect of that cry was felt on recruiting from coast to coast. It was felt in every meeting called for the purpose of organizing recruiting campaigns. I am sure every hon. member who has had anything to do with trying to assist in recruiting knows the truth of that statement.
It was my privilege some two or three months ago to attend a dinner meeting. The auspices were very favourable. We were in a comfortable room, had a splendid guest speaker; there was a large and expectant audience. The speaker had recently returned from England, and he gave one of the most magnificent addresses to which I have ever listened. He told of the valour of the people of Britain, the suffering of the men, women and children, the magnificent organization of all resources; all these things were pictured in words that held that audience thrilled. I was sitting near the back of the room looking over that audience, and among them were quite a number of men of military age who were not in uniform-business men, professional men. As that speaker told of the marvellous fight that the people of Britain were putting up for us, I fancy that some of those young men felt a little uncomfortable; I fancy they were beginning to give pretty serious consideration to where their duty lay. The speaker ended that wonderful address with
44561-19$
a strong appeal. What was the appeal? Was it an appeal to those men to get into uniform? Not at all. He ended with a strong statement that the responsibility of deciding who should go into the army should be laid on the government of the country. I fancy those young men settled back into their comfortable chairs a little more comfortably when the responsibility was taken from their own conscience and placed on some other body What, in effect, are all these voices saying? To the young man to whom the call of his country, the voice of duty, is strong and insistent, the voice which he is about to obey, they are saying, "That stern voice of duty with which you have been wrestling for the last few days or weeks is not the voice to which you should listen. Wait; wait; we are going to create another voice. We are going to put a man-made law on the statute books of your country, and that is the voice to which you are to listen. Never mind about that voice which calls you, that powerful impulse in the life of every young man; never mind that; that is not the voice. Let us have another authority; wait until that man-made law is put upon the statute books of your country."
I am not sitting in judgment on any other man; I respect the opinion of every other man, and I would be the last to impute any improper motives. I know that many of my friends who want conscription are actuated, as I am, by the very highest and best patriotic motives. But I say that during the last year, in so far as the voices of which I have been speaking have had the effect I indicate, they have sinned against the spirit of a whole generation.
I recall some twenty-six years ago, Mr. Speaker, getting into conversation with an old shepherd up in the highlands of Scotland, where I had gone to spend ten days leave and to look up some relatives. During the course of our conversation the question of compulsory service came up, since that legislation had been enacted only recently. The old shepherd said to me, "As far as yon village is concerned, and all up the glen, we are not subject to the draft." I was puzzled for a moment, until I realized what I ought to have known, that in this particular region, where men had always sprung to arms at the first call, whether of king or of clan, long before compulsory service had been considered every able-bodied man had joined the colours. No wonder the blood in German veins often ran chill when they learned that across from them was the famous 51st Highland division! That is the class of man we need in our armed forces if we are to achieve victory.
The Address-Mr. McLean

As I have said, if and when I am convinced that we must have compulsory service, I will support it; but I know that in my riding, as in many ridings, there are families that will not be subject to the draft; and it is my hope that in my riding, as in many ridings throughout the country, there may be whole communities whose men already will have answered the higher call of duty, without waiting for the draft. I believe with all my heart that in peace or war the motive behind all heroic or unselfish action is not the compulsion of man-made law but the more compelling force of noble impulses, which are the natural gift of youth; and I have not lost faith, as I will never lose faith, that the young men of our country, when the call is put to them clearly and properly, will respond in sufficient numbers to fill up every establishment that may be decided upon by the Department of National Defence in order to carry on the war. I must say, however, that I do object most strenuously to making synonymous total war and compulsory training for overseas service. These are made synonymous by many public speakers and in the press. I am not in favour of compulsory service for overseas, yet I take second place to no man in my desire that Canada should prosecute the war to the very fullest extent possible.
In the short time left to me, I want to deal with a matter that is rather distasteful. I have tried to make my position clear to the house and to the people of my riding. I have not been driven to do so by the gibes or threats of any newspaper; nor have I refrained from doing so until now because of the motives which have been attributed to me, and to all other Liberal members from Ontario, by a Toronto newspaper. I heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) give the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), I think it was, some good advice on one occasion. He said no one should ever get into an argument with a newspaper, who does not own one. Well, I do not own a newspaper, and I am not going to get into an argument with one. As a matter of fact, I have every reason to possess a high regard for the press. In my riding we are fortunate in having a very high-class weekly press. One weekly newspaper is edited by a life-long Conservative, a good friend of mine, who nearly always opposes me in politics, but I want to say that the news items in that newspaper are always absolutely reliable. That man would no more think of selling coloured news to his readers than an honest merchant would think of selling contaminated food to his customers; and the editorials appearing

