1942-06-17

MILITARY SERVICE


Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table copy of an order in council providing for the issue of a proclamation calling out men who were on the 15th day of July, 1940, unmarried or widowers without child or children, and who were born in any of the years 1921, 1920, 1919, 1918, 1917, 1916, 1915, 1914, 1913, 1912, 1911, 1910, 1909, 1908 or 1907, but that persons born in the year 1921 shall not be called out until after they have reached the age of twenty-one.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: Is the government prepared to assist the Victoria farmers so they can have easy access to the railway during the winter season and thus enable them to send tlieir produce to the Sydney market?


Mr. HOWE:: I find it difficult to answer the question in its present form. I wonder if the hon. member would clarify it a little. The difficulty is that the island of Victoria was cut off from the railway fo'r the winter and has been to this day. I know of no way of giving the assistance asked for.
Question dropped.


PURCHASE OF LUMBER USED BY DOMINION CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Mr. MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1.	From what firms is the lumber used by the Dominion Construction Company at Edwardsville, Cape Breton, being purchased?
2.	Is any of this lumber being purchased from the lumber mills in Cape Breton island?
3.	If not, will the government give such lumber dealers an opportunity of tendering?

Questions


Mr. HOWE:: 1. Lumber purchased by the Dominion Construction Company, Edwardsville, Cape
Breton, is as follows:
Board
feet
Chappells Limited, Sydney, NS	 670,000
J. W. Stephens, Limited, Sydney, N.S. 190,000 John C. MacMillan, North Sydney,
N.S	 50,000
D. Porter & Son. Stellarton, N.S		97,000
J. J. Grant, New Glasgow, N.S		55,000
Spencer Bros. & Turner, Truro, N.S... 485,000 McCulloch & Hogan, Limited, Halifax,
N.S	 297,000
Moncton Lumber Co., Moncton, N.B. 505,000
King Wood Sales, Moncton, N.B	 515,000
Ashley Colter Co., Fredericton, N.B.. 275,000 Flemming & Gibson, Juniper, N.B...	175,000
H. E. Pelton, Saint John, N.B	 50,000
Benj. Belliveau, Meteghan, N.S		62,000
3,426,000
2.	Yes.
3.	Cape Breton island lumber mills are being given full opportunity for quoting on government requirements in Cape Breton, and dealers without milling facilities have been urged by the department to make their stock available to local mills for milling and delivery to the department.


DAIRY INDUSTRY-CANS FOR HANDLING MILK AND CREAM
Mr. LECLERC:: 1.	Have cans used in the handling of milk and cream been rationed?
2.	Are farmers engaged in the dairy industry unable to purchase such cans?
3.	Will the government consider the advisability of placing such cans in a special category ?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No.
2.	They are still able to purchase these cans but there is a short supply.
3.	Supplies of milk cans for essential purposes are receiving careful consideration. These cans are made from sheet steel for the supply of which we are dependent on the United States. Only a limited tonnage of such sheet steel is available.


STUDENTS AND TEACHERS FOR SUMMER FARM WORK
Mr. REID:: 1.	Has the federal government inaugurated any scheme of financial assistance to the provincial governments in order to secure the services of students and teachers for farm work during the summer school recess?
2.	If so, what provinces have agreed to assist in the furtherance of this scheme?
3.	Have any provincial governments refused to cooperate?
4.	If so, which ones?
5.	Were any reasons given by these provinces as to why they would not cooperate in securing help required on farms during summer?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	Yes; the federal government is prepared to provide financial assistance for the purpose of assisting the provinces in executing a plan for recruiting, transporting to, and placing upon farms labourers-male and female-suitable for farm work.
2.	The province of Ontario has entered into an agreement with the federal government to carry out such a plan.
3.	No province, other than Ontario, has entered into an agreement regarding financial assistance in connection with farm labour.
4.	See answer to 3.
5.	The provinces, other than Ontario, have not signified their desire to enter into an agreement such as that existing with the province of Ontario.


PUBLICATION OF LISTS OF WAR CONTRACTS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Has the director of public information definitely abandoned the practice of publishing the lists of war contracts awarded by the Minister of Munitions and Supply?
2.	If so, does the government intend to place at the disposal of members of parliament other methods whereby they may learn of the awarding of war contracts and their nature?
3.	Will the government publish, as formerly, a detailed report of the amount of each war contract and the persons or companies to which they have been awarded?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Information regarding specific contracts may be obtained by writing the deputy minister of munitions and supply or by placing the question on the order paper.
3.	No. Please refer to the minister's statement, page 215 Hansard.


MONEY CIRCULATION PER CAPITA 1929-42
Mr. KIRK:: 1.	What amount of money was in circulation in Canada as at March 31 for each of the years 1929 to 1942, both inclusive?

Questions as Orders for Returns
2.	What was the amount of same per capita during each of the abovementioned periods?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1 and 2.
Total amount Per capita amount
	of circulating	of circulating
	media in the	media in the
	hands of the	hands of the
March 31	public	public1929 ....	$222,786,258	$22 211930 ....	199,127,293	19 511931 ....	179,007,417	17 251932 ....	176,140,084	16 771933 ....	178,100,901	16 671934 ....	184,791,612	17 071935 ....	188,818,143	17 281936 ....	195,954,265	17 771937 ....	216,418,023	19 461938 ....	226,162,864	20 181939 ....	235,919,414	20 851940 ....	285.781,556	25 021941 	402,412,423	35 241942 ....	522,943,412	45 79
Note:-Circulating media in the hands of the public includes dominion notes or Bank of Canada notes in circulation, less amounts held by the chartered banks; chartered bank notes in circulation less amounts held by other chartered banks; and subsidiary coinage issued less withdrawals, less amounts (in the years 1929 to 1934 estimated) held by chartered banks and the Bank of Canada.


PURCHASE OF LAND AT GRAND LAKE, N.S., FROM G. W. TINGLET
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has the government purchased any land or other property situated at Grand Lake, Nova Scotia, from George W. Tingley, of Halifax?
2.	If so, what department made the purchase, what was the price, and what use is the property being put to?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.


Mr. STOKES:: 1.	What is the total enlistment from the province of Quebec in the Canadian army?
2.	Of these, how many are, (a) of French-Canadian origin, (b) of origin other than French Canadian?
3.	Of each of the above categories, how many have (a) enlisted for active service anywhere, (b) enlisted for service in Canada only?


Mr. STOKES:: 1.	What is the total enlistment from the province of Quebec in the Royal Canadian Navy?
2.	Of these, how many are, (a) of French-Canadian origin, (b) of origin other than French Canadian?
3.	Of each of the above categories, how many have (a) enlisted for active service anywhere, (b) enlisted for service in the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: May I ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) how long it will take to get the answers to these three questions, which have been allowed to stand? I realize it is quite a job but perhaps he could give me some indication.


Mr. RALSTON:: I cannot answer categorically. I would have to consult my colleagues the ministers for air and navy. With regard to the army, as has already been pointed out, we have no record of racial origin of those enlisting. The suggestion was made to me in the house that at least we might take the names of those who appeared to be of French origin and make a compilation in that way. That can be done and, as a matter of fact, it is now completed, but that would not give entirely accurately the information which is asked for. I can only say that if the information is asked for in the present form-that is, French-Canadian origin-I know no data from which it can be given.
Questions stand.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
2. Answered by 1.

