1942-01-27

THE WAR


[Stage Direction]
council-Canada's position
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct one or two questions to the Prime Minister, arising out of a bulletin received from London to-day in Ottawa, in which it is stated that Prime Minister Churchill announced to-day that the British government has acceded to Australia's request for represents-
Imperial War Cabinet

tion on an imperial war cabinet. It will be recalled that yesterday Prime Minister Curtin is reported to have stated over the radio:
We claim representation in an imperial war cabinet so that Australia's voice and counsel may be heard directly.
The bulletin to which I have already referred quotes Mr. Churchill as having saidi:
We have, of course, agreed that the same facilities will be accorded to New Zealand, Canada and South Africa.
I now ask the Prime Minister if Mr. Churchill has communicated with Canada offering facilities to Canada for representation in an imperial war cabinet; and if so, will Canada be represented in an imperial war cabinet. I further ask the Prime Minister to inform the house and the country what is the government's position in relation to this important question. Perhaps I -may be pardoned for recalling that I have repeatedly urged in this house the formation of an imperial war cabinet.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Is my Ihon. friend asking a question, or is he seeking-


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I am making just a brief statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I ask my hon. friend if he is asking a question on the orders of the day? If so, perhaps he would allow me to reply to it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not quite through. If the Prime Minister will be good enough to be patient I shall be through in a moment, and then he will have all the time he requires. Before the Prime Minister answers these questions I would ask him another question. Would he indicate the position which he took in consultations which occurred at Washington with reference to the formation of a supreme allied war council? Press reports at that time indicated that the Prime Minister was insisting upon separate representation for Canada rather than representation through a united British commonwealth delegation. I suggest to him and to the house that we are entitled to clear and specific information about the attitude which the Prime Minister took on that occasion, and I invite him to give it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has asked me two questions-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Three, I think.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Three, possibly; and they are fairly long ones, so that perhaps I may be excused if I do not answer them categorically. However, the first question

had reference to a statement which appears in the press, to the effect that Mr. Churchill had stated this morning that an imperial war cabinet was to be formed on which Australia would be represented. He asked me if I had had any communication from the Prime Minister of Great Britain in reference to the matter.
I have had a communication, which I happen to have before me. It was received this morning. The substance of it is that the government of the United Kingdom has been thinking over machinery for consultation between themselves and other members of the British commonwealth on matters of urgency connected with the war in the light of the new position resulting from United States entry into the war, and recent developments in the Pacific; that they had received communications from Australia making certain requests, and that these also were being considered. There is an indication of the form in which the request was made and a reference to the fact that, in the form indicated*, it would be acceded to; but I have not seen as yet precisely what the Prime Minister has said in the British House of Commons, nor do I know exactly what the position is that has been reached by the British government. I am not therefore in a position to discuss at the moment what action Canada may be expected to take or will be invited to take. However, I promise my hon. friend that as soon as it is possible to do so, I will give the house particulars as to the exact nature of the proposed representation to be accorded dominion governments in the cabinet of Britain, and will certainly be very happy to indicate Canada's position in reference thereto. That, I think, goes as far in answering my hon. friend's question at the moment as I can go. I have asked to be advised of the exact statement made by the Prime Minister so that I may have it before me in answering any question officially.
The other question related to the attitude I had taken at Washington in consultation with reference to a supreme allied war council and to a statement in the press to the effect that I had pressed for separate representation . of Canada at that time rather than adopting the position that Canada would be prepared to cooperate with Britain and the United States in whatever arrangements might be thought most advisable. May I say to my hon. friend at once that I made no representation at Washington with respect to separate representation of Canada in the matter of allied direction of war effort, and that my whole aim at Washington, as it has been in the past in Britain and in the United States,

Compulsory Military Service
arid will be in the future in both those countries, was one of endeavouring to take the position that would best serve to bring about cooperation among all the governments concerned, in the way which would help most to further the effectiveness of the common war effort.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Might I ask the Prime Minister a question? In view of what the Prime Minister has said about north and south America in Washington, can any action be taken by Canada now without consulting Britain and the other dominions? We have a duty to the other dominions and to the empire, and I think they should be consulted before any action is taken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says something about wnat 1 said in Washington about south America. May I say that to my recollection I never uttered a single word with respect to south America while I was in Washington. The trouble with my hon. friend and many others who come from Toronto is that they often take too literally everything that appears in a certain section of the press.



COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister, based upon a report of an important and significant speech delivered last night by the premier of Quebec at Montreal, in which he is reported to have said:
We have Mr. King, who has always been against conscription.
And again
We have at the head of the Liberal party Mr. King, who is an anti-conscriptionist.
And again
Mr. King is against conscription.
Is the statement of Mr. Godbout correct? Is there any undertaking, understanding or commitment, express or implied, existing between himself and Mr. Godbout, or between himself and any other person, to the effect that no action will be taken to provide for compulsory military service overseas, even if the plebiscite is answered in the affirmative and he is released from his commitment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon.
friend, in the first place, that I have nothing before me and he has nothing before him with
respect to what Mr. Godbout is alleged to have said last night. I am therefore not in a position to say whether or not any remarks attributed to the premier of Quebec have been correctly reported.
That, however, is not "as important as a direct answer to the question with respect to my position in regard to conscription both within Canada and for service overseas, in relation to the past, to the present and to the future.
I tried yesterday to make that position quite plain in my remarks, which now appear in Hansard. I then repeated what, in part,
I had previously said in this house on those matters. I now give to my hon. friend as reply to the question which he has asked what I said yesterday, which appears in Hansard at page 44, restating what I said in this house on November 12 last:
So far as conscription stands for compulsory selective national service, that is a principle which this government has embodied in its National Resources Mobilization Act passed at a previous session of this parliament. As^ to how rapidly that principle should be applied, and how far it should be extended, is a matter which the government must decide and will decide in the light of all the knowledge which it has with respect to the needs of our war effort and the position of the country in meeting them.
I want it to be distinctly understood that so far as the principle of compulsory selective national service is concerned for Canada, in Canada, I stand for that principle. I have never taken any other stand. It is the position that I have held all along. It has been applied in connection with military training, _ and applied in a number of other directions I might mention. How much further it will be applied the house will learn as the government takes its decisions on that matter.
And the further quotation also from what I said on November 12 last which appears on page 48 of yesterday's Hansard:
But so far as conscription for service overseas is concerned in the armed forces of Canada, that question was submitted to the people of Canada at the last general election, an election which was held in war time, and in which the leaders of all political parties made their statements to the electorate, and the people of Canada decided against conscription for overseas service. So far as I am concerned, without any consultation of the people on that subject, I do not intend to take the responsibility of supporting any policy of conscription for service overseas.
That is my position-as stated, I might say, repeatedly in this house, but certainly most clearly and emphatically on November 12 last and again yesterday in this house.
Replying further to my hon. friend's question as to what I intend to do as a result of the plebiscite, I thought I had also anticipated the answer to that question in my remarks yesterday afternoon, which will be found on page 32 of yesterday's Hansard, when I said:

Contributions to Britain
When my hon. friend goes on to ask me what 1 am going to do with respect to any expression of view which may be made by the people in connection with any reference which will be made to them, may I say to him that in seeking to get relief from past commitments I am not going to begin by making new and fresh commitments. In seeking freedom on the part of the ministry I am not going to start in by seeking to tie my own hands.
That is the answer to that part of the question.
My hon. friend asked a further question, whether there was any understanding between myself and Mr. Godbout, express or implied, as to the position which I would take as a result of any plebiscite that would be presented to the people. May I say to him that there is no understanding, express or implied, with Mr. Godbout or with any other person on earth with respect to the attitude that I propose to take after the people have expressed their views with regard to giving the government a free hand.
May I add that such attitude as I shall take at the time will be taken in the light of all the circumstances as I may know them as a member of the government, and of all conditions as I know them in regard to this country and, as far as I am able to know something about them, conditions in other countries as well.



CONTRIBUTIONS TO BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:	.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: 

PAN-AMERICAN CONFERENCE PROPOSED CREATION OF FREE INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE CURRENCY-CANADA'S POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: On
January 21, 1942, there appeared in the Edmonton Journal an account of the scheme to be submitted to the Rio conference. Section 2 of the proposal, as outlined in the article reads:
Creation of a free international exchange currency to facilitate flow of goods and prevent delay in transactions. It would be on a gold basis and in addition to the American nations, Great Britain, China, the Netherlands, India and all British dominions would enter into the agreement. A pool of allied gold holdings would be created. The Latin American coun-tries_ would agree to peg their national currencies into the free international exchange currency.
I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government has made any commitments in 'this regard. If the answer is in the negative, then I would ask: has the Canadian government directly or indirectly

Joint Defence
given the government of the United States reason to believe that they favour such a proposal?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer to the first
question is in the negative. The answer to the second is that as far as I am aware the government has had no communication with the government of the United States with respect to the matter. Perhaps I should qualify that remark by saying that the government had no knowledge of any such statement being made until, like my hon. friend, its attention was directed to the reference to the statement which appeared in the press. After seeing what was set forth in the statement, the government did make inquiries concerning the statement, simply to ascertain whether or not it was authentic. I am not aware that anything more than this has passed in the way of correspondence between the two countries on this matter.



SOLDIERS' DEPENDENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether the government have come to any new decision about paying a cost of living war bonus to soldiers' dependents. Both the minister and the Prime Minister on November 14 told me in the house that during the recess regional boards to consider cases of hardship would be set up in military districts, which is of no use whatever. Surely something should be done about it. What is the new policy about bonuses to soldiers' dependents? There is considerable suffering in Toronto already this winter and nothing is done.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Perhaps my hon. friend uses an
inappropriate term. I think he is referring to the dependents' allowances board of trustees, which was announced by my colleague the Minister of Finance last November. The board has been appointed and is being set lip. For the information of my hon. friend I may add that the chairmen have been selected already in the larger centres, and the committees are now being organized. If my hon. friend has not seen it already I should be glad to send him a copy of the order in council under which the board is set up, giving the powers and general principles under which they act.


Thomas Langton Church: Has any regional board met in Toronto, and how many cases has it reviewed?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think regional
boards have met in Toronto, so far as I know.
I happened to be talking to the chairman yesterday on the telephone.


Thomas Langton Church: Money would be better
spent in that way than on the referendum.



INTERNMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: On November 14 the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) presented a petition on behalf of certain interned persons. According to the Votes and Proceedings of January 21, the petition has been examined and found in order. According to paragraph 713 of standing order 68 it is now in order to ask for the reading of the petition. I suggest that this be done, possibly at the next sitting of the house if it is not available now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is in my mind at the moment a question as to whether this is not a matter that properly relates to the last session of parliament rather than to the present session, and I should like to consult the Clerk of the House in the first instance as to whether a matter relating to the last session might not have to be renewed in a formal way before it could be taken up anew in the house.



JOINT DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: In view of our joint defence commitments with the United States I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether units of the sixth division would be available to be sent to the assistance of the United States in the event of an attack on the coast of that country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the appropriate persons to make reply to a question of this kind would be the military authorities, who no doubt have given every consideration to the matter. They may regard it as advisable not to make any public statement at the moment, but certainly this matter is one that should be referred to them in the first instance.
Dominion-Provincial Taxation



WAGE CEILING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo North): Could the acting Minister of Labour give the house any information as to when the several boards dealing with the ceiling on wages will be set up in the various districts throughout the country?
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: I wonder if the hon. member is referring to the regional boards?


Mr. HOMUTH:: Yes.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Then may I say, without having had any further information within the last few days, that it is my understanding that not only the national war labour board but also the regional boards have been completely set up throughout the country. However, I shall make inquiries into the matter and advise the hon. member to-morrow.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked me to table copies of the draft agreements between the dominion and the various provincial governments. I am tabling those copies to-day, but in doing so I should like to make the following statement:
A list of the particular taxes which the provinces and their municipalities are to give up will be attached to the agreements as appendix A. Similar lists of the taxes which the provinces and the municipalities will continue to levy will be attached as appendices B and C. Except in the case of British Columbia, these lists have not yet been completed and are not, therefore, attached to the draft agreements which I propose to table.
The proposed agreements are now being gone over and checked by the provincial authorities. Before they are finally signed there may be some minor changes, either in the wording or in the amounts. I have no reason to expect that this will be so, but it is conceivable that some new situation which we do not know of at the present time may make some changes desirable. For example, some province may dispute the accuracy of the figures or some other question of fact.
I do not expect so, but if there should be some minor errors in the figures, we would wish

to correct them. Certainly any changes which may be made will be relatively unimportant, but until the draft agreements have been checked by the provinces I cannot say definitely that they are in their final form.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do I understand that none of the appendices are attached to the agreement, except in the case of British Columbia?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No; there are certain
appendices attached to certain ones.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In all
cases?


James Lorimer Ilsley: In all cases, yes. I believe all appendices are attached in 'respect of British Columbia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And in respect to others the appendices are not quite complete?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will they be tabled at a later stage, when complete?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. I shall certainly table the agreements when they are completed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is of course after the event.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Alphonse Fournier for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate the hon. members for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I believe that yesterday the leader of the opposition did the finest job of speaking he has ever done in his life. I thought it a great pity that he is not going to go right on in the capacity in which he is now labouring. Probably he is the victim of a machinating gang, of an outworn philosophy or of reactionary thinkers.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did his usual good job of speaking. The Prime Minister has done superbly in the two speeches he has thus far delivered at this

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
session. His speech in honour of the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe was a model of beauty and eloquence. His speech delivered yesterday was, I thought, altogether an admirable performance for a gentleman who has been in life's battles as many years as he has been. It was remarkable for its length and comprehensiveness, and for the endurance, organization, strength, political skill, idealism, democracy and courage exhibited by the speaker. I believe I have not gone too far in expressing myself in those words.
When he was dealing with new things his courage was obvious. Ordinarily it is said that a man who is beyond fifty-five years is hardly fit to deal with new things. Our Prime Minister has proved that idea to be quite fallacious. He dealt with the tremendous loan to Great Britain-an altogether new thing, this tremendous gift to Great Britain. He told us of the vast expenditures on these big and new things, and he showed a disposition, one which I must say I quite admired in him, to face the facts. He faced courageously the fact that Great Britain cannot pay, and that Canada can pay.
I presume there are in the house a good many who are wondering how in the world that can be. To the orthodox thinker it is impossible to say how it could be, but to a monetary reformer its possibility is quite obvious. By the mere impact of realities that fact is being pounded, if I may use the word, into the heads of even the most reactionary. I wonder how many will continue to ask themselves, as glibly as they have asked so often in the past: Where does the money come from? I wonder how many will remember how that money was obtained when the time comes to apply this simple source of money to the well-being of the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister faced the fact that there should be a balance in Canada, and with that I entirely agree. He pointed out that Canadians should be healthy in mind, body and spirit. Strange, is it not, that Canada has forgotten that for so long?
However, there were two facts he did not face. No doubt he would have faced them had he thought it necessary. He neglected to mention them, but not through lack of courage. The first of these is Canada's war aims. It is high time we began to develop some sort of notion as to what our war aims may be, so that we as the members of the House of Commons and the people in our constituencies may have something to say about them. Obviously the war will end some time, and when it does it is possible that the end will be as it was at the conclusion of the last
war-all of a rush. Then someone will spring from somewhere, upon whose initiation no one will know, and form the peace.
The next point he did not set forth was as to whether and how after the war, economic security is to be guaranteed to all the people in Canada. The Prime Minister would have relieved us greatly had he assured us that he knew how that was to be done.
These are points exercising the people of Canada from coast to coast. Down in their hearts, these are matters which are troubling each mother and father. The Prime Minister will need all his courage-and he has plenty of it, and I commend him for it. The common dangers encountered by a leader are, I fear, gathering around him. There are in his war structure of public servants too many who are convincing the Canadian people that dangerously many public servants consist of antiquated egotists, bewildered theorists-witness our price structure-or pious-faced self-seekers, often the servile agents of anti-social interests, masquerading behind the cloak of public service and the mask of Canada's war effort, the unwholesome company of them permitting, aiding and abetting or actively prosecuting iniquitous designs behind the backs of those noble millions who are yielding up their blood, sweat, substance and tears.
The Prime Minister, using discernment, vigour and courage must set about an early spring housecleaning to rid Canada either of these harmful men or their harmful ideas. He must set about to rid Canada not only of $50 brains in $5,000 jobs, but also of certain $500,000 brains now smugly but eagerly in $50 jobs.
The very sight of the hon. members for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), for Hull (Mr. Fournier), for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Caldwell), for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) or for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) will throughout my days warm my being with a flood of appreciation, sympathy and friendship which will, I think, forever spring to greet each of the five who with me as members of the Empire Parliamentary Association delegation were privileged to take that wonderful trip to Britain. It was a trip matchless for the sights we beheld, for the number and quality of the people we met, for the wealth of the experiences which filled every day of the journey; experiences enlightening, enriching, edifying. The Scriptures advise, "With all thy getting get understanding." As none of us could have done in any other way, we got understanding, got it when most it was needed.
My constituency, my province, my country, along with myself, will from now on owe,

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
to Sir Drummond Shiels, and Mr. A. C. Spencer-Hess, British parliamentary representatives, whose foresight, industry, devotion and solicitude on the British side, joined with Sir Howard d'Egville's ever-active efficiency on the American side, packed our every day with great worth, and to Doctor Beauchesne whose tireless and scrupulous efficiency took care of each of the needful essential details from Ottawa, and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) whose foresight, understanding, thoroughness and patience at length effected the organization of the delegation, a real debt of gratitude. To acknowledge, and in some small measure to discharge my share of that debt, may I here in public thank these gentlemen and assure them that I believe the result of that visit, both for Canada and for the commonwealth, will prove to be worth all that it cost.
Many a time as we sped through hundreds of miles of rich British countryside and got acquainted with afflicted British towns such as Portsmouth, Glasgow, Liverpool and Coventry; many a time as we inspected great war industries, as we saw amazing processes or chatted with war workers; many a time as we reviewed our fighting forces and talked with our soldiers, sailors and airmen, I wished that all Canadians could have been with us. Our well-to-do people all would know then, as we do, something of what it means to be without, or very short of, eggs, milk, beef, pork, cheese, butter, sugar, jams and fruits, all things that Canadians so much enjoy and feel that they need. Perhaps they would sense how it feels to be in a land that is producing all that its resources will allow of such foods and still cannot have enough to live on without importing these commodi- * ties across an enemy-infested ocean. Our more fortunate folk would perhaps understand that we depend for our very lives upon common people who live and feel, desire and earn, deserve and should receive what too many even in Canada do not now receive.
But I must turn from our British experiences to consider the speech from the throne. Two things caught my attention. The first was the plebiscite proposal, and the second was the suggestion of a balanced programme for the production of foodstuffs.
The Prime Minister's attitude on the plebiscite perplexes me, in spite of his fine detailed explanation. In the first place he shows that we need conscription, not for the air force, not for the navy, but only for the army. Then he details how tremendous has been Canada's war effort in the production of all kinds of goods, as great, it would seem, as our man-power can sustain. He promises an almost limitless expansion of every kind 
of production without showing where the man-power exists. Then when he has demonstrated that our labour is quite inadequate for these other activities, he proposes presumably to conscript part of this inadequate labour to build a yet greater army. In other words, having demonstrated that the need for conscription for fighting is all but non-existent, having convinced us that to take away more of our men would jeopardize the necessary development of our production projects, he implies that conscription for the army is vital to our war effort and he risks Canadian unity, through the holding of a plebiscite, to free his hands, ostensibly to introduce a policy which he seemingly does not need and which he can use only at the expense of impairment of our war effort.
Since before Canada declared war, Social Crediters have maintained that recruits for any branch of the armed forces could most likely be obtained in sufficient numbers at any time by using the national credit to pay the soldiers, the sailors or the airmen more attractive incomes and to guarantee them and their dependents real security after the war. Raise the pay, increase pensions and allowances, insure employment and your ranks will fill rapidly. These are the things Social Crediters would do. Also your sacrifices will be more equal. On September 5, 1939, was issued from a caucus of Social Credit members of parliament and Alberta cabinet ministers held in Edmonton a statement in which appeared the following excerpts:
We believe that Canada should finance its share in this war not by the creation of huge debts but in the following manner;
(a)	By the creation by the government of the necessary credit and currency combined with definite price regulations to prevent any serious inflationary rise in prices;
May I pause to point out that Social Crediters foresaw that all these prices would have to be adjusted. I continue:
(b)	By borrowing abroad only for the purpose of obtaining needed goods and services beyond the capacity of our people to furnish.
We strongly support the just demands of our people for the greatest possible equalization of sacrifice by-
(a)	Placing an embargo on capital and capital assets as at the date of declaration of war;
(b)	Requiring that financial institutions and corporations reveal all undisclosed reserves as at the date of declaration of war, and that these be forthwith conscripted by the dominion government;
(e) Introducing a more steeply graded income and profit tax.
We hereby resolve that conscription of material and financial resources for the purpose of securing the greatest possible equalization of sacrifice as outlined above shall be introduced before the conscription of individual man-power.