in that newspaper, though they usually disagree with the leader and members of the party to which I belong, are always fair argument.
I would that the same standard of journalism characterized some of the daily newspapers which serve our section of the country. For some time past the Toronto Globe and Mail has contained offensive references to Liberal members, culminating on December 12, 1941, in this article:
There are 82 Ontario seats in the dominion House of Commons. Fifty-seven of these are occupied by Liberals. Not one of these Liberals has yet risen to lay before the house the clearly revealed opinion of his constituents on this all important question of compulsory selective service. This is a shocking state of affairs. We all know very well that Mr. King is cooking up some emasculated form of mobilization ingeniously contrived to appease, palliate and placate some without offending others. We all know that, true to his long established technique of enforcing party discipline, he is holding over the members' heads a number of unfulfilled appointments which each of his followers thinks he has a chance of filling. There are vacancies in the Senate; there is a rumoured shuffling of the cabinet, there are committees needing paid chairmen, and commissions whose members have not yet been named. The carrot is being held before the nose of the donkey as an inducement to that greedy and fatuous animal to walk soberly in the straight and narrow path of political opportunism.
I might indulge in an angry, recriminatory attack on that newspaper, but I am not going to do so. I am too much in earnest to adopt any such course; but I do say that every hon. member possessed of a spark of self respect; every hon. member who prizes the good opinion of his friends and his countrymen as to the integrity of his intentions, public as well as private; every hon. member who has a proper conception of the duty he owes to maintain the reputation as well as the character of the institution in which his people have honoured him with membership, every such member has not only the right but the duty to make an indignant protest against such an editorial. I heartily agree with the desirability of preserving political independence, and hon. members know full well that there have been ample evidences of it in this house. Members of both the Conservative and Liberal parties have repeatedly voted against their parties without being disciplined for so doing. Every hon. member knows, as our constituents may not know, that the popular characterization of a party whip is simply grotesque. I need not repeat the duties of the whip; hon. members know them. One of the duties of a party whip is to assist Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the other whips, in the orderly arrangement of debates in the house. He has minor duties

The Address-Mr. McLean
to perform, such as seating and office arrangements, and he also performs the very important duty of acting as liaison between private members and the cabinet. He keeps the cabinet informed as to the views of hon. members on various questions, something which cannot always1 be done between caucuses, and cannot always be done even at caucuses, when the membership is very large. I hold that the popular characterization of a party whip is simply grotesque, and it is unfortunate that once in a while even hon. members in the house, quite innocently I think, will slip into the jargon of the street and talk about the crack of the party whip, thus giving force to the opinion popularly held.
One word more about party independence. Political independence is an important, a precious thing. But let me say to people outside the house, and to the newspaper in question, something which hon. members know quite well, that political independence, like all precious coins, has its counterfeit. Sometimes it is difficult for the public to distinguish between the genuine and the fake. There are times when it takes a good deal more courage on the part of a member to vote for his party than to rise in his place and vote against it. Every hon. member knows that.
There may be, and there are times when the position of a party is sound and wise; but considerations of passing popular public opinion, considerations of the safety of a member in his own riding at the next election, and consideration of the desirability of laudation of headlines in the newspapers-all these things make it a great deal easier, and indeed offer quite a temptation to vote against one's party. There you have the false, the fraud; there you have the counterfeit.
And, Mr. Speaker, to get back to the metaphorical donkey and carrot, let me point out that there is more than one kind of carrot which is supposed to make the teeth of the donkey water. I am not so sure that the editor of the paper in question, or the news editor or the gentleman who arranges the headlines, has not a few carrots stuck away in his pocket which he thinks are very, very sweet to the palate of certain politicians. He does not just hold them before the nose of the animal; he feeds them to him. And he does not feed them in half-pint measures, either; he feeds them in bushel basketfuls. In fact, I think sometimes he feeds them in such large doses that the effect must be somewhat nauseating to the creature to whom it is fed.
My time is almost up, but before resuming my seat I should like to refer to one other
editorial in this paper. I shall not take time to read it all; the general public has read the editorial to which the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) referred last night. Speaking about the speech of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) in the house, the editorial states:
And he was rewarded for his effort by some of the most disgraceful evidence of petty political spleen that the house has ever witnessed. After such an episode it is hard to have much respect for parliament.
Lest I might seem to be prejudiced, I should like to say that I have the very highest regard; indeed I have reason to have the very highest regard for the hon. member for Parkdale. I want to pay this tribute to him. I was a little annoyed when, in his first speech he suggested a change in leadership; but I have not formed my opinion of him because of the speeches he has made in the house. I have formed my opinion from the work he did in a committee on which I served. I know the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) and the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macmillan), who was chairman of the committee, will agree with me when I say that although the committee was one in connection with the activities of which this member might have been expected to have had a great deal to say, the attitude of the hon. member for Parkdale was most modest and helpful. No member on the committee did more to assist in having its work carried on successfully and free from party bias than did the hon. member for Parkdale. That is my opinion of the hon. member who made the speech to which reference is made in the newspaper editorial. I pay him that tribute, because I do not want anyone to think that when I take objection to the editorial, I have any feeling against him.


William Alexander Fraser: Why did you not keep him on that committee?


