1942-06-19

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops):	Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter which I consider to be of extreme public interest, that is, the Japanese question in British Columbia.
Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member would move the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, to wit, the Japanese question in British Columbia. I would point out that an hon. member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the nature of the matter. If I consider it in order and of sufficient public importance I ask if the hon. member has the leave of the house. The hon. member has handed me a written statement. It is a matter which I think is of sufficient public importance; therefore I would ask: Has the hon. member the leave of the house to present the motion he is now making?
And leave being granted:
Mr. O'NEILL:	Several days ago, Mr. Speaker, I rose in the house to ask a question with respect to the Japanese situation. At that time I was ruled out of order, which ruling I accepted as gracefully as possible; for I believe I was out of order on that occasion, though I had submitted the questions to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), and the minister was quite prepared to answer them. I did not receive the written answers to those questions until to-day, and I find them very unsatisfactory.
I might direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that the people of British Columbia are extremely disturbed about the way the Japanese question is being handled, and when I say extremely disturbed I mean just that. I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared recently in the Kamloops newspaper, which, by the way, though not holding the same political beliefs as the government, is quite a friendly paper. It carried a long editorial with respect to the Japanese question, which concluded with these words:
Are Canada and Japan at war? We thought so in British Columbia, but Ottawa is a long way away. What kind of explosion in British Columbia is it going to take so that it may be heard all that distance?
Japanese Nationals

That is the feeling of the people there. I receive communications all the time to the effect that the Japanese camps in northern British Columbia are not properly guarded. They say, for instance, that there is only one gun in a tent in which there are several guards. For that gun there are twelve rounds of ammunition, so that even if you got a Jap with each round of that ammunition there would still be plenty of them left to outnumber the guards in the camps. Things like this do not tend to allay the anxiety of the people, especially since the landing of the Japanese on the Aleutian islands.
Recently when the 2nd battalion of the Rocky Mountain Rangers were on parade in Kamloops and were being instructed by their officer, Japanese were sitting there, listening to the instructions being given by the officer to the men in his battalion. I say to the house that that is not a proper condition to exist. The Japanese in those camps in the northern section of British Columbia are becoming more arrogant every day. As a matter of fact one cannot fire those fellows as he would a man in an ordinary camp who refused to do something he was told to do. In an ordinary road construction camp the foreman may fire a man, but he cannot do that in a Japanese camp. The Japanese have now got to the point where they say they will not do something, and the foreman cannot force them to do it. Then they insist upon removal of the foreman, and in one instance, the foreman was removed.
We want a man at the head of the security commission in British Columbia of the type of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), who, speaking the other day in the house, said, "If I had my way about it, and a man refused to do what he was told, I would intern him." Some 300 of them are now interned at Petawawa. That is the kind of man we need in British Columbia to handle the Japanese situation-someone who is prepared to do what he thinks the situation demands.
I am told, on what I consider to be most reliable authority, that Japanese are now on strike in the North Thompson area. They are on a sit-down strike. That is not a proper condition to have in this country. How long would you and I last if we were in Japan, and carried on like that? How much longer are we going to pussyfoot with those yellow devils in the west? That is what I would like to know.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: I think it is a good thing the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) has raised this question, if only for the purpose of ventilating it. Hon. members will recall that on several
[Mr. O'Neill.3
occasions since Japan entered the war I have discussed the Japanese situation in the house. I have asked questions, and I have warned the government, particularly in the earlier days of this movement of Japanese, that they were running the greatest risk of trouble if they looked upon the whole area of British Columbia east of the protected area as a district into which the Japanese might percolate at will. It is true that those warnings gradually had some effect. But the people I represent, particularly those in the Okanagan and in the valleys contiguous thereto, are still looking with a considerable amount of apprer hension to what may develop at any time because of the truculence of some of the Japanese who are being allowed to reside for a time in those areas.
Two or three hundred of them have been placed in camps along the side of the Hope-Princeton road. When they first took up their residence in those camps the people of the locality, going out to see what they were doing and whether they were accomplishing anything, were shocked to find one guard lying on the side of the road-within touch of his rifle, true, but the rifle not being in his hands. So far as I am aware that guard was the only one at the camp. At that time work was supposed to be under way for the purpose of completing the road. There was no road machinery, and the Japanese were there with long-handled shovels, taking a shovelful of dirt, walking several yards with it and throwing it over the edge. I do not emphasize that point particularly because there are difficulties in connection with providing road machinery. From the answer to the question I asked the Minister of Labour the other day I presume the government has in hand the acquiring of all available road machinery in these difficult days. But several times over, during the earlier part of this difficulty, I was told by ministers that the interior of British Columbia must bear its share of this trouble. The inhabitants of the interior fully realize that; but what the government has apparently been unable to realize is that through that area, the fruitgrowing section of British Columbia, there has been for years past a collection of Japanese. These were people of Japanese origin, some of whom were born in this country and some who were not. When the trouble broke out I believe a certain number of them were removed for internment. That matter however has been treated secretly, and I cannot assert it with confidence. I believe there were some 750 Japanese in that interior part with which I am connected. The inhabitants living up there did not see any reason why the Japanese should be allowed to leave the

Japanese Nationals
protected area and wander in by day, by night, by automobile, by bus and by train, and take up residence within that area. That they have done so tnere is no doubt whatsoever, but what their numbers are is hard to come by.
When I was home at Easter I made all possible inquiries to endeavour to ascertain how many had so come in. I found it was quite impossible to do so, because of course the Japanese are not desirous of making known how many came in. But there are so very many more Japanese faces seen on the streets of those towns and villages, and seen on the roads and the farms, that it is quite obvious that a very considerable influx took place at that time.
The desire of the government has been to deal as best it can with the 24,000 or 25,000 Japanese which it was their purpose to remove from the protected area. As no other part of Canada in those earlier days showed any great desire to receive these Japanese residents, the people I represent could not see that when they already had placed about 750 of these people they should have others numbering four figures-and if this had not been stopped it might have been five figures-forced upon them. Because to the oriental mind the Okanagan valley and the industry carried on therein is a desirable haven.
The difficulty in that connection is now in the hands of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), and to that point I shall allude for a moment. For many years past it has been the custom for a farmer growing truck or vegetable crops to enter into what is known as a crop share agreement with those who are ready to do the labour. Those labourers have to a great extent in past years been Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese. No difficulty was experienced with respect to the crop share agreement between a white farmer and a Japanese who in past years had entered into such an agreement. But when these newcomers of Japanese origin showed their desire to enter into crop share agreements with the white farmers, it became evident that they could do so only if they received permits from the Minister of Justice under order in council 4657, I believe it was. When I had primed myself with certain information with regard to these crop share agreements I asked the Minister of Justice how many permits he had issued. His answer was "none". My information is that crop share agreements have been entered into by Japanese who were newcomers, contrary to the order in council, and in considerable numbers. At the moment the Minister of Justice, through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is making an investigation.
In the constituency of the hon. member who raised this question there have been alleged instances-I use that word because I have not definite proof-where intermediaries have acquired land which has subsequently been occupied, though it may not be owned at the present time, by Japanese who have come in from the protected area. If that be true, and it is being looked into, it is a definite infraction of the order in council that is being administered by the Minister of Justice.
These are things at which the people I represent look with a great deal of concern. At the back of their minds there is the thought that if these people are allowed to enter, to occupy, to lease and perhaps eventually to own land, there will be a repetition of what happened in the state of California in connection with foreign labour. The Italians came into their fruit valleys in an insidious manner, and now they own the valleys completely. There will be a repetition of what has occurred in another part of my constituency where the Doukhobors are located. They acquired a piece of land here and a piece there because of their habits they frightened white possessors of land away from the neighbourhood, and the areas are becoming more and more Doukhobor year by year. That is the fear at the back of the minds of the population of my riding. I think it is high time the matter was discussed in this house and that the government definitely recognized this real fear which exists.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminister):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the introduction of this subject into the house this afternoon I consider it my duty to warn the government with regard to some aspects of the Japanese situation. My views regarding the Japanese have been well known for many years. In 1933 I warned the country and the government of that day that the Japanese had the best maps of our shores and harbours, but I was looked upon by some as being just a racial hatred monger, if I may use that word. Apparently there are many in this country who do not yet realize the exact situation. There should be no pussyfooting about this question of moving Japanese from the coast. The United States, I believe, moved over 1,10,000 Japanese from their coast in a few weeks. In my opinion it was a mistake to put this matter in Canada under the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). We should have taken drastic action and put it in the hands of the military.
I know there are those who will say that repercussions will occur in Japan. I do not know how many realize it, but in Japan there are really two governing bodies, if one may use that expression. There is the emperor and his government, and then there are the
Japanese Nationals

naval and military. The military are on their own. Anything that may happen to Japanese in this country-and I would have them handled kindly-will not be taken note of by the military of Japan. As a matter of fact, knowing the Japanese as I do, I think we should warn the emperor now that he and he alone will be held responsible for any atrocities committed on our soldiers, our nurses and others. The emperor is the only one who has any authority over the Japanese, military or otherwise; in fact he is looked upon as a god.
The other day two Japanese were picked up on the streets of Vancouver while in possession of murderous weapons, and they are still there. My chief reason for speaking at this time is to warn the government as to the situation in the labour camps in the interior. Outside of flying, there are only three ways to get into British Columbia-the two single line railroads and the one highway. At night there are no guards whatsoever at these camps. You may say that there is a curfew law, but who is going to enforce it? I believe it is unsafe to leave these camps in charge of just a foreman. The government should inspect them now and see that sufficient guards are placed there in case anything should happen in the future, and so prevent possible sabotage
Some time ago there were those who laughed at the statement that attempts might be made to invade this continent. No one knows what is in the minds of the Japanese, or what may happen. If anything should happen, however, I am one of those who believe that some of the Japanese in British Columbia will be made aware of it in advance. There is not a great deal to prevent them from going out from the camps and destroying the railroads, thus cutting off communication with the province and preventing the sending in of men or ammunition to the Pacific coast, except by air.
This condition is too serious to leave as it is. I am not going to advocate the method adopted by Mexico, but that country certainly went about it in a very practical way. Mexico simply put up notices in the different areas on her coast to the effect that any Japanese found there after ten days would be shot, and in eight days none were to be found. There are still many Japanese on the streets of Vancouver, in the Fraser valley and at other places in British Columbia. The government should take a more serious view of the entire situation, especially with a view to preventing sabotage.


Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, for once the British Columbia members do not seem to be working together.

I am sorry I had no idea that this matter was coming up, because having just returned from British Columbia I have enough information upstairs in my office to convince even this government that they should -take some action in connection with the Japanese. I wonder if Prime Minister Churchill has come over here to inquire if we know whether we are at war with Japan. When we from British Columbia brought up this matter some time ago we were scoffed at, even by members of the government. It was intimated that we did not know what we were talking about. Probably these gentlemen have changed their minds by now. General Stuart, one of our outstanding military men, has been sent out to the coast. We told you what would happen in the Aleutian islands, but it would appear we were not listened to attentively enough.
Last week I was driving along Hastings street in Vancouver and I stopped my car to go in to buy a package of cigarettes. When I came out a friend who was with me asked me why I did not get the cigarettes. I cannot say to you, sir, what I said to him, but I did tell him that some member of the so-called security commission must have had an interest in that building, because the store was still being operated by a Jap. They are to be seen every day on the streets of Vancouver. There were over 700 Japanese on Lulu island that day, which is in the immediate vicinity of the only two airports in Canada which are available to defend the Pacific coast.
There was another member from British Columbia with me on the train coming back. At Schreiber, Ontario, they picked up a carload of Japanese. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was taking -a trip out west his car would be placed at the front of the train. About three weeks ago the Governor General had the same experience when travelling across Canada. A carload of Japs was picked up and placed at the rear of the train behind the observation coach. I am just mentioning this to show that something ought to be done to take care of these our most dastardly enemies. Do we realize or not that these people are of the origin of a country at war with us? There was a whole carload coming back to work in sugar beet production somewhere in Ontario. Their average age was twenty-two. We have been in the war with Japan since the seventh of December last, but just on Monday and Tuesday of this week these same Japs were permitted to take pictures all along the railroad, of any of our defences, and of anything being shipped as part of our war effort, and we watched them take those pictures. Do we realize that we are at war with Japan?

Japanese Nationals
We are dependent upon the security commission which we have in British Columbia to act as guard for us. Just to-day I got a letter by airmail in connection with the strikes there referred to by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill). One lonely old temporary mounted policeman, over sixty years of age, armed with a rifle and ten shells, acted as guard when the Japs went on a two-and-a-half-day sit-down strike. They are openly defying us. I am told that the security commission has this matter in charge. We begged the national defence department to see that proper guards were put over these Japanese.
There is not a military man, so far as I am aware, and so far as the people of British Columbia are aware, taking any interest whatsoever in this situation in British Columbia. We have not a military man attached to the three-man security commission. We have a spruce maker. I do not like to admit it when I am wrong, but I commended the appointment of the gentleman who is chairman of that commission. He is an excellent Canadian, and a splendid business man, I presume, because he has acquired a good deal of this world's goods, but he knows no more about how to handle the Japanese or to remove them than he does about flying an aeroplane, and I regret to say that I commended his appointment. I am sure the government does not realize how serious conditions are in British Columbia or it would not permit them to exist. We have heard a great deal about unity in Canada, but unity does not consist of keeping only one province in unity. The situation in British Columbia is very serious, and as the hon. member for Kamloops said, we are not going to permit it to continue much longer.
The Ottawa Journal of Wednesday, June 17, says that the federal government is ready to bring Japanese from British Columbia to Ontario. It is very kind of Ontario to agree to accept them. The Ottawa Journal goes on to say that the minister has given a guarantee that on the cessation of the war these Japanese will be removed from Ontario. We people of British Columbia are not asking; we are demanding, where these Japanese are going to be removed to. I am not blaming Ontario or any other province for not wanting them, but I am warning this government that it will never put those Japanese back in British Columbia. The government might just as well face that. We are through asking and requesting. We are now demanding, and when a minister of the crown states that these Japanese will be removed from Ontario on the cessation.of the war we are entitled to know where they are to be removed to.
We have had to fight and fight even to get these Japanese moved out of the defence areas in British Columbia. Last Friday there were at least forty Japanese families living within eighteen miles of the main power plant on the Pacific coast. This so-called security commission' tells us that it is doing its best, that it has to provide a proper place to send these Japanese to, and then it puts them alongside the two trans-Canada highways mentioned by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). As another member and I were coming from British Columbia last week I saw these Japanese working right along the railroad-no, not working, leaning on the fence and watching us go by. Of course, they are not working. They know that to date they have had us bluffed. But there are not enough yellow men in the whole of Japan to bluff the people of British Columbia. If they can bluff this government, they cannot bluff us in that province. We are demanding action.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, for many years members from British Columbia have been fighting an up-hill battle on this Japanese question. I realize that the members of the house at large know fairly well the picture at the present time. There is no doubt that the situation is extremely difficult, difficult for the government and difficult also for the people of British Columbia. It has become much more critical recently because the Japanese have made their first landing on north American territory, in the Aleutian islands. No one knows whether this means an attempt to invade the western coast of Canada and the United States, or whether it is merely a nuisance attack on these islands.
Just a week ago the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) was good enough to give me- and I presume it was given to all the members from British Columbia-a statement of the situation at the present time, and it will help the house to get the complete picture if I give some of these figures. They show that at the beginning of this exodus from the protected coastal area in British Columbia there were 23,480 Japanese in that province, and that of these, to date only 4,362 have been moved outside that province; that is about one-sixth of the total. Of the 4,362, 2,053 have gone to Alberta, 920 to Manitoba, and 162 to Ontario-a total of 3,135-to work on sugar beet projects. Then 862 have gone to various parts of Canada under special permit. I presume that includes the Japanese who have gone to Premier Hepburn's farm and to other places to do domestic work, and so on.
Japanese Nationals

Incidentally it is hardly fair for the cities of eastern Canada to take the stand that they will not allow any Japanese to come within their boundaries, yet that stand has been taken by the cities of Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and I do not know how many others. The councils of these cities have passed resolutions that they will not allow any Japanese whatsoever to enter their cities.
Then eighteen Japanese have gone to a mission school in Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, fifty to industrial projects at Nicholson, Ontario, and 297 have been sent to internment camps.
In addition, the Minister of Labour told us the other day that an additional 4,000 were to be sent to Indian schools, although I believe that even one of these schools is situated in British Columbia.
This statement also shows that last week, on, June 12, there were still in greater Vancouver just about half the number of Japanese who were in British Columbia when this movement started, the figure being 11,563.
Various plans are set out as to where some of these Japanese can be moved, but even when all those plans have been taken into consideration the statement shows that no plans whatever have been worked out yet for 2,930 of these Japanese. In other words, unless there is some explanation, it would appear that they may remain on the coast.
It is easy to criticize the British Columbia security commission. I do not agree with all that they have done, and I know they have made mistakes, but at the same time I suppose they deserve at least some credit for what they have accomplished to date. They have undertaken a veiy difficult job, a job of a type that has never been done in Canada before, and they deserve credit for what they have accomplished. At the same time I think it was unsound for the government to wash its hands of responsibility for this job and turn it over to civilians. The government should have remained in actual charge of the movement of Japanese from the Pacific coast rather than delegating citizens to do the work for it, and I suggest that from now on the government assume the actual management of the movement of these Japanese people.
In conclusion, I have two suggestions to make. I think the government will have to set up towns for these Japanese people. That has been done in the United States; and it was obvious to me from the beginning that sooner or later Canada would have to establish towns to which Japanese who are not placed otherwise could be removed. The sooner this is started, the sooner the problem will be settled,

The other suggestion is this. It is neither safe nor is it fair to keep these Japanese in British Columbia. Under present plans by far the larger number will remain there. They have spilled over from the protected area into the ridings of Yale and Kamloops, the hon. members for which have spoken to-day. Japanese nationals-not British subjects-are working on highway projects beside the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways, astride both main lines through the mountains of British Columbia, where, if there should be an attempted invasion, they could do a great deal of harm. To me it has always seemed poor business to have so many of these Japanese nationals working in these vital spots. So I urge upon the government that the objective be to get every person of Japanese origin right out of British Columbia just as quickly as possible.


Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I had not intended to take part in the debate this afternoon, but when the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) mentioned that last week the Japanese had cameras on a train and were taking pictures along the route, I looked up in Hansard of January 29, 1942, page 131, the question I asked on this point. I said:
I should like to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health a question which I understand comes under his department. Has the government taken away all receiving and transmitting sets, cameras and firearms from all the Japanese residing in Canada?
The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) replied:
That would not come under my department. The only connection I have with that matter is the fact that I acted as chairman of a conference between certain gentlemen who came down here from British Columbia and a number of permanent officials of various departments in Ottawa. The question of firearms, cameras and receiving sets was discussed at the conference and a recommendation made to the cabinet. The Prime Minister issued a statement in regard to receiving sets and cameras, hut whether or not actual action has been taken by the mounted police upon that enunciation of policy I am not able to say at the moment.
I think the Prime Minister should tell us whether any action has been taken, and if so, what action.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Long ago.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then why have they got the cameras? That is what I want to find out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So do I.

Japanese Nationals


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: I am glad that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) brought this matter up, but I am sorry he did not give us some notice in order that we might have prepared the data which many hon. members from British Columbia have and would have been glad to put on the record. I can only speak casually, out of recollection, instead of having the proven facts before me.
A good deal of trouble was caused in the earlier stages of this situation by the long delay in handling it. There was too much-as one hon. member called it

pussyfooting. There was considerable ground for the suspicion that the Japanese had friends at Ottawa that accounted for the long delay in, and the reluctance to do anything as regards moving them. It has even been suggested that the fishing boats would not have been seized had it not been for the action of the Americans who, if they did not actually do it, at least poked up the Canadian authorities to do it.
Then the question was, what to do with these men, a great many of whom were fishermen and thoroughly informed on the coastal situation. As I say, there was considerable delay. One hon. member has stated that United States authorities moved over a hundred thousand Japanese in short order, but we have not got all ours away yet, and he wondered why. Does he really not know? If not, I will tell him. It is time that the public and the house were told. Because there are two officials at Ottawa, deeply entrenched in the government offices, whose souls seem to be bound up in the prosperity and happiness of the Japanese in British Columbia. I think I should even name one of them who was brought here from British Columbia and has been given a prominent position in an office here. His name is a byword and a reproach in British Columbia for his open and passionate advocacy of the Japanese, their rights and their wrongs and their privileges. He was a member of a faculty of the university there and he has been lent by them to give instruction and information-first-hand information-to the Department of External Affairs, where he is in the very best position to have early information of any steps likely to be taken against his friends, the Japanese.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: If my hon. friend is alluding to a member of the Department of External Affairs-he has not mentioned his name but he has said everything else it is possible to say-


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Two of them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Two of them, very well-I wish to say this, that so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, I will take complete responsibility for everything that is being done there in relation to the Japanese. There are gentlemen in the Department of External Affairs-fortunately- who have humane feelings in their breasts, which they are entitled to entertain, but I wish to say to my hon. friend that the possession of these feelings has not in any particular adversely influenced their judgment, nor has any members of the department dictated its policy.


