1942-02-04

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 3, 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. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the war is Canada's only business at the present time; it overshadows everything else. Nothing else matters. There are a large
The Address-Mr. Church

number of domestic problems which at other times would be very important, but in the face of war nothing else amounts to very much until the war is won.
I have read over the various addresses which have been made in this house since the beginning of the session; and it is altogether too bad for parliamentary government in Canada that the real issue, the war, which is now not far from Canada's shores, cannot be discussed without many of the personalities and some of the arguments which have been used in this particular debate.
After all is said and done, principles are bigger than individuals. Criticism is to be expected in times like these; and those who sit on this side of the house have given the government pretty good support since the war started. I believe that it is the desire of every good citizen in this country from coast to coast to cooperate with the government so long as it does its duty and tries to achieve a full war effort. But this is not the first government which has failed in time of war. The Asquith government went out of office in 1916. Why? Because it tried to conduct a war on a political basis, the way the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is trying to conduct this one-on a Liberal basis. So Mr. Asquith went out of office. The present government is carrying on in the same way. I defy anybody,to successfully contradict that statement. Not one hon. member from the Toronto district who is a Conservative has been invited since the day the war started to see a thing, either in the army, the navy or the air force. The first letter of invitation we received was yesterday, from the army council, to members of parliament-who did not need any invitation to go on government property, notwithstanding all the restrictions imposed by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). By the way, if the Prime Minister cannot be here, I hope that his assistant, the deputy leader, will sit in his seat, because I believe that some criticism is necessary in reference to statements which have been and are being made in this chamber and outside it. I have said that the first invitation which hon. members from the Toronto district got was from the army council, to go down to some building-the Jackson building, I believe-have their photographs taken, receive some card and obtain a pass1 port, if they wished to visit some ships of the Royal Canadian Navy and some air force establishments and various camps in the Toronto district. For myself I do not intend to accept this invitation, because I believe that the certificate of a member signed by the respected Clerk of the House of Commons to each member of the house should be sufficient for the purpose.

I was not able to go to the last war, but 1 tried to do my duty to all classes of citizens, no matter who they were; politics did not enter into it at all.
I say that this belated invitation effort is very much out of place. Criticism is a tonic which stirs governments to action. So long as it is founded on fact and is not influenced by political bias, it helps and encourages an administration and often assists it, even against some of its own' friends. Of course criticism should be based on fact and be impartial, and critical comment, if it is to be valuable, must be fair. Before one makes a speech containing any criticism, he should look around him; he should try in some degree to discern the future; he should be sure of his facts, because facts are facts, and history always repeats itself.
It is true that the government is not alone responsible for earlier reductions of military estimates. It had to assume the consequences of inadequate appropriations made by itself and other administrations as well, as a result of the depression and refusal to face the facts. As I have contended frequently in this house, all parties are to blame for the present situation, for listening to the pacifists and refusing to arm before it was too late.
The opposition has a duty to perform; and I may say that in my opinion the government have not acted fairly towards us in the house in the matter of the war effort. AVe as Canadians and members of the British empire have no divine right to expect victory. The path is not going to be an easy one. The government seem to think there is a royal road to victory, and have neglected to prepare for this war on land and sea, and in the air. Victory can only come out of resolute leadership, total war effort, service and real sacrifice. There is no use boasting about victory and talking as if it were our right by divine law. We can gain victory only by telling the truth to the people, facing the real facts, and building up from the worst of the facts. The hour has come, the men were ready, but machinery and mechanization are not ready. We are now going to take a plebiscite, and that gives the country plain evidence of the fact that we have not yet learned any lessons either from the last war or from this one, and that we refuse to act. We are getting farther away from the main object of the time-to win the war. We have been outbuilt by the Germans and outwitted by them in diplomacy and strategy.
As a member of the House of Commons I believe in certain principles, and one of them is that we should always tell the people the truth. That is a very important thing, and I say to the Prime Minister now that the

The Address-Mr. Church
policy he has enunciated on behalf of the government is not satisfactory. I say to him that he should not be afraid to tell the people that he has made a mistake. The Canadian people do not expect its leaders to be gods, nor do they expect hon. gentlemen opposite to fulfil their pledges. I say to the Prime Minister: "Don't go with the multitude to do wrong." Since this war started, the Senate and the House of Commons have seemed to be like the two lost tribes of the children of Israel, and the altogether forgotten agencies of any parliamentary government. The Senate has been given no new duties. One pledge which the Prime Minister made to me at the last session and the session before was that during the recess of parliament he would consider the question of what should be done to bring about closer cooperation between the two houses of parliament with a view to getting more work done by the Senate in connection with our war effort. One body says it has been here only four or five hours since last June and since the war started, has done nothing to aid the war effort. This is not its fault.
The House of Commons seems to be the forgotten agency of government. The session seems to be a sort of "on again, off again, on again." The doors are sometimes locked and the Senate goes home itself because there is no work for it to do. If there were a reallocation of duties a greater war effort would be effected. I think the less said about pledges, the better for all concerned. The Prime Minister and some hon. members seem to be very much afraid of the newspapers. They are worried by the newspapers. As I said when I first entered the house in 1921, "you can never answer a newspaper because it always has the last word."
In my opinion, the plebiscite is just a box-office appeal to. the cash customers-the voters. That is all it is-a box-office appeal at a late hour. And under the plebiscite for the next four months Canada will be off the track altogether as far as its war effort is concerned.
In the speech from the throne there is nothing but a lot of evasion and platitudes and all that sort of thing. The speech has left out any mention of those things that should be done, and it has forgotten the things that should have been done long ago but have not been accomplished. The speech declares:
The conflict can have but one of two outcomes. Either tyranny, based on terror and brutality, must be overthrown; . . .
I do not think tyranny will be overthrown by a plebiscite, by taking a vote of the people while failing to protect them. Hitler will not be bluffed by any plebiscite on our part.
There was no plebiscite when he invaded Norway, Poland and Czechoslovakia. There was no chance for those people to take a plebiscite. There was no plebiscite in Holland and Belgium. With his savage, mechanized hordes he swept through those countries, and France also, with the result that the whole of Europe collapsed. He beat them to a standstill in diplomacy and strategy, because his war and foreign policies and his strategy have all been a united part of a consistent, considered system, with great preparation and foresight.
In this house for the past ten years I have championed some causes when it was neither fashionable nor popular to do so. For instance, I have always been firm in advocating the British connection, and I have argued for rearmament and cooperation with Great Britain, but this did not appeal to the house because I was one of the last left of the die-hards of British imperialism. The House of Commons and the government of the day thought it was all right to depend upon disarmament, pacifism, and they preferred to associate themselves with peace pacts, protocols, the discredited League of Nations, the Monroe doctrine, the Kellogg note, Locarno, Pan-Americanism, and things of that sort. The time that should have been spent in rearming and preparing for what we have to face now was spent in listening to peace pacts and disarmament, and to the declarations: "We have no commitments; parliament will decide."	Every nation that
wanted to write a note would find a willing reader in the Canadian government. From 1935 to 1940 I repeatedly urged upon the government the importance of rearmament, and of taking definite steps looking towards defence. I deprecated the habit of hon. gentlemen opposite of building castles in the air instead of facing realities. You need only look at the index of the debates in the house from 1935 to 1940 to see the position I took in that period with regard to defence and foreign affairs.
The greatest sin which Canada has committed is that of unpreparedness in the face of the greatest disaster in all history. That is the first and gravest sin of this dominion. We thought we had all eternity to prepare for war. The government of the day, I suggest, instead of hoisting its patron saint, the plebiscite, might far better put up in front of the parliament buildings a bust of Canada's patron saint. And who is Canada's patron saint? Ethelred the Unready. He should be installed as the patron saint of Canada and of this government. We have been too late in everything we have done in connection with this war, even in the present
The Address-Mr. Church

policy of the plebiscite. I suggest also that the government might erect a statue to Harold, who left Hastings and by forced marches arrived too late to meet William the Norman.
Canada has been too late in everything since this war began. It has been the same thing in the army, the navy and the air force; and owing largely to the urging and promptings of this country before the war, Britain parted with her defences, throwing them to the four winds of heaven, and also parted with her friends. At the end of the last war she had the finest army, navy and air force the world had ever seen, but Canada was not anxious to maintain the defences of the empire. Instead; we built castles in the air, like the league, Pan-Americanism, the Monroe doctrine, and so forth.
In my opinion it is no discredit and no disparagement to some hon. gentlemen opposite who have served the country admirably in days of peace to find themselves unfitted for leadership in war, because peace and war are two entirely different conditions. The political executives in Canada have not done well since the war started, and it could not be expected that they would.
They have supported peace pacts, peace agreements, protocols and the like, and believed that these could take the place of service and sacrifice, something in the history of the world never possible. Some of our peace political executives in Canada have lacked the element of courage, decision, the first essential, and the country has not been given the vigorous leadership it needs.
Party politics should be put into cold storage, as I said before the war started, until the war is won and for one year after; for if we lose, Hitler will not only put it there but will make life not worth living for our people.
Now Hitler seeks to capture the future by the present; Canada's policy is the opposite; it seeks to capture the present by talking about what it will do later. We are all along talking of what we are going to do in 1942, 1943, 1944. I predicated in 1937, 1938, 1939 that if war came, it would take two years to train a man and two or three to get munitions. The government are making a great mistake; they are not ready and they do not intend a total war, so they have resorted to delays and vacuum and coma and fear and doubt of a useless plebiscite to kill time. As Tennyson says in the early part of his "In Memoriam":
Our little systems have their day;
They have their day and cease to be;
They are but broken lights of thee,
But thou, O Lord, art more than they.