George Alexander McLean: He is still on the committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The committee is dead.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The government ought to be.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no.


George Alexander McLean: The man who wrote this editorial knew perfectly well that the actions of the Prime Minister and other Liberal members in the house did not constitute an insult to parliament. I was not in the house when that speech was delivered'- and no one has a higher regard than I have for the hon. member. As a matter of fact, verv
The Address-Mr. McLean

often when he is about to deliver a speech, in order that 1 may hear him better I go to the other side of the chamber and stand behind the curtains, so that I may be in front of him when he is speaking.
Since the last election in my constituency there have been practically no Liberals or Conservatives, as such. The people there work together. They do Red Cross work, act on committees for the sale of bonds and war savings certificates, and on committees for recruiting-Liberals and Conservatives together. None work harder on those committees than some who at election times oppose me. I would hang my head in abject shame if I were to go back to that riding knowing that the people believed that the conduct of this house and the motives actuating the member's were such as depicted in the Globe and Mail of Toronto.
We may be a mediocre lot. God help us, I know we are. When I am no longer a candidate for my constituency I hope the Liberal party in that constituency will be able to persuade the very best, most honest, capable and respected Liberal in the riding to accept the nomination. At the next election I hope the Conservative party will be able to choose as our opponent the most capable, honest and upright among their group in the constituency of Simcoe East. I should like that no matter who is elected, the people in that constituency will have confidence that they are well represented in the House of Commons. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be able to persuade such men to run for office; they will not do it, if they believe that the conduct of the House of Commons and the motives w'hich actuate members are such as have been depicted week after week, week after week by the Globe and Mail. No, you will not be able to get such men to enter politics.
I endeavour not to be angry, but I do plead with that paper: Write as strong editorials as you like, either in favour of or against any policy; condemn the action of any man you think is -wrong; but, in the name of democracy, w'hich has been falling in country after country, country after country, and which is falling into disregard even in our own country, do not continue to aid and abet those who hold democracy in contempt and who unintentionally, if not intentionally, are doing their utmost to banish democracy from our country.
I should like in closing to quote one paragraph w'ritten by a man whom I am proud to call a fellow townsman. I refer to Doctor Stephen Leacock, late of McGill university who, in the Canadian Spokesman of January, 1941, wrote an article which I commend to all hon. members. I commend it

particularly to his very dear friends and admirers in my own riding which has been his home all his life, although he has journeyed down to McGill university every winter to give his students there the benefit of his wisdom. He is speaking of "The whole duty of a citizen," and says:
With all this in mind the word at the moment is "my country right or wrong." It may be a poor maxim in peace time but in war time there's nothing like it. Turn yourself into a pig-headed patriot and support all those in authority w'ithout criticism or quibble. If our Prime Minister and cabinet are not the biggest men in Canada, I'm going to think so till the end of the war anyway. After that I can turn back into a Conservative and look for some fun again.
He ends up with these words:
There it stands. To submit and to obey: To pay gladly: To applaud the brave: To honour the fallen, to aid and comfort those bereft. In that lies a united nation. You and I can at least be a humble part of it.


Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to congratulate the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) who has just taken his seat. I am not sure, but I believe it was his maiden speech in this house; and while I disagreed with almost every part of it, I should like to congratulate him on the excellence of his presentation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me make myself clear. I oppose this plebiscite with every power at my command. Bad as is government by order in council; bad as is government by a vast majority; bad as is a government by statements to the press and over the radio, nothing can compare in infamy with the dodging of responsibility by the method of the plebiscite. After hearing and reading the impassioned speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) against Prussianism and dictatorships, it is indeed a revelation to find that same Prime Minister going to the dictators for his inspiration, because, while the plebiscite is not and never has been a recognized institution in the realm of democracy and parliamentary government, it has been a most effective weapon wielded upon frequent occasions by the dictators in the past ten years, and an instrument which usually the dictators have been able to use to their own advantage. "Eine, Volk, Eine Land, Eine Reich, Eine Fuehrer-Vote Ja -Heil Hitler!"-have been the methods Hitler used to settle matters in Germany.
The time has long passed when compulsory selective service for any part of the world has been of paramount necessity. This parliament should have enacted the necessary legislation after Dunkirk and the fall of France. The