Alan Webster Neill: I am sure that the Prime Minister as Secretary of State would not allow anybody to dictate his policy to him, but I do say that his advisers are biased-I think he will permit me to say that-the men to whom he naturally turns for information about the oriental situation in British Columbia are biased.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that all the circumstances to which he has alluded have been taken into account by myself and others of the department. The gentlemen whom he has in mind are not in the department as advisers on the Japanese question. They have their own views, but our judgment is formed independently.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, then, what are they doing there? Why were they brought from British Columbia?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were not brought for the purpose of advising on Japanese affairs. They were brought here because of the many questions which have to be dealt with in the Department of External Affairs, because they were men with trained minds, to whom important matters could be entrusted.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not going to bandy words with the Prime Minister. I am not in a position to do so. Perhaps I had better confine myself to saying that that is a very generally held opinion in British Columbia. This man was always ready, in letters to the press, and speeches, and one thing and another, to boost the supposed necessity of certain rights for the Japanese: "Why not give them votes," and so on; "they are British subjects". I can only repeat that unfortunately there is that coincidence between his being brought here quite recently and the knowledge that he does hold these views of the situation. As to the other man, the Prime Minister does not refer to him, but the situation is nearly the same as far as he is concerned.
I want to pay a tribute to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). Although working
Japanese Nationals

under a considerable handicap, he has done his part in this matter as far as he could; and as the hon. member for Kamloops said, whenever there was occasion to put his foot down he put it down, and when these people staged an incipient revolt he said, "They will be interned", and they were interned next morning. That is the kind of bold policy that we require. But he has been handicapped by the officials over there as well as some of those here. It is a hard thing to handle, because these chaps about whom we are talking have not been interned, except, of course, a number of them who became rebellious.
Under the labour commission they were paid 25 cents an hour, but they had to pay their board and contribute something toward the keep of their wives, so that by and large they figured that they did not have much left, whereas if they went on a sit-down strike, or if they were insolent to their guards, they were liable to be interned. So that the worst that could happen to them would be to be interned, and then they would get 20 cents a day and would not have to work at all. When they are interned they can devote their energies to making representations to whatever nation represents them-I am not sure whether it is Spain-submitting their complaints to that representative, and if they do not get the treatment and the food to which they think they are entitled under the Geneva convention, they have an excuse to grumble. They can say that they do not care whether they go to school or not, because the worst that can happen to them is to be interned and therefore they are better off. That, I admit, has handicapped the minister.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) said that there was considerable discontent in British Columbia with the gentleman who has been handling the security commission. I have not the time to look up the facts now, but a few weeks ago I quoted a case where the Japs had engaged, not in any sit-down strike, but in open revolt in the immigration buildings in Vancouver. They tore away everything that was tearable and threw it out of the windows; they broke windows and threw out the frames and everything else that was movable. The disturbance had to be suppressed by soldiers, who came out with their bayonets, and when the Japs saw this they collapsed. But when the matter came to be commented on by the chairman of the commission he merely dismissed it with a wave of his hand and said that it was nothing more than a demonstration of a spirit of good humour and	playfulness-exuberance,	he
called it. I suppose, if they had dropped bombs on the place, or if they had inflicted [Mr. Neill. 1
injury on the guards, it would have been regarded as playfulness just the same. He pooh-poohed the whole thing as if it were merely a spirit of good humour and raillery. That is the way he described it, but that was not the way it was described by the people in British Columbia.
There are three things that I should like to urge upon the government at this time. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) will correct me if I am wrong; but he wrote to me the other day to the effect that in view of complaints which I, in common with others, had made with regard to the inadequacy of the guards and the handicap under which they were operating, the whole matter would be looked into. There was no earthly hope of maintaining proper supervision with three men bearing rifles having to look after 300 men. These Japs could easily get round these men, ask for a match or something of the sort, and stick a knife into them. What control would three men have over 300 under such circumstances? I brought the matter to the attention of the minister, and he said he would endeavour to have a senior official of another department sent there to investigate the situation, because these guards do not care to talk. If the situation gets abroad, the first thing you know, a newspaperman comes on the scene and asks the guards questions. He will ask a guard what he knows about the situation and, if the guard is not a fool, he says, "I know nothing." That is easily understood; his job is at stake, and while he may talk to someone else, he will certainly not discuss matters if he is afraid that he may get into trouble. It was proposed that a senior official be sent out to talk to these men, to get them by themselves and elicit the actual facts. If that was done-and I hope it was-then I suggest it is about time we had a report on what took place.
The next suggestion I wish to make is with regard to the police force. I submit that a larger police force should be placed in these camps. It is altogether inadequate to have three men guarding 300-300 men wandering about loose. I suppose the guards sleep sometimes, and that would mean that if they worked in three shifts, only one would be on duty at a time. If this were a guard of honour it would be all right, but this is war, and these are brutal, cruel people. There may be some good ones, but we do not know which is which. There may be some men there who mean us no harm, but there are undoubtedly others who are there for a deliberate purpose which is injurious to the country. We cannot therefore afford to play with the thing. It would be all right if we were not at war, but under

Javanese Nationals
present circumstances, where these men are less than a quarter of a mile from a bridge which could be blown up, cutting British Columbia off from the east, the matter becomes one of very grave importance.
Following the remarks of other members, the third point on which I wish to speak for just one moment is this. I have already referred to it, but I cannot too soon reiterate it now so that it will not be said afterwards that the government did not know about it. It is the feeling of the people in British Columbia, and it would be the feeling of the people in the rest of the country I am sure, if they were wise and informed, that at the close of the war these men should not be sent back to British Columbia but should be expatriated. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) talks about feelings of humanity, but I suggest that our duty is first to the people of Canada. This has been a canker all along, and it will become worse and worse-it is nothing but a canker in the heart of the country. These people are breeding rapidly, and they have but one mind:	first and last
they are Japanese. This is the time to take the necessary action in regard to them, when there are but 22,000 or 23,000, and not when we are overrun with 200,000 or 300,000.
I would impress upon the minister the importance of looking into these three points that I have brought up: first, a definite report on conditions; second, with regard to increasing the police force; and, finally, the question of disposing of these Japanese at the end of the war. I suggest that we should make up our minds now and prepare for the post-war situation, because I do not think we should contemplate for one moment sending these Japanese back to British Columbia. We should expatriate them to Japan at the end of the war.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I would say to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) that had I known the discussion was to come up this afternoon, I would have had more facts before me.


Howard Charles Green: None of us knew.


Humphrey Mitchell: Nevertheless I am not ashamed; in fact I am proud of the progress we have made in removing the Japanese from British Columbia to other parts of Canada. The problem is directly under the jurisdiction of the British Columbia security commission. I do not know the politics of the members of the commission; I do not even know the politics of the advisory council, but I think hon. members will agree with me that it was a sound decision, when the movement of Japanese had to be made, to set up a commission on the ground, 3,000 miles away, with the necessary power to undertake major
policy in this regard for the government. I think time will vindicate that decision. Of course, we may reach the stage where it will be more practical, when the movement is completed, to have it under the direction probably of the Department of Labour or of some other department with a senior civil servant in charge, but I think credit should go to that commission. It was a job which many would not like to undertake, and as I sat here this afternoon I wondered that we had moved a single Japanese.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why?


Humphrey Mitchell: For this reason, that everybody takes a parochial point of view. When we first started to move the Japanese no province wanted them. What would my hon. friends in British Columbia say if we wanted to move all the Germans in eastern Canada to British Columbia?


George Alexander Cruickshank: If it were for
national defence it would be undertaken.


Humphrey Mitchell: Wait until the time comes, but do not forget this: it will not be said about me that I did not act in the traditional British way with regard to these Japanese. It is not going to be written on the pages of this country's history that I treated these Japanese in any way different from the treatment that is accorded persons in the same situation throughout the British commonwealth. Let the Japanese do what they will; let the Germans do what they will; but I hope that this government and this country will uphold the true traditions of the British people in matters such as this.
The hon. member for Kamloops said that the men were dictating the policy of the camps. While I have anything to do with the matter, as long as the foremen act decently they will not be dictated to by the men in these camps. Only the other day we had a strike in one of the camps because they wanted a foreman removed. That was the camp where they were put on two meals a day- two good meals, might I say-and through that policy we were able to straighten out the difficulty.
I am not going to say to the House of Commons that we shall not have trouble in these camps. You can not have large bodies of men, whether Japanese, Canadians or what have you, without having occasional outbreaks. I think I should say also that of course we have had difficulties. Only the other day four thousand German prisoners came to New York to be interned in this country, on very short notice, and we have been confronted with difficulties of this kind. At the moment we have not sufficient space in our
Japanese Nationals