Mr. STOKES:: 1.	What is the total enlistment from the province of Quebec in the Royal Canadian Air Force?
2.	Of these, how many are, (a) of French-Canadian origin, (b) of origin other than French Canadian?
3.	Of each of the above categories, how many have (a) enlisted for actual flying duties as air crew, (b) enlisted as mechanics for ground crew duties, (c) enlisted for general duties?


HOUSING-PORT ARTHUR AND FORT WILLIAM
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: What provision is the government making for an adequate supply of low cost houses to be made available for families of low income in the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William?


Mr. McLARTY:: Return tabled.


TURNER VALLEY OIL FIELDS-STANDARD OIL- APPLICATION OF GASOLINE RATIONING TO ROYALTY SALESMEN
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: 1. Have the Standard Oil interests or subsidiaries any proven wells capped in the Turner valley oil fields?
Fuel Oil and Gasoline

2.	How many 40-acre undrilled oil sites have the Standard Oil interests or subsidiaries in the Turner valley oil fields?
3.	How many of these are situated on acreage in which it has been proven that oil exists?
4.	How many of the wells being operated by the above mentioned interests are offset wells?
5.	What percentage of oil produced in the Turner valley in 1941 came from wells operated by independent royalty companies?
6.	On what grounds does the oil controller consider it to be in the national interests that royalty salesmen be limited to category A gasoline ration?



FUEL OIL AND GASOLINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I promised to make a statement to-day on the oil situation, and I will do so now.
On May 20, as reported in Hansard, page 2845, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) I stated that no fuel oil would be available for heating in private residences during the coming winter. On the following day I amplified this statement somewhat, by indicating that every effort would be made to provide fuel oil for heating purposes in private homes where conversion to coal burning equipment was impossible. Since that time we have given very thorough study to the problem, in an effort to determine a definite line of policy, in the light of existing and prospective supplies of oil.
There are many thousand private residences now heated by oil. We find that conversion op a large scale would involve the use of materials, particularly steel, which are in very short supply. There is the further difficulty of transporting coal in sufficient quantities to ensure that the converted units will have sufficient fuel to see them through the winter. Consequently, we have had to explore ways and means of making available more supplies of fuel oil from existing and prospective supplies of crude.
There is no reasonable hope that we can augment our existing supply of crude oil. Therefore if we are to refine more fuel oil we must do so at the expense of automobile gasoline. Accordingly, refiners of crude oil have been ordered to change their refinery runs so as to make more fuel oil, and less gasoline. By doing this, we hope to build up sufficient stocks of fuel oil between now and October first to provide for household heating equipment during the winter months. It must be understood, however, that even after these

steps have been taken, no guarantee can be given that fuel oil for domestic heating equipment will be available to meet normal requirements, because it is impossible to say at this time whether sufficient tankers will be available to maintain a continuous supply of crude. If there is a decrease in the anticipated supply through a loss of tankers, we shall have to draw on these reserves of fuel oil to take care of the armed services and war and essential industries. Therefore, my advice to those who heat their houses by oil is to convert their equipment if at all possible. Those who are in a position to convert, and do not do so, run the risk of having no fuel in the coming winter.
In so far as the commercial and industrial user is concerned, it will still be necessary for all those using fuel oil for the heating of commercial and industrial buildings, including apartment houses, hotels, institutions, stores, et cetera, to give up the use of fuel oil for heating as of July 31, 1942. This also applies to all those using fuel oil for the production of steam.
As I have pointed out, the building up of reserves of fuel oil for the winter months means the refining of less automobile gasoline. Accordingly, it has been decided that in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, the value of the unit must be cut from five gallons to four. The unit will remain for the present at five gallons in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and at two gallons in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. We hope to be in a position to raise the unit to three gallons in the maritimes as of midnight June 30. The changes in the value of the unit in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia will become effective at midnight to-morrow night.
After the ration system had been in operation for a short time the gravity of the supply situation made it necessary to re-categorize many thousands of those who were originally placed in higher than A categories. Many of these were reduced to category A. We also found that many of those originally in category A were owners of more than one car, or were using their cars almost entirely for pleasure purposes. It is obvious that these motorists should not receive as much gasoline as those who use their cars mainly in the earning of their livelihood. It has therefore been decided to establish a lower category, to be known as category A-A. The setting up of a new category takes time and I am not now in a position to state what the gasoline allowance for category A-A will be, or when it will become effective. This will be announced in due course.

Mobilization Act-Speaker's Ruling
Because there are many thousands of farmers, industrial workers and business men now in category A, the quarterly restriction of the coupon in this category will be abolished from midnight to-night. This means that the category A coupons, in any quarter, may be used at any time, regardless of the date printed on them.


Mr. REID:: Regarding the rationing of gasoline and the categories in which owners of motor cars are placed, will the Minister of Munitions and Supply state whether there is a court of appeal other than the local court in each province to which those who believe that they have been unjustly dealt with may apply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The court of appeal is the oil controller himself. If the reply of the local officer is not satisfactory, an appeal can be taken to the oil controller.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. I notice in a press bulletin this afternoon an announcement that the control over labour in industry has been considerably extended. I wonder whether the minister is prepared to make a statement, or if not, will he say whether or not these regulations have been made by order in council, and will the order in council or the regulations be tabled?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The regulations were approved by myself under the authority of an order in council. I shall be glad to have them tabled immediately.



MILITARY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):: I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of National Defence to a serious emergency which has arisen in my county. I believe that the reading of this short communication, which I translate, will explain the whole matter:
Ottawa, June 16, 1942. Mr. Jean Chaloult, Lt.-Colonel, Assistant-Commandant of District No. 5,
Post Office Building, Quebec.
Subject: E600448 Gagnon Omer Montmagny Regiment, Camp of Valcartier
Butter factory syndicate of Cap Chat county of Gasjfla is asking a leave for the above mentioned who is their butter maker. This butter factory receives daily six to eight thousand pounds of milk and is still closed at this late date.
Can you make diligence.
J. S. Roy, M.P.