The Address-Mr Blackmore
It is regrettable that t'he Prime Minister should have so managed as to put himself in such a position that he should feel obliged to hold a plebiscite. But it is the opinion of many that, having done so, apparently the only logical way out for his party would seem to be a plebiscite.
So much having been said about the plebiscite, let us consider the balanced programme of production, which was the second point that attracted! me. By that expression the Prime Minister means, I presume, either (a) having the whole Canadian economy in balance, or (b) producing a balanced amount of each necessity in our war effort. Whatever the meaning, agriculture must be our first concern. It is the most important of all industries. Our farmers now operate at a loss. There may be some exceptions in some provinces, but I affirm without fear of successful contradiction that, the farmers of Canada are now operating at a loss; and whereas the producers of war munitions are said to be operating on a basis of cost plus ten per cent, it will be found that the farmers of Canada are operating practically on a basis of cost minus ten per cent.
What is the government doing to bring about an increase in natural production? By what machinery does the government get out to the province, to the county, the municipality, the school district and the farmer: first, just what it wishes that area or that farmer to produce; second, just what the government will help him to produce and how it will help him; third, just what the government will take when it is produced; fourth, just what protection the government will give t'he farmer in producing it, and how? Does the government know just what it wants each of the above units, each province, each county, each municipality, to produce, and why? How many eggs does the government want? We hear reports of 30,000,000 dozen being required or as many as we can produce. Why not find out how many we think the country can produce and then apportion that number among the various provinces and get down to a businesslike campaign in seeking to increase production?
How much bacon does the government want? How much could it use? How much will it take? The government should plan for the production of a certain amount of bacon and of the various other farm commodities. Mr. Speaker, do you know that the farmers are getting so fed up with the general blundering and mismanagement everywhere apparent in everything pertaining to the agricultural policy of this country that they are threatening te go away and enlist or do anything to get out of agriculture.
Has the government let the individual farmer know what it expects him to produce? If so, by what means has it done this? And how does it know that the farmer knows? Does the government have any definite idea what the farmer is going to do about it, and if so, how?
As an illustration there is in a certain area in my constituency a company which has for some years engaged in the production of beet sugar. This company knows by this time of year just how many acres of beets it wants produced and delivered and it sends out its agents to the farmers all over the area and signs up the required acreage to within half an acre. The result is that it knows exactly how many acres of beets will be planted, and the farmer knows how many beets he will be allowed to sell and what the price is going to be, to within a dollar-yes, better than that. If that sort of planning were followed by the government in the various provinces and counties of Canada with respect to other commodities, what a wonderful difference it would make and what a tremendous addition there would be to tlje security, happiness and peace of the farmer.
What has the government done to supply the farmer with labour to replace the farmer's boy who has joined the army? Does the farmer know what the government is going to do? Has the government told him individually?


Thomas Langton Church: The government is going to hold a referendum.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the government know that the farmer may sell his breeding cows, sell his chickens, sell his equipment, and sell his farm or give it up for taxes, and that after that occurs in a very large percentage of the areas in Canada the effect upon our productive capacity within the next two years is going to be disastrous? What is the matter with the men in charge of the Department of Agriculture that they are unable to foresee these things? What we are going to have, the first thing we know, is a sort of agricultural repetition of Hong Kong. Some government member will say: who was able to foresee for us at a certain time that such a thing was going to happen? With respect to Hong Kong I say that ninety-five per cent of the people of Canada could foresee what was bound to happen before very long. Apparently the exceptions were all in the cabinet. Ninety-five per cent of farmers can see catastrophe ahead with regard to agriculture. Why cannot the government see it?
What is the government doing with respect to reserving electricity for the farmer? There



The Address-Mr Blackmore
are restrictions on electricity, and how in the world are the farmers going to carry on without sufficient electrical power?
What is the government going to do about money for the farmer? Is the government going to see that the bankers lend money to farmers for the production of certain commodities, and that if they neglect to do so some, other agency will lend it to them, and on terms on which the farmers can pay for the use of the money? Is the government going to protect the farmers in case of mishap? Why have we not an agricultural committee on priorities for farming? Everybody else seems to be looked after-there are priorities with respect to rubber, machinery, chemicals, electricity, gas, oil and man-power. The one person who is supposed to be able to look after himself, apparently, is the unfortunate, isolated, scattered, unorganized farmer *-the very person whom the government should be looking after with the utmost solicitude.
What was the basis of price fixing of various farm products? No intelligent man so far as I know can conceive on what basis these prices are fixed. Granted that prices were frozen with respect to a certain period; but no one can say that that period was suitable to choose as a basis for protecting the future of this country for years and years of war. The Prime Minister said in October that something would have to be done for agriculture. What has he done? Does he know what ought to be done? If not, who is going to find out? Does the Prime Minister know what is happening to farm production costs? If not, who does, and what is the Prime Minister doing about it? Is he sure that anyone knows or has he taken the trouble to find out?
I am going .to refer to the Searle index letter of January 22, according to which I find that the cost of 147 things which the western farmer buys is 151-2 per cent of what it was in 1913-14; while the price of wheat is fourteen per cent lower than it was in 1913-14. I leave that without comment.
Canada simply must have a real agricultural policy which recognizes that we need farmers -all of them-to-day, that we shall need them to-morrow, and that our children's children and their neighbours will need them. Just now, sir, Canada is not crucifying her farmers, she is torturing them to death with a wide variety of forms of torment. May I read a statement which, I think, should be sufficient to establish that? I am reading from "What Share of the National Income Does the Fanner Get?" prepared by Professor Coote, of McGill university, in the spring of 1941:

People living on farms drawing their support from agriculture comprise just about one-third of the population of Canada. Their share of the national income of Canada for the years 1926 to 1929 averaged just one-sixth of the total and the average total income per farm for the period was $1,007 per year. The average cash income for the same period was $791 per year. . . .
In the eleven years, 1930 to 1940, the average income per farm family dropped to $468 per year and the average share of the national income dropped to 9-8 per cent. In the same period the average cash income per farm family dropped to $329 per year. In other words the average total farm family income dropped by 53 per cent and the average cash income decreased by 58 per cent.
If we compare these figures with those for manufacturing industry-
I hasten to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have no complaint against the manufacturing industry.
[DOT]-we find that the average annual wages per worker for the years 1926 to 1929 were $1,017, and for the succeeding nine years to 1937 they averaged $902, a drop of 12 per cent as contrasted with the 53 per cent in the case of the farmer. In the same period the average salaries paid in industry were $1,894 and $1,724 respectively, a drop of only 10 per cent. No one has envied the position of the worker in industry during the past decade with his short time and low income but in comparison the position of the farmer is desperate.
According to the figures of the last census the average investment in a Canadian farm was $7,000 in round figures. In spite of this fact the average income for the "good" years 1926-1929 was slightly less than the average wages of a worker in industry with no personal investment whatsoever. And the drop in the income of the farmer was four or five times the drop in the income of the worker in industry.
The government must have a plan Which appreciates the importance of food and of people. First, Canada must know what she wants. Second, she must get the knowledge out to the farmers-not by means of a random vague leaflet telling the people that "we want a flock on every farm." What the farmer wants to know is: Shall I be able to get >my money back if I fill my coop with chickens this year? Am I going to get enough to pay for anything like the time it takes me to go out and look after the hens? We should have, for example, a full coop on half the town and city lots; and why have we not? Simply because we are mismanaging the matter of .production of goods.
Third, Canada must guarantee the farmer the means of production. She must guarantee him goods and services and money. Finally, Canada must protect the farmer. First, with respect to price; that is the all important thing. He must be guaranteed his costs plus a just profit. Secondly, with respect to markets: he must know that, if anyone has to absorb the shock if there are too many

The Address-Mr. Chevrier
goods produced, he is not going to be the unfortunate. We must guarantee the farmer that if he happens to be fairly well off and puts his life savings or borrowed money into cattle, and then when the war closes the price drops out of cattle, he will not have to bear the total loss, as he did last time. This anxiety concerning what will happen after the war is deterring thousands upon thousands of farmers from producing beef and pork and milk and on through almost the whole list of agricultural products. I know that from firsthand contact.
We must guarantee the farmer' against his creditors. The Canadian courts are eager enough to declare ultra vires the laws which a province might pass for the protection of the farmer. I w'onder why some dominion body is not equally eager to bring into being laws which will protect the farmer. In saying that the farmer must be guaranteed against creditors, I am not suggesting that the creditors should lose their money. But if we can have such a tremendous amount of money as it now becomes apparent we are getting, surely some of it can be used to protect the people who advanced the farmer credit.
It may be asked where the money is coming from. That is a question with which I am always glad to deal, and to-day I have a little assistance. May I read a statement which appeared in the report of a speech, published in the Ottawa Citizen of November 13, 1941, by H. T. Jaffray, President of the Canadian Bankers' association. He-
-told the 50th annual meeting to-day that Canada's vast expansion of wartime manufacturing, and large increase in commerce had been "so well, so simply, and so smoothly" financed by the chartered banks, that the financing has "never been a problem in Canada's war effort." The chartered banks "maintain a very strong position and stand ready to continue to support Canada's war effort to the fullest extent that may be required of them."
I submit, Mr. Speaker, in all humility and plain common sense that one of the major needs to-day in Canada's war effort is the financing of a sound policy for agriculture, and the banks should be requested to proceed to perform this function.
There are other problems which need to be solved before Canada has a balanced production. One of those problems is that of the labouring man. This government has shorn the labouring man of every vestige of protection which his struggle through the generations has erected about him. It has shorn him in effect of the power to bargain collectively, of the right to organize, and of the right to strike. Quotations from certain orders in council may be given to show that what I
44561-5}
have said is probably a little extreme. I can give quotations to show that what I have said is thoroughly moderate. It remains the duty of those agencies who deprived the labouring man of his own protection to see to it that by the same agencies adequate government protection is afforded that man before he is driven to desperation with disastrous results.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have said as much as I believe it is fitting I should say regarding the war effort, regarding balanced production in Canada. It does not give me happiness to have to say any kind of unpleasant things, but I felt myself to-day obliged to say some pretty sharp things, and I am going to say some sharper ones unless something is done about these matters with respect to the Canadian economy.
Before I close I wish to turn for a minute to the two amendments which have been moved. With the Conservative amendment I am not going to quarrel. I believe that the members of my group will see fit to support that amendment, on the ground that it is a vote of want of confidence in the government because of the fact that the government is not producing a balanced programme of production in this country.
With the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation amendment we are not going to quarrel particularly. We assume that the
C.C.F. have finally got round to somewhere near the stand we took in 1939 before war was declared. They probably would be in agreement with the principles set forth in the excerpts which I read earlier in this speech from the statement issued at Edmonton. We therefore are likely to support the C.C.F. amendment.


Mr. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to join with those who have preceded me in this debate in extending to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne my hearty congratulations. Both performed admirably; both, together with four other hon. members, had the great privilege and advantage of seeing for themselves in the British isles the havoc wrought by the forces of tyranny. They were able to observe for themselves the grim determination of the people of Great Britain to carry on against tremendous odds. The house has benefited by their experience and by their contributions to this debate.
One can with difficulty take part in this debate without referring to the great loss which our country has suffered in the death of her former Minister of Justice, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. He was a man of great
The Address-Mr. Chevrier

integrity, unselfish, true to tradition, kindly, eloquent, a lover of freedom and a true disciple of Laurier. His speeches in this house were models; many of them will remain as masterpieces. His influence in this house and in the country at large will be felt for many years to come. He was a great Canadian who will rank among the greatest of our public men.
The speech from the throne opens with a reference to the character and scope of the present conflict. No doubt remains now that it is a world-encircling conflict. It has reached every continent, including our own. Each day it draws nearer and nearer, and one cannot foresee the end.
The first year of the war was one of disaster and disillusionment. The democratic nations relied on static defence and economic blockade. They were unprepared. The allied chiefs of staff made a serious mistake in thinking that they could sleep comfortably behind a Maginot line, because when it was flanked there followed the fall of France, and the liberty-loving nations were face to face with the grim reality that for seven years Germany had been preparing her youth for aggression and for a campaign of world domination.
The second year of the war has given us more room for hope. It began with the battle of Britain, in which those daring men of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Canadian Air Force saved that fortress of civilization-yes, and civilization itself. Our confidence grew with the victories over the Italians, who at the outbreak of the war had an African empire and who have now lost every vestige of it. Our hopes were shaken by the German successes in Yugoslavia, in Greece, in Crete and in Africa. Again they were strengthened by the passage of the lease-lend bill, which meant the mobilization on our side of the economic power of the United States. Finally, the fateful decision of the nazis, for whatever reason it was made, to attack Russia, has brought us, I believe, the most comforting news of this war. The campaign has now lasted for seven months. At the outset it appeared to be a complete nazi victory; it has now been turned into a humiliating defeat for the Germans, who are in retreat from Leningrad to the Crimea.
The third year of the war saw the British launch a fresh attack in Libya which from the outset met with success all along the line. It brought about the delivery of Tobruk and qf Bardia. Many Canadians took part in the air operations in Libya and covered themselves with glory. Some 20,000 motor vehicles of Canadian manufacture, including tanks and universal carriers, stood the test in that cam-

paign. Our hopes have been momentarily shaken in Libya by a counter-offensive, the details of which are yet difficult to appraise.
December saw the entry of Japan into the war, with the treachery and frenzy for which they are known; while their diplomats were negotiating at Washington they made the attack on Pearl Harbour. One cannot refer to the WEtr in the Pacific without having a word to say concerning Hong Kong. For seventeen days Canadian troops held the enemy at bay against extreme odds. In the regiments from Canada were a number of young men from the constituency which I represent. Their fate is not yet known, but I pray they have not been called upon to make the supreme sacrifice.
The war in the Pacific, and particularly the precarious position in which Australia finds herself to-day, should remind us that if it is important and essential to maintain a Canadian army overseas, it is equally important and essential to protect our own shores from attack.
At this stage I should like to say a word with reference to Canada's part and contribution in this life-and-death struggle. Canada has been fighting on two fronts, the military and the economic. The military front is made up of the fighting armies, the air squadrons and the ships of the navy. The economic front is made up of the factory, the farm and finance. Canada, as we have been told, already maintains a Canadian army overseas, composed of approximately 130,000 men. The Canadian corps comprises three divisions, together with the fifth armoured division, to which have been attached an army tank brigade, corps troops and army troops. The speech from the throne refers to an expansion of the Canadian establishment overseas. The Prime Minister in his speech yesterday clarified that by saying that during 1942 two army corps will be established in Great Britain, composed first of three infantry divisions, and two army-tank brigades, and two armoured divisions. In Canada there are the fourth and sixth divisions. The sixth division consists of three brigade groups to which are attached corps and army troops, and there are also coastal defences. Cgnada maintains troops in Newfoundland and the West Indies; and the grand total of the Canadian reserve and active armies is approximately 450,000 men.
In the air force there are 100,000 men, with a large number on the waiting list. Soon there * will be in Great Britain some twenty-eight squadrons, and twenty-five squadrons are said to be equal to one army division. Thus far there have been lost, in the air force, some 1,200 men. The greatest contribution of the

The Address-Mr. Chevrier
Royal Canadian Air Force is in connection with the commonwealth air training plan, to which Right Hon. Mr. Churchill paid such tribute in his memorable address in this house. Under that plan are trained airmen from Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia. It is a commonwealth enterprise. Canada has undertaken the major burden in both men and money. Under the plan eighty per cent of the men are Canadians; and of the S824,000,000 which the plan will cost over a period of three years, this country will pay about $531,000,000. Some ten per cent of those trained under the plan are from the United States, and there are some 600 American instructors operating in the various training schools.
The navy has 350 ships and a personnel of 27,600, and here also we have a large number [DOT] of men awaiting entry. Thus far 400 men and six ships have been lost at sea. A very important and essential part of the work of the navy consists in the convoying of food, troops and material to and from Great Britain! Thus far less than one per cent of the goods, equipment and men convoyed have been lost at sea.
A moment ago I referred to the economic aspect of the war. It is equal in importance to the fighting armies, the air squadrons and the ships of the navy. A modern infantry division costs eight times as much to equip and maintain as did the division of 1914-18. It has fifty times the horse-power in its transport and fighting vehicles. It has eight to ten times the fire power in its small arms and guns. A machine gun costs S500, and it takes tens of thousands of these guns to equip our troops. An anti-aircraft gun costs $28,000, and they are being produced at the rate of four hundred per month. A tank costs $90,000, and we have manufactured hundreds. We have sent large numbers to Russia, and the reports from that front indicate that they have performed admirably, particularly the type known as the Valentines.
A bombing plane costs some $100,000; a dozen can crash in a night. Our aircraft industry^ has been built from the ground up. It has manufactured or assembled in Canada some 3,749 aircraft, and the present average rate of production is forty per week, of all types. The automobile industry has played a tremendous part in equipping the forces of the empire. Over 200.000 vehicles of all types thus far have been built, and thousands are being delivered each month. Every four days Canada builds a corvette. Two 10,000-ton cargo ships already have been launched, and the programme for 1942 visualizes the production of 100 freighters of the 10.000-ton class.
In a statement made shortly before the house met, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) said that to-day Canadian equipment is to be found on all the battlefronts of the world-in the Philippines, at Singapore, in China, Russia, the middle east and the British Isles. In his memorable address in this House of Commons the Prime Minister of Great Britain spoke of the production of corvettes and ships, which he said was proceeding on a scale almost equal to the building in the United Kingdom. Coming from him, this was truly a great tribute to the naval production of our country.
When one ponders these facts, sir, he will immediately see why it takes fifteen workers on the home front to keep one combatant in the field. Hence the economic front is truly a front, and not only a salient.
The farm is an essential part of the economic front. If in peacetime it can be said that the farmer is the backbone of the country, that is even more true in time of war. Cheese, bacon, canned salmon, wheat and flour are being sent to Britain in ever-increasing quantities. In the third year of the war our export of bacon to Britain will be more than our entire production in pre-war years. In 1941 we sent 112,000,000 pounds of cheese to Britain, and the contract for 1942 calls for
127,000,000 pounds.
In view of the shortage of labour on the farm and the increase in the cost of production it seems to me that the farmer, and particularly the cheese producer, is called upon to make an extra sacrifice, or an extra contribution. Every yrear since the beginning of the war-and I believe these are the words of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)-Canadian farmers have accepted prices for their food commodities far below those to which they were entitled. This is particularly true of cheese. It is interesting to note in the speech from the throne that vast quantities of foodstuffs will go to Britain as an integral part of the war effort. It is to be hoped that for the primary producer this will mean an increase in prices. It seems to me there should be a greater parity between the return of the wage earner and the return of the farmer producer. Canada's contribution in foodstuffs centres chiefly around pork products, cheese, canned salmon, wheat and flour; and in all these commodities we are the chief source of supply for Britain. In his address yesterday the Prime Minister said that Canada is an arsenal, a ship yard and a storehouse as well as a full partner on the fighting front.
Wars cannot be carried on without finance, and in a statement in this house last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) told us
The Address-Mr. Chevrier

that for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1942, there would be needed, to meet the direct expenses of the war, the current costs of government and the advances to Great Britain, the sum of $2,800,000,000. This sum, I believe, was broken up as follows:
Estimated cost of the war for the fiscal year ending March
31, 1942	
Ordinary cost of government. Advances to Great Britain...