The Address-Mr. Adamson
need now is even more imperative than ever. It is possible that it may already be too late. I believe that the declaration of war on Germany should have been preceded by a selective service act. Had this been done, all the trouble, all the bitterness, yes and all the violence that we may yet see would have been avoided. If there is one thing the last war has taught us it is that there can be no half measures in waging war. This war has also shown us that half measures mean defeat, degradation, humiliation and the infestation of our country by the enemy. Let it not be said of us in this House of Commons that we were incapable of seeing and doing our duty.
There is at present before this house a bill advocating a distinctive national flag for Canada. If we lose this war, we shall have a new flag, but it will contain the swastika or the rising sun of Japan. If this war is won for us, and the other united nations consider that we have not done our full part, they may themselves decide on alterations in the flag of Canada, and the alteration may contain the stars and stripes or some other emblem. Let us be worthy of the flag we have before talking about getting a new one.
While considering Canadian nationalism and basking in the Statute of Westminster, it might be interesting to see what other nations think of us. We have heard much talk about Canadian-United States unity. Let us see what is happening in the United States this month, February, 1942. On February 16 a large number, several millions of men, are required to report to the United States authorities for service with the United States armed forces anywhere in the world. My United States friends tell me that there are over 400,000 Canadians registered in the United States, and they estimate that over
100,000	more .have failed for various reasons to register. A high percentage of Canadian citizens in the United States are single men of military age, and it has been estimated that between 30,000 and 40,000 Canadian citizens will find themselves in one or other of the vulnerable categories, and that half of them will be in category A 1. I am informed by United States friends that this means single men who would be in our medical category A, men who are not employed on work of national importance. Probably some 15,000 to 20,000 Canadians will find themselves called on February 16 to join the armed forces of the country which gives them protection, namely, the United States of America. What a fine position for a great sovereign nation like Canada to be in! We are unwilling to call up our own nationals inside Canada, but our realist neighbours the Americans have no hesitation in calling up
our nationals resident in their country. In this war the United States is not a safe place to be.
The normal procedure under international law is to give allied nationals the option of serving with their own forces, if they can join up with them. However, the terms of service must be similar. The Canadian army is better paid than the United States army, and dependents' allowances and other advantages are granted in the Canadian armed forces. A number of Canadians caught in the United States draft might therefore elect to serve in the Canadian armed forces. Unless, however, we have conscription for overseas service, the terms of service in the United States army are much more onerous than in the Canadian army under the National Resources Mobilization Act.	Our good
friends the Americans know this and, I feel sure, will not look with favour on Canadians called for service in the United States anywhere in the world who elect to join the Canadian army for service in Canada only. As one Washington reporter put it to me, "We are not going to let your men shirk their responsibilities and return to Canada and become home defence units."	He called
them "campfire cuddlers." Is it a great thing to be a Canadian; or is it?
I now come to the reasons why I so strongly advocate the course I do.
The recent announcement as to the Canadian army to be formed overseas is of great interest. It, however, cannot come as much of a surprise to anyone who has given any thought to the problem, nor can it, in the light of the situation in the Pacific, be considered excessive. Indeed, in comparison with the efforts put forward by our sister dominions of Australia and New Zealand, it is very meagre.
I am pleased to see, however, that the government has followed very closely the formations I recommended in a speech made in this house on May 8 last, as reported at page 2687 of Hansard. I suggested, in the light of the battle of Greece, that we needed:
.	. . four infantry divisions, and with each
division a complete armoured brigade and complete artillery units. Besides that, I suggest that we need two complete armoured divisions. We must be able to maintain in Canada in training complete reinforcements for these formations, assuming an annual wastage of one-third. That I submit is, in the light of recent events, the minimum commitment that we can be called upon to complete.
That was last May. I went on to discuss what this would mean in man-power, and I estimated an active army overseas of 200,000 men. Add to these the air force and the navy, 100,000, and you will have an overseas force
The Address-Mr. Adamson

of approximately 300,000. With the exception that I suggested an armoured brigade with each infantry division, and the proposal now is for two armoured brigades with the infantry army corps of three infantry divisions, my proposals in May, 1941, and the government's proposal of January, 1942, are identical, the tragic difference being that the government waited nine months to give birth to its plan, a plan which must now be considered to impose but a light burden indeed on our man-power, because it will require enlistments of but between six and seven thousand a month for the army.
The present situation, which has mobilized every able-bodied man, woman and child in Australia, calls for equally drastic action from Canada. A force such as the Canadian army, small as it is in comparison with those of the other belligerents of the united powers, will call for an even greater force on the home front and in the munitions factories. It is because of the necessity of maintaining a proper balance between the fighter in the field and the fighter in the factory that I so strongly recommend compulsory selective service.
From the military angle, in the middle of October, 1941, we were unable to supply even the small number of men needed to provide first reinforcements for two battalions sent to Hong Kong without including 138 men who had not received their full advanced training.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend makes that statement, but he knows perfectly well that there were plenty of trained men in Canada for that duty. Nobody knows that better than he does.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is the minister suggesting that there were trained men available and they were not sent?


James Layton Ralston: Certainly I am suggesting there were trained men; and my hon. friend knows it, too.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Well, why were they not sent?


James Layton Ralston: That is a matter which is to be discussed and inquired into. But my hon. friend makes the statement that there were not trained men. He knows better. An officer in his position particularly-


Agar Rodney Adamson: Then why were they not sent?


James Layton Ralston: I say that that is a matter to be inquired into. It has nothing to do with the incorrectness of the statement which my hon. friend made a moment ago.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The minister said in his own speech that there were required for overseas duties these reinforcements, and that 138 were below the standard.