Mr. SPEAKER:: That is a question, I think, which should be placed upon the order paper.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 16,. consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. SO, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940.
Georges Parent: The hon. member for
Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) moved an amendment to Bill No. 80. I did not deal with it at the time, and I was requested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) to deal with it to-day rather than yesterday. I have been considering the amendment, and 1 should like now to give my ruling.
On the motion of the Prime Minister that Bill No. 80, an act to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, be now read a second time, Mr. Maclnnis moved, seconded by Mr. Noseworthy:
That all the words after "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that the principle of the bill before the house is inadequate and inequitable, permits the governor general in council to conscript men for overseas service without reference to parliament and is, therefore, contrary to the peace, order and good government of Canada."
It will be noticed that the amendment, apart from the declaratory statement that "this bill be not now read a second time", takes the form of a resolution "that the principle of the bill before the house is inadequate and inequitable, permits the governor general in council to conscript men for overseas service without reference to parliament and is, therefore, contrary to the peace, order and good government of Canada."
This question is somewhat analogous to that discussed in connection with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar on Thursday last, June 11, which I ruled out of order, as reported at pages 3281 and 3282 of Hansard. Before giving that decision I was referred to citation 775 of Beauchesne and also to citation 760, and if there had been no other feature than the principle laid down in citation 760, strengthen-

Mobilization Act-Speaker's Ruling
ed as it was by the same principle stated in May 391, I would have felt obliged to rule the amendment out of order, but as hon. members will recall there was another objection to its relevancy which admitted of no doubt that the house had already decided during this session on the same principle, and in support of that I quoted citation 304 of Beauchesne.
It is an accepted principle, both in this house and in the British House of Commons, that an amendment cannot deal with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee, and this amendment infringes upon that principle.
The amendment states that "the principle of the bill before the house is inadequate and inequitable". The word "inadequate" is a -general term which may in committee cover proposals in amendment of the clauses of sthe bill, but such proposals cannot be made at this stage of proceedings. The same observations will apply to the use of the word "inequitable". If amendments are contemplated by these words, they can only be moved in committee on the bill. This emphasizes the principle which I have already stated that amendments on the clauses of a bill cannot be anticipated on the second reading of a bill.
As reported in Denison's and Brand's Decisions, with respect to the British House of Commons, 1857 to 1884, we find reported at page 47 a statement by Mr. Speaker with respect to an amendment being made to the Franchise Act. I need not give the details in connection with that amendment, but in effect it dealt with certain regulations with respect to the Franchise Act. Mr. Speaker then said:
Before the hon. member moves his resolution I wish to point out to him that it exceeds the limits prescribed for such motions by the rules of the house. It is a resolution which, in reality, anticipates discussion on every clause of the bill, and on some points with respect to which notice of amendment has been already given. It seems to me to go beyond the rules laid down by the practice of this house.
That is the practice and procedure which has been followed in this house. It is, I am of opinion, a proper practice. To do otherwise would give rise to difficult and embarrassing situations. On an amendment in general terms such as this, if the house rejected the amendment and the house went into committee of the whole on the bill, the committee would be bound by the decision of the house and it would be deprived of its freedom of action in dealing with the clauses of the bill.

If the committee of the whole decided upon amendments to the bill within the terms of this amendment, the house would not be able to concur in the committee's report because the house has already decided against such amendments. The house should not approve and disapprove the same questions on the same bill in the same session.
For these reasons I rule that the amendment is out of order.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I understand that that is your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I realize I would not be within my rights in discussing it now. Therefore I accept Your Honour's ruling, regretting very much that I did not know it was going to be made. I had thought I would have had an opportunity of discussing the ruling before it was made.


Georges Parent: It has always been my practice to ask the opinions of hon. members before making rulings. In this instance however there was an opportunity for discussion of the very same principle on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. On that occasion the principle was exhaustively discussed before I gave my ruling, and I did not think that on the same principle it would be necessary to have further submissions from hon. members of the house.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Speaker, I shall not deal with the question of the plebiscite except to repeat the statement which has already been made, that the plebiscite was not on the issue of conscription. I personally sought to make that clear in speeches I made in the course of the plebiscite campaign. At Toronto, in a speech delivered to the Canadian club on April 13, I said:
The government is not asking the people of Canada to vote "yes" or "no" on the issue of conscription itself. That is definitely not the purpose of the plebiscite. The people of Canada are not being asked whether there should or should not be conscription. That responsibility is not being placed upon their shoulders. We are asking the people to permit us to exercise that responsibility freely, in the light of the facts and the needs of the situation, according to our judgment and subject to our responsibility to parliament.
I made similar statements to the Laurier club of Winnipeg and to a mass meeting in my own constituency at Selkirk. There is therefore no mandate for the imposition of conscription for service overseas at the present time, either as a result of the vote on the plebiscite or as a result of the repeal of section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Thorson
When section 3 has been repealed the government will be perfectly free, subject always to its responsibility to parliament, to take such action as it may deem necessary. The government will take such action as will in its judgment most effectively enable it to carry out its duty to parliament and to the Canadian people, namely the conduct of the war in such a manner as will result in a total war effort for Canada and the Canadian people.
In pursuance of its freedom to act in this important matter, the government has decided that it is not in the best interests of the Canadian war effort that conscription for overseas service should be imposed at the present time. I submit that this decision will bring Canada closer to its real objective than if the government were to act otherwise. In my opinion the imposition of conscription for service overseas at the present time would definitely be hurtful to the war effort. The people of Canada are much more concerned with the achievement of results than with the application of theories; and the action of the government will be governed accordingly.
When Canada entered this war, of her own free will, she pledged her national honour that she would give her maximum aid to the cause of freedom, liberty and humanity. Canada committed herself to a total war effort. What does "total war effort" involve? As I see it, total war effort means the most effective use of all the material and human resources of the nation. That is our aim, and to that end we must shape our policies. In making progress toward a total war effort we must keep in mind certain objectives, and not, under any circumstances, allow ourselves to be diverted from them.
There are three primary war objectives for Canada. May I be permitted to state them with care, not necessarily in the order of their importance, for that order may change from time to time according to the exigencies of the war. First, we must produce ships, planes, tanks, guns and other essential munitions and materials of war, equipment and supplies to the fullest extent of our productive capacity, for this is a war of machines as well as a war of men, and Canada is one of the main arsenals of the united nations. Second, we must produce as much in the way of essential food supplies as can be transported overseas, for Canada is the greatest storehouse of the united nations. Third, we must raise and equip as strong armed forces as it is possible for us to do, on land, at sea and in the air, both as to the number of their personnel and particularly as to their quality, so that they will be as effective as possible in defensive
and striking power both for the defence of Canada and to meet and help defeat the enemy wherever he may be found. It would be the height of folly to wait for an attack on Canada itself if we can keep the enemy from our shores. Both overseas and home defence forces are therefore essential. In addition to these three primary war objectives we must maintain such national services as are essential to the life of the nation and its productive capacity, for as man-power is withdrawn for the unproductive purposes of war, a heavier burden is thrown upon the manpower that remains.
If we are to make a maximum war effort we must not lose sight of any of these objectives. We must attain them concurrently, as far as that is possible to do. Each step that is taken must be carefully considered in the light of its effect on the totality of our war effort, for it is the totality of our war effort rather than any one aspect of it that counts in our country's contribution to the victory of our cause.
The Canadian war programme for the present year, ending March 31, 1943, has been set with all these war objectives in mind. It was set in the belief that it would strain our resources to the limit. The government believes that this programme can be carried into effect, and every possible effort will be made to achieve it.