internment camps, though within the next few days we hope to have accommodation available to take care of another seven hundred men.
I am just answering these points as they were brought up. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) said something about seeing men going to the beet fields in western Ontario, and that some of them had cameras. With regard to these people I would say that they volunteered to go there, and according to my reports they are doing a good job. Let us be fair and decent about the matter. Goodness knows there is a terrific shortage of labour in the beet fields of this country; and if these men behave themselves and work as they should, I do not think we should raise any objection to things like that. I might also say how difficult the removal of these people is made when they are painted in the colours in which some hon. members painted them this afternoon. When my department and the security commission go to the provincial governments in order to arrange the removal of the Japanese from British Columbia to the other provinces, things like this make it difficult not only for them but also for ourselves to carry out this policy. At the moment two members of the British Columbia security commission are in conference with the government of Ontario endeavouring to arrange to remove Japanese families from British Columbia to the farms of this province. For my part I hope that can be worked out; it will be a constructive step. The hon. member for Fraser Valley laughs, but I want to say to him that any fool can spend money. This government could have put these people on a rock pile in Alberta, we will say. That is not clever. Again my hon. friend laughs. I would rather see these people spread over the country, working at productive employment; I should prefer that even to have them working in the road camps which British Columbia wanted to build in order to complete their road system. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have your roads built with the Japanese in Ontario; they must be in British Columbia. That is the only way you can build roads there. You cannot argue both ends against the middle, as some hon. gentlemen have been trying to do this afternoon.
I think I have covered the matter sufficiently. There was a point raised by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) with respect to the Japanese having intermediaries purchase land for them. At the moment an investigation is being made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to see if this is being done; and, if it is, steps will be taken to correct the situation.
IMr. Mitchell.]
In conclusion, I just want to say that I am informed by the British Columbia security commission that they hope the movement will be cleaned up within the next six weeks. I want to say also to the Japanese government that we welcome any investigation by the representatives of the Spanish government in this country, who at the moment are looking after the interests of Japan here, or by the International Red Cross. I think, after that investigation is made, our treatment of these people will be found to compare favourably with the best treatment of any interned aliens in the world, and we should be proud of that too. I hope that may be written into the pages of our history, because, after all is said and done, we have some of our own flesh and blood in Japan, and we must not forget that. As I have said before, I know the Japanese; I fought with them in the last war. When it comes to ruthlessness there is not a nation on the face of the earth that can compare with the Japanese. But let it be said of us that at least we set them an example, so that our young men in the Straits Settlements and in Japan may get the treatment we think they should get. Let it never be said that an excuse for the ill-treatment of those young men of ours might be made of the way in which we treated the Japanese in this country. I think that is a practical approach to the problem; I believe what I have said is sound, and I think we might well be proud of the way we have undertaken this very difficult problem, under extremely severe and sometimes might I say, unfair criticism.


Howard Charles Green: Some time ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announced that he hoped negotiations might be carried through for the exchange of Japanese and Canadian nationals. Has any headway been made in those negotiations?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have no knowledge of that.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the Prime Minister could tell us.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is with some hesitation that I intrude into this discussion any views I hold with regard to this matter. In the first place, we are all more or less unprepared to discuss an important matter such as this at short notice, especially those of us who have no official information. Let me say at once to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) that with respect to the humaneness of the attitude of this government, I think the people of Canada will sustain him in the principle he is endeavouring to enunciate. It must not be

Japanese Nationals
said that we departed from the spirit of British fair play with respect to a matter of this nature, not so much because of fear of reprisals, which must be an important and almost a dominant factor in dealing with a matter of this kind but, if I may say so, for our own self-respect. I do not think it should be ever urged that because the Japanese are brutal, because they do not obey the laws and instincts of humanity, we should descend to the same level.
Having said that, let me say that I do believe the administration approached this problem with a good deal of hesitation and delay. I do not believe even the boldest spokesman for the government would say that they adopted a great deal of courage in dealing with this matter at its inception. There must have been in the minds of the administration, those who had studied this question, the knowledge that once Japan was at war with the united nations, we would have to be prepared for the worst with regard to what might happen on the part of Japanese nationals within our own territorial limits. Nevertheless I think the administration dallied with the matter. Finally a policy was established. I do not know who gave birth to it, but at the start it gave promise of developing into a method whereby a solution might be reached. That policy was the establishment of a security commission on the spot; and, looking at the matter as dispassionately as one can, I think the basis of the policy was sound, nor up to the moment have I heard anything which would merit condemnation of the theory behind that policy. But I will say that from the information which has reached me and from all the information that has been placed on record by hon. members from British Columbia, the security commission either found it difficult to act promptly and effectively or did not so act for other reasons.
I suggest to the government that there should be given to the people of British Columbia, our own flesh and blood, a feeling of security with respect to the possibilities that may eventuate from the presence of these Japanese there. This just cannot be done by the methods which I understand are in vogue. For instance, I am told there are three guards in a camp of 300 men, one guard on duty at a time. He carries one rifle and twelve rounds of ammunition. Why, simply to state this is to bring ridicule on the means adopted by the security commission to attain the ends sought.
Let the Minister of Labour, in whose charge this matter rests-although I believe five different departments of government have had something to do with it-set up a force sufficiently large and strong, and sufficiently capable to enforce order and discipline, and to
see that these men work while they are within the jurisdiction of the security commission. Not only that; let it be a force large enough to see that no sabotage is carried on. That is an important point raised by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and other hon. members. They have pointed out that these Japanese are left in a position whereby, with one stick of dynamite and lacking proper care, they could disrupt the transportation systems between British Columbia and the prairies.
Surely this is evidence of weakness. I am not condemning the government. They acted slowly at first. I believe that at least in theory the principle of the system they set up was sound, but it has not had power enough in its elbow. It has not used the power in its elbow to a sufficient degree. I suggest that a force of men be put in there, at the country's expense, to see that there is no sabotage, that there are no sit-down strikes and that discipline is maintained. All that can be done, and done humanely, too. My suggestion to the gov-ernmeilt is to strengthen the force they have there, and to see that when an order is given it is carried out.
I am not saying anything about expatriation after the war is over. I have no doubt that every white man in British Columbia would like to have that policy carried out. It may be a right policy, but I do not like to express an opinion upon it without further information. However, I could certainly visualize the difficulty of carrying out such a policy.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Is any limit placed on the amount of money the British Columbia security commission can spend in connection with the disposition of the Japanese? Must the security commission, in dealing with any given group of Japanese, first have reference to the amount of money available?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not understand the hon. member's point.
Mr. BLACKMORE; How much money is at the disposal of the British Columbia security commission in dealing with the Japanese situation?


Humphrey Mitchell: There is no restriction. I thought at first the hon. member was talking about individual Japanese.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no limit.


Humphrey Mitchell: We have to face up to each problem as it presents itself.


John Horne Blackmore: Has any proposal of the commission for the disposition of Japanese been rejected by the dominion government, for reasons of finance?
Japanese Nationals


Georges Parent: Order; we are not in committee.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say no.
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops): There are many observations I could make in rebuttal to some of the statements made to-day. It is my understanding, however, that the rules of the house do not permit of that procedure.
All I wish to do is to thank the house for its indulgence, and to thank those who have taken part in the discussion. I believe my purpose has been well served. If the government were not alive to what was going on in British Columbia, they will be alive to it now.
I say, in apology to the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and others who voiced their regret that I had not given a little notice, that I am not built along those lines. When I decide to do something I believe that now is the appointed time to do it. I decided when I was entering the house that now was the time and now was the hour.
I move for the withdrawal of the motion.


Georges Parent: The hon. member for
Kamloops moves for leave to withdraw his motion. Is it the pleasure of the house that he shall have leave to withdraw the motion?


Howard Charles Green: I should like to know if
the Prime Minister is ready to answer my question?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Prime Minister ought to say something.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked a question with respect to the repatriation of Canadians from Japan, to be exchanged for Japanese from this country. As the hon. member is no doubt aware, I made a statement in the matter on the 12th of this month. At that time I mentioned that negotiations had resulted in an arrangement for an exchange of officials, to begin with, and private citizens thereafter. The ship which was bringing some of the officials is now also bringing to Canada some of the private citizens. Arrangements have been made to give priority to women and children.
I cannot tell the hon. member just whether or not the ship has sailed or when it sails. I have been unable to get any information in addition to what I gave on the last occasion. I can say, however, that the negotiations have resulted in the arrangement to which I refer, and that those arrangements will continue- that is to say, as rapidly as ships can be secured for the purpose our citizens will be repatriated, and Japanese will be taken back.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the hope to exchange
all Japanese nationals, because they constitute
[Mr. Blackmore.}
over one-third of the total number of people of Japanese origin in Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say
as to that.


Mr. SHAW:: Did the hon. member close
the debate when he spoke?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He withdrew the motion.


Georges Parent: The hon. member asked
leave of the house to, withdraw the motion.


Alan Webster Neill: Your Honour omitted to say that he closed the debate. It is open now for anyone to speak.


Georges Parent: There is a motion before
the house.


Alan Webster Neill: But it is invariably the rule for Mr. Speaker to say, "If the hon. member speaks in reply, he will close the debate." Mr. Speaker omitted to do so, and therefore the debate is still open.


Georges Parent: No. The hon. member has a motion. The motion is to adjourn the house. The adjournment of the house is the close of the debate. The hon. member is not entitled to reply to such motion, because the logical result would be, if the motion were carried, that the house would adjourn. The hon. member now moves for leave of the house to withdraw his motion.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a point of order, I think it should be made clear that any hon. member who did not speak before the hon. member for Kamloops made the present motion, is still entitled to debate the question. If the hon. member for Red Deer wishes to speak, he may do so.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I should like-


Georges Parent: Order. There is a motion before the house. It is made by the hon. member, who has a right to make it-that he asks leave of the house to withdraw his motion.


Alan Webster Neill: But he is refused leave.


Georges Parent: All in favour.


Alan Webster Neill: It is not unanimous.


John Horne Blackmore: Is that motion not debatable?