I say the policy which the Prime Minister has announced is a follow-your-leader policy, "your leader is your policy," a "me-too" policy. Did you ever hear of such a policy in any country that prizes its liberty or in a free parliament?
In Ottawa and in Ontario the Conservative party went out of office on the follow-your-leader policy. Ontario will never tolerate it. I opposed the general referendum in 1924 and 1925. I said in this house

it is on five or six pages of Hansard-that in time of war I would never as a member -of this house allow Mr. General Election to become commander in chief of the British forces; that I would never allow Mr. General Election to become admiral of the British fleet, because before Mr. General Election could open his ballot boxes the enemy might proceed up the St. Lawrence by land, sea or in the air and bomb the citadel at Quebec and bomb this very chamber in which we are meeting. That is the policy I then announced regarding the referendum and do now.
I have here many pages of Hansard. I had a motion on going into supply because I was very much dissatisfied with the government, and on March 21, 1939, on a motion to go -into supply, I moved a want of confidence motion in the government's foreign policy and defence policy. I said that the true facts were kept from the people of Canada; that we were not given any information regarding the real picture, and I took a stand in the house on that -date regarding the British empire, -rearmament and this war. I quoted the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Chamberlain, where he said in the British House of Commons:
If the people are not allowed to know the facts; if they are only allowed to know what their rulers choose them to know, then that people are in danger of being led to embark upon a course which may presently lead them to disaster.
That is found on page 2095 of Hansard for 1939. Again, on the opening -of parliament on February 14, 1938, I had twenty-two questions on the oide-r paper with reference to Canada's pacifist part in the war that seemed sure to be coming. My questions dealt with the Washington -conference, that ill-fated conference at Washington in 1921 and 1922, whiph d-rove Japan into Germany's arms, and the mission of Lord Halifax to Hitler, the Tokyo legation, the Sino-Japanese conflict, Canada and the Nine Power conference, the Prime Minister's visit to Hitler in Berlin in 1937. The Prime Minister was not satisfied for the British government to deal with Hitler, and he went to visit Hitler himself to let him know

The Address-Mr. Church
Canada was a nation. My question is found on page 391 of Hansard for February 14, 1938, and was as follows:
1.	On whose invitation did the Prime Minister visit Berlin and the German goverhment of Herr Hitler in 1937, and on what days was the visit made?
2.	What were the subject matters discussed and was the government of Great Britain advised or consulted about this visit?
3.	Will a summary of the matter discussed be laid on the table of the house?
4.	Was the subject of establishing a Canadian embassy to Germany under discussion?
5.	Did the Prime Minister of Canada make any proposals during said discussions, and if so, what were they?
6. Was the subject of the ceding of the German colonies by Great Britain discussed?
7.	Were any economic or international questions in their relation to Canada discussed, and, if so, what questions?
8.	What is Canada's foreign policy with respect to Germany?
9.	Is such foreign policy a Canadian policy, or is it in harmony with the foreign policy of Great Britain?
The Prime Minister replied with a reply that was no reply at all.
Then there was a Nyon conference to prevent piracy on the Mediterranean and on aid to Britain in the Pacific by funds for the Singapore base. I had urged for many years in this house that for maritime freedom in the Pacific a grant should be made by Canada; also the adoption of the Jellico report and a vast empire shipbuilding policy; the training of 5,000 cadets a year; that Singapore meant more in Pacific protection to Canada than to Australia or New Zealand. And what was the policy of the government? They would not give a dollar, even on Lincoln's birthday, 1938, when the Singapore base was opened four years ago this month. The Australian and New Zealand fleets were there and the United States fleet and the British fleet. But where was Canada? Canada, which was first in the diamond jubilee procession, was the last to send a contingent to South Africa; the government of that day, 1897, said it was against the constitution and against the British North America Act. Canada refused to protect our Pacific coast lines in 1935 to 1940 as it did in 1938.
They have carried out that policy from that day to this, and what has been the result? There was an imperial conference in 1937; the question of shipping and the Pacific question were up, but Canada used the old hackneyed phrase as to the Pacific, "We have no commitments; parliament will decide." They refused to join New Zealand and Australia in an empire shipping plan or enter the shipping conference; they refused here the programme
I offered of a large shipbuilding policy for the empire (1936-38), or to train some of the men who at that time were riding the rods, or a national register for national service.
Then we come to Canada's navy. On the same date, February 14, 1938, I asked, as reported at page 392 of Hansard of that year:
1.	What does Canada's navy consist of, and where is it now located?
2.	Did the Department of National Defence, on January 5 or 6, 1938, release the schedule of good-will cruises, 1938, for this fleet, in navy orders?
3.	Has part of the fleet already set out to sea, and to what destination?
4.	Have any of the fleet gone to Sino-Japanese waters?
5.	Did part of His Majesty's Canadian navy go to sea, on January 1, on a three-months' cruise to Bermuda, St. Kitts. Barbadoes, St. Lucia and Granada on the Atlantic?
6.	Who is the present admiral of the Canadian fleet, and where are his headquarters?
7.	What is the total per annum cost to maintain this fleet, and how many officers and men have they?
We have it that Canada's navy then had a tonnage of only that of one large tramp steamer.
Many other questions were asked and replied to, and there were many other occasions on which I brought these matters to the attention of the house, urging naval protection for Canada and our empire.
On March 31, 1939, I talked out the bill of the present Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), who would not even support a small increase in the military estimates and whose policy was that if war came, Canada would be neutral; and although I talked his bill out, it was applauded from a large majority of the house.
On Friday, March 17, 1939, I asked this question:
Will the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) be in a position at the first of the week to give the house any information on the foreign situation, in view of its great importance to the people of Canada?
That is found on page 1991 of Hansard for March 17, 1939. The Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe replied:
The government will take notice of the question of my hon. friend, and I have no doubt the Prime Minister will satisfy his legitimate curiosity.
I wish to compliment those hon. members who have asserted the rights and privileges and functions of members of parliament. Burke has stated what our rights and privileges are:
Theirs were formerly the feelings of Mr. Hampden when called upon for the payment of twenty shillings. Would twenty shillings
The Address-Mr. Church

have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No. But the payment of half twenty shillings, on the principle on which it was demanded, would have made him a slave.
Then, as to the rights and functions of members of parliament, Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Churchill have given the same opinion. Burke had this to say in his address at a time of grave danger in 1774 to his electors and to the sheriffs of Bristol which he represented in parliament:
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect, their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. . . .
You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member for Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form any hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. . . .
We are members for a free country; and surely we all know, that the machine of a free constitution is no simple thing; but as intricate and as delicate as it is valuable.
Mr. Churchill reasserted that principle of free assembly, free debates, in the British House of Commons last week, in these words:
I don't see why this should hamper anyone. If a member has helpful criticisms to make or even severe correction to administer, that may be perfectly consistent with thinking that in respect of the administration such as it is he might go farther and fare worse.
If a member dislikes the government very much and feels that it is in the public interest that it should be broken up, he ought to have the manhood to testify to his opinion. Nobody need be mealy-mouthed in this debate.
Then Mr. Emmanuel Shinwell, labour member for Seaham, interjected:
Is it to be a free vote?
To this Mr. Churchill replied:
It is to be a free vote under all conditions which have made the conduct of parliamentary government possible. Surely the honourable gentleman is not a man to be frightened of the whip.

Then he went on to say:
It may seem silly to us, but in those minds abroad it is mischievous to our common interests and efforts. I am certainly not asking for any special favours in these circumstances, but I am sure the house would wish to make its position clear.
Therefore I stand by the ancient constitutional and parliamentary doctrine of free debate and faithful voting. . . .
That was his opinion. And when Mr. Churchill speaks he tells the plain truth; his speeches are his own; he does not mince his words, and the people listen to him. He reasserted the rights and privileges of the private member; and the British House of Commons supported him because he believes in free parliamentary and press criticism as part of the British democratic system. What a difference here in this house and in Canada! The first duty of yes-men in Germany is to find out what the fuehrer wants and then to make the planets dance to his desires. Yes-men are not all astrologers; it is a pity they are not, for they would be the better for it. They exist in all classes of society and in all communities, and their mark everywhere is the dread of freedom. These authoritarian governments, Germany, Italy and Japan, exist only because of yes-men and nodders. When a leader emerges he is acclaimed by them, and he drives the country to ruin to their resounding cheers. No opposition is possible in the dictator-ridden countries, it is true, but the evolution of tyranny in Germany and Italy has been possible only because of those who were ready to surrender to usurpation. Once these dictators are installed, they cannot be unseated without a general upset accompanied by force and revolution. In Canada, fortunately, we can speak our mind. There are grave dangera ahead, and reasonable criticism is necessary.
I spoke in this house on March 14, 1927, at page 1168 of Hansard as to the functions and duties of a private member. Those functions and duties are still more important in war time than in peace time. At that time, speaking as a private member of the house, I said, although a strong Conservative:
Unplaced, unpensioned, no man's heir or slave. I neither look for nor care for honour or the patronizing approval of any party. . . . There is only one consolation for a public man, and that is the approval of his own conscience, a sense of duty done. ... I will not knowingly and conscientiously offend any man either byword or deed, but I will stand by the principles of public rights as I see them, which I have supported for twenty-five years in the province of Ontario. But if I am placed in the position of having to defend these principles and must speak, I will speak what I at heart believe to be the truth, moderately, kindly, temperately, but yet plainly, and will call a spade a spade, v . . But while I wear the party uniform.

The Address-Mr. Church
I will never wear its plush. I will take my position among the rank and file, however humble it may be, but it will be as a volunteer and not as a "flunkey".
With reference to the situation at Hong Kong, the people of this country do not want any more talk. They want to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The story of Hong Kong goes back twenty-one years to the ill-fated Washington conference of 1921. It starts when Britain, urged by Canada, decided that Hong Kong no longer should be a first class base but should become a second class base.
This plebiscite or referendum has all of us at sea, and it is not going to be any help in obtaining recruits. I believe the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has worked hard; I think his heart has been in his work.
I do not wish to criticize him or anybody else; but if we had had proper recruiting methods we would have had a million men under the voluntary system. We did not follow the proper method. Our young people had the right spirit; they were bent on giving service, but they were discouraged. They went to the recruiting stations; they *had the real spirit of service, but they were not properly dealt with. All the respite after Munich, and even after war began, went for nothing. The patriotic fervour of our people was not properly directed. The old phrase, "Strike while the iron is hot," was forgotten; and as a result, a little later on we had the most direct methods of conscription and insult used on our young people in these thirty days' and four months' training camps. The vaulting ambition of youth was dampened; the government did not take the initiative, and as a result voluntary recruiting fell down. The navy and air force, however, have had no difficulty in securing recruits.
As I said in this house on November 7 of last year, as reported at page 4175 of Hansard:
In the first year of the war the mechanized hordes conquered Norway, Czechoslovakia, the low countries, Belgium, Holland and, last but not least, France. In the second year of the war they swept over Jugoslavia and Greece, and the mechanization still goes on. What is the position in Canada? We are now in the third year of the war and the government can give us no definite war programme for the next twelve months. As I said when this war began, the big question was man-power. I was told it was not, but it was food and munitions. Has there been any war in the history of mankind in which man-power has not played a major part? I say there has not; and if the government of the day 'had taken the right stand at the start, voluntary recruiting would not have reached the state in which it is to-day. We should have had a million men. During the first months of the war the country was willing to give the ministers time _ to become war-minded instead of believing in pacifism
and disarmament; but two years of armed warfare should be sufficient to bring about that changed mentality. We should be taking active steps to see that in this third year of the war ours should be a total war effort from coast to coast. Now we find the government without any concerted, coordinated war planning for the coming year, to deal with the demands of the military services and the other demands in connection with production, shipbuilding, agriculture and so on. Home defence will never win any war; there is no possibility of that. We should take stock of our military position. The people want to know the facts, but they oamnot get them. As I said in 1937, are we to wait until the enemy comes up the St. Lawrence by air, land and sea, and bombs the citadel and this very building? All the protection we have is provided by Great Britain, and the United States would be attacked also but for the British navy. The small nations of Europe have been enslaved by this mechanized army; they have endured the spies, the sergeant-majors, the concentration camps, the loud speaker, the tramping of feet, the gestapo, the whips, the spirit of barbarism, brutality and savagery; and but for Britain we on this continent would be compelled to suffer the same experiences. Yet we do not pay her tribute.
What are we going to do about it? Sooner or later there must be another Peninsular war on the continent, and what is Canada doing to prepare for it in man-power to aid the mother country? New Zealand and Australia were represented in Africa, Greece, Syria and other countries. Canada was not. Now we have been told by one of the ministers, within the last day or two, that no Canadian troops can be moved out of England without the authority of this government. That is just what I said in this house last June, that not a man could be sent from England without the permission of the government of this country. That is a fine state of affairs. That is not a total war effort, or coordination with Britain; that is not showing cooperation with the other parts of this empire. The time has now come when there should be a change. I think we need something more than words, something more than the essays and all that sort of thing we have been getting. The people should know the extent of our war effort and exactly what our position is.
I have been told by some of the ministers in the last few days that no Canadian troops have been moved out of England without the authority of the government. I said that last June, that no man could be sent from Great Britain without permission of the government of this country. It is a fine state of affairs when, in a total war effort there is no guarantee to Britain that there will be full cooperation of other parts of the empire. The time has now come for a change, and the people should know the facts.
I may say that we are living in a world to-day where force is the only argument. Then, how is civilization going to be preserved without an army? The Prime Minister, speaking in Quebec city a few days before the 1935 election, said that Canada is never going to be carried into another war without a
The Address-Mr. Church