Georges Parent: Order. Objection was taken, when I was not in the Chair, with regard to the reading of speeches. In the beginning I indicated to the house that the reading of speeches was not allowed, and I hoped that hon. members would follow the rule in that regard. It does happen, as I have noticed, that hon. members will place their papers on the desk and, being gifted with keen eyesight, will read them from there, and assume that they are not reading their speeches. But irrespective of whom it may be, if we are to conform to the rules they will have to be applied rigorously and impartially. I do hope, therefore, that hon. members will not force the Chair to do what is very unpleasant for the Chair to do, that is, call attention to the rule again. Therefore I would again ask hon. members to live up to the rule in that regard.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Speaker, I am making a careful statement of government policy, and I am not reading my speech, although I am paying close attention to what I have written. I shall be making reference to facts and figures which will require very close attention to what I have prepared, but I am not reading my speech in violation of the rules of the house.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Thorson
The Canadian war programme was set for the year ending March 31, 1943, with the objectives I have mentioned in mind. That programme involved the establishment of a Canadian army overseas consisting of two army corps with three infantry divisions, two armoured divisions, two tank brigades, ancillary troops, corps troops and army troops. Subsequently the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announced the authorization of the formation of two additional divisions, the 7th and 8th, primarily for the defence of our east and west coasts. The man-power requirements of our armed forces programme were stated by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) on February 10 of this year. He set the additional man-power requirements for the army at from 90,000 to
100.000	additional men up to the end of March, 1943. He set the additional man-power requirements for the navy, for the same period, at 13,000 men, and for the air force at from
70.000	to 80,000 men. When this programme has been completed the voluntary enlistments of Canadians for service anywhere in the world will amount to more than 600,000 men. In terms of the population of the United States the Canadian armed forces programme would mean the enlistment of about 7,000,000 men.
Furthermore, our war industry programme contemplates and involves heavy man-power requirements. So does the programme for essential agricultural production. I shall not deal in detail with either of these programmes, except to say that the man-power necessary for their performance cannot be withdrawn from these essential purposes of war without hurting such purposes.
It is the duty of the government to allocate man-power in accordance with the needs of the war purposes of Canada and the war objectives that I have mentioned. The totality of our war effort will not necessarily be increased merely by putting additional men in the army, if that is done at the expense of some other essential war purpose. The man-power reserve of Canada is strictly limited. It must therefore be used to the best advantage for all the purposes of war. Unfortunately, controversies have arisen over methods, and such controversies have beclouded the objectives themselves. There has been much confusion over methods. The most outstanding controversy has been with regard to the best method of raising men for service overseas. An attempt has been made to identify conscription for service overseas with total war effort. There is no necessary connection between the two. If conscription for service overseas had been imposed at any time up to the present, it

would not have made for a total war effort, but would have tended to lessen the war effort that we have achieved.
I should like to point out that while the National Resources Mobilization Act recognizes the principle of compulsion, and the repeal of section 3 will remove any restriction upon the exercise of such compulsion, the government has not adopted the policy of conscription for overseas service as the best method of raising our overseas forces. In that regard the policy of the government remains a policy of voluntary enlistment. That policy has not changed, and there will be no change so long as that method of raising our overseas forces remains adequate and effective.
I have frequently spoken on the subject of conscription for overseas service, and I have not hesitated to express my opinion that from the point of view of the effectiveness of our total war effort, the merits of conscription are outweighed by its demerits. Speaking to the Canadian club at Toronto, I said:
Thus far I have seen no need for conscription and little if any value in it.
I also said:
In this rapidly changing world no one can foretell what steps may have to be taken. It may happen that the imposition of conscription will be necessary. In any event, the government should be free to decide upon the question of conscription or no conscription in the light of its knowledge of the facts and according to its judgment of the needs of the situation as it may exist from time to time.
I have not put my objection to conscription on, the basis of necessity, but rather from the point of view of its effect upon the total war effort. In my opinion conscription for service overseas does not mean the same as total war effort. I am convinced that the imposition of conscription for service overseas at the present time would not make for progress toward a total war effort. I am further of opinion that if we do have to resort to conscription, which I hope we shall not have to do but which we will do if it is necessary, it will be only a second best method of fulfilling our armed forces programme.
After all, what is the actual place of conscription for overseas service in our whole war effort? It occupies only a limited place. Conscription could not aid our production of ships or planes or tanks or guns or essential munitions and materials of war. Indeed, by an overemphasis exclusively upon manpower for army purposes, it would lessen our success in that production. Certainly conscription for overseas service could not have

Mobilization Act-Mr. Thorson
helped our agricultural war purposes. Even for home defence purposes we felt that it was wise to adopt a policy that would not call on men if on March 23 they were wholly or mainly employed in agriculture. This was done so that our agricultural position should not deteriorate beyond its then state and in order that this country should be able to carry out its commitments for essential agricultural production.
To come to the armed forces themselves, how could conscription for service overseas help the air force? We could not conscript young men to fly and expect them to be the fliers that we have, fighting in the skies over every battle-front in the world, with no superiors anywhere in the world. No airman can be compelled to fly; he must have the will to do so. It could not be otherwise. The whole of the Royal Air Force is composed of volunteers; so is the Royal Canadian Air Force. Indeed, all services requiring special skill and initiative can best be performed by volunteers.
The situation is quite similar with regard to the navy. I am quite certain that the work of the Canadian navy, with its great devotion to duty, with the wonderful record of troopships convoyed without the loss of a single man, could not have been carried out in the same efficient manner if it had not been done by volunteers.
The only place, therefore, for conscription, if it is of any value at all, is in connection with our army. There, too, I am convinced that it would not make for as effective an army as the Canadian overseas army is at the present time.
Let us pause for a moment in order to take pride in certain facts with regard to the Canadian army overseas. The Canadian overseas army will have a larger proportion of armoured troops than any other army in the world. It will be, indeed, it is now the most highly mechanized and most mobile army of any of the British nations. Its superior in hitting strength cannot be found anywhere in the world. It has proved its valour and importance in the defence of the island fortress of freedom, Great Britain, and it will prove its power of valiant attack when the time comes. Furthermore, Canada has the largest volunteer armed force of any nation in the world. That is something of which Canada might well be proud.
It may be urged that since we have adopted conscription for service at home, we ought to adopt conscription for service abroad. However, let me point out one essential difference. Compulsory military service for the defence
of Canada has always been the law of Canada. It was not introduced as a principle for the first time by the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940. Military service for the defence of Canada is the duty of every able-bodied citizen. It is the ordinary duty of citizenship in time of peril to the homeland. That has been the law of Canada ever since the Militia Act of 1868, with its provision for a levee en masse of all male inhabitants from sixteen to sixty years of age. Indeed, that was the law also of French Canada during the period of the French regime under the militia act of 1758. It was the law of French Canada even before that under the feudal law of fiefs. Similar legislation was in effect in Upper Canada and in the maritime provinces; so that no new principle for the defence of Canada was introduced by the mobilization act.
Having indicated the limited place that conscription for overseas service occupies in our total war effort, I must also express the opinion that from the point of view of effectiveness of the army, as far as quality of personnel is concerned, there can be no comparison between the voluntary system and conscription. I submit that there can be no dispute about this. If the maximum effectiveness of our war effort is the objective of our country, as I think it ought to be, it then follows that the voluntary system ought to be continued as long as it remains an adequate and effective system. It ought not to be abandoned for a system which not only is less effective but would carry with it great danger to national unity and be definitely disruptive of our war effort.
Is it necessary to change the present system of voluntary enlistments? It is clear that it would not help the air force; it is likewise clear that it is not necessary in connection with the navy. Is there any necessity for its adoption in connection with the army? Thus far there have been no visible signs of any such necessity.
The situation is quite different from that which existed in 1917. The Military Service Act was introduced on June 11, 1917, and one of the reasons urged for the passing of that act was that there had been a falling off in the number of recruits and a very large increase in the number of casualties, and that in some months the number of casualties was larger than the number of recruits. In the year ended May 31, 1917, only 77,634 men had enlisted-an average of 6,169 men a month. In the same period of time there were over 79,000 casualties.
No situation even remotely similar to that exists at the present time. The amendment to the National Resources Mobilization Act