468.000.	000
900.000.	000

This is a tremendous amount of money, so large it is hard to conceive. Perhaps some comparisons may help to make clear the stupendousness of this amount. In 1940 the total paid to all those working for salaries and wages amounted to $2,875,000,000. Therefore it would take 80 per cent of this amount to meet the direct costs of the w'ar in 1941-42. It would require the production of all farmers in Canada for almost three years to cover the cost of war for one year. The direct cost of 'the last war, from 1914 to 1920, which would include the cost of demobilization, amounted to $1,670,000,000. The amount we now raise for one year is greater by $600,000,000 or $700,000,000 than that raised in the whole of the last war. These sums, I repeat, are stupendous. Still it is estimated that $1,500,000,000 will be raised by taxation and otherwise by way of national revenue. During the present fiscal year 78 per cent of our national budget will be raised by taxation, as compared with 47 per cent in the last war. Canada's per capita taxation will exceed in this war $110 as compared with $28 in the last war.
It is difficult, sir. to refer to the matter of finance without saying a word about the Hyde Park declaration. In the early stages of the war there was an official premium of 10 to 11 per cent on United States dollars in Canada. There was a freezing by the foreign exchange control board of United States cash already here. This method sufficed to keep the books between Canada and the United States reasonably well balanced, and Canadians were able to travel and purchase in the United States during that first stage.
In the next stage, however, we began buying hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of war materials in the United States, and we fabricated them to be sent to Great Britain, without thought of immediate payment from the mother country. During that period we ran desperately low in United States dollars; hence a travel embargo had to be imposed. Heavy taxes on non-essentials were needed to

ensure that so precious an asset as United States dollars should be conserved for war purposes.
Perhaps by placing some figures on record I might give hon. members a better understanding of that picture. In 193S imports from the United States into Canada amounted to $425,000,000. In 1939 they rose to $497,000,000. In 1940, during the first complete year of the war, they jumped to $744,000,000 and in 1941 it is estimated that they will reach $953,000,000. As opposed to this it is estimated that in 1941 Canada will export to the United States $475,000,000 worth of goods, which would then leave us with an adverse trade balance of $478,000,000. Something simply had to be done to offset this serious bottleneck. Then came Hyde Park. The United States began to buy war materials in Canada for lease-lend to the United Kingdom, the Netherlands East Indies, China and Russia. She also agreed to charge directly to lease-lend accounts of Great Britain raw materials which we needed to make munitions of war for the battle of Britain.
The dollar problem did not disappear. But from the most acute bottleneck in our war effort it became something manageable. A crown company, known as War Supplies Limited, was set up as a means of implementing this declaration. Its function is to negotiate and receive orders from departments of the United States government for war supplies to be manufactured in Canada. Since Hyde Park it is estimated that some $200,000,000 to $300,000,000 of war materials will be purchased in Canada. This will unquestionably relieve the pressure and substantially reduce the adverse trade balance.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word about the Ogdensburg agreement, which was made almost within a month of the fall of France. As a result of this agreement there was set up a permanent joint board on defence to consider the safety of Canada and the United States. Its object was to consider in a broad sense the defence of the north half of the western hemisphere. It included problems relating to land, sea and air. As a result of this agreement the United Kingdom exchanged sites for bases. In Newfoundland and Bermuda these sites were leased. The other sites were exchanged for fifty over-age American destroyers, six of which went to Canada. Early in the war Canada sent a garrison to Newfoundland, and since the Ogdensburg agreement that garrison has been strongly supplemented by American forces. On the west coast joint defence has

The Address-Mr. Stirling
been put into operation. A chain of well-equipped air bases has been established where none existed two years ago. On both coasts Canada is basing her defence on the three arms of the service, with the naval and air forces predominating.
Closely tied up with the central defence under the Ogdensburg plan is the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes seaway project, of which we have not yet heard the last word. With Japan in the war and the west coast subject to attack, and with enemy activity on the east coast, this giant undertaking is still regarded as a defence job. The proposed 27-foot deep waterway would open the great lakes to all but the heaviest warships. It would provide bomb-free anchorage many thousands of miles from the sea for unlimited concentrations of naval craft. It would make available for shipbuilding, factories in the Hamilton, Windsor and Detroit areas, where there is concentrated the largest amount of power, steel, coal, labour and machinery which can be found anywhere in the world.
The Ogdensburg agreement marks the full blossoming of a long association of harmony and friendship between Canada and the United States. It -was the forerunner of that historic meeting at sea between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt which resulted in the Atlantic charter, while the Hyde Park agreement brought about the declaration respecting the joint war production committee of the two countries. Both Hyde Park and Ogdensburg, so far as this country is concerned, have paved the way for the allied declaration which was made early in January, and which has now been implemented in the speech from the throne.
On September 10, 1939, Canada declared a state of war against Germany, and at the same time declared that she would stand at the side of Great Britain. Since that day Canada has never faltered. That is why Great Britain's Prime Minister was able to pay such a tribute to Canada in this chamber. He called our war effort "magnificent"; and I believe that in a press conference he gave afterward he went so far as to say that, tremendous as was the contribution in the last war, the contribution in this war was even greater. That effort, Mr. Speaker, is due to careful plcnning on the part of the government. It is due to the fact that men have been placed in the right places.
There have been mistakes. Unquestionably there have been delays; but of irretrievable blunders there have been none. There is one thing that has been manifest thus far, and it is the unity of mind and of purpose of the Canadian people. But we have now, sir, reached a very critical stage in our war effort, a stage which I think in some respects greatly
parallels that of the last war. We are now in the third year of the war. It was in the third year of the last war that the crisis came which split this country against itself. I am sure no hon. member in the house would want to see a recurrence of those events. The plebiscite, in my humble view, is another means of preserving intact the unity of our people. Without that unity the war effort could not be national, it could not be total. I do not believe there is any section of this country, in the face of the peril which surrounds us, that would not want us to prosecute this war to the utmost of our strength. If it is to be prosecuted in that manner, the unity of mind and the unity of purpose of our people must be kept intact. I am sure the house will listen to the words of the former Minister of Justice on this subject, uttered not long before his death. He said:
Sons of our country, brothers in one family, for the future of Canada as for the successful prosecution of the war, is it not imperative that no section of Canada, no race, no creed, should impose upon the other sections, the other races or the other creeds incurable wounds which might destroy our country forever.
In order to have total war there must be total unity, so that in the days to come the Canadian people, side by side with the British and American peoples, will, to use the words of Britain's Prime Minister in his Washington speech, for their own safety and the good of all, walk together in majesty, in justice and in peace.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to conform to that pleasant practice which is followed in this house and express my words of commendation to the mover (Mr. Fournier, Hull) and the seconder (Mr. Macdonald, Brantford City) of the address, and I do this not in any perfunctory way because I appreciated listening to these hon. members. Both of them are members of standing in this house who have made for themselves niches; both of them recently had the opportunity, as did I, of crossing to Great Britain by a most novel method. We saw for ourselves the valour of that people and the recovery they are carrying out; we saw the extraordinary way in which their nerve is being upheld. I was particularly delighted with the phrases used by the mover when he described, in rather touching words, the grace of their majesties.
The speech from the throne is intended to reveal to the people of Canada the intentions of the government in the prosecution of the war, recognizing as it does that the situation is critical and the danger great, and consequently that unless that danger to our existence is overcome by early victory, other
The Address-Mr. Stirling

things fall into insignificance. Canada went to war two and one-quarter years ago in order to uphold her principles and to defend her honour. During this time the war has steadily expanded, and to-day she is confronted with far graver conditions because the war is on both her coasts and her men are fighting on every front.
Therefore I examine the government's intentions with critical interest. I find that the fullest consideration of the war effort, past, present and future, will be given in the course of the discussion, and that measures will be submitted providing for our national security and the prosecution of the war to the utmost of our strength. This implies to me that the very wide powers which parliament gave to the government under the National Resources Mobilization Act and other acts have proved insufficient for their purposes. That is indeed surprising, or has the government not yet made full use of the powers so granted to it by parliament?
Yesterday, when referring to the form and contents of the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave him commendation-naturally it was qualified commendation-and accepted a good deal of what my leader said as being something to which he could subscribe. Then he went on in banter and referred to the fact that, as he followed him, the leader of the opposition appeared to spend the major part of his time in advocating compulsory sendee for military affairs and then had omitted that from the amendment which he proposed. To that view I certainly cannot subscribe because in my opinion the leader of the opposition treated compulsory service for military affairs as one of the factors making up what he conceived to be Canada's total national effort.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend omits the word "overseas." That is the point I was making.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It says, "any theatre of war."


Grote Stirling: I think that will develop from a re-reading of the amendment. My hon. friend, was discussing what we consider necessary for man-power and its development in this country, and he dwelt upon the necessity of using compulsion in the matter of military service. When I come to the amendment which he subsequently laid before the house, I find the following clause:
. . . additional measures designed to
(a) completely mobilize the wealth and material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man and woman power of the nation, to the end that the nation may wage total war in any theatre of war.

For the Prime Minister to say that there is little reference in that to compulsory service seems to me to indicate that he needs something more than a microscope if he desires to get the meaning of the leader of the opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I think I agreed with the leader of the opposition as to compulsion being applied to military service at the present time. My point was that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was identifying military service overseas with a total war effort, and the application of compulsion to military service overseas with a total war effort. My objection was that when he was presenting his amendment, attaching the importance he did to compulsion applied to military service for overseas, he did not so specifically state his point in the amendment


Grote Stirling: The Address-Mr. Stirling

crop, and some other crops were light, and, even so, the required labour was not easily obtained. In the season that lies ahead, there are prospects of greater crops and of greater demand for crops, for foodstuffs and for our munitions of war, and the farmers are already wondering what plans will be evolved so that labour may be available when it is required. They know of the registration. I do not think they know of what the government calls its policy of "national selective service". They know that industry is drawing away men and women by the lure of better wages and steady work, and they are anxious.
The government's efforts at recruiting for active service have been shrouded in some secrecy so far as total numbers by units and by provinces are concerned, except that in November last the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) submitted figures which showed that they were some distance below requirements; and now we have the sorry story, told by the minister on the last day of the 1941 session, that when he required to find in an emergency fewer than 2,000 trained men, some 130 with insufficient training had to be sent.
I do not suppose that I am singular in receiving continuous requests for advice as to how a man most desirious of helping in the war effort should get into touch with work he could do, and the only answer that one has been able to give is the address of the director of services. In the earlier months of the war we had the voluntary service registration bureau, and we were never able to get any information as to how that bureau functioned. There was an occasion, I remember, when it was intimated that the number of these applicants had reached five figures, but we were never able to get an answer to the question of how many had been put to desirable work for which they were suited. We have never been able to get an answer to the question of what percentage of applicants have received employment. The whole question of the man fitted for work lacking direction as to how he shall get into contact with that work, is still to be solved.
A blacksmith of my acquaintance was asked after the registration whether he was prepared to go back to his trade. He was not following his trade at the time. He said that he would be glad to. He heard nothing more; and then, as the work on which he was engaged, in an irrigation district, came to an end, he wrote, informing the authorities that he would be free the following month and would go to work at his trade if he was required. He was not seeking a job; he had occupation; but he wanted to do his bit. He was instructed to go to

Vancouver and present himself in a shipyard. He drove the three hundred miles at his own expense, and he found that men were being laid off, not taken on. He went to other shipyards and found the same condition. He went to the labour office, and in that office they were astonished that he should have ever been instructed to find his way to Vancouver because he was needed to do certain work. So he, a disappointed man, returned home the three hundred miles at his own expense. He was wanting to help the war effort. Add that instance to many others of men who have mechanical training, who want to make parts in connection with contracts, who want to feel they are doing their bit, and imagine their feelings when told that the government has been impeded in carrying out its policy of national selective service by a controversy concerning commitments. Imagine the feeling in that blacksmith's district when he came home and it got around that that was what he had suffered when he, hoping to make use of his talents and his training in work, found at the end of a three hundred mile journey that he was not wanted; and imagine how that spreads around that fertile field of depression, among the many men in this country who are just waiting to be directed so that their skill and their talents shall be made use of.
This government was elected in March, 1940, by a considerable majority with a mandate of the people to get on with the job. Compulsory service was not an issue at that election, though the Prime Minister says it was. It did not prevent the government from making the only use I know of, to that date, of the registration, and applying compulsion to the training of young men of certain age classes, first for a thirty-day period, and then for a four-month period. It has not hampered the government in applying compulsion to those young men by retaining them in the reserve army. But note that the speech from the throne says that the government's efforts are impeded by its commitments, and it holds that, to set aside those commitments and get on with the total war effort, even though the facts which we face are completely different from what they were when the commitments were made, would savour of dictatorship.
Therefore the government is going to hold a plebiscite, and the people are to be asked, "Will you release us from our hampering commitment?" The government has been the custodian of the facts; it must of necessity control what we are told. It has released what it has seen fit, and the facts connected with our needs, if we are to wage total war, have not been very plentiful to us in this house. Would not a reasonable reply to the

The Address-Mr. Gray
question be from the man or the woman in the country, "Why ask me? You ought to know. You were put there to govern. You say your policy is total national effort for total war. Go ahead; don't ask me if you may."
There are in this country a considerable number of people of stocks other than English and French who came here and threw in their lot with us, and whose descendants, with our descendants, we hope, will build a greater and grander Canada. Very many of them have not yet sufficiently mastered our language to be able to follow the niceties of the question, when is a commitment not a commitment?


Mr. MARTIN:: And vice versa.


Grote Stirling: It may be difficult for them to find their answer, yet the sons of many of them are in the armed services, and they under wise leadership would be as anxious as we are to defend liberty.
I could have understood the action of the government had it submitted a measure susceptible of simple explanation to people, asking for a yes or a no, though I could not have agreed with the action, because I hold that a government is put there to govern. But, to ask the people if it may be released from a commitment, and leave its subsequent action a mystery, is making government in this country a laughing-stock. In this plebiscite the government will have to use methods, yet to be described to us, for the purpose of informing the far-flung population as to the reasons and the facts connected with the question which they are asked. It will be no easy matter to do that. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who do not read a daily newspaper. Some of them no doubt see a weekly newspaper. There are, I do not know how many hundred thousand who listen to the radio; perhaps it runs into the millions, but my impression is that the dial is very quickly turned off when something entertaining ends. How are the government going to inform the people in detail of what this question means and why it is asked? If the government can answer that question satisfactorily, they may make those of us who dislike the idea of a plebiscite a little less hard against it.
The Prime Minister indicated yesterday that, in his opinion, three courses were open to him, and that two others had been suggested to him. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a sixth course opeh, a course which I think is the one this government should have followed. The proper course would have been to submit the difficulty of a commitment to parliament and take parliament's answer.
44561-6J
This government was returned to power by a considerable majority. Each one of the members is the chosen mouthpiece of the constituents he was elected to represent. It is to them the Prime Minister should turn for an answer to the question: May I be released from a commitment which I made when times were far different from what they are to-day?
To parliament he can relate the facts, to parliament he can divulge the difficulties, far better than they can be explained to the population at large. Members of parliament are delegates sent by the people, they are sent to express opinions on whatever questions are put before them. The majority wish of parliament is supreme. Under a democratic system what possible objection can be voiced to letting parliament decide? Then the course that this government should follow would be to get on with what it calls its policy of total national effort for total war; get on with it though it is a year late; make use of national selective service so that the available man and woman power may be put to the best possible use, and then see the Canadian people adapt themselves to their duty and accept sacrifice and self-denial if these are required.