plebiscite. Yet in 1939 he carried this country into war without a plebiscite. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Cardin) said the same thing in 1935, namely, that never again would Canada send troops overseas. But Canada has sent troops overseas, and he is still a member of the government.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the people at the Pacific coast. But this plebiscite does not help them at all. This pompous measure may preserve the dignity of a few people in Ottawa, but in my opinion there is no authority for the plebiscite. It is a hollow mockery. There is no mandate for it. There is nothing in it with which to fight Hitler. It will be a plebiscite without any act, or any way to see the cause and effect of it.
The people are very much dissatisfied with the conduct of the war as it has been carried on so far. They wish to support the government, if they can. Then, with respect to a war cabinet may I point out that in my opinion, in not having a war cabinet the government has made a fatal mistake. One thing which we noticed before the outbreak of the war was the tremendous popularity of the monarchy, the decay of parliament and the decline of the House of Commons. I say there has been a decline, because our functions have been taken away from us by outside boards and bureaucrats. His Majesty the King is beloved the empire over, and we admire the courage and cheerfulness of the king and queen. We must remember that our king is the King of Canada. There should be a war cabinet, with some one beside him, as was the situation 'in the great war to represent Canada before him.
I believe the Prime Minister would have been well advised to have a war cabinet. That is an absolute necessity. New Zealand and Australia want a war cabinet. In the great crisis of the last war the war cabinet proved to be a great success, and I believe that Canadian sentiment is behind it. I hope it may yet develop. It created comradeship among empire troops, and that is something which should be extended. I repeat that I believe the people of Canada are behind it.
I say this because to-day London is the centre of Christendom. We have the battle of London, the battle of the Pacific and the battle of the Atlantic and I believe that such a war cabinet is necessary. I believe all such questions should be dealt with at an imperial conference. I gave reasons for this on May 7, 1941, as follows:
1.	Empire shipping and trade policy.
2.	Eire bases and the battle of the Atlantic, and increased protection on this ocean for Canadian trade.
[Mr. Church.1
3.	The creation of a long-distance defence and foreign policy.
4.	Trade, defence, migration and refugees.
5.	The lease-lend bill and -its application to Britain and empire policy.
6.	The Pacific question; also re the leasing of bases in Newfoundland, the West Indies and Canada's foreign policy therein. She will find herself bound by it.
7.	The financial adjustment of cost-
And all that kind of thing, and-
8.	The giving away of parts of our empire and Atlantic ports and bases from Newfoundland to British Gu-iana, in exchange for 52 obsolete warships.
I believe all these questions should be dealt with at an imperial conference.
At the present time the government has violated nearly all its pledges. It violated tariff pledges for ten or fifteen years, and in addition to that it has violated1 many other pledges I need not mention.
There is one pledge which has to do with bureaucracies. I see the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) in his seat. He has established what is known as a transit commission, headed by a transit commissioner. What is that official going to do? I say to the minister, "Hands off Toronto's public utilities." They are operating at cost, and doing something in the war. I repeat, "Hands off those utilities." Then, he has a transit commissioner from Quebec city.
I find this article in a newspaper (Toronto Telegram, February 3rd);
Public transportation is approaching critical conditions in eve-ry city on this continent. . . . The T.T.C. has even been asked by the federal transit controller as -to whether any oars could be spared for other cities in Canad-a, where the situation is very bad. He lias the authority to -arbitrarily take them, if absolutely necessary, and some buses intended for us already have been diverted to war plants.
We wish, of course, that we had been able to obtain the 60 new street ca-rs ordered in 1940 for use this winter. The old Toronto Railway cars that are being used are not efficient or comfortable. We know -it, but the authorities at Ottawa would not even consider granting permission to buy new street oars as long as any old cars could be used at all.
Nobody knows what the effect of gasoline rationing on April 1, and the tire restrictions, will -have on public transportation.
And so on. Those are the words of Mr. Patten, General Manager of the Toronto Transportation Commission.
All of these bureaucratic boards have been established. And so the House of Commons is only the forgotten appendage of government; there is no more security.
I have some -other matters in mind, but I shall take an opportunity to refer to them la.ter on. With particular reference to the Pacific question, -however, I believe the

The Address-Mr. Ilsley
danger is not far from Canada. The Japanese have submarines which can cross the Pacific ocean, and I believe the day is not far distant when we may be in actual danger.
I am not opposed to the policy of building a road to Alaska. The United States should build that road, if it is to go through to Alaska. In addition to that the government should use lease-lend funds, because it is a matter of home defence. After all is said and done, there is no such thing as home defence. If the British fleet goes down, and if the Royal Air Force fails, the enemy will be on our shores very soon.
I must commend the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Hoblitzell) who is my representative in the House of Commons. I commend him particularly for his refusal to support the policy of "follow your leader," and the principle of making a member of parliament just a "me-too" for anything the government may propose.
On a later occasion I hope to have an opportunity of dealing with the Pacific question in detail, and I want to deal in further detail with all the boards which have been established under the auspices of the government.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the principle of government solidarity is fairly well understood in the country. The people generally know that when the speech from the throne states government policy, that is the policy of the whole government and has the concurrence of every member of the government. This fact, however, does not prevent questions being asked as to whether this concurrence is reluctant or formal, on the part of certain members of the government, or wholehearted and sincere. My main purpose in speaking in this debate is to make it clear beyond doubt to my friends in my own province, and members of the business community, with which the Department of Finance brings me constantly in close contact and to everyone else -who is interested in the matter, that my concurrence in the plebiscite policy is based on conviction, and is given without any doubt or reservation whatsoever.
I would not take part in the debate unless I felt it to be my duty to make this fact perfectly clear. I have been surprised by the confusion of thought which exists in the country on this matter, and I have been amazed by the extent to which thought has been submerged by emotion. Even after allowance is made for the extravagance of language, which is attributable perhaps to by-elections, I can hardly believe that such words as have been used and are being used
should be used about a policy which appears to me to be natural, honourable and
desirable.
Words such as cowardly, dastardly, contemptible, shameful, humiliating, crowning indignity, and so forth, have been used. I must say that the members of this house have shown a sense of their responsibility in regard to the use of language far greater than that which has been exhibited outside. They know, I think, as a result of their association with their fellow members from all parts of Canada, that violent language is inappropriate to this situation. But some of the members and certain spite-infused and hate-inspired enemies of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) have simply let themselves go. They have let themselves go in a way that will make them ashamed of themselves in future months and years.
On the other hand I am convinced that however the step that this government is taking now may appear to these individuals at the moment, it will be looked back upon after a lapse of months and years as the right thing to have done and the best thing to have done in all the circumstances. At times such as these ministers and members should express themselves with simplicity and sincerity. Every syllable they utter should be the truth as they see it, nothing more and nothing less. If they do this, if they pour out their true selves, so to speak, they cannot dissociate themselves from certain fundamental factors such as their heritage and their environment.
My own background is that of the country districts of Nova Scotia. I represent people whose ancestors for the most part left the British isles centuries ago, people whose loyalty to the British empire, whose belief in the British empire and its institutions, are deep-seated, and for that matter taken for granted. They call it the British empire, not the British commonwealth of nations. They do not think too much about home defence. Through the centuries their sons have fought in distant parts of the world and they know that the defence of the British isles is their defence. The distinction between serving in Canada and serving overseas is a distinction which for them has no meaning whatever. They would consider it their duty to defend what they call the British empire, and what I call the British empire, in any part of the world in which the continued existence of the empire was in peril. Their young men are serving in great numbers, proportionately to the population, in the army, in the navy and in the air. These brave young men, the finest and best of Nova Scotians, are being killed. To-day one is missing in Libya, to-morrow another is shot down
The Address-Mr. Ilsley

over the North sea or in France. Casualties bring still more enlistments. The whole population is determined that the war shall be won and be won as speedily as possible. In the minds of some there may be something old-fashioned about this environment, about this attitude, but can anyone deny the inspired soundness and nobility of it?
These are the people whom I have had the honour-and I mean the honour-of representing in this house since 1926, and whose viewpoint, which is my own view-point, I reflect in the cabinet. I want to make this perfectly clear so that my remarks upon the plebiscite may be more thoroughly and completely understood. These people believe and I believe that this government, without too much regard for remotely distant consequences, should adopt the most efficient and effective methods now of carrying on the war. I believe that the programme which we plan should for the immediate future, the coming year, be a programme which will strain the human and material resources of this country to the limit. I have, therefore, agreed as Minister of Fi.nance to a war programme for the coming fiscal year which in my opinion, and in the opinion of my advisers, is the extreme limit of what this country can do, having in mind its human and material resources. I am in favour of pursuing a policy which will make for the fullest possible measure of success for that programme.
One issue between the government and its more sincere opponents seems to me to be this: Will the continuation of the voluntary system for overseas service, at least for the time being-we have the compulsory system in many other lines of the war activity-make for a greater success in our programme than would its abandonment? I wish to say that neither as a member of the government nor as a member of the war committee of the cabinet, nor otherwise, have I been able to find any evidence that the abandonment of the voluntary system and the substitution of the compulsory system in respect to that part of our war effort represented by overseas army service would help at this moment in our war effort.
Surely no one can deny that the voluntary system to date has functioned magnificently. In what single respect has it fallen down? Any question as to the success of the voluntary system for overseas service is not as to its success at the moment but as to its success in the future. No one can tell what methods, what degree of compulsion may be required in the months and years to come, but this government, in my judgment, having in mind its commitments at the last election, would not

be true to its trust if it allowed the situation to drift in directions not now possible to foresee without appealing now to the people, when we know that the appeal can be made without sacrifice of military advantage, to release the government from its commitments so that the government will be completely free to lead this nation wherever it is necessary for this nation to go and by whatever methods it is necessary to adopt to bring about the successful and earliest possible termination of the war.