Mobilization Act-Mr. Thorson
was introduced on May 11, 1942. For the year ended April 30, 1942, voluntary enlistments for services overseas in all the forces, army, navy and air, amounted to 197,158, or an average of 14,763 men a month. No sign there of any collapse in the voluntary system. Furthermore, fortunately, the casualties thus far have not been very heavy. If we take only the army figures for the same period, we find enlistments totalling 112,881, or an average of 9,407 men a month. Furthermore, enlistments	for May,	1942, showed	the	highestnumber since last July. They totalled 11,918. In addition to these figures of voluntary enlistments during the same year, over 33,000 men were called for four months training and service	for the duration of the	war	in theactive	army for	Canada, and	over	13,000of the	thirty-day	trainees were	recalled for
further training and service for the duration of the war with the active army for Canada. So that after making allowance for the number of those who have enlisted voluntarily, we find that our total number of enlistments and enrolments for the year ended April 30, 1942, for all the services, is well over 240,000, and for the army alone, well over 140,000.


Mr. GREEN:: Has the minister the figures on discharges?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: May I be permitted to
proceed, because my time is limited?
Another set of figures may be of interest. Voluntary enlistments up to the end of the thirty-third month of the last war, that is, up to the end of April, 1917, totalled 417,371, whereas voluntary enlistments for the army, navy and air force up to the end of the thirty-third month of the present war totalled 505,574, not including May enlistments for the navy, and with the figures for the air force not quite complete for May.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the
minister worked out the figures relative to Canada's population then and now?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I would ask my hon.
friend not to interrupt in view of the limited time at my disposal.
May I also say that up to the present time at the end of the thirty-third month of the war, the number of voluntary enlistments in all our armed forces, exceeds the total of all voluntary enlistments in the last war, and in addition we have raised 56,000 men for home defence in the same period of time.
We believe in the system of voluntary enlistments. As the house knows, it is one of the duties of the Department of National War Services to call men for military training for four months and subsequent service in the

Canadian army in Canada for the duration of the war in accordance with requisitions coming from the Department of National Defence. Up to the present time only single men or widowers up to the age of thirty years without child or children have been called. The June call reveals that this class of men is close to full mobilization and that no very substantial number of men will be available from these age groups for any kind of military service, unless inroads are made upon the man-power requirements of war industry, or of agriculture, or of other essential national services.
The Department of National Defence has announced that 15,000 men will be required to report to training centres in the month of July. It will not be possible to raise these men and comply with that requisition without a new proclamation calling up additional men. Authority has therefore been given for the issue of such a proclamation. This afternoon I tabled a copy of the order in council providing for the issue of a new proclamation calling out single men, and widowers without child or children up to the age of thirty-five years.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we are much closer to the total mobilization of our man-power resources than most persons in Canada imagine. Over 505,000 men have enlisted voluntarily for service overseas in our armed forces. In addition, we have raised over 56,000 men for active service in Canada for the duration of the war. Over 800,000 persons are engaged in war industry and about 1,350,000 men are engaged in agriculture.
We are approaching the time when no more single men or widowers without children will be available for service with the armed forces, whether for home defence or overseas, unless we take them from war industry or agriculture or some other essential national activities. When we reach the limits of the single men and widowers now subject to proclamation, we shall have to give consideration to calling up men of other ages, both above and below the ages now subject to proclamation. We may also have to give consideration to the calling of married men.
The supply of man-power in Canada is not unlimited. For the last year we have added approximately 20,000 men a month to our armed forces. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) stated yesterday that since the beginning of the year, war industry had been adding 28,000 persons a month to war production. This monthly deduction of persons from the production of the nation cannot continue indefinitely, for the supply of manpower is definitely limited.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Roy
When we reach the full state of complete mobilization of man-power for all the purposes of war, which will happen in the very near future, we shall then have to consider what, if any, changes may have to be made in our war programme. Should we, for example, increase our army overseas at the expense of essential war production, either of essential munitions of war or of essential food supplies? Will this make for an increase in the totality of our war effort? If it will, then the step should be taken; if it will not, the step should not be taken. Again I repeat that we must look at every step that we take from the point of view of maximum effectiveness of our war effort.
When we entered this war we did so in aid of the two great democracies, Britain and France. The indomitable spirit of Britain still lives; the spirit of France will revive. The character of the war has changed. This is a world war. This is not Britain's war alone. This is not a European war. This is a world war. This is Canada's war as well as that of the other united nations. This is the war of all free peoples and of all free nations. It is a world war for liberty for all the world.
We played an essential part in the dark days in the avoidance of collapse, but the avoidance of defeat is not enough, and Canada, as one of the united nations, must continue to make her full contribution to the cause of victory, as she has done in the past.
It is the duty of the government to keep constantly before its eyes the war objectives that I have outlined. It must not allow any portion of the war programme to be expanded at the expense of any other portion if the total war effort of the country is lessened thereby. It must face realities and not theories. It must not allow pressure on the part of anyone or any group to deflect it from the attainment of these objectives, by any controversy over any particular method, unless it is fully satisfied that such a method is the one that will most effectively bring our nation closer to a total war effort.
May I conclude with a plea for national unity and with a plea for the united effort of all Canadians and a sympathetic understanding by all Canadians of the points of view of all other Canadians. This is no time for needless controversy.
We can be proud of our Canadian war effort thus far, and though much remains to be done, we are getting closer day by day to the attainment of that total war effort to which our country pledged itself.
After this war is over, Canada should be the greatest of the smaller nations of the world. That can happen only if the cause of
freedom and liberty throughout the world is saved. In the last war Canadians responded to the call of duty and Canada held a high place among the nations of the world. I am confident that when this war is over, Canada will hold an equally high place among the nations of the world, with pride in her soldiers both at home and overseas, with pride in her sailors, with pride in her airmen, in her munitions workers and agricultural producers and in all the men and women engaged in the countless activities made necessary by the total war effort, with a feeling of duty well done, freely and voluntarily done, with only such a minimum of compulsion as may be necessary, so that Canadians may be able to hold their heads high and say to all the world: "Canada entered this war as a nation of free men and free women, of her own free will, and Canada played her full part in the struggle for freedom and liberty not only for herself but for all the world. Canada took her full share in the war for humanity."