Georges Parent: No. All in favour of the motion will say Aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Georges Parent: All opposed to the motion will say Nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Georges Parent: In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion (Mr. O'Neill) withdrawn.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gibson



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Roy.
Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members have already spent nearly two weeks in discussing the provisions and merits of this bill. A great deal has already been said both for and against with respect to the measure. I see no need to prolong the debate by a long speech, but I should like to express my views respecting the necessity or desirability of immediate conscription for service overseas.
Under the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act we already have authority to call up or conscript all the resources of this country, with the single exception of the calling up of men for overseas service. The bill under consideration removes that single exception and enables the government to make the most effective uses of all our resources as the exigencies of the situation may at any time dictate. I am supporting this bill not because I feel that conscription for overseas service is immediately necessary, but because I realize that should the necessity arise we must be in position to be able to put it into operation without delay.
I do not intend to reply to those who are opposed to the calling up of men for service beyond the territorial limits of this country, as I think it would take longer than the forty minutes that I am allowed to bring about any change in their point of view. Nor do I wish to deal with the suggestion that has been made that conscription of man-power should be automatically coupled with conscription of wealth. Under the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act we already have authority to conscript wealth, and I consider that any discussion on the subject may well be postponed until we come to the budget debate. What I do intend to discuss to-day is the suggestion that has been made so often that conscription is essential to total war, and we cannot have a total war without conscription.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has appealed for selective national service in every sphere of home activity. The other day the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was asked if he believed it was
desirable at the moment to have conscription for overseas service and he replied, "I say that the time has come when there is only one mobilization that will assure equality and fairness and unity in Canada." He then went on to say, "and that is by establishing selective service for overseas immediately."
I do not doubt that all those advocating immediate conscription are anxious that this country should develop the greatest national effort of which we are capable-and to do so at the earliest possible day. With that I am in complete accord. Where we differ is not in the object to be attained, but as to the means of attaining that object. It by no means follows that the introduction of conscription automatically means an increased effort or more satisfactory results, particularly in this country where we know that a considerable portion of our population is definitely opposed to it. I am not an anti-eonscriptionist, but I have served under both systems, and I do not agree with the view that conscription is necessarily the best method of producing an effective fighting force.
In considering the question of conscription, or selective national service as my hon. friends prefer to call it, many arguments have been advanced in its favour, particularly the argument that it is the fairest method of securing men. It is claimed that by forcing all classes and groups to bear their share of the dangers and the sacrifices that are entailed, the bravest and best will not be sacrificed for the benefit of those who are unwilling to serve. On the face of it that is a sound argument, and if our man-power consisted of standard units where every man was of an identical pattern, moulded in the same mould, that method would prove to be not only fair but also equally effective. What that proposal does not take into consideration is the difference in effectiveness between men who are willing and those who are unwilling to serve, between the volunteer and the unwilling conscript.
Just at this point I should like to make it quite clear that I do not suggest for a moment that because a man has not volunteered he is necessary unwilling to serve. I realize quite well that there are probably many men throughout the country who would willingly offer their services, but who consider that for one reason or another, owing to various obligations, they are not justified in doing so. But it is also true that there are other men who have no desire to serve, who have no intention of volunteering and who, on the contrary, have every intention of avoiding all service if possible. Those are the men I have referred to as unwilling conscripts; those are the men
Mobilization Act-Mr. Gibson

whom the advocates of immediate conscription hope to sweep into the army in their desire to secure for this country an all-out effort.
They fail to ask themselves whether or not the inclusion of those men would serve to strengthen or maintain the present morale and efficiency of our fighting forces. To my mind there is little doubt what the answer would be if a commanding officer of an overseas unit were offered his choice of being reinforced by volunteers or conscripts. The man who has enlisted has voluntarily decided for himself to enter the service, knowing well the risks involved, and is prepared to face the dangers that he will be called upon to meet. That man has joined with a purpose, that of playing his part in our effort to destroy the enemy. But what is the outlook of the unwilling conscript? He has not undertaken to undergo hardship; he has not undertaken to face danger and possible death-quite the contrary. He has tried to avoid them. That is the man who will be called up under conscription. I wonder how valuable his contribution will be to our total war effort. What some people seem to forget is that warfare to-day does not consist of hurling huge masses of men against each other, with the balance in favour of the greatest number. To-day war is mechanized, highly technical, and demanding individual initiative in the use of the weapons that are provided. The best weapons in the world will be useless unless the men using them are prepared to use them bravely and intelligently. Under these circumstances it would seem to be obvious that so long as a volunteer force can be maintained in the field it will be a more effective fighting force than one partly or wholly composed of conscripts.
We sometimes hear the question asked, "why should the best go first?" That is a reasonable question. It is obviously unfair. But the fact remains that if we are to win this war we require the services of our best, and the best services of our best, without, if possible, having their strength diluted and their efficiency reduced by having in their ranks those who have had to be forced to serve. It is difficult to understand the attitude of some people when they apologize for the fact that our overseas forces are purely voluntary. We hear no such complaint in connection with the air force or the navy, although both these forces are raised on a purely voluntary basis.
I do not think I have ever heard it suggested that conscription should be applied either to the air force or to the navy. Does anyone consider that it requires less skill and courage to operate a tank than it does to fly

a plane, or that higher qualities of initiative and daring are required by the parachutists than in the commandos? I certainly would not say so. And yet we have the demand for conscription confined to service in the army only.
Our overseas force has often been referred to as the spearhead of the defence forces of Britain. We are proud of that title, and it is our duty to keep that spearhead keen and reinforced as far as possible, by men who are up to the present standard.
The leader of the opposition, referring to the impressions abroad as to our war effort, said:
These impressions exist because of the fact that we do not send men outside of Canada.
I disagree with him entirely as to this, because such impressions are certainly not based upon the facts.
When this country, with a population of under twelve million people, while employing
800,000	persons in war production, as well as over a million engaged in agriculture, can, by voluntary enlistment, raise over 500,000 men for our fighting forces, one would almost expect to hear the people of Canada boasting of the fact.
I have in my hand an item appearing in this morning's issue of the Ottawa Journal which is a fair sample of the publicity that creates the impressions referred to. It is a report of a speech by Lieutenant-Colonel T. A. Kidd, a veteran of the last war, at a meeting held in Toronto. Colonel Kidd is reported to have said:
We as a nation want to walk step by step with the United States. Conscription has produced an army for them to send to Ireland and England while our government calls for volunteers only. It is a thoroughly disgraceful situation and must react upon our national influence in the future.
That is what was said, instead of indicating to our American allies that when they have raised forces of approximately six million men, by compulsory means or otherwise, they will have proportionately equalled the record of Canada, a record that we have accomplished on a voluntary basis. In saying that I am not in any way belittling the effort of our great neighbour the United States. But instead of giving out that picture the impression is given out that we have something to be ashamed of, that we are ashamed that our volunteers have not been conscripted.
Instead of taking pride in the fact that over half a million Canadians have freely offered their lives, that the whole of our overseas forces have been raised and maintained on a voluntary basis, we have a section of our

Mobilization Act-Mr. MacNicol
people, and of our press, apologizing for our contribution, because it has not been compulsory.
I have no hesitation, Mr. Speaker, in saying that if it remains possible to continue to reinforce our voluntary forces overseas with further volunteers from this country, I am strongly in favour of doing so, and I may add that I feel perfectly sure our troops overseas will be of the same opinion.
But it must be realized that this country has undertaken a tremendous war programme, a programme that entails not only the maintenance of our fighting forces, but also the production of huge quantities of war supplies and foodstuffs, and our resources in man-power, as well as in material supply, will undoubtedly be taxed to the limit. Up to the present, voluntary reinforcements have been forthcoming well up to the estimates of all our requirements. But it is possible that a time may come when the voluntary system may fail to supply the reinforcements equal to the demand, and that is a contingency that we must face and be prepared to meet. In such circumstances, I am certainly in favour of the immediate adoption of conscription of men for overseas service, and the government is asking to have section 3 eliminated to enable it, when necessary, to adopt the same method of raising men for our forces abroad as is now authorized for home defence.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this, that Canadians are proud, and have reason to be proud, of the forces which represent us beyond our shores, and those men are entitled to our assurance, and to know, that we in this country are prepared to support them to the very utmost limit of our power.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for this bill in order to remove the last obstruction which, the government believes, prevents it from initiating compulsory service in any field of war.
On the tenth of this month, with all the other members of the house who were present, I listened very attentively to the address of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he introduced Bill No. 80 and opened this debate. The bill calls for the removal from the National Resources Mobilization Act of section 3, which imposes the only limitation in the act upon enlistment for overseas service. I am of the opinion that when section 3 is removed, the act being then in full force, the government will have authority to introduce national compulsory selective service for any field of war.
But when the Prime Minister sat down I must confess that I was not just sure what the exact policy of the government is or is going to be. I remember very well that the Prime Minister suggested three views. There was first the view of those who want immediately-all-out compulsory military service for any theatre of war, and there was the view of those who did not want all-out compulsory military service under any circumstances. The Prime Minister said, at page 3236:
Each of these is a very extreme view and attitude. Neither extreme, I believe, should be permitted to prevail.
Then he went on to say that there was a third view:
-a view which I believe, accords with the opinion most generally held throughout the dominion. It is that conscription for service overseas should be inaugurated only if and when, in the opinion of the government, it becomes necessary to the security of our country and to the maintenance of its war effort. That view is the one which is held by the government. It represents the government's policy with respect to conscription for service overseas.
He added:
In a word, that policy may be described as not necessarily conscription but conscription if necessary.
So that when he had finished I was just where I was when he began. I could not put my finger on the policy of the government, and I doubt if anybody could. Am I not right in my view of the Prime Minister's speech? Evidently the house agrees that I am. Last week, following the Prime Minister, we had speeches by six of his ministers, each one of whom spent a good deal of time trying to persuade our compatriots of Quebec that this bill does not really mean anything, that it does not mean conscription, that in any event it does not mean that the country is going to have a compulsory all-out effort. Certainly not in my time has there been such an array of talent. Each day, except last Friday, as the first speech of the day we had the fortune of hearing a capable minister debate the question whether this bill meant anything or not. I am sure every hon. member will admit that so far as the province of Quebec is concerned -I speak kindly of that province, and have always held myself to be one of its warm supporters-the voters believed that when they voted "no" they voted against conscription. Will anyone doubt that? I see a number of hon. members from Quebec nodding their heads. I agree that when the province of Quebec voted "no" its people were sure they were voting against conscription. I believe I can say also that in the other eight provinces the great majority but not all of those who