Mr. HOMUTH:: What if they do not release them?


James Lorimer Ilsley: sters with enormous military striking power are running amuck, no country is safe which withdraws behind and seeks to defend itself behind its own borders. They fail to see that the war we now fight is not a war for imperialistic aggrandizement but a death struggle between two types of civilization. They fail to see that for us it is a war of survival, survival of our integrity as a state, of our free institutions, of our democratic way of life. They fail to see that Canada's destiny as a free or a slave state may be decided mot on her own soil, but in far distant parts of the -world, and that the magnitude of Canada's contribution to the struggle may readily tip the scales.
However mistaken their point of view may seem to us, it is one which we must recognize. It is one which is held by minority groups in several sections of this country. It is strongly held, charged with emotion. It is one which has its roots deep in the past. It is, at least in part, due to incredible blunders made by ourselves during the last war. Surely we should not repeat these blunders by attempting to ride roughshod over opinions *which differ from ours, by breaking pledges, and using the powers we undoubtedly have to force a measure through this house, with no attempt first made to assure that there is for it the maximum amount of understanding, and therefore of sympathy and consent, throughout the country. Surely we should not Jeopardize the gains we have made since the last war and sacrifice the substantial measure of national unity which has been achieved in this war by adopting the arbitrary, unrestrained and provocative methods which the vehement advocates of conscription now would have us use. Certainly those of us who believe in a total Canadian effort for total war should avoid such methods as they would the plague.
Then there is the attitude of another class of opponents, those represented by the 'hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) -Who interrupted me a few minutes ago, who base their objection on the fear that the plebiscite may be defeated. This is the argument of those who are all-out for conscription whatever the consequences, whether it wrecks national unity, whether it helps or hurts the war effort. This is the argument of those who do not trust the people, the argument of those who would have parliament put through conscription without consulting the people, whether the people approve or not. Their position seems to me to be wholly untenable.
Conscription is only a method. The efficiency of any method is to be measured1 by how it works. I am free to confess that in my opinion, if it were strongly opposed by a

majority of the Canadian people, it would be a far less efficient and effective method of providing reinforcements for our troops overseas than the continuation of the voluntary method. Its adoption under such circumstances would, I believe, impede and retard the war effort, not to mention any other disastrous consequences which it would have to the fabric and unity of the state. But I for one wish to express emphatically my belief -that the plebiscite will result in an overwhelming majority of the Canadian people voting to release the government from any past pledges which might now prohibit it from using its discretion to fight this war by any method that seems necessary to win it.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Then what?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I need not say that I personally will do my utmost to bring about that result.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then what?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We shall be free to act and we will act in the best interests of the country and of the war effort;


Richard Burpee Hanson: Free to do nothing.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The first outcry was that this was a plebiscite on conscription; the second outcry now is that it is not a plebiscite on conscription. There is, in my opinion, only one possible danger which need cause fear about the result, and of this I speak with some trepidation. That danger is the possibility that some of the advocates of conscription may go so far in their use of unrestrained, abusive and provocative language, may so let their emotions run away with their intelligence, as to provoke an equally violent emotional resistance on the part of those who do not now believe in or may not yet have made up their minds about selective military service.
Then it is said that the plebiscite is a costly process. Estimates running all the way from a million and a quarter to five million dollars have been made, some of them gross overestimates. This argument, Toronto Saturday Night said, is put forward by people who raise no objection to the continued expenditure by Canadians of vastly greater sums every week upon light entertainment, imported luxury foods, sport, travel and other non-military objectives. They translate the cost of the plebiscite into terms of the bombers and corvettes it would buy, as if the limitation of our supply of these military articles were the amount of money we can spend, whereas it is * really the plant capacity and skilled labour available for their production, none of which

The Address-Mr. Ilsley
would be diverted by taking a plebiscite. Despite this rebuttal of the argument, I as Minister of Finance am interested in saving every dollar that can possibly be saved. If the cost of the plebiscite could be saved; if, in other words, taking the plebiscite represented wasted effort, I would be the first to want that money saved and that waste eliminated. But I cannot believe that it represents waste or needless expenditure of public funds. If so, it might be said that the prolonged debates in this parliament represent waste. That is the charge that Hitler makes, that all costly and time-consuming processes of parliamentary government represent needless waste and inefficiency-that a dictatorship is cheaper and more efficient.
I do not think I need labour this point. We who believe in democracy are willing to pay the price of democracy. We believe that the values received are worth the price we have to pay. If as a result of the plebiscite we can bring home to all our people what this war really means; if we can spread a better realization of the fact that Canada is being defended and must be defended not just on its own shores but in England, on the sands of Libya, on the Russian steppes and in the far-off islands of the south western Pacific; if we can help to dissipate any lingering remnant there may be of the doctrine of isolationism, then probably no price will be too high to pay. If we can accomplish these results, as I believe we can; if those who believe in total war and in the principles of a comprehensive selective service, seek loyally and fervently, and without ulterior motives, to achieve their aims by democratic rather than by fascist methods, then I verily believe that the result of the demonstration of a united national will be of immense value to the country's war effort, a striking contribution to the cause for which we fight.
Then there is the threat of a strike against the victory loan. It is in connection with this controversy over the alleged costliness of the plebiscite that a development has arisen which has shocked me immeasurably. I refer to the letters addressed to myself by several persons, published in certain newspapers, threatening to cancel their regular purchases of war savings certificates and to boycott the new victory loan, in order apparently to scare the government into abandoning the proposed plebiscite or to punish the government for deciding to take it. I cannot believe that the writers of these letters can have given a moment's consideration to the significance of their irresponsible action; and to the credit of the press, some newspapers which believe strongly in
immediate conscription for overseas service have written editorials of protest against this type of opposition.
If the individuals concerned will stop to think, they will realize that their threatened action means nothing less than a strike against the state, a strike against our men in the armed forces, a direct sabotaging of the country's war effort. It is fascism, the attempted use of force to bring about a change in government policy. No doubt these individuals feel strongly as to the soundness of their own opinions, but unless I am greatly mistaken they would be the first to condemn a labour group which threatened to strike in a vital war industry. Their own position is even less defensible.
Surely there is no justification for fascist methods in this country. Surely we still believe in the democratic process. Let such individuals express their opinions as strongly as they will. Let them attempt to convert their fellow-citizens, their members of parliament. Let them seek by any democratic means to overturn the government if they disagree with its policies and decisions. But no Canadian should strike against the state.
No Canadian should boycott a vital part of the war effort. In our war financing activities we have received the unstinted support and cooperation of men and newspapers of all parties and all shades of opinion. I have repeatedly expressed my warm appreciation of that cooperation, and I now do so again. I am confident that however much we may disagree on methods and policies in other fields we can continue to work in complete harmony in the enormously important task of raising the vast sums of money required to pay our soldiers, sailors and airmen and their dependents and to provide them with the best equipment which we can buy or produce.
In conclusion let me appeal to all Canadians for moderation, restraint and reasonableness. In some cases I know my appeal will fall on deaf ears, for example in the case of the premier of Ontario. He would laugh at me, he would laugh at my appeal. But this is not true of most Canadians. Unity is still possible in Canada if we take ourselves in hand. The other day when the Prime Minister was speaking, appealing for unity, I understand that an hon. member interjected, "What unity?" Well, let no one scoff at unity or despair of unity. We can maintain unity by the course we are taking. But we would shatter it into a thousand bits if we followed the course advocated by any single faction of extremists in the camps-not the camp- against us. The objective of all of us is a total war effort in the interest of the earliest
The Address-Mr. Ilsley

possible termination of the war. Surely no one doubts that this is the objective of the government. Surely these wild men who accuse us of having some sordid motives, of thinking of our political futures, do not believe what they are saying. I have no sons, but look at almost any danger area in the world, at almost any theatre of war, and you will find there a son or sons of some minister of this government.
Well, if we have no ulterior motives, and if our opponents have none, surely there is no unscalable barrier to agreement on methods to unity and understanding.
I close with Mr. Churchill's words on unity, which he uttered in the British House of Commons last Tuesday. He said:
We should not allow ourselves to be rattled when this or that other place has been captured, because once the ultimate power of the United States is brought into play it will move forward remorselessly, provided we fight with the greatest vigour and tenacity and provided we, above all, remain united.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I am sure that every hon. member listened with a great deal of interest to the statement just made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). Coming from Nova Scotia also, from another section of it, and perhaps representing a totally different environment, I am going to endeavour to express my opinion on the matter now under debate.
Before I proceed to discuss the plebiscite I should like to refer briefly to a statement or statements made last evening by the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser). At the time he made the statements I endeavoured to correct them and was ruled out of order, and if this debate closes there will not be another opportunity of setting the record straight on that matter.
It is not my intention, and as a rule this group does not waste the time of the house in placing our political views before the house; we endeavour to stick to the issues and to be as brief and explicit as possible. However, when statements are made obviously for political effect, directed at this group, and those statements are not correct we must of necessity answer them.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: It was in answer to a political speech made by a member of that group.


Clarence Gillis: The matter to which I wish to refer is the statement made by the hon. member as reported on page 276 of Hansard of February 3 when he said:
An hon. member to my left said to-day that anyone who is employing a person for work he could do himself should fire that person.

I take it from that observation that the hon. member meant that domestic help should be discharged. He continued:
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.
That is that domestic help should go. I do not believe in that principle. At the time that statement was made I endeavoured to correct it as it was not the statement made by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) to whom the hon. member for Peterborough West was referring. What the hon. member for Melfort did say, as reported by Hansard, is this as reported on page 268 of yesterday's Hansard:
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.
The hon. member for Melfort was dealing directly with the question of taxation. The hon. member for Peterborough West was dealing with the dismissal of domestic help and made a very broad and sweeping statement which could very easily have been misunderstood. We realize perfectly why he was making that statement.
I should like to draw attention to another statement which is not in accordance with the facts. The hon. member for Peterborough West said, as reported on page 281, that "these widows should be praised for buying war bonds and certificates, instead of being ridiculed." He went on to talk about widows and coupon clippers. What I am concerned about is this statement:
. . . 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.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member who is speaking said "saboteurs".


Clarence Gillis: Correct. I am going to explain it. The hon. member for Yonkton made an observation with respect to coupon clippers, bond holders, those who conducted a sit-down strike to remove the five per cent limitation on profits, and so forth, and I interjected in that connection "saboteurs". I consider the people who at such a time put a gun to the head of the government when the British empire with its back to the wall was being driven towards Dunkirk, and who demanded their pound of flesh and retarded necessary

The Address-Mr. Gillis
production in this country to supply Britain with the machinery necessary to defend herself, were saboteurs. I said that then and I say that now.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member said "any coupon clipper" and you said "saboteurs".