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Mr. Speaker, on the 11th of June, 1917, legislation was introduced in this house for the purpose of conscripting men for military service overseas. On June 10, 1942, lacking but one day for an interval of exactly twenty-five years, a second measure purporting to establish conscription of men for military service in any theatre of war was introduced in this same house.
Whether it was the irony of fate or a measure of justice it belonged to a Liberal Prime Minister to present this compulsory legislation as if to commemorate the anniversary and to celebrate what can rightly be termed the silver jubilee of conscription.
In his speech on June 11 last, the former minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) made the following remarks:
Listening yesterday to the able and well prepared speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and also to the prepared speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Hanson), and closing my eyes I could call to memory the words and arguments presented in parliament in 1917 when Sir Robert Borden and Mr. Meighen presented legislation for conscription. There was no difference. The same arguments that I heard in 1917 have been presented in this house by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition. No difference-no change!
And later, in the same speech, on the following page of Hansard, you have the hon. member putting the following words in the mouth of a French-Canadian Conservative candidate in the province of Quebec taking part in a by-election prior to the conscription measure:
Mobilization Act-Mr. Roy

"You see, gentlemen, in what position you are placed. You have; the guarantee of the Prime Minister of to-day. . . .
who, at that time, was Sir Robert Borden. . . . "that you are not going to have conscription from the Conservative party. Beware," said he, "lest you might have conscription from the Liberal party if you turn your back on Sir Robert Borden at the present time."
No, Mr. Speaker, there is no difference. Such utterances have been made by Liberal speakers in the 1940 election and on the occasion of the plebiscite. The same bugbear was trotted out all over the province of Quebec where the people were told that if they did not support the Liberals, conscription would be enforced by their political opponents. No, there is no difference, the same talk is being heard. The same parts are being played again. But a slight difference might perhaps be found in the fact that, this time, the actors are recruited among the supporters of the party which was opposing and criticizing those who enacted the 1917 drama. In 1917, the cabinet resigned rather than accept conscription; in 1942, a minister resigns for the same reason. In 1917, all French-Canadian members, save a few, proposed an amendment and voted against conscription. This year, the French-Canadian Liberal members, save for a small group, are preparing to vote against the measure. No, there is no difference. It was fitting that the opening speech in the celebration of the conscription jubilee should be delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I wish to quote the following excerpt from his remarks:
This demand for conscription in Canada has been made right along and continues to be made, notwithstanding the fact that, for all Canada, conscription has been the law of the land since June 21, 1940, and that, under the special powers conferred upon the governor in council by the National Resources Mobilization Act, compulsory military training, in other words "conscription", has been in operation since October, 1940, and compulsory service, for the duration of the war, since February, 1941,
That passage appears at page 3226.
I find this further statement at page 3243:
I doubt if any of us begin to realize how grave the responsibility has become of determining the disposition of the country's armed forces, as a consequence of the changed conditions resulting from the entry of Japan into the war. Immediate danger no longer threatens Canada only from the east. It threatens equally from the wrest. Let that danger assume formidable proportions, and I ask what will be said of a government, or for that matter, of a parliament, or of a press, that continues to look only across the Atlantic to one enemy against which this country has to be protected, and fails to recognize that the strategy of the combined enemy forces may well involve an attack at any moment from across the Pacific. (Mr. Roy.]
Toward the end of his speech the Prime Minister further said:
But if conscription is ever needed for Canada's sake and for Canada's future, I will not oppose its application.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, which we must keep in mind during this debate. The Prime Minister is both for and against conscription. He sees arguments which may lead him never to enforce such a measure. The cabinet has been actively represented in this discussion by no less than five ministers, I believe, and all of them have taken the same stand. They are absolutely against conscription. They seem to say: "I would not be surprised to hear this bit of sophistry one of these days: We are against the draft and if we enforce it, it is only to spare you from having it enforced by the conscriptionists."
I return now to the magnificent speech delivered in this house by the former Minister of Public Works, whom I congratulate on his eloquence. To us, French Canadians, he has all the characteristics that set apart the French orator, the orator of French culture, which are ever to us, French Canadians, a motive of pride and satisfaction. However, I wish to review a few passages of his address. On page 3276 of Hansard, one may read:
"According to the needs of the situation we will adopt a policy-later on". That is what the Prime Minister said on February 25 last. "Later on, when the need is apparent, when the necessity is clear to everyone, in the light of the information that will be given to us by the military authorities, the government will take its stand and will come before parliament with the reasons that justify the stand taken by the government." "Later on", has become to-day.
When I am told I used the wrong expression in my letter of resignation in saying that a new policy had been adopted, I am justified, I claim, in saying that this is a new' policy.
The Prime Minister is perfectly right in saying that the hon. member used a wrong expression. He has not adopted a new policy; his attitude is marked by constant evolution. Had the hon. Minister of Public Works been in the shoes of the electors of his province, he would have known, long ago, the value of pledges made by the Liberal party, and he would also be at a loss to interpret them. He would not have been fooled by such vague statements, by promises as ambiguous as those uttered in this house and later on credited to the Prime Minister. "Later on", this expression does not apply to any definite period of time. To-day is later on with regard to the day of the plebiscite.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres added:
Yes; we have been released from pledges by those to whom the pledges had no meaning at all and no effect on the election.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Roy
However, Mr. Speaker, this condition, now realized by the hon. member could be anticipated; others have foreseen it. During the plebiscite debate, in February last, I spoke as follows at page 653:
These are the ghastly straits into which the Liberal party's opportunism has enticed the Canadian nation by promises and pledges from which it now requests a release. Before imposing conscription on Quebec, we shall grant it a plebiscite. As the government will not be released from its promises and commitments regarding conscription by Quebec, but rather by the other provinces, this, in itself, evidences the opportunism and trickery of the Liberal party.
And then, as recorded on page 654 of Hansard of February 17, 1942, I added:
It would be useless to speak against conscription and then vote for the adoption of the speech from the throne announcing the holding of a plebiscite to grant the government the freedom they wish for imposing conscription when they please. We should fear, if this threat ever becomes a reality, to be accused of complicity and hypocrisy.
That is what I then stated, and that is what the whole Canadian people thought about the holding of a plebiscite. On the one hand, those who were favouring conscription supported the plebiscite because they considered that it would enable the government to enforce conscription, and on the other hand, the province of Quebec opposed that plebiscite because it recognized also that this was the last barrier. The right hon. the Prime Minister told the house in his speech of January 26, last, that he was going to proceed by stages, and we have now reached the final stage. I was quite surprised to hear the former minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) state that he had found out too late that those vague promises meant nothing. He, along with the right hon. members, told the people they would support this measure, because they had confidence in their leader, and were Liberals. But why such an unbounded confidence in the Prime Minister? He should long since have known the meaning of promises that were always vague and indefinite.


Mr. DENIS:: Was not the hon. member also taken in by the Conservatives?