Mobilization Act^Mr. MacNicol
voted "yes" voted for national compulsory service in any theatre of war. I have as much right to say that as others have to assert that Quebec voted "no" against compulsory service in any theatre of war. I know that in Ontario, and specifically in the capital city of Toronto, the general impression during the plebiscite campaign was that an affirmative vote was a vote for all-out compulsory national service in any theatre of war. At the very commencement, a group of men, headed by Colonel Reynolds, of the Canadian Corps Association, and Major Everett Bristol, organized a meeting in Toronto, which was held in the Royal York hotel, and which I attended. Under the direction of a committee which was formed there to support the "yes" vote, quite an advertising campaign was carried on. I have some of the advertisements here. They are good. One of them shows Adolf Hitler pinning an iron cross on a non-voter, and represents him as saying, "Thank you for not coming out to vote". In Toronto we thought that not to vote was equivalent to voting "no". Later on we find this, "If you don't want to earn Hitler's praise, vote-and vote yes!" This was published in all the Toronto papers, and, I assume, in the papers around about.
The next cartoon I have here depicts, in really good caricature, Mussolini, Hirohito and Hitler, and says "Let's wipe the smirk off these mugsl Vote 'yes!'." A well-written article follows:
"Divide and rule"-this is the plan of Hitler & Co. Can't you imagine the smirk on Hitler's moronic mug when the people of Austria- Czechoslovakia-Yugoslavia argued amongst themselves until too late and the hun hordes walked in? Don't you remember the newsreel picture showing Hitler doing a jig on receiving news on the fall of France? And now we have the spectacle in India-a people divided. Monday, April 27th, will give the unholy trio-Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini

Canada's answer. That day we have our opportunity to prove that on the question of an all-out war effort we are a united people. And, remember, a skimpy majority isn[t much better than a negative vote. It would indicate that we, too, are a divided people. We must vote-and we must vote "yes" in such numbers that our enemies and our allies will know where we in Canada stand in this all-out fight for freedom.
Then another cartoon-I will refer to just one more-portrays a sailor, a soldier and an airman, and represents them as saying:
Don't fail us! Vote "yes"!
Place yourself in the position of our fighting men. You are taking a tank into battle. You are flying a bomber over Germany. You are riding in mid-Atlantic on a storm-tossed corvette. You hear suddenly that Canada has failed to ring up an overwhelming "yes" vote on April 27. What would be your feelings as you rode into battle with the enemy who seeks not only your destruction but the enslavement of your country?

And so on. Now, Mr. Speaker, those advertisements and write-ups, repeated daily, had a lot to do with bringing about the affirmative vote in Toronto and in Ontario generally. What was the trend of that vote?
So far as I can find out, the riding of Eglinton, in North Toronto, registered the largest "yes" vote in Canada-96 per cent "yes", 4 per cent "no". Toronto itself voted 93 per cent "yes". Over 90 per cent of the voters in my riding, and 92 per cent in the constituency of Dufferin-Simcoe, voted "yes". Two ridings in Ontario voted "no". Russell gave only 37 per cent "yes", and Prescott only 32 per cent in the affirmative. In both ridings the vote was against conscription, or against all-out compulsory service in any theatre of war. In like manner the rest of us voted for national selective all-out service in any theatre of war. In the dominion the total "yes" vote was 2,921,206, and the "no" vote was 1,608,609.
I think I have said enough, Mr. Speaker, to prove that in eight of the provinces, in any event, the majority vote was for all-out compulsory service. I do not say that 100 per cent of those who voted voted that way, but the vast majority did. That vote, we are told, cost $1,600,000 including what was spent during the campaign itself, and I wish to compare that $1,600,000 with another $1,600,000 which was raised by a great newspaper that supported the "yes" vote. I refer to the Toronto Telegram. For the last two years that newspaper has been carrying on at its own expense the British war victims campaign fund whereby it has raised the sum I have mentioned, SI,600,000. There has been some support from outside the city, on the part of about a hundred weeklies and dailies, but the Telegram itself and its 700 employees all participate in the conduct of this campaign, and there are eight employees in the office who devote their whole time to this work, directing the British war victims campaign fund. They use one-tenth of their zinc in placing such cuts as I have here in the paper. I have in my hand as an example pictures of twenty-eight children, three from Norwood, Ontario, and twenty-five in the city of Toronto itself, who have been carrying on this work. Children will be seen on the street-corners selling all kinds of things to get money for the fund. They deny themselves; they do not go to shows, and they give all the money they can get together to the fund. They may have a party and give the proceeds to the fund. These twenty-eight children raised on this particular day, June 13, the sum of $60.15.
I congratulate that patriotic gentleman, Mr. C. O. Knowles, the editor in chief of the paper, and those associated with him upon the

Mobilization Act-Mr. MacNicol
splendid work they have done in raising the money they have got together. But I want to touch further on another side of this matter. It seems to me that in addition to the money, they have done something incomparable in the patriotic fervour which they have instilled into thousands of children throughout Ontario. They have instilled into these children a love for Canada and also a love for the empire. We hear too much in this house and outside about Canada as a sovereign nation, but so far as I am concerned I say clearly that the block in which I live in Toronto cannot be separated from ward 6; ward 6 cannot be separated from Toronto; Toronto cannot be separated from Ontario; Ontario cannot be separated from Canada, and Canada cannot be separated from the British empire.
I will now take up the views expressed by the several ministers who have spoken. First of all I would refer to the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I have always had, and I still have, a warm feeling for that hon. gentleman, but in the course of his speech he made one statement to which I will now refer, in regard to which I disagree with him, a statement which I do not think he would have made had he given more thought to the question. He was replying to something that my leader (Mr. Hanson) had said in reference to national government. Perhaps that rather stirred him up a bit, and he made this statement, as reported at page 3329 of Hansard-.
The only kind of government which could bring that kind of policy-
That is, the policy my leader had mentioned, an all-out national selective service policy of men and resources.
The only kind of government which could bring that kind of policy into effect in Canada at present, the only kind of government which would undertake to do so, would be the government with no political past and no desire to have a political future.
Those words are far below the opinion I have of the minister, and I say to myself that they were spoken rather hurriedly and do not express his inmost feelings.


Mr. GARDINER:: May I suggest that they did not have to do with conscription of manpower for overseas.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If they do express the
minister's opinion, then in the name of heaven, if and when conscription is to be brought in- and the minister who has just taken his seat (Mr. Gibson) said he was in favour of it- how can conscription be put into effect except 44561-221J
by a national government? How can it be done if you are to attain the end the minister suggests?


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend will
agree that that statement does not refer tO' conscription of men for service overseas. It refers to a discussion of policy in which the leader of the opposition said that he was not talking about that question.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I read four lines
to the minister and express the hope that he will keep them before him on every occasion in the future when he feels inclined: to make any statement associating political activities with the conduct of this empire's war, in this life and death struggle, when politics should not be entering into it at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a much higher
conception of politics than the hon. member appears to have. If I thought there was anything wrong with politics, I would not be in it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the minister will keep these lines before him he will not make that statement again. These are the words of J. G. Holland taken from Scribner's magazine, 1883:
God give us men! A time like this demands
Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands;
Men whom the lust of office does not kill;
Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy.
For my part I would- rather stay in opposition if I lived 1,000 years than be associated with a government that would conduct a war on the basis of party politics. That is all I have to say about the minister's remarks.
I come next to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), who told a very fine story from his point of view. A great deal has been said about what Canada has done. Well, I am proud of what Canada has done, but I am one of those who believe that Canada could do a great deal more, and I think Canada should have done a great deal more. The minister said something about Australia. What has Australia done? The population of Australia is only 7,000,000, and our population is 11,420,000. Australia has enlisted in the active armed forces, serving either away or at^ home 8 per cent of the population. That is to say, 572,000 have enlisted, in addition to ancillary forces. The figures I have quoted are from "Keesing's Contemporary" of September 20-27, 1941. Had Canada enlisted 8 per cent of its population, Canada would have had 913,000 men instead of 505,000, as the minister said. Of course, someone will say that Canada is doing so much more than Australia in the manufacture of munitions.

Mobilization Act-Mr. MacNicol
Well, I do not know about that. Australia too has done a magnificent job in the manufacture of munitions. The fact is that this year they are spending $5,000,000,000 on the manufacture of munitions, according to March 15 "Vital Speeches of the Day." That is a creditable turn-out. I have no doubt they have many more men to-day in the armed forces, because since these figures were printed, Japan has moved into their orbit.
New Zealand has a population of 1,336,000. What has little New Zealand done? It had 66,500 in its expeditionary force, ready to be sent to wherever the fighting was going on;
133.000	at home, 33,000 in the air force and
6.000	in the navy, or a total of 238,500. That amounts to It) per cent. If Canada enlisted in its armed forces as many men as New Zealand has enlisted, in proportion to population, we would have 1,656,000 men under arms. And take South Africa, which has a white population of only 2,000,000, about one-sixth the population of Canada. South Africa has enlisted 190,000 men for overseas service and
43.000	men for home service, or 114 per cent of her population. In proportion to population, Canada, with 11,420,000 people, at the same rate would have enlisted 1,313,000 men. The figures for South Africa were taken from the Canadian Geographical magazine for January, and the New Zealand figures from the same magazine for February.
A good deal has been said about England, and often I have heard remarks made about that country which were not very complimentary. I do not like remarks of that kind. The British people have done the most marvellous job of any nation in the world, bar none, in this war. In the Ottawa Citizen of this morning I read an article which stated that the total figures were impressive. Of a total population between the ages of fourteen and sixty-five, amounting to 33,000,000 people, some 22,000,000, or 66 per cent, are in the armed forces, civil defence or industry, leaving
11,000,000 for other work. That is a tremendous enlistment in the armed forces and in industry in the old country. In addition they have just reached the total expenditure of $44,000,000,000 in the prosecution of the war. Canada has done well, but Canada has to do a lot better to match these other countries to which I have just referred.
I want to say a word or two about the speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), who certainly excelled himself in delivery, in diction and in choice of language. In those three characteristics, and perhaps

others, his speech was brilliant, but I should like to refer to something he said appearing at page 3391 of Hansard:
I do not feel any unworthiness in asserting that the duty of citizenship to bear arms and fight and die is a duty which the citizen owes only to his own country and its interests.
I should like to ask the Minister of Justice this. If in 1776 the people of Great Britain had adopted that attitude toward the Canada of that day, what would have happened to the people of the province of Quebec and where would their language be to-day? I am absolutely in agreement that everything given them under act or treaty should be carried out. If we are to have harmony in this country we must recognize the rights of others. But if the British had not come over here in 1776 there would have been no French spoken in Quebec to-day; and had they not come again in 1812 there would have been no French spoken in Quebec to-day as an official language, any more than there is in the state of Louisiana.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Quebec saved Canada in 1812.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They did a grand job in that war, as no one knows better than I do. They certainly fought heroically at Chateau-guay and elsewhere; but do not forget the western division, that fought in western Ontario and over into the state of Michigan. I give the French all the credit they deserve; they did magnificently, but on the other hand I am not going to discredit our own people.