James Layton Ralston: I did not say that there were not trained men in Canada, which is what my hon. friend said a moment ago. And he knows better.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Well, then, there were trained men, but they were not sent.


James Layton Ralston: Exactly. Certainly.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Very well-


Ernest George Hansell: That makes it all the worse.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Then I just want to say that there must have been a great shortage of men if for that small force 138 were sent who had not completed their training.


James Layton Ralston: I say that my hon. friend knows himself that there were trained men.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If they had been available they would have been sent.


James Layton Ralston: That is matter for an investigation. I am asking my hon. friend if he does not know himself that there were 138 active trained men available in No. 2 district. I will let him say yes or no.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Then they would have been sent.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend answer that question? He does not have to if he does not want to. The important thing is that he says there were not trained men, when there were.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Well, I am amazed at the minister making that statement.
On January 29, 1942, the minister stated that 10,000 had volunteered for the active army during the month of January, 500 of whom had volunteered the previous day. It is obvious that this great increase in enlistments, gratifying as it is, must seriously congest the training centres, trade schools, and other military establishments for the training of troops. Accommodation is at a premium, and the duties of military instructors will no doubt be severely taxed.
The situation, therefore, is that in October we could not raise a small number of reinforcements for two battalions without including a number of untrained men, and in January our training establishments are overcrowded because of the glut of enlistments. Surely this house must realize that to have called men up on a scientific basis, as they

The Address-Mr. Adamson
were needed, would have been the most efficient way to handle the military man-power required.
In this connection, I quote the experience of the United States armed forces where General Lewis B. Hershey called on Secretary Henry L. Stimson and Secretary Frank Knox to wind up all recruiting of volunteers for the army, navy and marine corps and rely entirely on selective service. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will quote the dispatch:
"America faces the disruption and dislocation of its supply of essential man-power," General Hershey contended.
The army suspended recruiting in December but resumed subsequently after congress had lowered the limit for selective service to 20 years rather than 18 as favoured by the war department.
In his letter he said the appeal for volunteers had lured skilled men from vital production jobs.
General Hershey asserted also that recruiting services were building up a belief that volunteers would be favoured in the military service and commented "such practices are not conducive to good morals."
"An appropriate agency of government should decide where the individual could best serve his nation in total war, rather than leave the decision to the individual who is not a free agent in the matter of such choice," General Hershey contended. He proposed that the recruiting of volunteers be brought to an end gradually to avoid difficulties.
A complete parallel of the position we find ourselves in is to be found in New Zealand where in 1938 the Labour party was elected to power, one of its pledges being "no conscription." In 1940, after the fall of Dunkirk, public opinion became so alarmed that the government of our sister dominion very wisely altered its stand on this question and brought in the national service emergency regulations. These were passed on the 18th of June, 1940, and made public on the 24th of June, 1940. All voluntary enlistments ceased on the 22nd of July, 1940, except in the Royal New Zealand Navy and Royal New Zealand Air Force. The ballot system was introduced for all men between the ages of twenty-one and forty-five, and the bill enacting this measure passed the New Zealand house without a seriously dissenting voice.
As an example of what a small country, whose population is but 1,636,000, can do, I should like to quote the following figures for the record, taken from the New Zealand War Record, an official publication of the government printing office, Wellington, New Zealand: After two years of war, that is in December, 1941. New Zealand had 80,000 men on active service, overseas or in training, 138,000 for home defence enlisted on conditions somewhat similar to our reserve army-


James Layton Ralston: I have been endeavouring to get the figures about New Zealand. Will the hon. member give the source of them? Are they from the New Zealand handbook?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes. This book I have is issued by the director of publicity, Wellington, New Zealand, 1941, and as far as I can judge it is an authentic government document.


James Layton Ralston: I am not suggesting that it is not.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Ninety-five thousand
enlisted in civil defence units, making a total of 313,000. Besides this, she had 33,000 applications for enlistment in the air force, of whom 13,500 are, or were at the end of two years of war, actually serving in the Royal New Zealand Air Force. Her operational and air crews overseas were 4,300, as well as 6,000 men volunteered for the navy-4,000 of whom were serving in the New Zealand navy in September as 'svell as 1,000 more New Zealanders in the Royal Navy. To recapitulate:
80,000	active service army overseas or in training; 138,000 home defence units-reserve army; 13,500 air force; 5,000 navy. Total military personnel, 236,500 at the end of September. To this must be added 95,000 in civil defence units, bringing the total for this gallant country, whose population is but one-eighth of ours, to the magnificent figure of 331,000. This was of the date of September, 1941.
New Zealand is, however, not an industrial nation, there being but 11,000 persons engaged directly in munitions manufacture. Therefore it would be unfair to say that on the basis of comparative population Canada's contribution should be 2,650,000 men. It is just this sort of argument and petty mental arithmetic that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) uses when he takes the Canadian enlistments and multiplies by ten to show what the United States army should be compared with ours. You cannot apply the multiplication table to the raising of armies. That is not the way in which an army is raised, and it is this sort of dangerous oversimplification that causes so much ill-feeling and misunderstanding. The way to consider Canada's war effort is to see to it that every man will be called upon to do the job he is most capable of doing. Surely there is no disagreement with that statement.
The unfairness of the present system is that men now doing one job and doing it well can and do alter their calling or occupation almost at will, frequently to the great disruption of industry. I will give one example. In the manufacture of Bren guns there is a very highly technical and skilled job of straightening out