Mr. R. W. GRAY (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to express some views on the speech from the throne presented to this house on Thursday last, may I first be permitted to congratulate the mover of the address in reply, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), and the seconder, the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), on the excellence of the material chosen and the clarity with which they expressed their views. Both these hon. members have recently returned from a visit to war-time Britain, and it is therefore fitting that they should have been chosen for this high honour. They have discharged their duty with credit to themselves and to the constituencies which they represent.
Since we met in this chamber in November last, a new and powerful enemy has attacked us. But a new and more powerful friend has joined us. When the history of this war is written, I feel certain it will be found that the part which the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) has played as liaison officer as it were between England and the United States, in forging those links which now bind the English-speaking nations together, will rank among the highest of his achievements.
Mr. Speaker, we have passed through difficult times; we are facing times more difficult. We have achieved much; much remains to be done. That there is room for criticism the
The Address-Mr. Gray

government would be the first to admit. But in any criticism we may offer let the fact not be obscured that Canada is rendering a service of which we may well be proud. There are times when we are too prone to belittle our own effort. That is due in part to the fact that we are hearing over the radio and reading in the press of the huge production programmes announced by our neighbours to the south, and losing sight of the fact that we are a nation of some twelve million while they have some 130 million. We have, as has been pointed out in this house-and I think it cannot be too often repeated-accomplished some great things since we declared war. We have some
150,000	soldiers, sailors and airmen serving outside Canada. We have a total voluntarily enlisted man-power of something over 387,000. Our navy went into action immediately war was declared and has played an increasingly important part during the battle of the Atlantic. The personnel of the Royal Canadian Air Force as of December 31, 1941, totalled something over 100,000 men. To this must be added some 12,000 civilians, or a force of nearly twenty-five times as many as we had when war was declared.
I should like here to commend the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) for his foresight in establishing an air cadet corps and schools and other services in order to bring up the educational standing of men who did not quite meet the required qualifications. The commonwealth air training scheme is turning out pilots, gunners and observers at a rate far in excess of that which was planned for this time. It has been reported that some 80 per cent of the personnel of its air crews are Canadians, and the fact must not be lost sight of that Canada is paying 60 per cent of the cost. In its first three years of operation the plan will cost something like $500,000,000, more than the dominion collects in ta^es in a normal peace-time year. Canadian aircraft industry, very small as we know it was at the beginning of the war, has now turned out something over 2,700 aircraft. Chemical and explosives plants of huge dimensions have Sprung up. Shells are being made in factories, some of which were closed for years, others have been built upon soil which up to a few months ago was barren land. Tanks, army vehicles, are rolling off assembly lines; automatic weapons, guns and small arms ammunition are being produced in greater and greater quantities.
One could go on and tell of corvettes, freighters and smaller craft being built in Canadian shipyards. All this is a tribute to the industry and energy of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) and the

staff that he has gathered under him. Canada's direct war spending in the present fiscal year will be more than $1,300,000,000. When to the war expenditures are added the other expenses, federal, provincial and municipal, the Canadian taxpayer will be found to be paying in taxes between fifty and fifty-five cents out of every dollar he earns. These are some of the things we are doing, and, for a nation of around twelve million people, not to be deprecated.
In spite of these tremendous accomplishments more remains to be done. It is true that too many of us may be what is termed Monday morning quarter-backs, but it is a poor coach who does not take a lesson from such quarter-backs.
Mr. Speaker, these words stand out in the speech from the throne:
The conflict can have but one of two outcomes. Either tyranny, based on terror and brutality, must be overthrown; or the free peoples of the world, one and all, slowly but eventually, will be reduced to a state of bondage. Upon the outcome depends, for generations, the future well-being of mankind.
Agreeing as I do with that statement, I am disappointed that the government have not given us the facts which enabled them to put into the mouth of his excellency the words indicating the gravity of the crisis. These were not surmises but facts of which they had knowledge; facts which, if given boldly to the people of Canada, would have been accepted just as willingly as the people have accepted every definite request made during this war. They have accepted, without question, higher taxation, restrictions, loans of all kinds, whatever they have been told was necessary for the successful prosecution of the war.
With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I submit that in this crisis the government would be justified in now

and by "now" I mean immediately-asking parliament to extend the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act in order to eliminate the restrictions concerning service in Canada only, in order that our armed forces -both here and overseas, including reserves and reinforcements, may be maintained at -the highest possible strength consistent with the maintenance of our food supply and industrial production. Instead, the government is about to refer this question to the people of Canada in the form of a plebiscite. I would not be true to my convictions or to my duty as I see it if I should, fail to voice in this house my disapproval of that procedure. It means delay; it means heartburning; it means bitterness. It means that after it is all over and the government is released from its pledge, the issue still must be faced; and the bogy of national unity

The Address-Mr. Gray
will again rear its ugly head. Speaking for myself alone, I do not ask to be relieved from the responsibilities that go with responsible government. I was elected* to do my duty, as I saw it, to my country. If I fail to do so, then under our democratic system the remedy is at the polls.
Much has been and will be said of broken pledges. The hon. member for Brantford City, in seconding the address on Friday last, remarked that under our democratic system the promise of a leader was as binding as any bond under seal. Does the hon. member forget that in the mother of all parliaments, Westminster, on April 27, 1939, while the nation was still at peace, and only four weeks after the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain, had renewed a pledge made by his predecessor, Mr. Baldwin, that compulsory military service would not be adopted, Mr. Chamberlain introduced a motion in these words:
This house approves the proposal of his majesty s government to introduce as soon as possible a system of compulsory military training, as announced on the 26th of April.
In the debate which followed the introduction of that motion, the prevailing opinion was the same as it should be here in Canada: The facts are there and we must face them as they exist to-day. Let me suggest to the Prime Minister that whatever his declaration may have been, as our first minister in this hour of peril he is bound to act in accordance with what, he believes is required for the national safety. That is the supreme pledge which he made, though perhaps not in words, when he assumed the high office which he now holds. What, of the solemn pledge given by President Roosevelt during his last election campaign, to the effect that the forces of the United States would not be sent overseas? Within one month of the declaration of war we find the president telling congress ' and the nation:
We cannot wage this war in a defensive spirit. As our power and our resources are fully mobilized, we shall carry the attack against the enemy. American land, air and sea forces will take stations in the British isles-
Has there been any outcry in the United States of America against broken pledges?
There is another powerful weapon being used in this war, one of which we must not lose sight. That is the weapon of propaganda. Can anyone here doubt .that the position Canada is taking to-day will be distorted far beyond its real significance? Can anyone doubt that the very real accomplishments of Canada, to which I have already referred, will be ignored in an attempt to show that in taking this plebiscite there is uncertainty and lack of sincerity when we
say that total war can be met only with total effort? It does not matter what our enemies think. What does matter is the interpretation that will be placed on this action by our allies. I need refer to only one of them. On the very day that the government announced1 this plebiscite, the Commonwealth of Australia, through Prime Minister Curtin, was calling the man-power and the woman-power of the nation to take battle stations. What will the Australian people think as they read the pages of Australian casualties in Libya and Singapore; what will they think as they hear the air raid sirens warning of impending Japanese attacks, and at the same time read that Canada is leisurely to take a plebiscite as to whether or not the government may be released from certain pledges given prior to the hour of national peril?
These, sir, are days when the situation changes very rapidly, indeed almost from hour to hour. It is not too late to take a different stand; and I urge the government to extend the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act in the manner I have indicated.'
Whenever the subject of compulsory selective service is brought up, there are those who immediately take it that this has reference to compulsory service in man-power for the armed forces only. Of course that is only one phase of a compulsory selective system. In the broad sense it would include all of us. It would mean immediate re-registration and reclassification. It would train those best fitted for industrial work; it would release man-power, replacing it with woman-power, for our women are just as anxious to serve as are the men. It would put an immediate stop to the flow of labour from the farm into industry at high wages, a situation which is serious in many parts of Ontario and which will require immediate action if the farmer is to be enabled to maintain maximum production. If proper boards are set up, it should clarify the system of calling up the extended classes for training. At the present time the uncertainty with which these postponements are being granted has a detrimental effect on the production of our farms. This is so in spite of the excellent manner in which registrars-and I refer particularly to the registrar in western Ontario, who is handling a difficult job.-are carrying on this work. We find that farmers, particularly those having one son in the age category, are in a state of absolute uncertainty. It is all very well to say that there can be postponement. I am sure nearly every hon. member has had farmers come to see him in the fall asking what they should do in regard to putting in

The Address-Mr. Gray
a stock for the winter. They have had to be told: "Yes; a postponement may be given for a couple of months if application is made to the registrar." But then they ask. "Well, what about the next postponement, and the next?" They want to know if they will continue to get postponements, provided that conditions remain unchanged. I do not know what has been the experience of other hon. members, but in many cases of which I have knowledge, in which two postponements have been granted, letters have been received to this effect:
Kindly be advised that commencement of your military training has been deferred until approximately	 date. No further postponement will be granted.
That situation must be clarified. With all the emphasis at my command I state that a plan to provide farm assistance in western Ontario must be announced at once if our farmers are to be equal to the task of producing what is required of them.
I turn now to the question of man-power. What are some of the weaknesses of the voluntary system as we have it to-day? Key men in industry, and men who, if not key men, are of an age at which they would be more useful in Canada, are enlisting.
I am of opinion also that the pressure put upon young men of the trainee age, during their four months' training, to enlist for service in units anywhere is unfair, and in many cases unjust. It is a method of getting men through the back-door when we cannot get them through the front. Further, Mr. Speaker, don't let us fool ourselves by saying that we can go under the old system by extending the trainee age; in other words, by saying that if we can get 300 volunteers out of a class of 1,000 of the 21- to 24-age limit, then by extending the trainee age to 30 or 35 we can obtain 700 in each class. The method of embarrassing and, in some instances, coercing men into service is not to the credit of this country.
The question naturally arises: Are we getting sufficient men for the army under the volunteer system? Much has been said in connection with this matter-too much, perhaps. _ And as a result there is confusion. We have information from departmental bureaux, speeches, some of them from ministers of the crown, implying at least that all is well. On the other hand, we have the opinions of commanding officers of military districts, and of military recruiting officers, who say that we are not getting a sufficient number of men under the voluntary system.
They should know, and I prefer to accept their statement. I think this house should know of the latest system being adopted by {Mr. Gray.]
those in charge of recruiting for the army, certainly in western Ontario, and, I am advised, elsewhere as well. The method is that of setting up civilian recruiting committees in the various counties. I attended a preliminary meeting a few weeks ago at which time the officer in charge of recruiting for that district frankly and honestly admitted the difficulty he was facing in getting recruits for the army. He told us that they plan an exhibit for two days in the county town, and that exhibit is taking place to-day.
That is all very proper, and in my opinion the army has been lax in not placing before prospective recruits the advisability of joining the army, telling them something of its life and helping them to choose the service in which they are best fitted to serve, in the same manner that visiting recruiting officers for the air force and the navy have been visiting various county towns and larger villages for the past few months, giving their assistance and help. As a result, they have been able to get volunteers.
But the weakness of the system as I see it is the fact that what is being attempted in these exhibitions is the shifting of responsibility to the shoulders of civilian committees. During the exhibit a meeting is requested, to which would be invited some 100 to 125 representative citizens, and the needs for recruiting are set forth. The civilians in turn would be asked to form themselves into a recruiting committee. I think I know the feeling of the majority of those who attended that preliminary meeting, and it was this: Responsibility for the proper and complete utilization of man-power and woman-power rests with the government and the boards it may create, and not with the individual, untrained and without proper knowledge of who should go and who should stay.
This brings me to a further argument in favour of unrestricted compulsory selective service; and when I say that I mean that there is under such a system a place for all of us, a job for all of us to do, not merely in the mobilization of men for overseas but also in the placing of an equal burden of sacrifice in some form on every one of us not in the armed services. This, in my opinion, can be done only by a complete and scientific organization of all our resources and, great as our accomplishments have been, no one will suggest that that effort has really seriously been made.
What criticism can there be with regard to a principle of the right of the state to call upon its citizens to sacrifice wealth, comfort and even life itself when the very existence of our civilization is at stake? Is the

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
compulsory system of selecting men for our armed forces unfair or undemocratic? No words of mine could answer this question as well as the remarks from the lips of Right Hon. Winston Churchill when, as a member of the British House of Commons, and largely opposed to the Chamberlain government, he supported the compulsory training bill in April, 1939, in these words:
There is nothing undemocratic about this measure; it is the most democratic thing we have ever done. Provided that no exceptions are allowed, it will wear away differences between class and class, and it may also be the beginning of a far more broadly and evenly based society than we have ever known. . . . Almost everywhere we see hesitating, cautious governments, and resolute peoples. Here at home, the spirit of the people is far ahead of the government, and perhaps even of parliament, also. . . . This is a time when prejudices must be abandoned on either side, and a true comradeship established between all parties and classes throughout our loyal, anxious land.
If Canada does not put forth the greatest effort possible and we lose the war, the result is plain enough. The lights will go out on this continent for longer than the lifetime of anyone now living-much longer. Again if Canada does not put forth the greatest effort possible, her utmost effort, and none the less wins the war, how can we hold up our heads in the future, and what representation can we make at the bar of history? Sometimes it takes a terrible tragedy to enable a people to find itself. When the full story becomes known, Canada may find herself in Hong Kong. Britain found herself at Dunkirk. So long as the English tongue survives, the word "Dunkirk" will be spoken with reverence; for in that harbour in such a hell as never blazed on earth before, at the end of a lost battle, the rags and blemishes that had hidden the soul of democracy fell away. There, beaten but unconquered, in shining splendour, she faced the enemy.
They sent away the wounded first. Men died so that others might escape. It was not so simple a thing as courage, which the nazis had in plenty. It was not so simple a thing as discipline, which can be hammered into men by a drill sergeant. It was not the result of careful planning, for there could have been but little. It was the common man of a free country rising in all his glory out of mill, office, factory, mine, farm and ship, applying to war the lessons learned when he went down the shaft to bring out trapped comrades, when he hurled the lifeboat through the surf, when he endured poverty and hard work for his children's sake.
This shining thing in the souls of free men Hitler cannot command, attain or conquer. He has crushed it where he could from
German hearts. It is the true tradition of democracy. It is the future. It is victory, if we will grasp it-victory, not of a military character, but victory over our own complacency, a victory which will enable us to see that there is no half-way house. It must be victory or defeat.
We have already heard talk of a new world to appear when this deluge of war has subsided. Unless we achieve victory for the great cause for which we entered this war, the new world will simply be the old world with the heart out of it. To redeem Britain, to redeem Europe, to redeem the world must be the settled purpose of every man and woman who places duty above a life of ease.
Let us have faith That Right makes Might,
And in that Faith
Let us dare to do our duty As we understand it.


Thomas Langton Church: There will be a noble thirteen yet.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like to express my appreciation of the words uttered by the mover (Mr. Fournier, Hull), and the seconder (Mr. Macdonald, Brantford City) of the address. I am sure that all members of the house envy them the experience they had in being able to visit Great Britain and to return to give us such a vivid picture of what Hitler has been doing across the sea. I . suggest to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) that he should make use of all hon. members who crossed the Atlantic and arrange that they bring first-hand information to the people all across Canada. I do not wish to subscribe to everything said by the hon. member for Brantford City and the hon. member for Hull, but I think that they, along with the others, could make a valuable contribution toward strengthening the morale of the Canadian people during this crisis.
I feel that every hon. member who takes part in the present debate must recognize that Canada has made a valuable contribution toward the defence of democracy. In my opinion, however, the question we should ask ourselves is not, "how much have we done?" but rather, "have we done as much as we ought to?" We cannot conclude that Canada has done all that should have been done. I should like to suggest that the government arrange now for the establishment of a separate department of government, a ministry of economic warfare or economic planning. I might remind the house that in September, 1939, Mr. Chamberlain outlined plans for the establishment of such a ministry in Great
The Address-Mr. Nicholson

Britain. He pointed out that his government had been engaged over a period of two years in organizing such a ministry and that the staff had been selected several months before hostilities broke out. He intimated that it was not until 1916 during the great war that a similar ministry had been established. His words were:
For every man in the front line, you must have many behind the lines, engaged in the production and servicing of weapons of war.
Although two years have passed, it is not too late to establish such a ministry in Canada in order that we may plan our economic warfare. I am aware of the fact that we have a committee on economic policy under the chairmanship of the deputy minister of finance. The membership of this committee includes the governor of the Bank of Canada and some deputy ministers in key departments. Every member of this committee is carrying tremendous responsibility, and I do not see how it is physically possible for them to give the direction that should be given to Canada's economic policy.
The questions that should be asked and answered are: How many men and women can be used in the various armed forces in order that Canada may make her greatest contribution? How many men and women should be engaged in our various war industries? How many should we have on our farms producing the foodstuffs necessary adequately to feed our own people and to fill every inch of space on the boats plying the Atlantic? As I said, these questions should be asked and they should be answered.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has urged us to consume less. A year ago I asked him to be more specific and to help us decide what commodities we should not consume in order that we might help our war effort. To date the Canadian people are waiting in vain for direct leadership in the field of consumption. A bewildered Canadian people scan the daily and weekly newspapers and see where they are urged to buy automobiles, radios, refrigerators, furniture and every conceivable commodity. High-pressure salesmen interview people who have received pay cheques and explain that since these articles are being manufactured and sold, no harm will follow in acquiring possession. On the one hand our people are urged not to consume and, on the other, they are urged to consume.
Our farmers across the country have been urged by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to produce less wheat. One of the pamphlets issued last year by his depart-

ment says that less wheat in 1941 will help win the war. The government asked as a war service that the land sown to wheat in 1941 be reduced as much as possible compared with 1940. Are we to understand that the farmer who does not produce any wheat is making his greatest contribution? The Canadian farmers are waiting in vain for a lead from this government as to what should be done. I endorse what was said by the hon. member (Mr. Gray) who has just taken his seat regarding the uneasiness in the minds of the Canadian farmers. [DOT] I, for one, am not satisfied with the decisions with regard to agriculture's place which have been made by the committee on national war services in our province.
Just recently I had occasion to discuss a case with the chairman of the board. This was the case of a young man who had bought a farm in 1937, two years before war broke out. He got married after war broke out and is now in the twenty-four-year-old age group. He has several cows, horses, pigs, chickens, et cetera. I realize that the chairman of this board is a judge who has an enviable reputation as a soldier and on the bench, but I am not willing to agree that he is in a position to decide what foodstuffs Canada should produce and whether a man's contribution should be made in the armed forces or on the farm. The order issued to this young man was to report on January 8, which involved the selling of his live stock and the necessity for making such other arrangements as he could. I think the board wisely agreed to give him another thirty days, but he still does not know what the decision will be at the end of that time. The chairman of the board pointed out that by being in the armed forces this young man could look after his family much better than if he were on the farm. That may be true, but is that the policy of this government? Is it the policy to take men off our farms who are producing and place them in the army and to leave our farms without men to operate them?
As I said, we want leadership. We want this government to do everything necessary to see that every man or woman is in his or her right place to make the greatest contribution. There is not an hon. member representing a rural constituency who has not had a great many inquiries from people who have said, "Well, if we have too much food, how about getting into a war industry?" Those of us who come from the west have had countless requests. I should like to cite one case which is unusual rather than typical. This is a case where I think one would say

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
offhand that there should not be any trouble in deciding into what category this man should be placed. I should like to remind the house that at the time the registration was being taken, the then Minister of National War Services explained 'that one of the reasons for taking the registration was to enable the government to tell the people where to go, to direct the people who were unemployed to find employment in industry, to enable people who are employed but trained for one particular type of work, to fit into another industry where their best contribution could foe made.
The particular case I wish to discuss is that of a veteran of the last war. a man still in his forties, a mechanical draughtsman by trade. He has kept in touch with his profession while he has been on the farm. He wrote to me well over a year ago asking that he be given information as to where he might be able to make a greater contribution towards the war. I took his case up with the Department of National War Services and they ' agreed that this man had unusual qualifications and should be able to make a greater contribution than he was making in the ' particular industry in which he was then engaged. But they said they did not have the machinery to place him. They felt, however, that the employment agencies in Ontario would have no difficulty in directing him to employment. I got in touch with the employment office in Ottawa, and they said, "We have no suitable opening here, but the employment office in Toronto, Hamilton or Windsor will no doubt be able to place him."
I communicated, in turn, with these other employment offices, and it was suggested that as my friend was in the west, he should communicate with an employment agency in the west, which would relieve him of the necessity of coming east. So I wrote to Winnipeg, and the employment office there said that in view of the fact that this man resided in Saskatchewan he should apply to the office at Regina. I then wrote to the office in Regina, and they said that in view of the fact that this man was living in the west and that all the war industries were in the east, he should apply to some agency in the east. So we were back to where we started. But my friend, a very patriotic citizen, is not satisfied to be staying on the farm producing what has been described as a drug on the market-wheat. He asked me to take his case up again last summer, and I have a letter here from the Wartime Bureau of Technical Personnel dated November 24, 1941, and referring to a letter they had written to my friend on September 27. Nearly two months after they had written him, they
wrote me saying that there was "a definite shortage of mechanical draughtsmen, and they said:
It is quite possible that if he happened to be so located that he could conveniently make application in person to some of the larger organizations engaged in essential war industry, he would be successful in securing a position.
But he is not so situated. The letter goes on to say:
I believe you will understand our hesitation in making such a suggestion to Mr.	, or
to anyone who happens to be so located that he will have to incur fairly heavy expenses in order to present himself at places where his services might be needed.
Would we say to a man who, at some place a long way from where fighting is going to take place, offers his services as a soldier: "We are sorry, but it would cost a lot of money to send you from here to where the fighting is going on, and we do not want to put the country to that expense." Of course we do not say that to the man who offers his services as a soldier. And here is a man who risked his life in the last great war and is now impatient at being kept on the farm and being unable to make a greater contribution in this war. Yet we are told that we should not go to the expense of moving him to places where employment'might be found and where he might make a greater contribution.
I replied to this letter, giving a review of this man's case, and went on to say that I hoped the department would understand my difficulty in assuring my friend that Canada was doing everything that could be done and should be done.
I believe that without any further delay we must have a comprehensive plan for agriculture. Next week a delegation will visit this city from western Canada, a delegation that is being sent here by the hard-pressed people of Saskatchewan. Certain newspapers have suggested that if these men can find money to travel to Ottawa conditions in the west cannot be very difficult. Those who make this suggestion do a great injustice to the people of Saskatchewan. The contributions to send these people here will not average twenty-five cents per person, so that the suggestion is most unfair. I think it is unfortunate that it should be necessary for these people to come to Ottawa in order to get from the government an outline of a plan and to secure a fair deal. I remind this house that we are making plans for the development of our war industries, but we never say to a manufacturer who is making planes or tanks: "We are sorry that there is no other market for your product in the world to-day, so we will give you half of what it costs to produce it."
The Address-Mr. Nicholson