James Garfield Gardiner: They still speak French in New Orleans and in Louisiana.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I can tell the minister that some forty years ago French, as a language of instruction, was abolished in the state schools of Louisiana. I am not in favour of abolishing it in Quebec; do not take that out of what I said. I am in favour of granting French Canadians every privilege to which they are entitled. All I am pointing out is that if in 1776 and 1812 the British had not come here and done what they did, Canada would have been part of the United States to-day.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was not what the hon. member said. He said they would not be speaking French, but to-day they speak French in Maine and in Louisiana.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, I said it would not be the language of instruction, any more than it is in the state of Louisiana. I am in favour of its remaining the language of instruction in Quebec, as long as they want to keep it

Mobilization Act-Mr. MacNicol
there. Do not try to put words in my mouth. I am only pointing out what would have happened if certain things had not been done in 1776 and 1812.
During the recent Quebec by-election certain speakers made some very unkind statements. I do not know by whom they were made, but I read one denouncing our participation in the war because, it was charged, the British always got others to fight their battles for them. That is not true. Up to November last United Kingdom soldiers suffered 71-3 per cent of all casualties, while soldiers from the dominions suffered 18-2 per cent, colonial troops 5 per cent and Indian troops 5-5 per cent, while in Norway and France troops from the British Isles outnumbered those from other parts of the empire by seventy to one. I believe fair statements should be made about everyone. Certainly I would be the last to make an unkind statement about anyone, and I do not like to see such statements made about the people from whom I am descended. Many times we have heard about enlistments in this country. Major-General LaFleche, D.S.O., a very brilliant soldier with a wonderful record, recently gave the figures of enlistments in Canada, which were published in the Edmonton Journal and again in the Peace River Record, from which newspaper I clipped them. The figures were as follows:
Total Voluntary Enlistments
Quebec	
Ontario	
Nova Scotia and Prince Edward
Island	
New Brunswick	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
66,133
158,691
33,005
21,861
39,384
32.437
35,391
39,254
Enlistments per 1,000 Population Nova Scotia and Prince Edward
Island	 49.5
Manitoba	 49.0
British Columbia	 48.3
New Brunswick	 42.8
Alberta	 44.4
Ontario	  42.6
Saskatchewan	 36.6
Quebec	 20.4
1 do not know up to what date these figures go, but they are worth taking as a guide. I am not finding fault with Quebec at all. I want to be fair; I think the rest of us should enlist more than the province of Quebec. Someone said here the other day that Quebec should not be expected to enlist as many men, and I agree. I think they have done magnificently, considering everything, and they are as good fighters as we have anywhere. I am not disparaging them in any
shape or form, but surely I should not be criticized for being fair to the other provinces.
I want to pass on to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), and I
shall be very brief with him. At page 3413 of Hansard he said:
Furthermore, Canada has the largest volunteer armed force of any nation in the world. That is something of which Canada might well be pi'oud.
Well, if the figures which I have quoted with respect to New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Great Britain are correct, the minister said a lot more than would seem to be shown by the facts. Because if we have enlisted only 505,000-and I am not discrediting that, because it is a big enlistment-it does not compare in percentage, with what we would have enlisted had our enlistments been at the same ratio as those in New Zealand and Australia.
The minister made a comparison between what happened at the time of the great war and what is happening to-day. He said that by 1917 Canada had enlisted 417,371 men. It will be remembered, however, that our population in 1916, on which those figures are based, was only 8,035,000. On the other hand the enlistment figures given by the minister for 1942 are based on a 1941 population of
11,420,000.	On that basis we should have in the army to-day in Canada about 593,000 men, not 505,000.
I know it will be said that another hundred thousand are being called up. But we are now speaking of the men actually in the army, and comparing that number with those who were in the army at the time of the great war.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then there is the air force and the navy, in addition.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am taking the figure of
505,000	given by the minister a few days ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: In the army.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the air force not in the armed forces? Are sailors not in the armed forces?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think they were included.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I just took the figures that were given.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Certainly they are included.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In 1918 our population was 8.328.382. Toward the end of the first great war, in 1918, Canada had 628,964 in its fighting forces. On the basis of this year's
3498	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. MacNicol
population, taking the figures in the same ratio, Canada should have in its fighting forces next year 875,000 persons. Perhaps it will have; I do not know. All I am trying to say is that Canada's war effort has been good, but it could be a good deal better.
I turn now to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), and I quote from his observations at page 3438 where he is reported as having said:
If it were an imperialistic war I have no hesitation in saying to this house that so far as my influence and power in this country goes, and I admit that it is not very great, I would be opposed to such a war.
I have heard statements of that kind before.
I have always thought I was fairly well posted in history, yet I cannot recall any imperialistic war. Was the South African war an imperialistic war? I do not think so. Was the Russian war an imperialistic war? I do not think so. Can anyone name an imperialistic war, having in mind the background of that war?
I do not like to hear any man discrediting the history of the British empire. That is not a proper kind of talk. I am a Canadian and a Britisher. I cannot picture separating Canada from the empire. To maintain it within that empire I am convinced that our armed forces will have to be greatly enlarged. I do not see how it can be done in any way other than by national compulsory selective service both for men and for resources, as advocated by the leader of this party. The government must have some such idea as that, because if it had not, why would it have gone to the expense of holding a plebiscite and introducing Bill No. 80? It must have some idea that in order to raise the necessary number of men it will have to bring in compulsory selective service.
I believe I have referred to some observations of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) who spoke immediately prior to me. Perhaps I have completed my discussion of the subject matters in hand. I feel, like all other hon. members, that we are in very serious, perilous and dangerous times. It is not a time when any of us should do anything to stir up strife. I would refuse to be a party to the stirring up of strife in any shape or form, nor do I believe anything I have said to-day would cause strife. Referring to the ministers, I believe I have spoken fairly, nor can it be suggested that I have criticized them unduly. I have taken only a few words from what each has said, because the time is here when it is unity we want above everything else.
(Mr. MacNicol.]
I believe every hon. member is as sincere as I am in his desire to win the war. But how are we going to do it if we spend our time in matters which do not count? We cannot win unless we concentrate on every effort required to push the war to a successful conclusion. That is our bounden and our imperative duty.
I am not going to find fault with the government because of its carrying on in war as a political government. The problem is theirs. Perhaps they are doing it as well as can be expected, from a government organized along political party lines. But I keep asking myself whether or not the time has come to organize some other plan. I am not going to advocate national government. I am not interested in whether national government is preached or not. But certainly it will require all the intelligence, all the effort and all the ability not only of Canadians but also of Britishers and our allies to win the war. I keep saying to myself: If all Canadians do not get behind the winning of the war, by making an all-out effort, and if we lose the war, will any of us have any privileges after the war? Will we have anything left if the Germans and the Japanese dominate this country? Only to-day we heard what hon. members had to say about the Japanese.
I should like to close with something I read a day or two ago with respect to the second invasion of Britain, as it was known in those days, by the Romans in 43 A.D. Those who are familiar with history will remember that Emperor Claudius launched an invasion. He stayed a short time, and took a great fancy to the country-so much so, in fact, that when he returned to Rome he sent his best generals and his best troops. But even in those days the British were tough. They fought like tigers, and they made up their minds that they were not going to be beaten without a real struggle. After ten years of war their great leader Caractacus appeared in the western part of England. He had been.driven into the mountains of Wales. He continued to fight where he had only enough ground for his army to stand on. In the end his resistance was overcome by force of numbers. On the day before his capture he said to his followers something which I think is equally applicable to-day, something which would apply to every hon. member and to each of us who lives within the empire and who loves it-and I love the empire, as much as any man can love it. He said:
This day, my fellow warriors, decides the fate of Britain. The era of liberty or eternal bondage begins from this very day.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford)
And can we not say the era of liberty or eternal bondage begins from this day? The Prime Minister of Great Britain is to-day in Washington. Why did he go to Washington? Because he is going to give all that is in him to save this empire. That is what we must all do. It will take all in each of us to save the empire.
For my part, if we lose the war I do not want to live. Politics is nothing to me. I should much rather die than lose the war and be under eternal bondage. We will remember that at that time Caractacus was defeated. He was dragged through the streets of Rome-my memory fails me as to whether he died immediately thereafter-and for 400 years those tight little islands were under Roman domination. Pray God that this empire and its most beautiful and greatest dominion, Canada, will not be under the Rome of to-day, with its Mussolini, the Germany of to-day with its Hitler, or the Japan of to-day with its Hirohito. Let us together do our utmost to save this country. Let us try to have harmony. If they are having trouble in the province of Quebec, as has been mentioned, why not let the best people of the country sit around the table with our friends and compatriots and try to solve the problem? They are fine people, and they have been here for a long time. Some of my own people first came here in 1758 as soldiers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why not forget the only thing that divides us, this talk about conscription?


John Ritchie MacNicol: We should be able to sit around a table and straighten out our difficulties. The minister refers to national compulsory sendee. You are offering a bill to allow you to put it in. The minister who just sat down said he is for it if it has to come; the Prime Minister said that he was for it if and when it has to come. Is the Minister of Agriculture the only member of the government who is not for an all-out effort to win this war?


James Garfield Gardiner: I said the same thing.


Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Mr. Speaker, when the National
Resources Mobilization Act was before the house very few members took part in the debate thereon. The resolution was introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on Tuesday, June 18, 1940, and by Thursday, June 20, the bill had passed its third reading with the unanimous approval of the house. Since that time great changes have
taken place in the international situation. The Germans have completed their conquest of continental Europe and have attacked Russia and seized a large portion of her territory. The Japanese have swept through the Philippines, Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore and Burma. The United States has entered the war on the side of the allied nations. Ships have been sunk within the territorial waters of Canada. The enemy has landed on the western hemisphere.
When the act was passed in 1940 all the world expected that the Germans would enter upon a major attack on Great Britain. Canadians volunteered in large numbers to go to the defence of Britain, and had I been a younger man I would have joined up in that defence. At that time many in Canada felt that this was a war to defend Great Britain, but conditions have changed to-day. The war has come to our shores, and everyone must realize by now that we are marching side by side, not only with Great Britain in the defence of Britain, but with the united nations in the defence of Britain, Canada and all other democratic nations, and to preserve our very existence. It is no longer a British war, no longer a foreign war; it is Canada's war. As the Prime Minister has said so often, it is a war started by imperialistic Germany, now joined by imperialistic Japan, to destroy Christianity for all time to come.
The mobilization act provides for the conscription of ail our resources, both human and material. Under that act our material resources may be sent to any part of the world in defence of Canada or for the efficient prosecution of the war. At the time of the passing of the act many hon. members of whom I was not one, felt that since this was, in their opinion, a foreign war, men should not be sent beyond the shores of Canada unless they volunteered to go. Accordingly a section to that effect was inserted in the act, and I would remind hon. members that every member of this house voted for the insertion of that section in the act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the theory that half a loaf was better than no bread.


William Ross Macdonald: 3502	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford)
risk their lives for their country. I wish it were possible to determine how many workers we can put in munition plants and on farms and at other necessary services, and how many in the armed forces. We could then have a goal toward which to strive, both on the home front and1 on the battle front. Both fronts must be kept up to strength if we are to win this war. But never let it be said that Canada wanted only to supply the munitions. A neutral country could do as much. My hope is that when the history of this war is written it will be recorded that Canada played an important part as an arsenal for the allied nations, but that she played a greater part by the heroic deeds of her soldiers, her sailors and her airmen.
From the debate which has taken place in the house thus far it would appear that the objection to the present amendment comes from three sources: first, from those who think the amendment does not go far enough; second, from those who think the amendment goes too far and is altogether unnecessary; third, from those who approve the principle of the amendment but are opposed to the method by which it is suggested that compulsory military service for overseas should be put into effect should that ever become necessary. I have dealt either directly or by implication with the first two objections. There remains the third, namely, the method by which it is proposed to put compulsory service for overseas into effect should that ever become necessary. The government proposes to do it by new regulations through order in council rather than by act of parliament. Generally speaking, I am opposed to government by order in council. But, as the leader of the opposition pointed out in his address on this measure, this is emergency legislation. In fact, in the preamble of the bill itself the word "emergency" is used. Let me quote:
Whereas by reason of developments since the outbreak of the present war a special emergency has arisen and the national safety of the country has become endangered. . . .
And again:
Whereas it is, therefore, expedient to confer . . . special emergency powers to permit of the mobilization of all of the effective resources of the nation. . . .
The act goes further. It actually provides that its provisions shall become operative by order in council. Let me again quote from the act. Section 2 reads:
Subject to the provisions of section three hereof, the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, . . .
And then, again, section 6 reads:
The governor in council may prescribe the penalties . . .

It is therefore evident that when this act was passed in 1940 everyone agreed that its provisions should be put into effect by order in council. All the provisions of the act which are now effective have become effective by order in council. By order in council we called men for thirty days' training. By order in council we extended that to four months' training; by order in council we extended it for the duration of the war, and no one has objected thus far to the orders in council. The amendment will merely extend the government's power so that it can compel men to go overseas for the defence of Canada. That will be an emergency. Parliament may not be sitting. Imagine the cry which would go up in at least eight provinces of the dominion if it were suggested that, after striking out the clause which restricts service to Canada, another clause should be inserted which would make further legislation by parliament necessary before compulsion could be applied! If such a clause were added, the present amendment would make no effective change in the act, and the hands of the government would still be tied.
It has been argued forcibly in this house that because the electors in some particular constituency voted "yes" on the recent plebiscite, the member for that constituency should vote for the amendment in this house. If such an argument is sound, it is equally logical to argue that because a constituency voted overwhelmingly "no", the member representing that constituency should vote against this amendment. To my mind that is the wrong basis on which an hon. member should determine his actions in parliament. In all matters we should bring to parliament the viewpoint of our electors, both the majority electors and the minority electors in our constituencies, and we should listen to the viewpoints of other members, who likewise should express the opinions of the majority and minority electors in their ridings. Then, having heard and considered all the viewpoints, we should do those things which we think are in the best interests of all Canadians.
The question on which the people voted was:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
The people voted by an overwhelming majority to release the government. But the government is responsible to parliament. Therefore parliament, after having sought the advice of the people, should, provided they feel that it is in the best interests of Canada to do so, carry out the wishes of the people and release the government from past pledges

Mobilization Act-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford)
so that it can administer this act in accordance with its provisions. These, as I have pointed out, provide for the administration not by parliament but by order in council. Surely no one in this house wants a second debate on this issue. Let us debate it now. Let us decide it once and for all time now, and leave it with the government to bring in compulsion for overseas service when it is necessary to do so.
If, however, some hon. members feel that parliamentary government is being disregarded, there is a simple way in which the government could, if it thought it desirable, ensure effective parliamentary control in this matter. If and when it reaches the decision that the voluntary system is no longer adequate and that men serving compulsorily should be sent overseas, the government might come to parliament, announce its decision and the reasons therefor, and stand or fall on a vote of this house. There need be no debate; there should be no debate in such an emergency.
By following this course, the government would know it had the backing of parliament, and members of parliament would know the true situation and be in a position to explain it to their constituents.
This was the method followed when Canada decided to declare war. No time was lost; no time was wasted; and yet the supremacy of parliament was maintained.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer. We will all admit that as yet war has brought little hardship and suffering to many people in Canada. There have been casualty lists, and our hearts go out to those who have lost loved ones and to those whose loved ones are daily risking their lives on land, on sea, and in the air. But for the vast majority it has been a comfortable war, and we have gone unconcernedly along our way with the implicit faith of a child in ultimate victory. In fact, some of us have thought that we could win this war without fighting it, and for that reason many view as unnecessary any proposed amendment to the act. We may as well face the fact now that it will be necessary for us to fight this war and that we shall be forced to take the offensive. We must open up a second front. We cannot win the war without it. When or where a second front will be opened up, I do not presume to say, but I do say that we must begin to think in terms of offence rather than in terms of defence. In the early days of the war it was natural that we should have been satisfied with the old British slogan, "What we have, we'll hold"; but surely, after seeing our possessions passing one by one into the hands of the enemy, we must begin to realize that if we would hold what we have, if we would hold our own 44561-222
beloved Canada, we must start thinking and planning and acting on the offensive rather than on the defensive.
At the outbreak of war we dreaded the years which were before us because of the many horrors war would bring. Many of us had fought and had miraculously lived through the last war, and we knew what a terrible hell war was. However, we were soon to be told that it was to be an economic war, that we would slowly but surely starve the enemy into submission and that comparatively few soldiers, sailors and airmen would be killed; in other words, that it would be a comfortable war. Accordingly our armed forces sat down in the comparative quiet and comfort and safety of the Maginot line. I do not need to tell you, sir, what a rude awakening was in store for us. I do not need to tell you of the gallant defensive action which our troops carried out. No men ever fought with greater courage and no generals ever showed greater defensive strategy than in the retreat of 1940, and then came the miraculous and providential delivery from Dunkirk. Mr. Churchill said:
We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall light on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender.
The British people worked like Trojans and surrounded their island with what we and they hope will be invulnerable defensive works, not jumping-off places from which they can attack the enemy, but defensive barriers which the enemy cannot surmount. Then the British people went to work in the factories. They forged the necessary defensive weapons and, secure behind their barriers, said, "Let 'em all come!" And you and I sat back here in Canada and said "Let 'em all come!" We said, "They can't get into that great British island, that great island fortress." We said, "They can't get through the British fleet to our shores," and we sat down on what we thought was the security of the defences built by someone else for us.
To-day, when ships are being sunk along the Atlantic coast and in the gulf of St. Lawrence and along the Pacific coast, we find that war is at our very shores and immediately the cry from our defence-minded population goes out, "Send no more men out of Canada"; "Bring back to defend our shores all the Canadians in Britain." I am sure the Prime Minister; I am sure this government will never yield to this defensive, defeatist short-sighted attitude. This war will never be won or lost on Canadian soil. The enemy may not make any landings on our shores; but if the enemy, without having attempted to set foot in Canada, wins a complete, ultimate and decisive
3504	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Macdonald (Brantjord)
victory abroad, then Canada will be lost to you and to me and to our children and to our children's children.
We have heard a great deal about psychological warfare. The first psychological change which we must make is from the defensive to the offensive state of mind. This does not mean the armed forces only. It means all the people, because, before this war is over, we shall all be in it, either on the home front or in the battle front, and this applies not only to Canada, but to the United States, to Britain and to all our allies. It is hopeless to think that any one of them can do it alone. We all must be ready to give our all, not only our money, not only our property, but also our very lives in this titanic struggle. There are many things worse than death, and one would be life under Japanese taskmasters. If we would preserve our way of life; if we would preserve our democratic institutions; if we would preserve our very freedom, it may be necessary for many of us-and all of us must be prepared-to lose our lives to save our way of life, our democratic institutions and our freedom.
In conclusion, I would appeal to all hon. members, irrespective of party, province, creed or race to rally behind the government at this time of national crisis. Under our democratic form of government it is impossible for the Prime Minister to be the political leader of all Canadians. It should, however, be remembered that he is the Prime Minister of all Canadians. Some hon. members would prefer a Prime Minister of their particular political stripe, but for the time being at least that is not possible. Why not then accept his leadership and give him whole-hearted cooperation. Hon. members as individuals might prefer another Prime Minister, but let us be frank about the matter; let us face the facts. Is there another man in Canada who would be as generally acceptable to all the people of Canada as the present Prime Minister? For sixteen years he has guided the destinies of our people and kept us united as no other leader could have done. Give him the support which he so justly merits, and I am confident that under his leadership Canada will play such a magnificent part in this war that generations of Canadians yet unborn will forever glory in the accomplishments of our farmers and working men and working women and in the heroic deeds of our soldiers, sailors and airmen.
On motion of Mr. Macdonald (Kingston City) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 6 p.m. '

Monday, June, 22, 1942