The Address-Mr. Adamson

the barrel prior to its assembly. This is done by hand and by eye, the barrel receiving a series of bumps until it is perfectly true. The trueness of the barrel is judged by the eye of the operator, who observes a series of concentric rings or shadows formed in the barrel, which is highly polished. A great deal of the final accuracy of this magnificent weapon depends upon this operation.
The operators are all young men with peculiarly gifted eyesight. When they engage in this work they are trained for a period of four or five months, and they agree not to go to the movies, not to read, not to smoke, to drink very little, and to do practically no work by artificial light. I am sure the house will agree that these men are working at considerable sacrifice, no matter what they are paid, and that if they change their occupation, it is harmful to the Canadian war effort. Surety it cannot be good to have these very highly' trained men who are doing this excellent work change their position and enter the armed forces unless they can be replaced. Several of these men have enlisted in the Canadian armed forces, against the wishes of their employers, their reasons being those of any red-blooded young Canadian. I suggest that to use these men in the army is not in the best interests of the country's war effort at the present time.
I come now to the present application of the National Resources Mobilization Act. My objection to the present policy of the government is that under the present regulations y'ou have two types of soldiers. This is undignified and entirely foreign to the nature of the Canadian people, and in my opinion Canada believes that the soldier should be a soldier to go where he is sent, to do what he is told to do, to fight the enemy wherever the enemy may be found. To have an. active army battalion in which there are men whose service ends with the three-mile limit is the evil outcome of the mind of a political contortionist, and I warn this government that to continue this policy may have the most serious consequences not only on the morale but on the internal discipline of the unit so affected. A regiment of volunteers which finds itself with an admixture of home defence recruits immediately thinks its fighting day's are over. Morale decreases and resentment against these unfortunate young men grows rapidly.
A regiment is a sacred thing, full of long traditions of great service, full of esprit de corps; and to destroy this fighting spirit is criminal folly which must rest squarely on the shoulders of the government. To have some members of the unit proudly wearing

"Canada" on their shoulders and their regimental badges, while other members do not W'ear these proud emblems, is a disgrace to our military history. It is not only a disgrace to our military history, but is a slap in the face to men of a previous generation whose bravery and endurance contributed so much to our safety here to-day.
The Prime Minister spoke long and loud about the need of preserving national unity. What has he been doing in the past eighteen months? In this very matter of dividing the armed forces into active and home defence bodies he has sown within Canada seeds of disunity and discord which will bedevil posterity with the fomenting of hatred long after he and the rest of the government have passed from the scene.
The great Grecian patriot Pericles, in his immortal speech, bequeathed to the world the conviction that freedom was the right only of those who had the courage to defend it. Those deserve to be free. Yet under our present system it is also given to the faint-hearted and to those who live sheltered lives; they expect the courageous to provide freedom for them.
I have a word to say on the question of a war council of the united powers. It is essential for the prosecution of this worldwide war to act in conformity and jointly with our allies. We have in Washington to-day a United Nations war council for defence on the Pacific; we have in London an imperial war cabinet. Is it for the Prime Minister to say we are not interested in joining both of these bodies? Certainly our highest possible and most accredited military and governmental representatives should be sent to these councils. Not to do so is to accept colonial status. Admittedly we have a joint defence board with the United States, but that is not enough. What goes on in the south Pacific, the fortunes of Singapore, the battle of Libya and the magnificent defence of their country by the soviets are of immediate concern to us. We must be prepared; in fact we must demand, that we be informed of what is being done, and say what we can do and what we are prepared to do about it. If war can be kept at these safe distances, we shall indeed be fortunate. But we cannot expect other nations to be interested in us should we be invaded, unless we are interested in them.
The whole tragic history of the defeat of allied arms in this war has been caused by this narrow nationalism and this inability of nations to act together as a unit. For any responsible Canadian not to jump at the chance, nay, demand that we be included in all of the councils of the United Nations is