Clarence Gillis: Exactly. As to members of this group not being in their seats for an hour and a half on a certain day, there is no foundation for that statement. The hon. member cannot name a day when at least some of the members of this group were not in the house. No party in this house attends the sessions more religiously than the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and social credit groups. For two days this week, while the delegation from the west was in Ottawa, the five members of this group from Saskatchewan were meeting with that delegation, endeavouring to assist them in ironing out their problems. But at no time while this house has been sitting have we all been out of the chamber; at least either the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) or I were here listening and paying attention to what was going on.
Then the hon. member referred to an indemnity of S30 a day, a statement which was also misleading and which might be misunderstood.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
said $30 for a day and a half.


Clarence Gillis: That statement might very
easily be misunderstood. The hon. member may have understood what he meant, but no one else would understand it from reading Hansard. The indemnity may mean just that to the hon. member who made that statement, but certainly it does not mean that to the members of this group. We work for the people we represent three hundred and sixty-five days a year, and if you divide the indemnity by that figure you will see what it means to us. In addition at least fifty per cent of our indemnity goes into the work we do for our people, maintaining offices, endeavouring to assist them iron out their problems and helping them understand some of the legislation that goes through this house. And of course taxes eat into it as well.
With respect to the question before the house, almost every hon. member who has spoken, particularly from this side, has made the statement that the people are going to be badly confused, and that the taking of the plebiscite will delay the war. I guess a great many of the people engaged in the fighting would not mind if that were true, though I
cannot see it in that way. I can readily understand why there should be so much confusion throughout the country. I have sat in my place listening to the speeches since the opening of this debate, and practically every hon. member who has taken part in it has added to that confusion. Each speaker has had a different conception of what the proposal means. No one seems to have any clear idea as to just on what the plebiscite is to be taken, and I am in that position myself.
So far as that goes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the principle of consulting the people on any matter as serious as requisitioning the lives of our people. I believe the people are the most important element in any order of society, and I see governments merely as administrative bodies, carrying out the wishes of the people. So far as I am concerned, therefore, I have no quarrel with the government in the taking of this plebiscite. For the past twenty years I have attended labour conventions; and at most of these meetings the stand of organized labour has been that before Canada engaged in a war, the opinion of the people should be taken. So, in regard to the plebiscite itself, I believe it is the proper thing to do. The question, however, of just on what the plebiscite is to be taken is another matter. I have read the Prime Minister's speech; I have searched through it very carefully to see if I could get some indication of just what the people would be asked to vote upon at that time. So far as I was concerned I could not get any clear conception of just what is to be the issue. He would say something in the first paragraph; he would change it in the second; he would say almost the same thing in the third, and by the time you had gone completely through the speech you were left in doubt as to just what it all meant.
As I see it, there are three specific matters before the house. First there is the government's proposal, which is vague and uncertain and which must be clarified before this debate closes. Then there is the Conservative amendment, and finally the amendment to the amendment moved by this group.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would not the hon. member give us his opinion on the plebiscite? Is he for it or against it?


Clarence Gillis: I have already done that. I said I was perfectly satisfied with the principle of the plebiscite; that I believed any issue as important as requisitioning the lives of our people should be voted upon by the people who are to be dealt with in this way. I believe the principle of the plebiscite is correct.
The Address-Mr. Gillis


Richard Burpee Hanson: And if the people say "no" the hon. member is quite willing to have the country overrun by Hitler?


Clarence Gillis: May I say a little on that point as I go along? At the moment I am trying to waste no time and to deal specifically with the matter before the house. I would have no hesitation in voting for anything introduced by hon. members at that end of the chamber if I thought it was right. I believe the only failure a man has to fear in life is the failure to stand up for the things he believes are right, and as long as I am in this house that is what I shall do.
The part of the Conservative amendment to which I refer particularly reads:
(a)	completely mobilize the wealth and material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man and woman power of the nation, to the end that the nation may wage total war in any theatre of war;
(b)	supply the imperative needs of agriculture, industry, and the fighting forces of the nation. ...	.
We all agree with the last paragraph; what I am concerned about are the words:
. . . completely mobilize the wealth and material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man and woman power of the nation. . . .
I have a great deal of respect for many of the hon. members to my right, and I have no quarrel with the leader of the opposition who sits in the house. Since coming here I have found him to be fair. He places his views before the house very capably; when necessary, he stands up and defends himself, and he is courteous to everyone to whom he speaks. He has a right to his opinions; but, in the light of the statements made by the new leader of the Conservative party, I am very much concerned as to exactly where he stands on this question of mobilizing the wealth and resources of the country. As a worker, I see the wealth and resources of this country mobilized now for certain purposes by certain people; yes, completely mobilized to be used for their own ends. So that this aspect of mobilization must be very considerably clarified, as far as I am concerned, before I would be prepared to support this amendment.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am also concerned about men who make pledges, as to whether or not they are prepared to stand behind those pledges once they are made. The only guide we have in this connection is to make an analysis of the background, integrity and stability of the persons making these promises. The leader of the Conservative party does not now sit in the house; he is endeavouring to obtain a seat. If we accept at face value the amend-

ment before the house from the Conservative party, then we must make an.examination as to who leads that party now, and as to whether he is prepared to stand behind the mobilization of the wealth and resources of the country in order that we may prosecute the war as we think it should be prosecuted. I find that in the past with respect to questions of this kind he has been more or less of a contortionist.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Mostly more.


Clarence Gillis: He has made statements with regard to these matters, and those statements appear in public documents and in the press. For example, the latest one came over the radio at ten o'clock this morning. It is contained in a Canadian Press dispatch of February 4, and is in these words:
Toronto, February 4. Acceptance for himself and the Conservative party of the principle of "conscription of men, if conscription of wealth and industry is imposed on an equal basis" was announced at a meeting here last night by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the Canadian Conservative leader, and candidate in the York South federal by-election on February 9. Mr. Meighen said:
"Mr. M. J. Coldwell, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation leader in the House of Commons has said his party will accept conscription of men if conscription of wealth and industry is imposed on an equal basis. I accept his offer. I speak for myself and the Conservative party."


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Oh, oh, oh.


Clarence Gillis: It continues:
The Conservative leader said he always had favoured the type of conscription of wealth now advocated by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: What do you know about that!


Clarence Gillis: -and would accept any measure of conscription that could assist in winning the war.
"I have been quoted as saying I only favoured conscription of wealth as the last gasp," he said. ". . .1 never made any such statement. What I did say w'as that wealth must be conscripted just as thoroughly as man-power just so long as it is necessary to win this war. I said we are taking it nearly all now but if it all goes, that is the last gasp."


Mr. BRADETTE:: The road to Damascus.


Clarence Gillis: I am not sure whether we are going to accept this latest recruit into our party, but I would say that that is not only the last gasp, but it is a death-bed repentance.
Let us see what he had to say a week ago on the same question. I am sceptical of people who can change their minds so quickly. It is

The Address

Mr. Gillis
an indication that there is not any mind to change. Just a week ago, on January 30, according to the Toronto Daily Star-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, well,-


Clarence Gillis: -he stated this, on the same question:
Conscription of wealth, Mr. Meighen declared, would "shackle the enterprise and efficiency of our industry." To get the most out of men you have to give them an incentive, he argued. He called conscription of wealth "a foolish suicidal thing" until absolutely necessary to finance the war.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Or win an election.


Clarence Gillis: It continues, under the heading, "Urged in last war":
"In ifche last war men who are now the government jin this wair called on us to enact conscription of wealth. 'Why don't you conscript wealth?' they asked. Now they're in office and they haven't done so. Why? Because they realize now it wouldn't work and they are right," Mr. Meighen declared.
Just a week ago that was his opinion on the conscription of wealth. It was suicidal, he said. But a week later he is prepared to commit suicide. I said a moment ago that I am always concerned about people who change their minds so fast. It sounds to me very much like Mr. Hitler's non-aggression pacts-"Lull you to sleep until I get the appropriate opportunity to take a shot at you."
One reference, which goes away back to 1926, might be worth while mentioning at this time. This was a speech made at Quebec on December 1, 1926, and that part having to do with the subject matter now in hand was as follows:
_ "I declare that so long as I shall be in power in this country no troops-" Mr. Meighen halted foir a moment to ere call the French phrase. Then he went on- "no troops will he sent out of the country without the people being consulted." There was an outburst of applause at the words. Mr. Meighen went on, that at the outbreak of the last war, no party had been of this view. Both parties were unanimous in parliament that add should be given without delay. But it was the opinion of the Conservative party that, in the future, the people should be consulted as well as parliament.
Now he is in opposition to the plebiscite. He says that the people should not be consulted when there is no stability, or continuity of thought. I am very sceptical.


Mr. JACKMAN:: The house is on fire.


Clarence Gillis: And these are the people who helped set it afire. In addition, there are the telegrams which were placed on record by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), and which appear at page 179 of Hansard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose the hon. member knows that those things were all threshed out in parliament and denied, and the whole story fell to the ground. If the hon. member will go back and consult the parliamentary debates, he will find that there is not a tittle of proof in them. He should consult the records of parliament, in connection with the Mackenzie resolution.


Clarence Gillis: These press dispatches certainly are not wrong. They are recent statements, and are an indication of just how much dependence can be placed upon people who change their minds so rapidly. It looks to me as if the statements were made merely for political expediency. I make reference to them at this time only because of the seriousness of the war situation. I believe the men who to-day have the responsibility of directing the Canadian people, and prosecuting the war in the light of the international situation, should'not have any doubt in their own minds as to where they stand, nor should there be any doubts in the minds of the Canadian people.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: There should be no doubt in Mr. Meighen's mind, and never was.


Clarence Gillis: These press dispatches show exactly where Mr. Meighen stands.
A further matter to which I wish to make reference is the amendment offered by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I believe there is no necessity for me to read it. It is clear, concise and explicit. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation stands now and always has stood for the all-out prosecution of the war. We realized at the outbreak of the war that in order to defeat Hitler wc had to defeat the forces in this country which make Hitlers, in addition to defeating the Hitler in Europe. We are prepared to go all the way.
There is strong sentiment throughout the country to-day. I get around the four eastern provinces quite a bit, and I can say that with the exception of the Toronto area one does not hear this urge for the conscription of man-power only. The sentiment in the country to-day among the working people, the common people, who in the final analysis will do the fighting-the arm-chair generals will not fight the war-have expressed their opinion about conscription. If and when the ballot is taken, I say that the Canadian people should have the right to speak on the question of the total conscription of finance, industry, wealth and man-power, on the same basis, at the same time and with the same degree of sacrifice as man-power is asked to make.
The Address-Mr. Gillis


Richard Burpee Hanson: What does the hon. member mean by the conscription of wealth?