Mr. LALONDE:: He will not admit it.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I would ask the hon. member not to interrupt.
A little further on, the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres had this to say:
But we have never been able, even to this moment, to know definitely how many French Canadians have enlisted in English-speaking
regiments. A member of the administration of 1917, after he was out of politics, complained that even in his day, in 1917 and subsequently, he could never get information as to the number of French Canadians who had enlisted in so-called English-speaking regiments. We cannot get that information. We have never been able to get it; and when you start to compare the enlistments in other sections of Canada with the enlistments in the province of Quebec, you should be sure of your figures. We cannot get them. There are many factors that have to be taken into consideration before condemning the population of the province of Quebec or before we sustain the censure of certain military men who are mixing in politics instead of fulfilling their duties. This is a point that needs to be emphasized, and the point upon which many details should be obtained and given before condemnation is passed on the race which was the first established on the land of Canada.
Now that the former minister of Public Works has left the government, he is protesting against the unjust treatment meted out to French Canadians; there also, others have anticipated him while he was a member of the government and stood-as he himself likes to put it-as the representative of all his fellow citizens in Quebec.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: To my knowledge, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has twice brought up the question during the last two years. Why then did the former Minister of Public Works not have this anomaly removed, why, Mr. Speaker, did he not do away with these injustices?
Further on in the course of his speech, the hon. member, discussing in a general way the conscription of men for home defence, criticized the present method of enforcing this measure. Yet at the time. Mr. Speaker, we too had opposed this legislation. I had stated that I was ready to accept the principle involved, and I also declared that it was the first step toward conscription for service in any theatre of war. This has now come to pass. The former Minister of Public Works claims to be surprised at the present trend of events. The mobilization of Canadian man-power, that alleged conscription for the defence of the country, was just so much bluff. There was less real danger, there was less need to prepare the defence of Canada in 1940 than there is to-day when the enemy is invading North American territory, invading Alaska our neighbour to the north. That there was less danger at that time, the following fact amply proves: After our youth had been drafted into the army, they were victimized in every way until they consented to join the active force and serve overseas.
Mobilization Act-Mr. Roy

The house will recall that the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) who, at present, is an officer, a lieutenant-colonel in the army, I believe, and who is stationed at a training camp, has proffered this charge in this very house. He stated, on that occasion, that all the means by which trainees were forced to enlist for overseas service were disgraceful. I quote his own words: "They are even submitted to the third degree." Forty-five per cent of them have yielded to this pressure and have enlisted as volunteers. As for the others, the 1940 act is hastily amended, in order to send them overseas also, although there is greater need for them in Canada now than in 1940. Consequently, they were not drafted for the defence of Canada.
All that was taking place while the former Minister of Public Works represented his people in the cabinet, while he was a member of the government. No excuse will hold to-day, Mr. Speaker; it is too late to complain. No one can take seriously the excuses that his tardy repentance suggest to him.
The former Minister of Public Works further states:
No wonder that we did not then get the response that I myself expected; although I may say I participated in that campaign at the risk of my own life.
However, the press is astonished that the hon. member did not state the exact nature of the risks he had to face. We know that the former Minister of Public Works was seriously ill some short time ago.


Mr. BRADETTE:: The reason is sufficient.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: And that a strong constitution alone made his recovery possible, but we also know that at the end of January or the beginning of February, the former minister of Public Works was again in harness.


Maurice Lalonde: He was and is still a sick man.	[DOT]


Joseph Sasseville Roy: When he took the floor on April 25 last, he was perfectly able to speak. In any case, he has offered no explanation. This statement, however, is an admission that he made serious efforts to obtain a different answer to that given by Quebec. Here is another excerpt from his speech.
You want to respect that vote; you want to say, "I am going to obey the will of these people and vote according to their wishes"; so why do you deny me the same privilege of respecting the will of the population of my province, after I have done all I could to have them see the question otherwise?
Such are the facts, Mr. Speaker. We are perfectly justified in concluding that, had the

hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres obtained a different answer from his constituents, had their answer been in the affirmative, he would still be a member of the government.


Maurice Lalonde: I raise a point of order. The rules of the 'house forbid imputing motives to an hon. member. The hon. member for Gaspe, under pretext of giving a fictional interpretation of his colleague's words, is imputing motives.


Mr. LACOMBE:: On another point of order. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde) is now imputing fantastic motives to the hon. member for Gaspe. In order to keep the record straight, I would ask that the hon. member withdraw ,his last words, as they are entirely out of order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Does any hon. member wish to speak on the>
point of order?


Liguori Lacombe: I wish to point out to the hon. Liberal member for Labelle that he is caught in his own trap. He has just imputed fantastic motives to the hon. member for Gaspe and I would ask him-[DOT]


Maurice Lalonde: I am surprised to see the hon. member for Gaspe call the leader of the Canadian party to his help.


Thomas Vien: The rules of the house are quite clear. In his Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Beauchesne, quoting May, says in rule 297 that it is absolutely out of order to impute to any hon. member of the house dishonourable or false motives or bad intentions. I would ask the hon. member from Gaspe to withdraw his last words, because he is clearly imputing reprehensible motives to the hon. member from Richelieu-Vercheres.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I will substitute the following words-


Thomas Vien: The hon. member must first of all withdraw the words objected to.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I withdraw them.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That is something.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I wonder what would have happened if the electors of the ex-Minister of Public Works had answered yes to the question put at the time of the plebiscite.
He might not have made that final concession which he himself has termed a treachery, that is the concession of accepting conscription for military service in all theatres of war. It may be that he would not have made it, but great doubt still exists as to what might have happened. The former Minister of Public Works has acknowledged that he has

made one concession after another. We have agreed in 1939, he said, we have again agreed in 1940, we have accepted the plebiscite, we have made every possible concession in order to maintain national unity, as the Liberal party conceives it. It should be called liberal unity. Everyone will admit that one principle of the Liberal party is that things should never be called by their true names, that things should never be shown in their true light. Never-


Thomas Vien: The hon. member is dealing with remarks made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. He says that the hon. members who belong to the Liberal party are in the habit of never calling things by their true names. This also is against the rules of this house. It is said at page 100 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
... to impute want of straightforwardness or courage to him . . .
The remarks of the hon. member imply that the statements of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres lack frankness and straightforwardness, and I believe the hon. member should withdraw these remarks.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have imputed no motives, I have named no hon. member-


Maurice Lalonde: On a point of order. You have given your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I call upon the hon. member to withdraw his remarks.


Liguori Lacombe: On the point of order-


Thomas Vien: Order. I have given my ruling. I say that the hon. member for Gaspe must withdraw his remarks.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the hon. member for Labelle has raised a point of order.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that expression.


Maurice Lalonde: Very well, thank you.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw this
statement. It is a recognized fact that, to follow the Liberal tradition, things are never represented in their proper light. Well, in the name of national unity, concessions were made and it is claimed that they were made in the name of French Canada, if I remember correctly the utterances of hon. members. Never would French Canada have subscribed to concessions in the matter of the sacred rights conferred by pledges made to us and of the privileges guaranteed by them, for these pledges and privileges have been earned by our ancestors, in 1787, 1812 and 1849, as well as by our
Mobilization Act-Mr. Roy
glorious volunteers of Vimy, Mons, Amiens, et cetera, during the war of 1914 to 1918, and they continue to be earned by our heroic young men, Robillard, Morin and others. The French Canadians would never have made such concessions, which were not to their own advantage, but solely to the benefit of the Liberal party. These concessions were made in order to retain power and the advantages that go with it.


Maurice Lalonde: Seek power for your own sake, but you will never attain to it.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is absolutely alone.