The Address-Mr. Adamson
an exhibition of that parochial spirit and an example of the petty political mind that destroyed France.
If, however, we demand this, as I believe we should, we must be prepared to do our part equally and without the slightest hesitation or reserve along with the other United Nations. The government must get out of its mind that Canada is merely contributing something towards the waging of someone else's war. This manifestation of an inferiority complex puts us in a false light. The fact that many of our allies are numerically stronger than we are does not necessarily mean that we have to accept an inferior position all along the line. We must have a say, and an important say, in how the war is to be conducted. And we must be prepared, [DOT] as I have already said, to perform whatever tasks are assigned to us.
There are some who consider that Canada's war effort in this titanic struggle must be of a minor nature. I do not agree with that view. We have a country of twelve million people, a quarter of the population of Great Britain. We have a skilled manufacturing and agricultural manhood. We have natural resources in great abundance. The Prime Minister is prone to talk of Canada as a nation, but every time we are expected to behave as one we immediately revert to the status of a colony. It is essential that we take our active part in both AVashington and London and that we do it without delay. But we must remove the one barrier to ourselves as a nation before we can sit in these conferences of great men, and that one barrier is the lack of an all-out war effort, which includes selective compulsory national service.
Now I come to one more question. I see by the press that there is a movement on foot to take away the wet canteens from the soldiers and to restrict the sale of beer throughout Canada.	Let me warn this
government that if it wants to create bad feeling and to strike a deadly blow at the morale of the Canadian army, the first and surest step to take is to restrict the privileges of the wet canteen. I will ask my friends who are so anxious to interfere with the lives of others to remember that the gallant garrison at Tobruk when they were relieved stated that one of the reasons why their morale remained so magnificently high was the fact that a wise United Kingdom government had seen to it that they had a constant supply of beer.
The discipline of Canadian troops in the city of Toronto during this war has been exemplary. To close the beer parlours or to restrict the sale of beer to his majesty's forces
would shortly bring about the deplorable conditions of the prohibition era and lead to the eventual break-down of respect for law. To do this would be criminal folly.
I have just one word to say to those good people who will accuse me in making that statement. I state that I do not drink beer, nor do I smoke; I do not own any stock in any brewery; I do not know any brewer, and there are no breweries in the riding I have the honour to represent. I merely wanted to make that statement for the record, so that it may be seen that what I have said was said in the interest of the forces and not because I am interested in any other way.
There is one final point that I wish to raise about the speech from the throne, namely, that it contained no mention of Russia. To-day our soviet allies are providing the one bright spot in the picture of world-wide catastrophe. The Russians have been the first people to meet and defeat the blitzkrieg. It is to them we must look for the initial destruction of the German land forces. Their magnificent heroism has sent the brazen horde reeling in disorder from their capital. To-day the soviet power is the second or third most important in the world. Soviet Russia and Canada are near neighbours; we are both northern people living in an extreme climate; we both have a great country to develop. Yet one would think it was almost indecent to mention Russia. I suggest that we should immediately take steps to recognize the government of the Soviet Union. I am glad we had' the statement concerning that of the Prime Minister yesterday. AA^e should welcome in this country a soviet military mission, and should send one of ours to Russia. I believe we have much to teach them, and it is more than likely that they have much to teach us.
I am not afraid of the spread of communism in Canada, if we treat Russia as a full ally and welcome members of her armed forces in the same way as we do those of any of the other "united nations." I should like to see a soviet legation at Ottawa; the hammer and sickle should fly proudly at the masthead instead of being considered an emblem of somewhat questionable morality. I realize that in saying this I may be accused of being a communist or of having communist leanings. I am no communist and no socialist. Some of my friends and all my enemies consider me a reactionary Tory. But to refuse to recognize this great power is building up trouble for ourselves and is going to give great aid to subversive elements which are even now at work trying to undermine the security of the state. We are going to have to admit that the soviet philosophy exists and that it has done
The Address-Mr. Adamson

great things; let us admit it openly and above the broad tables of government rather than have snivelling, subversive agents peddling anarchist literature to the adolescent minds of the students in our schools, universities and training camps We have seen what anarchy has done in other countries. It can happen here.
Listening to the desk-thumping at the close of the Prime Minister's apologia on this plebiscite question, I thought of the words of the poem, "The Fall of the City", by Archibald McLeish:
The city of Masterless men Will take a Master.
There will he shouting then.
Blood after.
Country without leadership; government without direction; parliament without authority.
Canada without leadership.
Shouting now.
Blood after.


Mr. F. G. HOBLITZELL (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on a subject of vital importance. First, however, I should like to say that 'the views I am about to express are my own, and are the result of deep personal convictions. I am quite aware that these views are not shared by many hon. members on this side of the house, but this matter is of such grave importance that it far outweighs any party considerations. In what I am about to say I am considering first of all the interests of the whole country, certainly not those of any political party.
I believe the time is now ripe to wage total war with total war effort. Does anyone here suggest that we have total war effort? How is it possible to have total war effort without the mobilization of all our man-power, wealth and material resources, under a plan of universal compulsory selective service?
As member for the constituency of Eglinton in Toronto, I have received thousands of communications from my constituents, both Liberal and Conservative, with regard to the vital question of selective compulsory service of man-power, wealth and material resources. I greatly welcome the interest taken by my constituents, and at this time publicly thank them for communicating their views to me. I should like to say, however, that prior to receiving this widespread expression of opinion, I had already taken the opportunity of giving to the press my views as a member of par-liment on this vital question. I stated then, as I do now, that I believe the only fair, honest and efficient way to wage total war is by the allocation of our man-power, wealth and