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Meighen agrees with it.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: What do you mean by it?


Clarence Gillis: Ask Mr. Meighen. I have thought a great deal about this plebiscite and its clarification. My own opinion is that there is no intention to conscript man-power. I think it will be found before this question is settled finally that someone will pull a rabbit out of the hat. Conscription of man-power and selective service are two entirely different things, as I undertand them, and they must not be confused. You can have one without the other. Perhaps the reason the government is so evasive and mysterious about it is that they have no intention of conscripting man-power.
I agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) who says that there is no necessity at this time for the conscription of man-power. To conscript man-power without having the necessary equipment to fight and train with, without having all the materials necessary to put the men in the field, would be a waste of time and would bring about a continuation of what is happening now, a back-paddling on every front.
What is necessary is the mobilization of industry under proper direction. When this government is relieved of its pledge in connection with the conscription of man-power, instead of conscripting men for overseas service I believe what we will get-they are promising it, and the Conservative amendment promises it-will be selective service. That will give the government or those in authority the right to regiment further the working people of this country.
As I understand it, selective service gives the government full authority to decide where every man and every woman in this country shall work. That is proper and has considerable merit in the light of the present situation, but what we are concerned about is who is going to control it. How is it going to work? What representation will the working people of this country who are going to be mobilized and regimented have?


An hon. MEMBER:: None.


Clarence Gillis: None. We see the government's policy reflected in the setting up of war boards headed by captains of industry and the heads of our large financial organizations. There is no representative of the common people upon these boards which now control the economic resources of the country.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The heads of these
companies-I am one myself-have worked up from the very bottom to the top. We were all common people but through our ability we got to the top.


Mrs. CASSELMAN:: What about the new Minister of Labour?


Clarence Gillis: I am sorry the hon. member brought that up. I did not want to refer to it, but I shall. I agree with the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) that quite a number of people have climbed to the top. But they are not sitting on these war boards, nor is the hon. member for Davenport. Hitler climbed from the bottom to the top, but what has he done? It is the use of power by the individual who reaches the top that is important.
I am afraid of this growing control of the management of the country by certain groups. Take H. R. MacMillan, for example. He owns and controls practically the whole lumber industry of Canada and yet he sits on a board that sets prices for his own industry. If you follow this thing through you will find that in 99 per cent of the cases these men are simply acting as super-sales-agents for their own organizations to see how much of the money being spent on the war can be directed back to their own organizations.
I have met the people and discussed this matter with them in their unions and have tried to arrive at some understanding as to what selective service means. I believe in the first anaR'sis that what is in the minds of those who will conduct this plebiscite is the organizing of the industry of this country on the basis of selective service. The conscription of man-power is secondary to that. Those who will make the greatest contribution should have representation upon these boards which will be set up to regiment further the working people of this country. The working people should be represented in order that their interests may be safeguarded now and in the aftermath of the war.
The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman) has asked me what I think of the new Minister of Labour. I am not personally acquainted with him, but through thirty years' association with the labour movement I know of him. I know his record. What his activities will be in the house if he gets in-we are doing our best to stop him- is problematical and I cannot make any forecast. It has been heralded throughout the constituency in which he is running that he is a labour man. He represented labour in this house, but my recollection of the acting Minister of Labour-

The Address-Mr. Gillis
Mr; DOUGLAS (Weybum):	Not acting;
he is the minister.


Clarence Gillis: The people will have a say
in that. My recollection of the record of the temporary Minister of Labour is that he was elected first on a labour ticket, but with the assistance of the Liberals. According to my information, all the time he sat in this house he was very nice to our friends across the way. I understand that the last speech he made in this house was a tirade against the people with whom he sat. He went back to his constituency of Hamilton East and ran again on the independent Labour ticket. The Liberals did not contest the election; they gave him their official endorsation, but he was defeated. The people had got wise to him. He is said to be a trade unionist, but everyone who carries a trade union card is not a trade unionist, just as everyone who preaches the gospel of the Toiy party is not a Tory, as is exemplified by their leader, who is now a socialist. That is all I have to say with respect to Mitchell. He has done quite well for himself-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We know what labour thinks of him.


Clarence Gillis: -but not very much for the people who sent him to the house in the first place and gave him a start.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Gillis: We have this kind of person in the labour movement. In the final analysis we are all human beings. I may say a little more on this question for the benefit of the hon. member for Edmonton East. I am going to say a little about the administration of the department since the new minister took it over, with relation to Kirkland Lake.
We hear a great deal about planning of industry and the necessity for such planning. It is part of the programme of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. We believe that the industries of this country should be planned and directed in order to give their maximum production. I do not believe maximum production is being achieved at this time. I do not say that because I want to belittle what is being done. We of this group have stated many times that as far as we are concerned we recognize the difficulties of transferring Canada from a peace-time nation to a war-time machine. The Canadians are not a warlike people. They love peace. That was exemplified in our complete disarmament during the years when Hitler was preparing for his onslaught. We realize the difficulties; we know that ministers who have the direction of the war effort are pretty much in our own position; they are ordinary, average people
with not very much knowledge of war or the war machine, or of industry or the planning of industry or its operation; and perhaps they are doing a better job than some of us expected they would. But there are times when we are concerned about the situation.
Take the question of aircraft production. It is admitted that on every front aircraft will be the decisive factor in the war. Yet there is a shortage of planes. We have lost two of our largest battleships in the Pacific because there was not sufficient air support when those boats were out in the narrow straits. So it is rather alarming when we find right here in Ottawa the state of things set out in the Ottawa Journal on January 17. It reads:
Ottawa Car and Aircraft Limited has laid off almost 500 employees in the last six weeks, and many more will be let out soon. Redmond Quain. K.C.. president of the company told The Journal Friday night. While large numbers will be laid off, this condition must not be assumed to be permanent, he said.
Reason for the suspension, Mr. Quain said, was the complete lack of aircraft orders. Drastic reductions in personnel have heen made and will continue to be made because at this particular time the company has no more aircraft orders to fill. . . .
He pointed out that the situation at Ottawa Car and Aircraft Limited was not an isolated case, and that there are other large aircraft factories and companies in a similar position at this time.
Surely, in view of the seriousness of the war situation and the lack of adequate aeroplane support in every area where battles are taking place, a condition of that kind should be inquired into. Why are there no orders for aeroplanes? They want them in Britain; they need them in the United States; we want them here in Canada; they are required in every section of the globe where war is being waged to-day. Yet on January 17 a responsible official connected with aircraft production in Canada makes the statement that there are no orders for aeroplanes and he is laying off men. It is something which should be inquired into and rectified.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It should be censured.


Clarence Gillis: It should be. It appeared in the Ottawa Journal.
These are factors which enter into the question of the conscription of man-power. If you have a job and you are comfortable, and appeals are being made over the radio and in the press for you to enlist, put on a uniform, go to Malaya or some other section, and fight, what is the effect of statements such as the one I have read? I am asked to put on a uniform and shed my blood in some foreign
The Address-Mr. Gillis

country for the protection of Canada. At the same time statements are made that the machines necessary to protect me and enable me to fight that battle are not being produced' in Canada, not because of lack of equipment, of factories, or of employees, but because there are no orders.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There are too many
factories idle.


Clarence Gillis: Exactly. That is not an inducement to voluntary enlistment. The tendency rather is for one to stay at home where lie is safe-as long as he is safe, however long that may be. There is only one way, in my opinion, to overcome this. I do not say that the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) can do it; he is only one man; I do not say that partisan politicians appointed by the government are in a position to do it, because they are partisan politicians, small-time ward-heelers, and so forth, interested in jobs. These are not the people to step up production and see that these conditions are remedied. You must get someone who is interested in the job, who has some knowledge of what is involved, and who is free from political or any other kind of pressure. I think what should foe done is what Ernest Bevin, the British Minister of Labour, did when he took over his portfolio. It took him just about nine hours in conjunction with his labour advisers to lay down a set of regulations governing war production, and he appointed forty inspectors, men who were capable and competent and could be depended on.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He picked practical men.


Clarence Gillis: Yes; and he sent-them into the factories to step up production.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He is an organizer.


Clarence Gillis: We, too, have them, but they won't let them organize.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes; that is the trouble.


Clarence Gillis: Some attention should be paid to that. No factory in Canada should be closed which can produce aeroplanes. Every factory should be turning them out.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They should be working twenty-four hours a day.


Clarence Gillis: Right. And it is essential that we take care of the small details among the people themselves and demonstrate to them that, while we are fighting a war, we still realize that the common people at home are human beings.


An hon. MEMBER:: And have to be looked after.


Clarence Gillis: And have to be looked after. I do not believe that there would be any difficulty in getting men on a voluntary basis in this country if we took care of matters of this kind affecting war production and the everyday needs of the people whom we want to do the fighting. In the final analysis it is the fellow who works who is going to do the fighting. It is not the cabinet minister or the member of parliament. Nor is it the little pin-headed local politician who wants to stay at home and work his machine to death and get what he can out of the war; he should be pushed aside.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the house, because I think it is retarding enlistments. A committee on pensions sat during the last session of parliament. It was largely composed of members of the government, but two members of our group, of whom I was one, had the privilege of serving on it. A supplementary report was presented to the house, tabled, and, as I understand it, accepted, containing certain recommendations in the interests of men actually engaged in making war. Those proposals were never implemented; they were changed.
One question to which I would direct your attention is the rehabilitation of the soldier after he returns. There is nothing worse, nothing that affects a community more injuriously, than that a man who has made some contribution to the war, who has served perhaps a year, having gone over to England and been returned as physically unfit, should be found walking the streets unable to get a job. He goes to an employer and is told, "Your certificate of discharge is not worth the paper it is written on; you are physically unfit and we do not want men who are unfit." That man is a living example to the other fellow as to why he should not volunteer, and there are many such men. I have run into many of them in my section of the country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Far too many.


Clarence Gillis: Far too many. The welfare officers working on rehabilitation do the best they can, but they do not get cooperation on that question from the employers, at any rate so far as my part of the country is concerned. We made a recommendation to the pension committee at that time, based on the regulations as they exist now in Britain. It was to the effect that a soldier returning from the war should be retained in uniform for at least six months and given some voca-

The Address-Mr. Gillis
tional training and pay and allowance for himself and his dependents in the meantime, and that he should be rehabilitated and fitted for some gainful employment. That was the committee's report. Now he is put on relief. Under the new regulations he can make application to the welfare officer and be given so much a week for so many weeks or until he is employed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There should be no necessity for such relief in a country with the resources that Canada possesses.


Clarence Gillis: That is a state of affairs that should be abolished. If we got rid of that condition there would be no necessity for conscription for overseas service. The committee made another recommendation-and these are matters that relate to the war- that the desirability should be considered of extending the provisions of orders in council P.C. 3359 and P.C. 3492 of November 10, 1939, with reference to Canadians serving on ships of other than Canadian registry operating from Canadian ports. That is a question that we considered very carefully. Wherever there is a seaport there is a good deal of trouble in this connection. This has reference to boys serving on convoy ships; and there is no branch of the service that is more essential. They are taking greater chances on old ships than they otherwise would. A lot of these old ships are held together by paint, and they leave these ports loaded with war materials. That is true; hon. members can check it up.