This government is in the business of handling wheat for our farmers. There is no market for wheat, of course, except such markets as we provide for it, but wheat is an essential commodity for national defence in Canada and for Great Britain. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that this government must without further delay outline a plan to ensure that all necessary foodstuffs be produced and that those producing them will receive a fair return.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, before the six o'clock recess I took occasion to ask a number of questions relating to the position in which, it seems to me, we now find ourselves as a result of the lack of a bold, courageous plan; and I should now like to pose some additional questions, feeling that each one should be answered.
First, what is the policy with regard to the production of automobiles, trucks and buses in Canada? According to a press statement a new automobile contains, on the average, about 1,700 pounds of steel, 500 pounds of iron, 60 pounds of copper, 20 pounds of aluminum, 70 pounds of cotton, and 15 pounds of wool, with a few pounds of glass. The latest statistics supplied by the bureau of statistics present an alarming study of the increase in the production of passenger automobiles for domestic use. Here are the figures of sales, month by month, in the years 1939, 1940 and 1941:
January ., February .
March____
April____
May 

Of malt liquors the apparent consumption was:
Year	Gallons
1939		 63,204,917
1940		 66,196,961
1941		 78,529,426
For wines the figures are:
Year	Gallons
1939		 3,461,867
1940		 4,012,917
1941		 4,812,614
I am sorry that the provincial governments have not yet submitted statements concerning their operations for the past year-at least only three have done so. Gross sales were reported as follows:
1939	1940	1941Gallons	Gallons	GallonsN.B	
3,714,000	5,209,000	6,627,000Man	
5,947,000	6,653,000	7,887,000B.G	
13,758,000	14,960,000	17,590,000
Recently, on October 22 to be exact, a delegation representing many churches and temperance organizations waited upon the government in Ottawa. Representing the Roman Catholic church was Rev. Canon Philippe Casgrain on behalf of His Eminence Cardinal Villeneuve. Representing the Church of England was Canon Judd, of Toronto. Rev. T. Christie Innes represented the Presbyterian church and Rev. Peter Bryce represented the moderator of the United church. There were representatives from the. Baptists, the Evangelical church, the Salvation army and various temperance bodies. This delegation had been here a year ago, and at that time were, I understand, promised that the government would give their representations careful consideration. That is a favourite expression with this government; "The matter is being considered." We have been told that so often that we are getting most impatient.
This delegation asked:
1.	That sale of alcoholic beverages in taverns, beer rooms, -wine shops, et cetera be discontinued and that sale of such beverages be confined entirely to government-owned liquor stores.
2.	That sale from government liquor stores be permitted only between the hours of three o'clock in- the afternoon and eight o'clock in the evening, and on week-days only.
3.	That all advertising of liquor in Canada be forbidden except in the place of sale.
4.	That when the request in item 1 is implemented, an order issue from the Department of Defence closing all wet canteens in military establishments.
I understand that the Minister of National War Services (Mr.- Thorson) referred to the divided jurisdiction between the dominion and the provincial governments in the matter of liquor control, but he assured the deputation that the matter would be given earnest con-
FMr. Nicholson.1
sideration by the government. That is an old story also, about divided jurisdiction. But we have the War Measures Act, which gives this government the right to do anything that is in the interests of the Canadian people during the war, and I submit that the representations made by this representative group were very reasonable. They have formulated these representations, taking into consideration the minimum that should be expected to win the support of the Canadian people.
I was interested in reading an article in the November issue of the Fortnightly, written by the eminent scientist J. B. S. Haldane. Writing about their problem in Great Britain, he said:
The less food we waste the less we must import. A very large amount of barley and hops grown in this country is used for making beer, which has practically no food value. The barley could be used for bread or feeding cattle. The hop fields could be used for beans or other food plants. If not another gallon of beer were brewed, this would save scores of ships for essential imports. But the disappearance of beer would cause grave resentment, both among beer drinkers and in the drink trade, some sections of which are making record profits at present. The resentment would be legitimate if the soldiers got no beer while the officers had their whisky. So the country as a whole would have to go "dry". On the other hand I see no reason why the publicans should be better treated than the little shopkeepers who are forbidden to sell rationed food because they have less than twenty-five customers registered. But this gigantic food waste could only be stopped after a big propaganda campaign. And in view of the close connection between the Conservative party and the drink trade I do not believe that it will be stopped. I may add in parenthesis that I am not a total abstainer, but have very nearly become so for the duration of the war.
I had better explain that he was not speaking of the Conservative party in Canada.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It would be a good idea to make that very clear.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: At the outset I stated that I was quoting from an article by a British scientist, appearing in a well known British publication. But I might say that what Professor Haldane says about the Conservative party in Great Britain might be said of the party in power here.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Why not say it?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Because I am quoting his article. I am not writing an article or making a speech-[DOT]


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You are making a speech, so why not say it?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think it unfortunate that this large amount of money should be expended in Canada in connection with the

* The Address-Mr. Rowe
drink trade, while so little money is spent by this government to educate our people with regard to the evils in connection with the use of drmk, and, as Professor Haldane says, to ''carry on a gigantic propaganda campaign." Perhaps hon. members would be interested in an article that appeared in the Temperance Advocate, published in Brampton, with regard to what they are doing about this problem in that so-called godless country, Russia. It states that back in 1933 they launched a strong campaign against the use of alcohol. There was a great and completely organized anti-alcohol movement, with the equivalent of local option. No liquor was sold in the vicinity of the barracks of soldiers or sailors, or of labour exchanges. Sale was also forbidden on pay days and during annual conscription. The advertisement of the sale of alcohol was forbidden in the press, in the streets, in railway stations, on boats and in other public places. Anti-alcohol teaching was carried on in all primary and secondary schools, and was included in the training courses for teachers. Anti-alcohol propaganda was included in theatre and cinema productions.
I believe the valuable work that was started in Russia in 1933 has had results we can all appreciate. The fact that Hitler has been stopped so completely by the Russian army gives a great deal of support to my statement that Russia has been able to make a much greater contribution, as a result of the propaganda that has been carried on, than she ever could have made under the old regime, under which the government received so much revenue from the manufacture and sale of liquoT.
There was another table which I intended to quote, showing the revenue to this government from the liquor trade. Perhaps I can dispense with that, but in view of the disastrous results of the use * of liquor in Canada at the present time I urge the Department of National War Services to appropriate a large sum of money for the purpose of carrying on the necessary educational work to placq the facts in this connection before the Canadian people. I realize that the views I have expressed are not shared by a great many hon. members. But to-day we find ourselves in the most critical situation ever known in human history. The laissez-faire methods that were tolerated in peace time are not good enough in the present crisis. Plans must be evolved by which every Canadian industry and indeed every Canadian individual will carry on the work most necessary to be done to enable us to make our greatest contribution to the preservation of democracy and the absolute defeat of Hitler.


Hon. W. EARL ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General has very graciously read to this house a speech from the throne that has been cautiously prepared by the government of the day. May I add my congratulations to those already offered to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) on their addresses, which were delivered with a dignity in keeping with the highest traditions of this house. As legal gentlemen they certainly demonstrated a skill and ability in their defence of a somewhat difficult case.
The worst apprehensions of the Canadian people at last have become a reality. We have learned from the speech from the throne that a plebiscite is to be submitted to the people in which they are to be asked whether or not we are going to back up those gallant, loyal sons of Canada who are fighting for our freedom. Canada is a great country. No other country in the world enjoys our geographical security. No other country with our population enjoys such vast resources, such strength in agriculture, industry and potential wealth of all kinds. Canada played a noble part in the last great war, and the soldiers, sailors and airmen who are fighting the battle of freedom in this war are the noblest of our countrymen.
During the past twenty-nine months the people of this country have done a great deal indeed. I might say also that the government has done something. Indeed, we have accomplished much; but much more could have been done, and I believe much more will have to be done if we are going to win this terrible conflict. We must take the offensive. Whenever and wherever possible we must increase our production of foodstuffs and munitions, no matter what sacrifices may be involved. As soon as possible we must raise, train and fully equip an army of unheard-of numbers on land, on sea and in the air, if we are to meet the onrush of the combined axis forces in the spring drive. We must have our armies mechanized and trained, not to fight where it is hoped the enemy never will be found-that is, here in Canada-but to fight wherever the enemy may be met. This also involves the training and equipping of vast reserves to back up our gallant soldiers in the front line. In these days first things must come first with eveiy Canadian, and to-day the foremost requirement is the winning of this war. We are in a struggle that will require every available ounce of energy we can muster. Let us become concerned with the defeat of the enemy, and not only with the defence of Canada. If we meet the enemy

The Address-Mr. Rowe

where the fighting now is going on, then the enemy will never reach our shores. To advocate any other policy is, to my mind, near treason, for when we declared war in September of 1939 we meant what we said; we were not just playing soldier.
Many problems must be faced by this parliament if we are to achieve an all-out war effort. To one reference in the speech from the throne I believe every Canadian will give whole-hearted approval; that is, the statement that we are to contribute to Britain vast quantities of foodstuffs, munitions and supplies. In this regard may I say that if our government would come out with a courageous policy and tell our young men where they belong, whether they are needed on the farm, in the factory or in the front line, we then would have equality of service and, along with it, equality of respect as between the boys who are fighting our battles on those different fronts. If you told the boy on the farm that was where you wanted him, you would enable him to" escape any feeling of humiliation he might have because he was not wearing khaki. You would create a feeling of equality between the boy in the factory, earning $7 a day, and the boy in khaki receiving SI.30 a day. Nothing less than a courageous stand will meet this situation.
So far as munitions are concerned, I believe this country has done a great deal and will continue to make a substantial contribution. Unfortunately I do not have the same feeling of confidence with regard to agricultural production. It will be impossible to meet the demand for agricultural production without some direct, immediate action by the government. I think nothing short of the establishment of a food production board can give the necessary leadership if we are to achieve our objective and keep our forces fed. At the appropriate time this session I propose to ask the government to appoint a national food board capable of integrating a gigantic national effort combined with a willingness to cooperate with all elements of our population in order to achieve our objective in this regard.
The evident inability of the Department of Agriculture to-day to make public definite goals of production for 1942 and 1943, as has been done in the United States of America, constitutes a serious problem to our whole war economy, because, as hon. members are aware, enough food of the right kind is a rock-bottom essential of war-time production and morale, and necessary for our fighting ability. Enough of the right food cannot be secured either, if industry is going to be placed on a cost-plus basis and farm production

is left in many cases on a cost-minus basis, thereby leaving industrial employers to take the men off our farms.
We hear a great deal about preventing inflation, but, Mr. Speaker, unless the increased purchasing power is diverted from consumer markets, we shall have the general public competing against the government for materials and supplies essential for an allout war effort. These problems must be met, if we are going to have an all-out and allround war effort. This situation must be met if our unprecedented effort to control inflation through the establishment of price and wage control is to achieve any degree of success.
I believe consideration should be given to some form of compulsory savings under which a graduated percentage of all incomes in excess of a certain stipulated amount should be paid directly to the government and credited to the individual with interest at a stated rate, the principal to be repaid after the war. I may say that many people will need some of their principal. I believe some plan of compulsory saving should be part of any sound programme of price control, and I propose at a later date to discuss this matter further.
To-night, however, I consider that these important issues temporarily fade under the shocking proposal in the speech from the throne by which the government of the day, with a large majority behind it, is endeavouring to escape its responsibility in military reinforcement.
I listened to that speech-and I have heard many come down in this House of Commons -with very great care, because I realized that much hinged on what the government proposed to do at the present time. I have followed it through, as carefully as I was capable of doing. In brief generalities it reviews a few of the past war tragedies. From there, to the end. with unprecedented cruelty it postpones future purposes.
The very speech itself begins with the words, "There no longer can be any question", but it ends with the government fearfully and feebly asking others to give the answer. It tells us that the government knows we are in the gravest crisis in the world's history now. But the government will not take full responsibility to act until after they hold a plebiscite, either next spring or summer. May I be pardoned for again using those apt words of the Montreal Gazette, in saying that "never in the history of this dominion have so many people been so humiliated by so few."


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: A pretty poor source.


The Address-Mr. Rowe


William Earl Rowe: If the Minister of Marine can take comfort from it, then he is a better parliamentarian than he is Minister of Marine.


Mr. POULIOT:: Minister of National
Defence for Naval Services.


William Earl Rowe: I intended to give the minister a better title than "marine." I must say, however, that that is one branch of the service which possibly is doing all it can; and perhaps that is what makes the minister so confident that he can pull up the slack for the rest of them.
When democracy faces the test of its greatest adversity, our government, to which the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services belongs, demonstrates its greatest weakness. We have been told that "he who hesitates is lost." Yet we postpone for months the needs of the hour. In other words, Mr. Speaker, while our homes burn, we hold a firemen's ball.
What a spectacle of inspiration to those great Britishers, like Smuts of Africa or Curtin of Australia, has their big sister Canada given them in their hour of crisis! There appears to be considerable confusion as to what the action announced by the government means. It is a topic of argument on the street comers. Some farmers in the back concessions think it may mean an election; some other people think it may mean conscription; some others believe that it means relieving the present government of the great numbers of promises they have made since 1919; others believe that it means relieving the government of some of their broken promises. Others just do not know what it means, but they believe it just relieves the government and lets it do as it pleases.
To-day the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) tells us that it means getting the people's opinion, provided he does not tell anybody what he will do after he gets it. Mr. Speaker, "it is a means of consulting public opinion, when a public body is unable to take the responsibility which belongs to it." Nobody knows what the answer is going to be, and nobody knows what the action will be after the answer is given.
This is the most Asquithian type of appeasement that has ever been proposed by a responsible government in a time of war. Unfortunately it is the same type of appeasement and complacency which has dominated our actions in peace-time failures, and which now so dangerously retards our war-time action. It was this type of wait-and-see policy which held up for two years Canada's air training plan, following the visit in 1938 of
the British aviation authorities. It was this famous wait-and-see policy which made Prime Minister Asquith in England the greatest armchair warrior of the last war, and bids fair to make Prime Minister King of Canada the greatest wait-and-see warrior of the present war.
The Prime Minister takes great pride in his relationship with the great republic to the south of us, and on many occasions he has so stated. May I compliment him on any progress he has made in that regard. Speaking in his home constituency of Prince Albert on February 29, 1940, he is reported to have said:
Canada has done more to help bring about that friendlier relationship between the United States and Britain than has any other part of the empire, even than Great Britain herself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: I wish I could deliver one
of those five-hour speeches of the Prime Minister. If I did I would get a lot of applause. Perhaps, however, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr.' Pouliot) will applaud me again if I quote another part of the same speech:
It is a matter of great pride that I have lived to see the day when I could go to the President of the United States and work out a reciprocity agreement. It took twenty-five years to bring it about, but I lived to accomplish it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be allowed the time hon. members opposite have applauded, after my quotation from the Prime Minister's speech.
I am sorry that through this relationship * with the United States the Prime Minister has not copied the example of his great friend to the south. He must surely observe the contrast of the last twenty-five years.
The Prime Minister tells us that he could not break one of those pledges of his. I have not time at my disposal to tell hon. members about those he has broken, but I would point out to him what happened in the United States of America. In 1916 President Wilson was elected with the battle-cry that he would keep American, boys in the United States. But in 1917, when the hour of crisis arose, he drafted those American boys to join the British forces in France.
By way of further contrast I would draw the Prime Minister's attention to the recent election of Mr. Roosevelt. Here is one of the

The Address-Mr. Rowe
promises made by the President of the United States over the radio just prior to his recent
election:
And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.
Since that promise was given, the President of the United States asked for and received from his parliament and from his country the right to send United States soldiers anywhere an enemy might be encountered.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: This is not a foreign war; the United States was attacked.


William Earl Rowe: She had the courage to draft men before she was attacked; the Canadian government has not courage enough to draft men after we are attacked. That is responsible government functioning in a crisis. With almost frenzied eloquence we heard the hon. member for Brantford City tell this house that the Prime Minister was the first leader of the allied countries to declare war on Japan. Then he told us that the Prime Minister is going to be the last man to draft men to fight her. While the battle rages in every quarter of the globe, we have a wait-and-see policy to draft men to stay in Canada only until we hear how that policy is decided for this great lopsided, top-heavy government, by those outside the government.
We are now told by the Prime Minister in the twilight of his long years as leader that we must give him time off in this crisis to go back over the record. I know very well, and any other senior hon. member in this jjouse knows that his record is strewn with broken pledges. He wants to revive one now in order to make it sacred in this time of crisis. I well remember that famous list of pledges and the planks of the platform in 1919. I remember how he excused himself here on the floor of this house when twitted for having dropped these planks so rapidly that we could not count them, by saying that that platform was only a chart to compass a course no one knew.
In 1925 he made that famous promise to reform the senate, but at that time we did not have a plebiscite so he could go back to York North. In that election he promised most faithfully to reform the senate, and I was sitting here in this house when he said rather jocularly to the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, that he had reformed the senate by placing in it the first lovely lady. That was a reformation because,
[Mr. Row**l
although she is a staunch Liberal, she is a great improvement over many of the Liberals who were there.	.
Now in this hour of world crisis we are asked to provide unprecedented millions to supply equipment for overseas forces, while in the same breath we are asked to spend several millions to have those outside the government say whether or not we should draft men for Canada only. Three million dollars spent, for a three months' delay! It will surely be made known to the opposition countries that Canada's secret weapon is a slow-timed dud. When we come to think of it we realize that our position is being made ridiculous. I plead with the government to change their course. Surely they are not going to lead us down this course at this time.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: It is all very well to jibe from the back benches when there are so many of you there. Is that all you can say to the boys overseas? Go over and talk to them and tell them why they should vote for or against this plebiscite. For twenty years those who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, have hackneyed this issue back aiid forth across the election roads of Canada, claiming to be preserving unity in time of peace. They now plebiscite it to split their country from end to end in time of war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where did the hon. member stand in 1940?


William Earl Rowe: Where did the minister stand in 1925?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where did the hon. member stand in 1940? Did he stand with his leader?