material resources, that is, by introducing a measure of universal selective compulsory service.
I have not arrived at this conclusion hastily and without consideration for the views of others. On this matter, however, which concerns the life and security of every one of us, I felt the time had arrived for me to add my views to those expressed in this house and elsewhere.
I should like to say something about Canada's war effort up to the present. In many spheres it has been a most creditable and substantial contribution. When we consider the difficult task of changing a nation from a peace-time economy to an active wartime economy, I think it becomes us all to pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the members of his government for the good work that has been done. In fact I believe it is the utmost pity that in this one most important sphere, the issue of manpower, we should allow the splendid efforts of the government to be overshadowed by the resultant depreciation in civilian morale throughout the land. I realize that this is a job beyond the strength of any one man or group of men to carry on without the cooperation and unity of all men and women in this country.
If we are to carry our full weight forward to victory, it is of the utmost necessity that the people be given inspired leadership, so that our military and material contributions will be supported by a high state of civilian morale. Nazism is a horrible disease which 'has been allowed to run rampant too long. It must and will be destroyed. But let us use every expediency, everything within our power and knowledge to destroy it as quickly as possible before it destroys too many of us.
I should like to state exactly what universal compulsory selective service means to me. It is the complete mobilization of man-power, wealth and material resources, as has been said so often. In the words of the Prime Minister, total war must be met with total-war effort. To that effort there are four parts which go to make up the whole. No two or three parts are of any use or can make up the whole or total effort without the fourth.
First, proper allocation of all Canadians, manhood and womanhood, and proper use of all material resources will do this. [DOT]
Second, men and women who are on the farms, or have knowledge of farming must be kept on the farms. This department of a total war effort I believe to be in a critical stage right now. Farm lands must be kept up to strength, for the food question is equally and as vitally important as the other three parts which make up the whole of total effort.

The Address-Mr. Hoblitzell
Third, our industrial plants and munition factories must not lose their specially trained and skilled labour. Where women can do the work as well as men, they should be conscripted for this work, leaving thousands of men free for the armed services; and all men of the proper age, and fitted to serve in the armed forces, must be trained and equipped to serve anywhere and at any time.
Fourth, all material resources must be wisely appropriated and properly used for the functioning of our war effort.
In my opinion, the voluntary recruiting system has not been a success, particularly in connection with the army. This is not my opinion only; we have the expressed view of our own high military authorities, including Brigadier General Panet and Major-General Vanier, and of course the figures given to this house by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) at the end of the last session, which in themselves were a complete admission that the voluntary system of enlistment was not doing the job. The figures to which I refer were those which he gave the house as to the results of the campaign for 35,000 recruits, which fell short of its objective by approximately 10,000. This speaks for itself.
I despise the backdoor methods, which are a disgrace to our country, of gaining recruits for our aimed forces. I wish you could tell me, Mr. Speaker, how to answer the boys who are constantly coming into my office. These are loyal, patriotic Canadian citizens, anxious to do their duty and ready to serve equality of service. Some tell me they help in or are even the sole support of their families. Even so, they are ready to enlist and do their duty; but, why should they enlist when so-and-so over there, who has no obligations, who is earning good money and enjoying all the comforts of our country, sits back and waits for good opportunities left open by our volunteer recruits? Nor do I approve the disgraceful methods used by some of our recruiting officers, which constitute a system of coercion. Many of these stalwart youths, being just underage for service, are the constant objects of ridicule, sneers and badgering by these same officers. I believe universal compulsory service would be received happily and with deep satisfaction by all the young men of our country. Equality of sacrifice and of service, which far transcends any economic policy, is the only method by which we can defend the system under which we live.
It is true that in the beginning of 1940 our Prime Minister and others gave a pledge to the people of Canada not to instigate conscription for our armed forces for other than home defence, without consulting the people.
But was any government or any prophet in the world at that time able to foresee the sorry and horrible mess into which all the freedom-loving peoples of the world would be thrown by the end of 1941? As I said before, nazism is a disease, and we must keep healthy the place where it is not lest that part also be destroyed. We must go and fight it where where it is.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is my considered judgment that the majority of the people of this country desire that the Prime Minister keep the pledge which goes with his high office, that is, to take whatever measures he and his government feel are wise and necessary to protect the lives and property of the people in the light of whatever perils face the nation. I implore him not to besmirch the honour and dignity of this great dominion by substituting the uninformed opinion of the people for vigorous, courageous and honest leadership. We have seen evidence of the disunity that the proposed , plebiscite is going to create among our people. I therefore plead, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Prime Minister, that it is the course of wisdom for him to arrest this ever-growing dissension of which we all have ample evidence. The simple way would be to provide legislation that will bring into force universal compulsory selective service, both for manpower and material wealth. In this way everyone, regardless of race, colour or religion, who shares the privileges of this country, will equally be called upon to share the responsibilities that go with those privileges.
On motion of Mr. Church the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, February 4, 1942