An hon. MEMBER:: A little more than paint.


Clarence Gillis: I have seen them in Sydney and even the paint was not holding them together. Everything that will float is put into service, and perhaps that is necessary. But these boys go on board these ships and whereas they have protection if the ship is of Canadian registry-they get the protection of the Canadian pensions regulations-there is no protection whatever for them if they are on a ship of foreign registry-and eighty per cent of the ships leaving Canadian ports are of foreign registry. If they drown, leaving families in Canada, their dependents are out of luck. As I say, there is no protection whatever for them from the Canadian government.
I have received two letters since coming here, one from an old lady of eighty-seven. She brought up a boy from the age of five and he was her only means of support. He tried to enlist in the army but was rejected because he was physically unfit. As his contribution to the war effort he went on board a ship and two days later it was torpedoed and the boy
was lost. There is no compensation for this old lady. Now she has to depend on charity. I have dealt with twenty-five or thirty cases in my own area, because there is a large number of boys from that end of the country going into that service. And without that service there would be no war in England or in any other part of the empire, because they are getting foodstuffs, machinery and other supplies, everything that is produced on this continent which is necessary to carry on the fight over there, by means of these ships. I submit that these boys should be protected by the Canadian government regardless of the registry of the ship.
I have a letter in which I am told that a woman whose husband was lost should look to the Norwegian government for consideration. The Norwegian government is responsible for any compensation to which she may be entitled. But that government is in exile, and that means that this man's dependents are now thrown upon charity-and we know what that is to-day. Something should be done with reference to these little matters, because whether we realize it or not, while people do not publicize these things-and they are not vocal; they have no press in which to publicize them-it is this sort of thing that is eating the core out of the war effort. There is no doubt about that. It is talked about in lodges, in local unions, in fraternal societies and in every avenue through which people congregate in communities. It is reflected in the homes. Boys who should be in uniform, and who would be in uniform perhaps, use this argument. We do not want a repetition of Hong Kong through the closing down of factories. These are problems that we shall have to take care of.
Then there is the question of war-time housing, another important matter. I have had considerable correspondence with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and with those responsible for war-time housing. In one city I know, the city of Sydney, about a thousand men have been added to the steel plants. There is a steel plate mill opening this month which will require [DOT] 600 more workers. That port is full of ships, and there are thousands of people there who were not in the place prior to the outbreak of war. The result was that when war broke out there was a shortage of housing. They require 500 additional houses. It is impossible to get rooms. The plate mill and the steel plants are essential means of producing war materials and there is resentment in that city in consequence of the overcrowding and the conditions under which people are obliged to live- fifteen persons in two and three rooms.

The Address-Mr. Gillis

Prior to coming here the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and myself, in Sydney, met the mayor and the council and emphasized the seriousness of the unsanitary conditions under which the people were obliged to live owing to overcrowding. That is something that should be looked into and remedied. It retards the war effort and builds up resentment in the minds of the people.
As I have stated on several occasions, the Department of Labour is one of the most important war departments of government. If you will look up the record of the Minister of Labour in Britain you will find that he is the biggest factor to-day over there in the prosecution of the war. The Minister of Labour must have the confidence of those for whom he legislates, and that confidence can be built up only on the basis of his activity and his approach to the people who have to turn out the machines of war.
To date, the Department of Labour has not been functioning as it should have been. I just want to refer briefly to the situation at Kirkland Lake.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Georges Parent: With unanimous consent.


Clarence Gillis: I will finish as quickly as I can. The Department of Labour bungled the Kirkland Lake situation very badly. The men in that section canvassed all the legal machinery laid down by the government. A government-appointed conciliation board recommended recognition of their union. They were not looking for higher wages or shorter hours or anything impossible. Such matters would have been ironed out later through their agreement; all they asked was the right to sit down round a conference table with the employers and bargain with them as to conditions under which they would work and what wages they would work for. The statement has been made by the new minister that order in council ^685 sets out the principles which the government is supposed to stand for, that labour should be a partner in industry. That is all these men ask for. After canvassing every legal avenue, the operators-they are the saboteurs I talk of-took the position that as far as they were concerned they were not recognizing the government-appointed conciliation board; they were not concerned about the loss to the country; they were a law unto themselves. I pleaded here with the government to take some action to stop what was bound to happen at Kirkland Lake, the men

forced into a strike, that strike with a ballot taken previously, everything done to offset it. Nevertheless the Department of Labour-and I hold them responsible-did not take action with regard to an entire community of between 4,000 and 5,000 people who were earning wages, making a contribution to the war effort of this country, prepared to do anything they could to assist. All they asked was the right to do what the operators had done many years ago, band themselves together for the purpose of mutual understanding and in order to work out their problems on a cooperative and collective basis. That was denied them.
The new Minister of Laibour took charge, and his first official act is one that is not going to stand to his credit, no matter how long he is in that department, if he is lucky enough to go there. He started to handle that question. These men had been on strike for months, living on nothing, there being sent there from other sections of the labour movement to support them money that could have been very well used somewhere else. The heads of the Canadian Congress of Labour in conference just a few days ago with the Minister of Labour thought a solution had been arrived at. The whole matter as far as the union officials and the congress officials were concerned was put up to arbitration, but immediately after coming to that understanding to which the miners of Kirkland Lake agreed, the Minister of Labour did a rightabout face and added a proviso that the men must go back to work in the mines before the dispute would be arbitrated. He did that without any understanding or consultation with either the officials of the union in the Kirkland Lake area or the congress of labour who have offices Tight here in Ottawa. That thing is being further prolonged. I want to make this clear, that while the men have lived up to the laws of this country 100 per cent, the operators have yet to state where they stand on this question and get these men back to work. They are sabotaging that industry; they are violating the laws of this country; they are interfering with the war effort, and as far as I am concerned, if the Minister of Labour was doing his job they should be in an internment camp. That is the unfortunate part; I said, if he was doing his job. There are many men in internment camps in this country for nothing who, if released, would be willing to come out and do some useful job in connection with the prosecution of the war. These people stand out as saboteurs, interfering with the entire life of a community, building up in that section antagonisms and hate and prejudices which

The Address-Mr. Marshall
will not be erased as long as that generation is living there. The men who have gone into the mines against the wishes of the majority of the men with whom they work will never be forgiven or forgotten in that section-; I know, I have gone through that. It will be handed down to them and their children. Laxity on the part of the Minister of Labour ana the government in not seeing that something was done there is responsible for that situation.
I am sorry to have exceeded my time. I have more to say, but I shall reserve it for some other time.


Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):: As I listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), my mind went back over the past ten years, when the movement with which I have the honour to be associated, the Social Credit movement, was so bitterly assailed on all sides. The minister's speech was a masterly defence of the actions of this government. I have a great deal of sympathy for the government now, for we Social Crediters too have borne the burden and heat of the day for an idea. As the Premier of Alberta has said on many occasions, "Truth and Right will prevail." Time alone will prove the wisdom or otherwise of this government's attitude. Posterity will judge.
I should like to compliment the previous speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), on his splendid presentation.
Three questions, all of them of major importance, have been exercising the minds of the people of my constituency for a long time. The first is, old age pensions, or, Where do the old people go from here? The second is agriculture, or, Where do the farmers go from here? The third is Canada's war effort, or, Where does the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) go from here?
On the question of old age pensions I should like to make just two brief remarks. I hope that ample opportunity will be given early in this session to discuss the Old Age Pensions Act. The action of this government in placing obstacles in the way of bringing some additional measure of happiness and contentment to a section of oUr people is neither appreciated nor deserved. We can find money for mass produced massacre. We can find none for increasing old age pensions. We wrap our cloaks round us and hide behind the law. In Mr. Dunning's time as Finance Minister, lack of money was the excuse for holding up pensions for the blind. Because that excuse would be laughed out of court to-day, we are told that the law stands in the way. I wonder what excuse will be given
next, when this one is finally overcome. I wish to tell this government that this matter of old age pensions is a really live issue. The feeling that a "New Deal" is due for old age pensioners grows and gathers strength. It cannot be lightly brushed aside. It must be faced in the very near future, and faced realistically.
The second1 problem, that of agriculture, is equal in importance to Canada's war effort. We have been told that we are all in the front line to-day, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, the business man, the professional man, and the farmer. An analysis of the economic situation will show that the farmer has appeared in the casualty list more frequently than any other member of organized society. Ninety-nine per cent of the farmers are still on that casualty list. When will this government assume its proper responsibility by taking the farmer out of the casualty column and placing -him where he rightly belongs, namely, in the front line with the rest? I believe now is the time, and this is the place for all members of parliament, particularly those who hail from western Canada, to rise in their places in this house and serve notice upon this government that the wishes of more than 150,000 residents of western Canada who signed a petition, and who are backed by the prayers and good wishes of hundreds of thousands of other Canadians, shall not go unheeded. It is not enough for us as members to offer simply lip-service on behalf of these farmers. We must back up our talk with action, the only kind of action this government in general, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in particular, understand; that is, political pressure. A new deal for our farmers, or elsel You may read into this expression what you wish. I mean just what the words are intended to convey; a political threat. We must serve notice that we mean business, serious business. We must not sit complacently in our seats; we must rouse ourselves to action. To me it would be a serious calamity were all the energy, all the labour and all the money poured out by these people to be spent in vain. Ours is a grave responsibility. It will take real courage on the part of Liberal members, particularly, to fight this battle. It must be faced. It must be fought. It must be won. Agriculture must survive.
The third question is the most important one of all. It transcends all others both in magnitude and in importance. The evacua-question of Canada's war effort. The evacuation of Dunkirk; the ebb and flow of the tide of battle in north Africa and Russia; the fall of Hong Kong; the appalling disaster at
The Address-Mr. Marshall