William Earl Rowe: I stood with my leader as I always do. My pledges to my constituents are just as good as my hon. friend's leader's are to his. As I say, this issue has been hackneyed up and down this country along with a claim for unity. The same men who claimed that they were bringing about unity in Canada by harping on an issue that was then twenty years old are now going to leave it wide open in a time of crisis. Is it any wonder that the red herring, abused so much in time of peace, has now become the white hope that is feared so much in time of war? We have made ourselves ridiculous and we shall be making this country ridiculous. We are told that the reason for this cowardly action by a supposedly responsible government is to release the Prime Minister from pledges given to the people of Canada prior to the last general election.


An hon. MEMBER:: Your pledges too.

The Address-Mr. Rowe


William Earl Rowe: I will look after mine; you look after your own. If you support this government, I venture to say that I shall be back but I do not think you will. That is if it is left to the boys overseas, the most gallant gentlemen we have at the present time.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about 1917?


William Earl Rowe: I am not talking about 1917 and 1930 when it is was not an issue; do not bring that up now. You will have trouble enough with the red herring that has been yours for twenty years. What has happened since the last election? We have seen Germany overrun Denmark; we have seen her overrun Norway; we have seen her practically dominate Sweden; we have seen her take charge of the Netherlands; we have seen Belgium fall. We have had our own Dunkirk, and we have seen Italy and Japan join the axis. We have seen the United States go into war, and we have had our own Hong Kong and our near Singapore. We have seen great countries overrun like Bulgaria, Yugo-Slavia and others. Our great sister dominion Australia is in danger, yet what do we do? This afternoon we heard a brilliant speech by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray). Many of you may not agree with it, but few of you could duplicate it even if you had the same convictions.
The United States of America have had their Pearl Harbour; England has had her Dunkirk; Canada has had her Hong Kong, but she now says that she is going to meet it with a plebi-seite next summer. The minister smiles; I could not smile if I were in his place and had the responsibility for a policy like this. We have no time to talk because dangers are approaching on our east and on our west. We are told that the reason for this action has something to do about an election. I followed the pledges given by the Prime Minister in the last election, even though I was the last one who thought that he was going to keep his promises. I have been following his pledges for many years, and I do not know of any leader who has gone further by sacrificing more promises than has the present Prime Minister. This is the most novel incident in Canadian political history, that he should try to make one sacred. If I could have the time I could name a list of promises that he has broken as long as my arm.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give us one.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member would not understand it if I did. When a man follows a leader so blindly for twenty years and he keeps breaking promises all that time, it is difficult for him to understand. After two and a half
years of war we are told that we must have a mandate, that it is necessary to appeal to the people by means of a plebiscite, in order to secure men to back up those gallant boys who have left our shores. Moreover, notice has been given this government of the position taken by our party. Time and time again our present leader has told the leader of the government that he would support him, that we as a party would support him, just as the United States supported compulsory service when the .occasion arose-
Loyalty in this chamber is not confined to any one party. There are loyal men to your left, Mr. Speaker, and loyal men to your right, and I venture to say that there are very few in this house who would oppose the Prime Minister if he came out with a bold and courageous war policy at this time. That is all we have asked him to do. I made my position clear in this house in the November session, and hon. members will find what I said at page 4370 of Hansard. I said then:
The time has come when this government should take vigorous action. I should like to see the Prime Minister of this country provide by order in council for compulsory selective service, and then come back to parliament and say, "I did not have a mandate to pass compulsory selective service for home service, let alone a mandate to send the boys overseas, but this is what I have done." I should like him to tell us that he had gone down to the compatriots of the Secretary of State in the province of Quebec and explained to those loyal people that the home front for the defence of Canada was overseas, that without a mandate he had brought in compulsory selective service to defend the shores of Canada and he therefore had provided for compulsory selective service for where the fighting is going to be. Do not dodge the issue. If there is anything I can do to help this government, I am ready to do it. I have endeavoured privately and otherwise, to make suggestions and offer proposals to this government which I believed might help. Surely we can get away from politics for a while.
The same sentiment was expressed forcefully by the leader of our party in this house and by the present leader of the largest opposition group in this country, our next Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, in a recent broadcast. Some of my friends may laugh-


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has to be elected first.


William Earl Rowe: He will be elected and may be elected sometimes when my hon. friend will not be elected. Let my hon. friend listen to what he said because he said it better perhaps than others can do. Mr. Meighen said:
We, the Conservative party, stand at this time in the way of no war effort however big, however drastic. On the contrary-
The Address-Mr. Rowe

I ask my hon. friend the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell), who made such reckless statements yesterday, to listen to this:
On the contrary, we stand behind demands for every sacrifice however extreme, every sacrifice whether of time, money, property, income, as well as men for the army, so long as the laws making these demands are equitable and fair and apply everywhere without discrimination. We are against subterfuges-
I ask the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) to listen to this:
We are against subterfuges and evasive practices that impose on the willing; that put a penalty on patriotism and allow the selfish to escape. We stand ready to help the government in its endeavour, yes, to help it the more, the greater the endeavour. We demand that political expediency be forgotten; that we decide what is the right thing to do and do that very thing, and trust to the conscience of the nation. When we call upon the government to abandon political expediency, we must be ready to abandon it ourselves. We are, therefore, prepared to join with the government, share the responsibility with them, carry the onus, if there is an onus, and suffer the consequences whatever they may be. But while prepared to share the burdens of office, we are not striving or asking for office; we are striving only for victory. There are great tasks that must be done, and with might and main we will demand that they be done, and done now. Canada must not fall short of her best and her mightiest. Canada must move with redoubled speed.
Surely, Mr. Prime Minister, if you have the interests of the country rather than the interests of the party at heart, that announcement of policy from the leader of the largest opposition group in this country and his offer to cooperate must mean something to you.
We are told that a plebiscite is necessary now in order to release the Prime Minister "from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service." Those are the words of the speech from the throne. True, opposition has been expressed by the Prime Minister to conscription for overseas service, but those statements were made on his own responsibility and largely since the last election, and as my hon. colleague (Mr. Stirling) said this afternoon, those statements of the Prime Minister were not opposed, they were not an issue in the election campaign. Those statements were not opposed by hon. gentlemen to our left or by those who sit behind me or by hon. gentlemen who sit opposite. But no one at that time knew what was going to come. We knew nothing about Dunkirk and the blitz attack on England and nothing about Hong Kong. Surely in a time of national peril, when every dollar, every weapon' and every man are required in the defence of liberty, we are 
not so weak as a people that we must accept a plebiscite regardless of its vicious consequences.
We are told by the Prime Minister that this plebiscite is necessary in order to preserve unity. Has democratic government in Canada fallen to such a degraded, level as to flout, by the expenditure of public money, the responsibility inherent in the right of office? The Prime Minister himself did not say so in the last election campaign, because here is what he said in a radio broadcast from the city of Ottawa which I heard on February 23, 1940, and which was reported in the Toronto Star of the following day, and I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite who applaud the Prime Minister so vigorously to-day, had he not better add these words to his plebiscite and seek relief from this commitment also? The Prime Minister said:
Under our parliamentary system the party with the majority in the House of Commons is charged with the responsibility for government. From that it can't escape, even if it would.
Unity is a very important thing in any democratic country. With that we all agree. But to bring up 'the cry of unity to cloak a policy of appeasement is an entirely different matter. We believe in unity just as much as any hon. gentleman opposite does, but to raise at this time the cry of unity in order to cloak a policy of appeasement-


Mr. CRERAR:: Appeasement of whom?


William Earl Rowe: Appeasement with whom?
I would say to my hon. friend: Go overseas and make appeasement with the boys over there.	*


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Appease whom?


William Earl Rowe: We have listened to hon. gentlemen opposite talk about economic appeasement for the past twenty years. It has been their watchword, and here is a policy of appeasement from the government when the life and security of Canada hang in the balance and when our boys are fighting our battles overseas. No Canadian-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend will permit a question, will he explain what he means by his expression that we are appeasing somebody or something. Whom are we appeasing?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Appeasing your own conscience.


William Earl Rowe: That is a very good answer. I am not going to be distracted from what I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, because the interruptions of the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources (Mr. Crerar) seldom add much to any of the debates of this house.

The Address-Mr. Rowe


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Where did he stand in 1917?


William Earl Rowe: I say that no Canadian, whether the* minister or myself'-and I say that in all respect because I know he is the senior member of this house at this time, and I compliment him upon that and upon looking so *well-no matter what province he comes from or what his race or creed may be, can as a Canadian and a British subject subscribe to this bogy of unity now brought up to bolster a broken-down government of appeasement floundering on the rocks of responsibility. If this government, by weight of its majority, insists upon evasion of the responsibility which goes with responsible government by foisting upon the people of Canada a plebiscite on conscription, it will establish definite and distinct lines of cleavage which will exist long after the record of this government becomes buried in the dust of history. Such action will throw into Canadian unity thorns which generations yet unborn will be called upon to remove. Do not, I say to the government, create a smoke-screen to cover your retreat from duty. Do not create a bottleneck of a "wait and- see" war policy. This Asquit'hian policy of appeasement should be thrown into the discard, and let us, as a people, face the realities of war. For the first time in our history we find ourselves vulnerable to attack on both coasts-and the Prime Minister raises the cry of unity!
Did anyone ever see a family disunited when there was a thug at the door? Why, this cry about unity is the most ridiculous bogy that was ever trailed across a difficult road. If in the face of these grave dangers the head of the government cannot preserve unity, then it is high time for the head of the government to make way for someone who can. The welfare of Canada far exceeds the welfare of any individual or of a party, no matter how long that individual or that party may have been in office. In the face of grave danger in the last war, Asquith made way for Lloyd George without an election, yes, and without a plebiscite. No one ever heard of a plebiscite in England in war time.


An hon. MEMBER:: They had it in
Australia.


William Earl Rowe: That is not the British way
of doing it. But they were anxious for inspired leadership; they realized that leadership of that kind was just as important in the defence of the empire as was military might. A more modern example of this is to be found in the records of the British parliament, where, on May 8, 1940, Lloyd George rose
from his seat and, facing Mr. Chamberlain, declared that the best service the Prime Minister could render his country would be to surrender the seals of. office. When the people of Britain finally realized the might of the enemy, Chamberlain gave way to the more aggressive, confidence-inspiring leadership of Churchill. This was also accomplished without an election and without a plebiscite.
The situation is no less serious here in Canada. Surely the government will change its mind and spare this country in her hour of peril from the expense and shame of a plebiscite, or the danger and delay of an election.	The present Prime Minister has
served Canada in a high position for a great number of years. However, let us realize as a people that while the Prime Minister has served the country, the country's peril of the hour does not serve the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, in the light of the fact thaJt we are' now called upon to sanction a plebiscite and a huge expenditure of public money to release the Prime Minister from pledges which he made to the people of Canada long ago on the question of compulsory service, I feel that, should I withhold my opinion at this time for fear of giving offence, I should consider myself guilty of near treason towards my country. Therefore, as one of the senior members of this house, I say that the greatest contribution the Prime Minister could make to an all-out war effort would be either to assume responsibility, or surrender the seals of office to someone who shall let parliament decide and avoid a plebiscite or an election during our nation's most perilous crisis.
Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, about our unity. However, the source of the unity [DOT]of Canada is not the welfare of any party _ or any province; it is the consequence of external pressure. Let us not search for unity by actions that will breed disunity; let us not search for some palliative; rather, in this hour of peril, let us face the facts, not- on a basis of political, racial or religious faith, but as Canadians and as Britishers.
Further, let me say-and I say this with all sincerity-sentimental sobbing about unity in time of war will be, to my mind, one of the most disastrous things that could happen to this dominion. A continuation of this type of thinking will bring us to the end of the war divided, and then we shall have the spectacle of our allies having won a war for us abroad and us losing the peace at home. Let us not forget that it was the sons and daughters of two great races that gave Canada her birth. Let us not forget either that even France has fallen-England still lives. Let us then stand together to make sure there
The Address-Mr. Rowe

will always be an England, which is the only assurance that France in all her glory will ever rise again.
I say that a compromise such as this proposed plebiscite will bring us disunity, class consciousness and racial strife, and in the misbelief that we are defending our system of government, we unconsciously surrender its very citadel.
We stand to-day as a united country. We entered this war as a united country, and we stand in unity with our allies engaged in the grimmest struggle for life and freedom that the world has ever known. Against half the world we stand to-day, not as Englishmen, not as Frenchmen, not as inhabitants of the Atlantic or the Pacific provinces. Without thought of sectionalism we entered this war as a nation in September, 1939, and without need of a lot of talk of unity or sectionalism we shall win this war, if God spares us and we have courage to face the issue.
By that declaration of war we pledged ourselves as a nation to cooperate with our allies to out-build, to out-produce, to outfight and finally to overthrow the tyranny of the axis powers.
Dare we as a people rescind that pledge? Are we to be led again into the "valley of humiliation" to serve the purpose of any party? When we hear flashes from the radio that Latin-America is turning solidly against the axis, that Australia is going to be invaded and is fighting with her back to the wall, and that Singapore, the great centre of our eastern trade, is tottering, I put this grave issue to the government and I plead with them again to reconsider their course and save us from the shame and disgrace into which they are evidently leading us.
I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that' Canada must not wait for expediency, while England fights for freedom.


Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak in French. I shall, however, make a few remarks in English so that they shall be understood by all.
I must' in the first place congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Rowe) who has just resumed his seat; he surely made a brilliant plea in favour of the violation of pledges and promises solemnlj' made. I believe I heard the hon. member, and also the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), say recently that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had not asked for a plebiscite before he declared war on Japan and before he passed a measure for the control of prices.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; I said he did not ask for a mandate to declare war on Japan.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I accept the correction of the leader of the opposition, but I desire to point out that during the election of 1940 the Prime Minister on behalf of the government stated definitely that he would not introduce a measure of conscription for service overseas without consulting the people. During that election he did not say that he would or would not declare war on Japan, nor did he say that he would or would not pass a law to control prices. In my opinion there is a great difference between these situations. The mandate which the government received in 1940 was a mandate not to propose conscription for service overseas.
It is, Mr. Speaker, useless to undertake at this time to discuss any problem other than the one of war. In contradiction of what has been said, I wish to express my own opinion, and give some reasons in support of it, that conscription for service overseas is not so urgent and expedient a measure as some would have us believe. Let me say that in reading much of the press comment of to-day, and in listening to most of the speeches which are made, particularly by the opposition, one who was ignorant of Canada's war production would be inclined to think that this country has done very little. Yet the real facts show that the contrary is true, and those facts were very ably and clearly set out by the Prime Minister in the magnificent speech which he made yesterday.
In the eyes of a few, conscription of manpower seems to be the only thing which will win this war. Other factors that may be. found in this country, or that may be found in the countries of our allies, do not seem to count. If anyone thinks that I exaggerate when I say that conscription alone will win this war, according to some people, let me quote the words of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) in a speech he made last November in this house to show that conscription for service overseas is the only thing that will win the war and save the empire:
The government's adherence to the voluntary system of recruiting is inconsistent with total war, and yet this is the only kind of war that will enable us to help defeat Hitler. It is perfectly obvious to every thinking man that Canada cannot make a total war effort without compulsory selective service, and also that if our aid is not to be a vital factor in this struggle this empire, and with it Canada, is doomed.
If such a point of view is not silly, it surely is ridiculous and even insulting to the other peoples who are siding with us in this war. Canadian soldiers are brave; they are courageous, ingenious and strong. But the 50.000 Canadian soldiers, which is about all, of

The Address-Mr. Brunelle
possibly more than conscription will bring in addition to those we have already-at any rate it is more than it gave in 1917-1919- spread over the various fronts of the war, will not relegate the millions of British soldiers, and American, Russian, Indian, Australian and all sorts of other soldiers, to the background, and will not, like an irresistible whirlwind, smash every obstacle that will be in their way and win this war.
In reality we have accomplished wonders in the totality of our war effort. I shall not undertake to enumerate the various activities of our government, because those who do not want to see or believe up to this time will not any more see or believe by reason of further proof. They did not change their opinion after Senator Pepper last year expressed the following appreciation of our effort:
I owe it to you to say that it is the gallant and limitless way in which all of you who are fighting this, good fight of faith have thrown yourselves into it which has made our people as determined as they are to help you until it hurts. Before I came here I knew what share of your income you were spending in the cause, I was aware of some of the external evidences of your mighty effort, but I did not know until I came to see it and to feel it just how fixed and determined was the purpose of your people to carry on until the inevitable day of victory against this devilish attack on freedom everywhere.
They did not change their opinion after the Right Hon. Malcolm MacDonald, who represents Great Britain in our country, expressed his appreciation of our war effort. I quote from an article in the Toronto Star of August 26, 1941:
If there are those in Canada who discount the dominion's war effort, Right Hon. Malcolm MacDonald, the British High Commissioner to this dominion, is not one of them. Speaking at the Couchiching Canadian Institute, Mr. MacDonald, with no wish to belittle the United States effort, pointed out nevertheless that Canada's, on a basis of proportionate wealth and population is greater. Said Mr. MacDonald, Canada's war effort is such that no country on this continent can throw stones at Canada.
They did not change their opinion either when General McNaughton in August 1941, used the following words:
It is tremendously gratifying to us here to be using Canadian equipment and to find it unbeatable. . . . We are not going to win this war by force of numbers, but by our inventiveness and thoroughness in the arming and in the supply of materials.
They did not change their opinion when Lord Halifax paid tribute to this country and the immense help it was giving to England and to the British cause. They did not change their opinion when Mr. Churchill in this house expressed in such clear terms his appreciation
of what this government has done to help win the war. I quote one paragraph of Mr. Churchill's speech:
I could speak of many other activities-of tanks, of the special forms of modern high-velocity cannon, of the great supplies of raw materials and many other elements essential to our war effort, on which your labours are ceaselessly and tirelessly engaged. But I must not let my address to you become a catalogue.
To-day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) read to this house another expression of appreciation showing what Mr. Churchill thinks of what we have done recently.
The opposition did not change their view, and they will not change it, or cease to belittle our war effort, for the simple reason that it is a Liberal government that has done it. If I did not want to deprive them of the pleasure of saying wfi are playing politics, ,1 would tell them many things that I would feel justified in saying. But I cannot refrain from thinking aloud of the agitation which is now being stirred up in Montreal by the Gazette and in Toronto by some newspapers and some other people, which has behind it a faction which is strong and merciless, and that faction is no doubt the big interests and the money monarchs of this country. I will not talk of the calamities .that would fall upon our people if that class were governing the nation. Suffice it to say that after two years of war in which we have made enormous sacrifices, unity and harmony still reign in our country. I shall not praise or defend or speak for any one section or another of Canada, or for any province, for I believe it is time that people should stop making such comparisons as to war contributions. The time has come when everyone should take for granted that every province and every section are ready and willing and prepared to do what should be done to win the war. The performance of duty is not contingent upon what the other fellow does or does not do. Worthy members of the fire brigade in case of emergency do not stop to think of how their work compares with the work of others; they simply do what they should do. It was the Pharisee who thanked the Lord that he was better than others.
There is a relationship between love of country and love of God, on the one hand, and the merit of those whose duty is to serve, on the other hand. But I take this occasion to say that when duty is fulfilled in hardship, in suffering, in danger of losing an eye, a limb or even a life, it behooves those who benefit by the fulfilment of such duty to acknowledge their debt as adequately as possible, either by tribute or by actual remuneration. A doorkeeper, a messenger, a pick-and-shovel man, accomplishing his duty on firm land with
The Address-Mr. Brunette

a minimum of risk, receives between $2 and $4 a day, and other classes of people receive a great deal more. Yet the soldier defending his country, protecting the messenger, the doorkeeper, the lawyer, the doctor, the farmer, the business man, the money-monger, the preacher, the woman and child, receives only SI .30 a day, with no union to guarantee him an eight-hour day. This is beyond my comprehension. I am told that Canada pays her soldiers better than any other country. Well, sir, I can only say that at least Canada has the honour of leading the civilized nations of the world in the partial abandonment of a barbarian custom.
At any rate our dominion is doing and has done very well. If the allies-England, China, Russia, India, the United States and the dominions-were supplying as many soldiers of all categories as Canada is, our cause would have an army of 35,000,000 equipped men on the various fronts. Yet up to the present Canada has not been in a unique position. Ulster, Australia and south Africa do not have conscription for service overseas. In two referendums during the last war the Australians turned down any suggestion of conscription for overseas service. At that time we did not hear that the Australian people had committed such an extraordinaiy indignity in so doing; and to-day I wonder whether the Canadian people are acting so very differently from the way in which the Australians acted during the last war, which I think also was rather a serious war. During last session I think I heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) ask with disappointment why our soldiers were not at the side of the gallant Australian soldiers in Crete or Africa or Greece. To-day we hear the disappointed voice of Prime Minister Curtin of Australia asking the United States and England for help in order that he may defend1 his territory. This point of view was expressed even yesterday by the leader of the opposition, when he said at page 20 of Hansard:
What happened at Pearl Harbour may happen at Esquimalt. What happened 160 miles off Halifax may happen at Halifax. What happened 60 miles off Long Island may happen at Sydney, Saint John or Quebec.
I am sorry the leader of the opposition is not in his seat, so that he might hear what I am going to tell him; but while I am speaking of him I should like to mention what he said yesterday with reference to the merit of the plebiscite. These were his words:
. . . the loyal people of Canada will and do feel deeply humiliated. . . .
I may say that loyalty is not to be found only in the hearts and ranks of the opposition. We are, however, accustomed to that sort of

declaration, so the leader of the opposition can continue in that vein. It will not do much harm; and he can go on thanking the Lord that he is better than others. If Canada is likely to be attacked, let us arm to meet that attack; let us prepare for home defence. If, on the other hand, Canada is not likely to be attacked, let us and let the allies take advantage of that situation and produce here three or five times more ships, tanks, guns and aeroplanes in our factories and1 plants which are not exposed to destruction. It has become a platitude to say that steel will win this war, but since it is so true, we must keep on saying it.
Upon their return to England recently, Prime Minister Churchill and his ministers replied to several questions which were put to them. I think it was the under-secretary for air, Lord Sherwood, who said: "Of course there is the difficulty there always has been about weapons in this country, because we are still a long way behind what you would properly call a real preparation for war. We are short of weapons, but we shall get those weapons." They say that we will maintain production, in spite of conscription, by employing women. Without further discussing the question of the employment of women, let me say that it will create an overwhelming after-war problem. At present in England an organization is being formed to protect men's jobs against what I might call the infiltration of women into the domain formerly almost exclusively occupied by men. They say the menace is as great as Hitlerism. If that had not been said in England, I would hesitate to say it in this house, but the organization just mentioned made the statement that during the last depression there were two million men able and willing to work who could not find work, while six million women were employed in various industries, trades and professions. Therefore I say that after this war we shall have to face a tremendous labour problem.
I felicitate the Prime Minister on having appointed an able labour leader, in the person of Mr. Mitchell, as Minister of Labour. On each and every occasion the Prime Minister is proving to be a wise, sound statesman. He has been true to the promises and pledges he has made to the people of Canada- yet strangely enough a certain school of thought has lately argued that it would be a virtue for him to repudiate his promises and violate his pledges. The Prime Minister deserves the confidence of the people. I for one do not hesitate to say that he has my confidence. The speech he made in the house yesterday is one which will go down in history as a most salutary expression of honesty, nobility and

The Speaker

Mr. Brunelle
decency in public life. Lest it might be said that my appreciation of the Prime Minister is based on partisan inclinations, I should like to read an appreciation published by the Montreal Star on the occasion of his birthday anniversary. It states:
Of his patriotism, his devotion to duty and his sacrifice of personal interests i,n the service of his country there can be no doubt whatever. . . .
To-day Mr. King is carrying a tremendous burden under which a stronger man might well have given way. He is, fortunately, in the enjoyment of good health, and he is meeting the strain of public office with serenity and stoic endurance. That he may be long spared to serve the country whose gratitude he has so well deserved is the united wish of the Canadian people.
I might say, before I speak in French, that I completely approve his attitude and stand on the plebiscite question.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, a single topic fills the minds of all hon. members and, without doubt, of all the people of Canada-the forthcoming plebiscite. At the last general election the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his ministers pledged themselves not to enact conscription for overseas service without having obtained a special mandate to do so. The Conservative party gave the same pledge, but, maintaining that breaking pledges is a virtue, its members have long ago repudiated their promise and announced that they were in favour of conscription for overseas service. Many people in the English-speaking provinces consider that the situation in the various theatres of war has become so different that changes are needed in our methods of raising men far the army. The Conservative party contends that the people are in favour of conscription for service outside of the country and, in order to make sure that events would not falsify its contention, it recently launched a great movement with a view to convincing the country that conscription for overseas service is the proper policy.
In order to put a stop to this agitation and to prevent this boasting on the part of the Conservatives from disrupting national unity at a time when it is so necessary to be united on the principal matters relating to the prosecution of the war, the Prime Minister, faithful to his pledge, has decided to ascertain by means of a plebiscite whether the views of the electorate have changed since 1940.
The question to be asked is a very simple one: "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 remain the masters. I shall not anticipate; rather, I shall await with calmness the
decision which the Canadian people will give by their vote after having realized that they are the masters and that they have to decide themselves a question of which they all know the importance.
Whatever may happen, whether some other kind of conscription is established or not, I take the liberty, Mr. Speaker, to point out, on behalf of a certain number of Canadians at least, the urgency of making some improvement in the living conditions of our young men in the army and in the training camps. At best, the soldier's life is not a bed of roses. That is inevitable. Many of our young men find themselves away from home for the first time, and they obtain their first experience under rather unfavourable conditions. Again that is inevitable. War cannot be carried on without some discomfort. Yet, without blaming anyone, for we have embarked in a new military enterprise which is still at the organization stage, there is seemingly need to effect certain improvements.
I talked to young French-Canadian soldiers stationed at Petawawa, Peterborough or Kingston. Not being conversant with English, they feel at a loss in the midst of a throng speaking nothing but English, in the midst of a group of young men who follow their own way of entertainment, leaving our compatriots under the impression that they are strangers in their own land. Most of the officers- whom I do not blame, since they are only the victims of the present situation-most of the officers do not speak French and our soldiers can only follow the orders by sound or gesture or through an interpreter. How could they be interested in military matters and make the same progress as the others, in such circumstances?
I request that the hon. Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) whose kindness and willingness are well known both in this house and outside, be kind enough to give proper consideration to the problem I have just outlined. Young men who do not know English should not be sent to camps where officers cannot give orders in French, except on their own request.
We must realize, Mr. Speaker, that the French-Canadians are neither by nature nor formation inclined to embrace military life or join the army. However, they are ready to sacrifice everything for the defence of their country and, to date, they have willingly accepted the present conditions and have behaved in such a way that we should never lose an opportunity of singing their praise. I take this opportunity of congratulating them from the bottom of my heart. Nothing should be avoided that could simplify their task.
The Address-Mr. Brunelle

Time and again, public bodies and organizations of all kinds in the province of Quebec have requested the formation of a military college in their province. I take the liberty of repeating this request on the floor of this house.
Would it not be in the public interest that we should train real French-Canadian officers in large numbers who would be competent to take command of numerous regiments, battalions or divisions? It would help to eradicate the idea among our co-citizens that French-Canadians are not appointed and cannot be appointed to important posts, even in the army. Bad impressions often degenerate into prejudices which, when they are aimed at people of a different race or religion, become very dangerous.	,
There is in the province of Quebec an impression, even a conviction-and I am not prepared to say that it is not founded-that we are not getting our fair share of the good positions in the civil service and in industry, particularly in the war industries. The blame cannot, I think, be laid at the door of the ministers or of the government. A certain state of affairs has become general. I have endeavoured to make suggestions with a view to remedying it. The ministers in charge of our four war departments are very busy men. They are labouring under a heavy burden of work and care. They have not time to attend to everything, and meanwhile some of the higher officials of their departments who do not realize the importance of a fair distribution of positions, especially in time of war, or who do not trouble themselves to bring it about, are taking advantage of the circumstances to push forward their own friends to the detriment of our people.
Mr. Speaker, after spending six years in this house I have come to the conclusion that the deputy ministers of the various departments should be' ordered, clearly and unequivocally, to give at least one quarter of the civil service positions to French-Canadians, in spite of all rales and rulings made by the civil service commission, provided the applicants possess the required qualifications. Otherwise, I do not think we will ever get satisfaction. I doubt that the civil service commission will ever grant our request of many years standing and this is an incessant cause of complaint in the province of Quebec.
Besides, we have practically no representatives on the office and managerial staffs of the war plants and I know what I am talking about, for I have made personal inquiry in the matter. I have myself witnessed these conditions. The competent men may not always be available, but the abilities required

in the training of an office or managerial staff are so varied that many of our compatriots could fill some of these positions. Here again, let us take steps to correct this situation and let those steps be taken as soon as possible, for it is essential that the public mind be at rest and willing to submit to measures which are necessarily unpopular. If our citizens gather the impression that they may not have their share of the cake, they might easily decide that those who get all the cake should be alone to defend it. Small and ceaseless exasperations leave the most far-reaching impressions both physically and morally.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I desire to state that my remarks were made with the greatest sincerity and for the general good. These suggestions were uttered with the sole purpose of eliminating causes of friction, which although seemingly negligible, may be important enough to provoke, in the end, a state of mind, incompatible with the conditions required to promote national unity and ensure the maximum collective effort of all Canadians.


Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take advantage of the generality of this debate to discuss one or two matters, some of which may be interrelated, but all of which I believe have an important bearing upon the country's war effort. Usually suggestions relating to matters of finance are reserved until the budget debate, but it seems to me to be almost nonsensical to reserve such suggestions until after the financial policy has been formulated and announced, for then it is difficult indeed to have it changed in any material particular. Consequently it seems to me that now is the proper time to suggest a course of action, before the ministerial mind has been set in its almost unalterable mould.
A few short weeks ago the price-ceiling legislation was announced by the administration, by an administration which did not deem it advisable even to consult the people's representatives before putting into effect what has been described as one of the most drastic steps ever taken by any free country. To my mind it was another piece of evidence of the growing impatience the administration has with parliament and the functions of parliament. I know it has been said1 that there was not time to call parliament together before these regulations were passed1, but the fact is that parliament is always at the service of the people who send us here. Parliament had been adjourned last June for the very purpose of being called together on short notice. If you examine the events preceding this legislation you will see that legislation

The Address-Mr. Bence
of this type was almost inevitable. I suggest that there was no real reason, no good reason, why the people of this country should not have had the right to have their representatives pass upon this legislation.
Anyone who has considered or studied the matter at all knows that a basic period had to be set, and that it had to be unalterable. In this particular case it was from September 15 to October 11. No one will deny that it was necessary that this period should be unalterable, but also no one will deny that the people's representatives should have had the right to scrutinize these regulations before they were passed. Surely no one will deny that we sitting here should have been given the opportunity of presenting the views and opinions of our constituents from one end of this country to the other. I say to the house that the action taken by the government was the very negation of democracy, the very denial of all that we are fighting for. We know that at the beginning of this war it was necessary to give the administration practically unlimited powers, and those powers were given without stint. At the same time this parliament and the country felt that those powers should not be exercised in any arbitrary or dictatorial manner and that they should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Surely the administration must see how important it is that we should not adopt dictatorial or totalitarian methods in this country unless the emergency is such that they are absolutely required. To do otherwise can be but to create distrust, suspicion, ill-feeling and fear, and I suggest that in future the administration bear very carefully in mind the necessity of not passing any legislation by order in council without consulting the people's representatives unless such a course is absolutely imperative and there is no other way out.
These regulations were passed for a definite purpose as an anti-inflationary measure. It was apparent from an examination of the situation which had arisen since the beginning of the war that anti-inflationary measures of some kind were necessaiy. The purpose of this legislation has been explained on numerous occasions both in this house and out of it. I do not propose to dwell at great length upon that phase, but briefly I should like to recapitulate my understanding of the situation in the following manner. From the beginning of the war until the time when the regulations were announced, a period of a little over two years, the rise in the cost of living in this country was about 15 per cent. Of that amount one-half had taken place in the first eighteen months of the war, and the other 44501-7
half within the next six months, thereby demonstrating that the inflationary spiral was beginning to accelerate tremendously. The reason for that was obvious. At the beginning of the war there was a tremendous unemployment slack in this country which had to be taken up. This slack was used, first of all, to supply additional labour which was required for war purposes. It was used at the same time to supply those additional consumer goods which the increased purchasing power was demanding-additional purchasing power which came into being through the unemployment slack being taken up, through men being provided with jobs, and also by reason of the fact that the armed forces we were raising in this country, our soldiers and our sailors and our airmen and their dependents, were all in receipt of pay. At that time there was no need to restrict the production of the ordinary consumer goods because the material was not yet required for war purposes. We were in the transition period, referred to by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) as the "tooling-up period." Consequently the amount of raw materials required was not so great. But, as the war progressed, more and more men were employed in the manufacture of war materials and more and more men were required for the armed services. As more and more material was required for the production of aeroplanes, tanks, shells, guns, rifles and that kind of thing, it became evident that the production of the ordinary consumer goods, those things which -we use in everyday life, clothes, drugs, cars and so on, had to be cut down, and cut down drastically, and so we had the picture of a daily increasing purchasing power fighting to obtain a continually diminishing supply of consumer goods. Prices started to rise, and the price-ceiling legislation was put into effect.
The price-ceiling legislation did not achieve any miracle. It did not supply us with additional consumer goods; it did not take away any of the increased purchasing power. All it did was to put a limit on the price that could be paid for the things the people were wanting to buy. It put a stipulated limit on the price that could be paid for the goods which were available. The situation then was this. There were just as many people wanting to buy and with just as much money, more money in fact than they had before, and they were wanting the goods that were available at the established price level.
Having dealt with that phase briefly and described the position, I come now to the question of what means does the government propose to adopt to see that this continually



The Address

Mr. Bence
diminishing supply of goods which are available to the people 'of this country are distributed in a fair and equitable manner.
That the system of price-fixing will require policing is almost axiomatic. That we shall require and must have a proper and efficient system of rationing in this country seems to be obvious. We cannot and must not allow this system to develop into a catch-as-cateh-can one. We must not allow a haphazard policy to be adopted for the distribution of those goods that are available. If there is to be justice and equality among all classes of our people, these goods will have to be distributed on the basis of the greatest need, and not on the basis, I suggest, of personal influence on the part of the individual or something of that kind. So I suggest to this administration that it should announce, and very shortly, a proper and adequate system providing for a fair and equitable distribution to all classes, based of course on the principle of the greatest need, of those things which are available to the consuming public. We cannot allow a system to grow up in this country such as has been suggested in connection with sugar rationing. If we are going to have equality between all classes, it is impossible to have what has been described as the "honour system". The great majority of the people of this country will do the fair and the proper thing, but in all countries and among all classes there are people who will not do the proper thing.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: They are in Toronto.


Alfred Henry Bence: I do not know about Toronto. I come from a long way from there. The fair and proper thing, I suggest, is to have a system which will provide that a man, whether he comes from the far coast or from Toronto or from the Atlantic seaboard, will have equal rights with his fellows when it comes to the distribution of those things that are available, and the distribution should not be left to any haphazard system which would allow one section or one type of person to obtain more than another.
Another matter on which I think we should have some elucidation and for which I believe the government should propound a solution is this. Having come to the point I have described, having decreased the production of consumer goods, having increased purchasing power, and having set a limit on the amount that can be paid for consumer goods, what does the administration propose to do to take up the extra money that is available? What is it going to do with this extra purchasing power? The administration knows that this must be drained off, and it is endeavouring

in certain ways to effect that purpose. For example, high taxation has been put into effect. High-powered and high-pressure saving and loan campaigns on a voluntary subscription basis have been put on. But I suggest that in the very nature of things this cannot do the job efficiently. According to those who purport to know, taxation has reached its limit. The question of voluntary savings campaigns and voluntary loans has been receiving, I know, the consideration of the administration, but so far the government has not given a lead to this house as to ho-w it purposes to take away from the people, other than by the voluntary system, more of that purchasing power.
Is the government going to allow, for example, those persons who do not contribute to war savings certificates or to loans, to take time off from their work to take things a little more easily because they have some extra money in their pockets and do not know where to spend it? Or is it going to allow them to spend their money on luxuries of the type to which my hon. friend the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) has referred- things like hard liquor or soft drinks, as they may prefer? Or, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) suggested a year ago he would consider doing, is the government going to put into effect a system of compulsory borrowing, or give consideration to the enactment of legislation for compulsory savings such as the form that is known as the Keynes scheme and is in force in England to-day? Or, if the government is not going to do any of these things, will it explain to the house and to the country how it intends to pick up and take care of in an efficient and equitable manner that additional purchasing power? The Minister of Finance, although he has not yet made a statement to this house in connection with the matter, stated yesterday in the city of Toronto that up to this time the administration had decided that it would not put into force any type of compulsory savings or compulsory loans. I hope he will give a statement to this house in the course of this debate, and that he will explain the reasons for that policy, because in my opinion, unless something is done, something more than is being done now, either the tremendous pressure which is being created under that price ceiling will burst through the ceiling, or we shall have a type of chaos in this country. There cannot be anything else. I suggest, therefore, that the price ceiling is one step and one step only in the course of anti-inflationary measures. Of itself, by its very nature it cannot possibly accomplish the proper result; it has to be accompanied with a method of drawing from