Pearl Harbour, the onward rush of the Japanese hordes in the far east, have done much to awaken our people to a realization of the dangers- which we are facing and which, as Mr. Churchill says, we must face in the future. Our people are stunned by the complacency, by the overconfidence, by the bungling of high military officials, by the red tape, by the departmental jealousies, by the liquor and by the languor, as one financial newspaper puts it, which have brought us time and again to the edge of the abyss. We have made many trips to the edge of that abyss; I hope we shall not fall in.
Is it not time that a thorough house-cleaning was made of those who have been directly responsible for all this bungling? On many occasions in this house we have heard it said, "Let us forget the past." Why should we? We must punish those responsible for our humiliation as an example to those who follow after them. Those in authority at Pearl Harbour were not forgiven. We have had our Hong Ivong. Many brave men lost their lives there. No one, as far as I am aware, paid the penalty for the bungling methods employed. Bureaucracy rules this country, but seemingly bureaucrats are never punished. They have power, with no responsibility. We cannot afford to take chances while the enemy knocks at our gates. I am upset, just as many other hon. members are, at the incidents which have occurred in British Columbia. The dead hand of bureaucracy is seen everywhere. It is little wonder that our people are stunned by the smug complacency in high places.
On every hand people are asking for a total war effort. We, upon whom rests the responsibility of giving the people those things which they demand, must pay some heed to the people. It is not entirely the outbursts of the press that concern me, but rather the smouldering anger of the people who all these years have been kept in the dark.
What is meant by a total war effort? The Prime Minister gave us his definition. It is a thousand pities that he shuns with studied design the question of conscription or national mobilization of finance. My conception of a total war effort is one in which finance and material resources are put into the melting-pot before man-power. May I say, too, that this concept is held by a very large body of public opinion in my constituency. Had finance and material resources been conscripted in the fall of 1939, when we urged this upon the Prime Minister and his government, we would not be in the unhappy position in which we find ourselves to-day. Finance rules the war effort,

ably aided and abetted by a bureaucracy which is growing stronger every day.
One of the speakers earlier in this debate, a member supporting the government, said that this war cannot be carried on without finance. Twisted and distorted thinking hinders rather than assists our war effort. Does my friend not know that, all our leading economists, including such individuals as J. Maynard Keynes, are acknowledging to-day the fact that finance must be made subservient to the wishes of the people. Let my hon. friend go out any day and wave a Canadian government bond for five thousand dollars in front of a Japanese tank, and then come back-if he ever would-and tell us which he found to be of greater importance.
Cassandra, writing in the London Daily Mirror, has this to say about the question of finance:
The news that America is to spend a billion dollars, or is it ten billion?-to suppress Hitlerism is unlikely to send a chill of fear down the Fuehrer's spine.
These vast financial bombshells were impressive about the year 1933, but when Hitler began to demonstrate that fighting power really depended on work, machines and raw materials, the siting began to disappear out of the wads of bank notes and share certificates that the democracies brandished so vigorously.
I don't think any nation can "buy" the defeat of Hitler with its accumulated wealth. You have got to go in and fight the creature.
A ithousand-dollar bill may be a fearsome thing, but I'd be much more scared of a dime's worth of lead coming at me at a thousand miles an hour.
Do not let us lose sight of this simple, realistic fact. We are fighting this war with men and machines, and not with money.
Another speaker

I think he was a member of the Conservative party-remarked that instead of the Prime Minister asking the Canadian people to release him from his 1940 promises, all members of parliament should individually ask their electors to release them from promises made in 1940.
Well, I for one would not wish, nor shall I ask, to be released from any pledges I made in 1940. Early in the war, September, 1939, to be exact, we as a group foresaw that eventually we must face the question of conscription. We might have side-stepped it, but instead we took a determined stand and came forward advocating conscription in the following order: First, finance, second, material resources-these before man-power.
What was the consequence of our stand? Seven seats were lost, because we had the intestinal fortitude to proclaim what actually must be done if we are to give of our very best.

The Address-Mr. Marshall
Subsequent events have proven that we were on sound ground. I wonder what the Liberal senator, who campaigned so vigorously in my constituency during the 1940 election, and who in an unguarded moment told a sympathetic band of Liberal workers in one of our leading hotels that the Camrose constituency was in the Liberal bag because the Social Credit candidate could be tied up to conscription, is thinking about now. If these few remarks meet his eye, I hope he will go back to Camrose constituency and tell the people he was just playing party politics.
This plebiscite is nothing to get excited about. We are overemphasizing its importance. The main thing is, plebiscite or no plebiscite, to get on with the war. From present indications-as witness the appointment of one Charles Bothwell, an ex-member of parliament to the position of chief electoral officer, pro tem, for this plebiscite-it is playing politics. It is a simple means of placing a little more money into circulation by adding to the purchasing power of needy Liberal camp followers. It is a pretence to draw the minds of the public away from the sterner facts of life. It is the simple plan of "spoofing the public," as the Englishman would say.
There is no question about the intention of the Prime Minister. To consult the public on some important issue is a worthwhile thing, and is to be commended. To fiddle while Canada is in flames is an entirely different matter. It seems to me it is the government's desire to draw the attention of the people away from such items as the fiasco of the last victory loan, the war savings racket, the blunders of shipping wheat and scrapiron to Japan, and the present unfortunate situation at Kirkland Lake.
For months past, with the assistance of a high-powered sales organization, we have been bearing down very heavily on those people who have scanty means and slender pocket-books, to get them to invest part of their meagre incomes in war savings certificates and bonds. This branch of our national war effort is bogging down. The sale of these little "two plus two equals five" pieces of paper, which one may see advertised by the brewing industry of Canada on every hoarding in the land, is not going very well. It will take a great deal more persuasion, added to the high-pressure and shady tactics employed by certain types of individuals in the last war loan drive to put the next one over.
The people are becoming educated to this financial racket very quickly.
Leslie Roberts, writing in the January issue of the Montrealer said:
If we are ito move away from the voluntary system under which one man elects to do bis bit by dying in a ditch, and the other by investing his money in war loans at a comfortable rate of interest, only one destination is open to us. That is total war.
Total war means the giving of everything that we have and are, not men, materials and tools, but money, profit and all things which, when added together, comprise the Canadian state. It means the placing of every man and woman in the land on an equal economic footing for the duration of the war, the throwing of everything into the pot.
That is not what the oonsoriptioniists want. What they want is compulsory service for somebody else. Well, until such time as they are ready and willing to give this and more, apoplectic gentlemen whose hardening arteries *render them unfit for battle, and ladies who inundate the letters to the Editor columns (including that great self-naturalized Cana-dienne, Miss Thompson) would be well advised to sing low. By all means give us total war. But let's be done with half-measures designed to restrict sacrifice to age groups.
While I do not agree entirely with Leslie Roberts in all that he has said, yet he has spoken some truths which cannot be glossed over lightly.
By all means give us total war, but do not permit it to become a racket designed to enrich the few at the expense of the many. It is not enough to ask a man to offer his life in the service of his country, only to find on his return that some financial institution has taken possession of his property, and moved his relatives out into the road allowance, as actually happened during the last war.
These financial institutions-soulless organizations-must be made to understand they are in the front line, too. They must be herded there, first, and the sooner this action is taken the sooner shall we have a total-war effort.
The voluntary system of enlistment has not been allowed to function, from the very beginning. It has been hamstrung. Our whole war effort has been marked by blundering, inefficiency, stupidity, sprinkled lavishly with political patronage of the most bare-faced character-bureaucracy on the rampage. From the very beginning recruiting for the army particularly was seriously impaired. Some moron handed the army a battle-dress which the soldiers had to wear on all occasions, especially when off duty. The air force and the navy were both given uniforms of smartness and neatness. I am not quarrelling about the battle-dress, but it was no parade uniform. Everyone knows that. Some person
The Address-Mr. Marshall

is now endeavouring to remedy matters after two and one-half years of war, but the damage has been done. It is almost irreparable. It was an asinine regulation.
Stepping up the pay and allowances of all the forces has not yet been tried. We speak bitterly about the man earning from $5 to $10 a day in industry. We compare his lot with that of the soldier. We do nothing about it. Suggestions are made that the worker in industry must be brought down to the level of the man in the fighting forces; never do we suggest raising the pay of the man in the fighting forces to that of the worker in industry. This type of thinking, the destructive type, is encouraged by those who control the destinies of our nation. They do not sit in the front benches of our government either. Their desire is to keep the people in that state of penury and destitution which will render them more tractable. Increases in pay and allowances will come only when we as members of parliament forcibly demand them.
In 1938 a debate took place between Lord Snell and Mr. Amery over the British Broadcasting Corporation's network. The subject of that debate was, "Should national service be compulsory," and I should like to quote what Mr. Amery said on that occasion:
I am sure that you will agree that nations in the long run depend quite as much upon their civic as upon their military strength, and that the development in their citizens of ever higher spiritual values, is even more necessary to their permanent welfare than are millions of conscripted men with guns and bayonets in their hands. Now those who advocate conscription appear to assume that nations live by guns alone. They wish to take a young man's body and train it for one definite and very limited purpose, while they ignore his other needs as a responsible human personality.
Let me examine very briefly your statement that national defence is a common obligation. I do not deny this obligation, but there is also an obligation to the individual on the part of the state which is rarely remembered. I admit, of course, that all of us as free citizens have some obligation

physical, financial, moral-to the community which has nurtured us and whose social institutions and liberties we have inherited, and historically, of course, there are precedents for enforced military service. In the ancient Greek cities every citizen was compelled to give military service; but the Greek citizen was himself a proprietor who had a direct interest in defending the soil of his fathers, for the land did actually belong to him. The slaves were never called to arms, and no one who had nothing to defend was ever asked to share the risks and burdens of war. Rome acted in the same way. Her armies were armies of citizen proprietors. Nearer our own time, the French revolution was the first to decree a general levy on the ground that the fatherland was .in danger but before doing that, the convention enfranchised the serfs and gave to all the right of property.

If the state considers that there is a responsibility due it from the individual, surely it is not too much to expect that the individual has certain rights and privileges which must be recognized by the state.
The Prime Minister should tell the country, even at this late date, that in future all the men in the fighting forces and their dependents shall be forever economically secure. A statement of this sort would be most assuring to our young men in the armed forces and, in my opinion, would stimulate recruiting to a remarkable degree. You -must offer them more than a farm mortgaged to the hilt and controlled by the financiers of Toronto, or a home where the bailiff's shadow casts gloom and despondency around. It is not enough.
Parliament exists to carry out the wishes of the people. If I interpret the wishes of the people of my constituency correctly, they are for a total-war effort. Thus far these wishes have been thwarted by the bureaucrats of the East block who have given the people what they (the bureaucrats) think is good for them.
For a long time I have entertained the feeling that we must hear what our experts have to say about the whole business-McNaugh-ton of the army, Breadner and Bishop of the air force, Nelles of the navy, and not what the bureaucrats have to say. General McNaugh-ton is now in Canada. Let us summon him before the bar of this parliament to give us a frank statement as to Canada's preparedness and Canada's need for men. This and this alone will satisfy and perhaps allay the fears of our people.
In conclusion, let me summarize briefly. First, this plebiscite will settle nothing, not even the question of compulsory national service. Second, we are playing politics when in reality we should be fighting a war. Third, total-war effort must include conscription of finance and material resources before man-power. Fourth, the bureaucrat must give place to the expert who alone knows how wars are won and lost.	.
If we do not insist on a programme which will give us an all-out war effort, then the letters which we have a right to affix to our names, instead of standing for member of parliament will take on their true significance, a mess of pottage.
On motion of Mr. Fraser (Northumberland) the debate was adjourned.


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

Soviet Union-Consular Services
Thursday, February 5, 1942