The Address-Mr. Bence
withunder that ceiling that extra purchasing power which, as I say, is increasing day by day.
One tragic and important consequence has developed from this diversion of our national energy and our raw products from a peacetime to a war-time production. It is a result with which I, coming as I do from the western plains, am greatly concerned, I refer to the large numbers, increasing every day, who have been thrown out of employment on account of that very diversion, on account of the fact that they were employed in the organization, distribution and selling of the . products which the administration has now said must be so drastically curtailed. Unfortunately for the prairie provinces, and unfortunately in the long run, I predict, for the whole of Canada, the administration has not accomplished, with any degree approaching success, the spreading of our war effort from an industrial point of view across the whole of this dominion. No real attempt has yet been made to iron out what some of us have referred to before in this house as the economic Sectionalism of the country, and consequently we on the western plains, particularly in Saskatchewan, from which I come, have no alternative employments in which to place the men and women who are being thrown out of their work by the diversion to which I have referred. In this war we have done very well where we have been given a chance. The figures on recruiting which were supplied to this house the other day will bear me out in that statement. But as I have said, in the industrial field, and particularly in Saskatchewan, we have been given little or no chance, and there is nothing for these men and women to do whom I have described, some of whom have been employed for as long as twenty or twenty-five years, even more. They are being discharged in large numbers because their employers have nothing to sell, and thereby a great problem has arisen which, I say, is the direct responsibility of the administration to solve.
I suggest, as an expedient which would alleviate this condition to a certain extent, that in view of the fact that these people have been thrown out of employment through the policy of the government to cut down domestic production and place a price ceiling on goods, -when the administration comes to choose men for positions-of which the Prime Minister suggested there would be quite a number-in connection with war-time prices and trade board appointments, first preference should be given to those people who have been so deprived of a living by the government's own action. I assert that they are entitled to the first consideration. After all,
44561-7i
what better men could be found to act in the administration of price controls, of rationing and so on, than the people who have been dealing in these products for so many years? Who can know better the prices and the qualities of goods than those who have been dealing in them, handling them, distributing them over so many years? I seriously commend this suggestion to the administration. Mr. Churchill, when he was in Ottawa, said that there is a place in this war for everyone. I suggest that the administration as speedily as possible see to it that the services of these people are utilized.
Quite a lot has been said lately on the subject of compulsory service, and I do not propose to traverse the arguments which have taken place in this house or have been going on in the country during the past few weeks. The administration has now announced its intention of seeking to be absolved from what it believes to be a binding commitment. All I have to say in that regard is that, if a thing is necessary for the preservation of our people and of our country, that thing should be and must be done irrespective and regardless of the political consequences in the years to come. The people of Canada look to the administration and to the members of the cabinet for leadership at a time like this. They were elected as the leaders of this country, and the country rightly looks to them for leadership. The people feel-I say this with confidence- that they should exercise that leadership without fear, favour or affection for anyone. Mr. Churchill, the leader of the British commonwealth of nations, of which we are an integral and inseparable part, the man we are all so fond of quoting in these days, had something to say about leadership a short time ago. These are his words:
Nothing is more dangerous in war time than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup poll-always feeling one's pulse and taking one's temperature. I see that a speaker at the week-end said that this was the time when leaders should keep their ears to the ground. All I can say is that the British nation will find it very hard to look up to leaders who are detected in that somewhat ungainly posture.
If to-day I am very kindly treated by the mass of the people in this country it is certainly not because I have followed public opinion in the last few years. There is only one duty and one safe course, and that is to try to be right and not to fear to do or say what you believe to be right. And that is the only way to deserve and win the confidence of our great people in these days of trouble.
Sometimes it would appear that we in this country do not realize the terrible consequences that would befall us if we should-which God forbid-be defeated in this terrible struggle.
The Address-Mr. Bence

We are committed to a life-and-death struggle. We were committed to that struggle in September, 1939. I have always felt that whenever one starts to fight, whether against an individual or a nation, he must fight with both fists, and unless one does, the other man, particularly if he is fighting without reserve, is likely to come out on top. As far as I am personally concerned I committed myself publicly some time ago and I stand by that commitment, that we must do everything without reserve. That means complete and total mobilization, of material things as well as of man-power. One of the worst things that could happen for the morale of the people of this country would be to give to those people who are giving their husbands, their sons, their brothers, their sweethearts and their friends,
. the idea that those with material wealth were not prepared to put everything they have into the balance in order to save and preserve our way of life.
If the administration is determined to follow its course with respect to the taking of a plebiscite, then I suggest that there should be no half-way measures in the taking of that vote. I was astonished to see in the press the suggestion by the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) that we might use the 1940 election lists. I have obtained some knowledge during the last few months of the 1940 election lists, and I know in my own constituency literally hundreds have moved away from the addresses given in 1940 and hundreds more have left the constituency. Therefore, if a vote is to be taken, I urge that it be taken properly, and that everyone who is qualified be allowed to vote. Further, if the 1940 election lists were used, there are a number of men in our armed forces to-day who were not qualified to vote two years ago; they would be deprived of their vote.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member is talking nonsense.


Alfred Henry Bence: The hon. member will have his opportunity to speak. He has never been backward about speaking in this house or interrupting other speakers when he felt like it. Men who were under twenty-one years of age in 1940 were not qualified to vote.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is recruiting the women of our country for service in the ranks, and I understand that the response has been excellent. This is a matter of great satisfaction, and I am pleased to remember that it was my friend and colleague the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who first suggested this matter in this house during this parliament. In connection with the matter of raising a women's army and women's

air force I have this warning to offer to the administration: that those women should be used for the purpose for which that force was intended, namely, to replace category A men in order that those men might be available for a more active theatre of war. They should not be used to replace ex-service men from the last war, men who are not able to grade up to the physical category they formerly did, but who offered their lives in the last conflict and who are serving in the only and best way that is available to them at the present time.
In Saskatoon recently we had the spectacle of ex-service men from the last war who had been hired in civilian capacities, as cooks, dish-washers, general handymen and so on, being discharged and replaced by category A service men. The explanation given was that there were too many general duty men available, that a number of air force men had been brought in from other districts, and that there was a limit set by the department on the number of general duty men that could be used in any particular station; consequently it was the ex-service men who were discharged.
I am pleased to say that that situation has now been remedied. As a result of a request that I made to the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), he gave me an explanation, and I am pleased to be able to quote the last paragraph of his letter:
It is regretted that any difficulty arose in connection with this matter, hut the situation is now more stabilized, and it is not the intention to dispense with the services of any returned men now employed as civilians and who are carrying out their duties in an efficient and satisfactory manner, and the various units have been advised accordingly.
For that I was very grateful. But in the next mail I received a letter from the secretary of the Saskatoon branch of the Canadian Legion advising me that there was further trouble in this regard and that his branch had been officially notified that about fifty exservice men employed at No. 4 service flying training school were being discharged at the end of this month and being replaced by the women's air force. Was this, I ask, the reason why a women's army or air force was raised? I suggest it was not. There is a job for women in the service of this country, but it is not to displace men like that. I warn this administration that there will be a storm of indignation if, in its zeal to raise that army so rapidly, it allows this kind of thing to happen. To let that course be followed is, in my opinion, nothing short of disgraceful, and the government should take immediate steps to see that the situation is rectified.


Mr. EDOUARD LACROIX (Beauce) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the situation in which we find ourselves at this juncture is so serious that I feel in duty bound to rise in this house and express my viewpoint which apparently does not coincide exactly with opinions put forth until now.
To speak his mind fully is at times unpleasant to a public man, for someone's feelings may be hurt. Still I wish, at the very outset, to assure the hon. members of this house that my remarks reflect my sincerest convictions and that I would deem myself unworthy of public service were I to remain silent at this time.
My family first came to Canada in 1660, which means that I am rooted to the soil and that my viewpoint is thoroughly Canadian, solely Canadian and nothing more. I am a Canadian living in his homeland, who was bom here, who understands all that a Canadian heart can feel and whose wish it is to ensure by every means in his power the greatest possible happiness for the generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, what is the present purpose of certain extremists from Toronto?-for such is the origin of that whirlwind of disunity spreading throughout our fair Canada at the present time.
Unity between the two great races in this country would mean in the eyes of this handful of nervous individuals a la Hepburn an absolute obligation to think and act in accordance with their own narrow conception of things. It would mean submitting to the dictates and personal interest of a few individuals who, for one reason or another, would wish bo see the government of this country entrusted to their hands the better to sabotage the future of those inhabitants so that the appetites of these extremists might be satisfied.
Two great races, between 7 and 8 millions in number, true Canadians all, count for little or nothing in the calculations of such ambitious people who in time leave for Bermuda or elsewhere so that their heirs may be spared succession or other duties or even taxes directly attributable to their own blind, excessive and unreasonable demands.
The war effort which has been demanded in such sections is too great for a young country of twelve million inhabitants. Nothing was being done fast enough; to hear them, more is forever required, more man-power; there never is enough man-power according to them-production is always insufficient- and the cry goes out for more, and more and yet more.
The Address-Mr. Lacroix (Beauce)
To-day, these extremists are beginning to feel the effects of their exaggerations. One must pay and in order not to pay, they would transfer upon the shoulders of generations to come the excessive burden of this costly war.
They have, first, to secure the services of a new leader-and of course the security of his well-being is guaranteed for his lifetime-then conscription is taken as the battle standard- it worked so well with the same leader in 1917-
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that such extremists can find some measure of support from a few of our friends who force the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to make such concessions.
Because to ask the people of Canada, by means of a plebiscite, to release the government from its solemn promises, is surely a terrible concession to the extremists.
At the last general election, 90 per cent of the public men of Canada, and I am one of them, have said that they would always be opposed to conscription for sending troops outside of Canada. Indeed, in 1939, I affirmed the same convictions right in this chamber.
Some will say: Give a free hand to the government; you must have confidence in the Prime Minister who will never enforce conscription for overseas service.
I have confidence in my leader. I have supported him on every occasion since 1925.
But if we release the government from its sacred promises, what would follow should the Right Hon. Prime Minister disappear from the scene? Mr. Speaker, I wish the Right Hon. Prime Minister long life, health, happiness, but God alone can prolong his life. Who in this house is sure of to-morrow? And what if our hon. leader were to disappear sooner or later? For what reasons should we leave the known for the unknown? No, no, I, for one, think the issue at stake too important to run such a risk.
Mr. Speaker, if this measure is so vital in 1942, why was it not brought up during the 1940 election? Is the situation more desperate in 1942 than it was in 1940?
That is what I wish to discuss fully. I hope to prove by an official document that the reverse is true.
To mv mind, Canada has done more than her share and it is about time someone should say so on the floor of this house; the voter is not the only one bound by his duty.
We have a right to ask ourselves if some military authorities are absolutely reasonable when they tell the public as they did again the day before yesterday: Canada is in great danger; Canada is encircled by the enemy;

The Address-Mr. Lacroix (Beauce)
we must wake up; we must stand shoulder to shoulder, close our ranks; young men must enlist, go and fight overseas.
Mr. Speaker, those flights of oratory are nothing but a state of nerves. Our country is in danger, in immediate danger, encircled, go and fight in Europe, repeat those nervous people.. .Well, if the country is in so great a danger, let us keep our man-power here; call back here, immediately, shall I say to the military authorities, our army of volunteers stationed overseas.
That would be more logical to defend our people, our land, everything dear to us. Charity begins at home, says the proverb; apply it.
Are we in a more precarious position than we were in 1940, even in 1941? I say no, a thousand times no. And I shall prove it. Since 1940, the number of our allies has increased by 180 millions of Russians and by 130 millions of Americans. Since 1940, our factories have functioned at full capacity.
In a booklet entitled "Canada at war", No. 4, published by the office of Public Information under the authority of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), and dated December 4, 1941, I find figures that are very eloquent when compared with those of other countries.
Page 6, I read:
To-day about forty per cent of our national revenue goes to war needs.
Further down under the heading: "Armed forces" we read that the following figures are necessarily a rough estimate, but nearly accurate.
Enlisted voluntarily for service everywhere: In the navy, more than 27,000.	[DOT]
In the army, 240,000. In the air force, more than 93,000. Altogether over 360,000 volunteers for service anywhere. The number of volunteers exceeds 500,000.
These figures show, Mr. Speaker, that on December 4, 1941, Canada had under arms for service anywhere approximately 5 per cent of its total population. Mr. Speaker, is 5 per cent much or little? I say that it is much. As I see it, it compares well, nay favourably, with conditions in countries now at war the world over. It compares well with Russia whose army of 9,000,000 men represents exactly 5 per cent of its total population of 180,000,000. It is comparable to an army of 6,500,000 men in the United States, if the latter country had such an army. It is comparable to 20,000,000 men under arms in China, assuming that 5 per cent of China's population were under arms. It is compar-
[Mr. E. Lacroix.!
able to 4,000,000 men under arms if the Dutch colonies had an army of such proportions.
After all, let us be honest about it and let us give Canada and the Canadian government their due.
On page 7 of the same pamphlet we read that, in the six months between May and November, 1941, voluntary enlistments for service anywhere, in the Canadian armed forces, amounted to more than 100,000. The total is made up as follows:
Navy	 11,000
Army	 59,000
Air force	 35,000
Total	 105,000
And that in the six months alone between May and November.
Mr. Speaker, how generous do I find the people of Canada! Extremists alone persist in exclaiming: "More, more, and still more!" They are more exacting than the Prime Minister of Great Britain who, for his part, exclaims: "A magnificent effort." On opening the dictionary, I find that the word "magnificent" means: "A high degree of generosity." Personally, I am quite content with the tribute of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister of Great Britain.
Treating of the financial aspect of the situation, the pamphlet shows, on page 31, under the heading of "The greatest undertaking in Canadian history", that our expenditures for the present fiscal year amount to 82,650,000,000. Mr. Speaker, this quite exceeds the three digits we learned in the little red school house. The figure is made up of 10 digits, and I feel that many of our friends here are unaware of this fact.
The pamphlet adds:
To finance the fulfilment of its various undertakings, the government needs 45 per cent of its total revenue.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that for the current year the war effort will require 5 per cent more than last year, that is, 45 per cent of the country's total income, as compared with 37 per cent in England during 1941.
On page 58 of the same pamphlet, in the last paragraph, I find the following:
Combining the war expenditure with the ordinary expenditure of all the administrative services of Canada, federal, provincial and municipal, it will be necessary, in order to foot the bill, that the citizens of Canada contribute approximately 50 cents out of every dollar of income.
On page 66 of the same pamphlet, I find a comparative table showing the taxes paid by the citizen of Canada and the citizen of the

The Address-Mr. Lacroix (Beauce)
United States. The Canadian citizen with an income of SI,600 pays in income and national defence taxes S71 a year, against $6 paid by the citizen of the United States enjoying a similar income. A Canadian earning S3,000 a year will pay S355, while the American of similar income will pay S138. On an income of 15,000 the Canadian citizen will pay $925 and the citizen of the United States $375. An income of $10,000 is taxed $2,930 in Canada against $1,305 in the United States and a $20,000 income pays $8,030 in Canada against $4,614 in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to make this comparison in order to show where Canada is being led by its war effort and to see whether it is true, as some extremists contend, that Canada is not doing its duty and its whole duty.
Moreover, on the 4th of December last, there was no question of lending Great Britain $700,000,000 without interest for the duration of the war, nor of making to England an outright gift of one billion dollars worth of foodstuffs, munitions of war, etc., in addition to maintaining our own forces overseas.
I quote the following words spoken by the Prime Minister and printed on page 42 of Hansard:
For the future, in addition to the financial provision for raising and maintaining Canada's own armed forces, the government will, as a part of Canada's direct contribution to the defeat of the axis, ask parliament to make provision for meeting Britain's shortage of Canadian dollars by supplying, free of charge and without obligation, to Britain, munitions of war, raw materials, and foodstuffs up to an amount of one billion dollars.
Mr. Speaker, what a beautiful country we live in, what splendid people we are! The assumption of these obligations represents the discharging of the debt of a noble son towards his father. However, this son, Canada, has, in the past, been very generous to his father.
Our national debt, which, in 1911, under Sir Wilfrid Laurier's administration stood at $300,000,000, had exceeded $3,000,000,000 in 1920, and will stand at more than $6,000,000,000 in 1943. This entire increase is attributable to European wars. Starting with annual interest payments of $13,000,000, that is $1.50 per person in 1911, we shall attain the figure of $200,000,000 in interest, in 1943. This represents a sum of $16 a year for each Canadian. Still I would be satisfied if I were sure that this last billion dollars is a final payment on the account of our total independence. But we have no such assurance.
This is not all, Mr. Speaker. The government asks to be relieved of its promise to forego the blood tax, that is -conscription, for the release from previous commitments has no other object but the adoption of conscription.
What makes me still more anxious is this paragraph of Hansard, page 51. I quote:
It will be seen that in seeking freedom for itself to act on all matters pertaining to war in accordance with its judgment, the government is taking a course which will remove all legitimate excuse for controversy, and the course best calculated to maintain the unity of the country in this time of war.
Mr. Homuth interrupting, asked:
Then what will they do?
, And the Right Hon. Mackenzie King answered:
That will depend in part upon what my hon. friend and those who are round him will do.
I gather from this that the Conservative party will be in a position to blackmail the government and force it to adopt conscription.
For the last 25 years, Mr. Speaker, the conscription issue -has been debated. My leaders have taught me that it would be absurd to force our sons to fight in Europe against their will.
I am convinced -that it would be a folly. Our line of defence is in Russia, in China, at Hong Kong, shouts the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). Would he be kind enough to tell us how many of our English friends from the British Isles are at present in Russia, in China or at Hong Kong? We will probably be told that the British Isles are in danger.
But Canada is in immediate danger, says General LaFleche.
No, Mr. Speaker, we must be logical with our Canadian people. I, for one, am convinced we have gone too far;, our effort, as regards both man-power and capital is out of proportion, compared to the capacity of our population of 12 millions.
Nobody in Canada wants to lose the war, but we shall lose both the war and the peace if we bring economic ruin on Canada. We shall be the slaves not of Germany or of Japan, but we shall nevertheless be slaves for a hundred years to come. Mr. Speaker, militarism has spelled the ruin of Germany and Japan. It will reduce those people to slavery for centuries to come. Is not militarism in Canada already driving us to at? Those are questions we have a right to ask ourselves, we have a right to take into consideration. It seems to me we must be logical with ourselves. I am convinced we -have gone too far.
Our farmers are already short of help and many of their "ons would better serve our war

The Address-Mr. Lacroix (Beauce)
effort- by remaining on the land and producing the foodstuffs so necessary to feed our soldiers. There are, in my own constituency some sad cases. Reluctance is shown in granting exemption to the eldest son of a widow who has to feed twelve children with the sole products of her land.
Another young man is being harassed, who inherited his father's farm, with 30 cattle to feed, and who lives alone on his property. If he were mobilized, it -would be necessary to slaughter all these cattle, for there are seasons when cattle are in no condition to be sold, and the land would remain idle during the owner's absence. How many more similar cases could I not mention. I could go on indefinitely. There are new instances every day.
Mr. Speaker, I shall now conclude my remarks. I have sought to give, in my own way, a clear outline of the critical situation in which we find ourselves and to ask the Prime Minister, as well as all the ministers, to consider the post-war period. Is it a fact that ours is the only government in the world having a commission charged with studying post-war problems? Mr. Speaker, it is great time for us to do some reckoning, to think of those who will come after us, and of all the responsibility which rests upon us. Will this government, the strongest since 1867, capitulate in the hands of a small clique from Toronto bearing, in some cases, the colours of the dollar-a-year men who, after gathering some ten million dollar orders, quit for criticizing the present administration.
They would have Mr. Meighen instead so that future generations might have to settle for their extravagance.	.
In conclusion, I regret to state that after due deliberation I feel obliged to vote against the Tory amendment, against the C.C.F. subamendment and against the main motion, that is against the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, just as I shall vote in the coming plebiscite against releasing the government from the obligations assumed in 1940 both by them and by 90 per cent of public men in the country.


Mr. ABBOTT:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. LACOMBE:: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott) moves the adjournment of the debate.


Liguori Lacombe: I desire to submit to Your Honour standing order 34 which reads:
Every member desiring to speak is to rise in his place, uncovered, and address himself to Mr. Speaker.

Standing order 35 provides:
When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place; but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard," or "do now speak," which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
When a few moments ago the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) rose in his place, I rose at the same time, Mr. Speaker, and I want now to move the adjournment of the debate.


Georges Parent: When the hon. member for Beauce sat down I saw the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott) who rose immediately and moved, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) the adjournment of the debate, which is the motion now before the Chair.
On motion of Mr. Abbott the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Wednesday, January 28, 1942