Liguori Lacombe: And soon, you will be out of office.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: The facts must be set in their true light so that history may record them faithfully. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, in the course of his speech, has made this further statement:
The people of Quebec, the minority in Canada, as I have said, have no reason to be ashamed of the attitude its members are taking. So far as I am concerned I have a quiet conscience as a result of the course I have taken in resigning the two portfolios which the Prime Minister was kind enough to bestow on me. . . .
If we refer to another statement made over the radio on April 24 last by the exMinister of Public Works, we may well wonder if the minister has enhanced or lowered his prestige in turning against the members who campaigned against a yes vote during the plebiscite.
Here is what I find in Le Canada of Saturday, April 25, 1942:
Address delivered last night, April 24, over the C.B.C. network, on the plebiscite.
Strife was stirred in the province of Quebec, in order to oust Laurier from power! How-many statements of so-called independence, selfseeking denunciations from political partisans, accusations of weakness and treason, appeals to prejudice, did we hear at the time? It was exactly the same as to-day, except that the leaders of the movement were then more eminent and better endowed.
A few of the so-called saviours of that time are still to be found in to-day's agitation. They are a little older, but they seem to have learned nothing, no doubt because they did not suffer from w-hat they helped to create. Those agitators said that Laurier had turned coward and traitor; that he wanted power at all cost and that he was sold to England.
Everyone knows at whom this pun is directed, for he is none other than Mr. Henri Bourassa, of Montreal. Mr. Bourassa has certainly no lessons to receive from the former Minister of Public Works-


An hon. MEMBER:: Nor from you.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: -because of the well-known purity and constancy of his patriotism. This
Mobilization Act-Mr. Roy

clear-sighted gentleman has no lessons to receive from the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres who, toward the end of his life, is beginning to learn what Mr. Bourassa knew long ago. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres now advances the very arguments used by Mr. Bourassa in 1911. The latter never made any concessions nor did he ever change his policy. He never had to explain his stand, nor to complain that he had been misled, that he had let himself be led into error. Wherever he spoke, be it in Ottawa, in Quebec, in Toronto or at the Eucharistic congress in 1910, he always propounded the same arguments. Never did he allow his patriotism to change or falter because of political considerations or a lust for power.


Maurice Lalonde: He has changed in his
old age.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: The former Minister of Public Works has nothing to teach that great Canadian patriot, who never compromised. Mr. Bourassa would never have allowed anyone to lay hands on that precious national asset I mentioned a moment ago, which was granted to us by fair and generous-hearted Englishmen such as were the McNabbs, the Macdonalds, the Baldwins, and such as would have been the present Prime Minister had he not gone back on his policy of 1939. This national asset we hold from such men as we find in this great race, when there are no Shields to stir up passions, religious and racial prejudices, or deter them from their natural straightforwardness and common-sense through all kinds of deceptive and erroneous statements, and when there is no exploitation of prejudices by fanatics or gain by an infamous international finance which, at the moment, is standing at the keyboard of the infernal carillon whose sinister echoes blend with smoking ruins and blood-soaked battle fields.
He certainly would not have made any such concessions, and perhaps we would not find ourselves faced with the critical situation which endures to-day.
Mr. Bourassa has certainly no need of me to defend him, but we, his juniors, wish to seek inspiration from his life of devotion, and we know that the seed he has sown will produce better results than that which the former Minister of Public Works and the Liberal party as a whole are reaping to-day. These attacks against him, whatever their source, deeply wound us, and that is why I protest. And as for that great orator of past campaigns -1917, 1921, 1925, 1926, that is every one of them including the plebiscite campaign-in vain would we seek in the sound of his voice

sufficient emotion, strong enough pathos to inspire belief in his sincerity, in his ability to stir up once more-


Thomas Vien: Order. The hon. member may not contest the sincerity of an hon. member of this house. When he contests that of the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres he is out of order. I call this once more to his attention in order that he may avoid a repetition of the same mistake.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I take back the word "sincerity." I rather meant to say that "he will not convince me that the flower of hope will ever bloom again on the remains of the political massacre which we are witnessing to-day." We shall be guided by other voices and inspired, we of the young generation, by other principles. We shall forever banish these electoral methods based on misleading promises, prejudices and expedients. Our doctrine, the fundamental points of our programme, will take their inspiration from Christian social justice and ethics and will have for cornerstones the family, the basic industries and the respect for others. This is how we are going to organize our national economic and social life and I hope that it will give better results and that peace and prosperity will flourish in this country. Mr. Speaker, I know that I have given more time than I intended to these considerations, before proposing the following amendment-


Thomas Vien: I must draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he has exceeded his time by two minutes and a half.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I have been delayed by calls to order and I think I should be allowed a few minutes in order to submit the amendment I have in mind.


Thomas Vien: I have to go by what the Clerk tells me. The hon. member has spoken for forty-two minutes.


Liguori Lacombe: Notwithstanding the vote of April 27 last, the government is still bound by its previous commitments never to impose conscription. The result of the plebiscite is not conclusive, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his colleagues asserted time and time again over the stations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that it was not a matter of voting for or against conscription. What were the means employed to obtain a "yes" vote? There was a complete mobilization of the facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which were placed at the service of the proponents

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lacombe
of a "yes" vote. With very few exceptions, all the newspapers of the country were in favour of the government and supported those who requested a "yes" vote. Why were we unjustly refused the use of the facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? Certainly it was not in the name of liberty, justice and right for which our soldiers, airmen and seamen are sacrificing their lives. It was done in order to favour party interests. All available means were used, and the population of the country was shamefully deprived of its sacred right to free and honest debate.
From personal experience I know that otherwise the result of the plebiscite would have been different from what the protagonists of the "yes" vote desired. The government is misled if it thinks that it is now freed from its solemn pledges. A small group of busybodies induced the government to hold this plebiscite to the detriment of national unity.
I know that many hon. members do not share my views concerning the best way of defending Canada, but at least they have to admit that I never hit my opponents in the back, not even on the side. I always attack from the front, as I do now by asserting that the result of the plebiscite is not at all conclusive and the government is still bound by its sacred commitments. Therefore the government should be careful not to enter upon the long road which leads to danger. It should pay no heed to the pernicious advice of those who in the name of liberty are ready to sacrifice liberty itself. Let it not trust those who, supposedly to defend democracy, would ruin and disorganize the defence of Canada. Let it repudiate as enemies of this country those overexcited persons who in their enthusiasm are determined to sacrifice our last man and our last cent in this great adventure far away from our first line of defence, which must remain here on our very shores. Let it always bear in mind that the first duty of Canadians is toward their country, whose defences must be organized before all.
There is great danger from political cancers. It is only recently that a certain man held a prominent diplomatic post. Why does Mr. Herridge refer to the province of Quebec as a cancer attached to the north American continent? Like everyone else he knows that Quebec is loyal and faithful to His Majesty the King. Our province is fulfilling its duty in connection with Canada's war effort. Thousands and thousands of its sons have enlisted voluntarily, and all victory loan campaigns have been oversubscribed. What was the first Canadian regiment to complete its
establishment for overseas service? It was Le Regiment Maisonneuve, which was raised in Quebec and made up of Quebec soldiers. There are many other compatriots in the army, the air force and the navy who answered spontaneously the call to the colours.
If ever Canada is attacked-and God forbid that it ever is-they will rush with all true Canadians to the defence of their country. They will dispute every inch of ground against the enemy. Our compatriots of English, Scotch, Irish and other extractions will then see a revival of national unity. Despite what may be said about it, national unity is not dead in Canada. It is only the defeatists and fifth columnists who claim it is. If it is necessary to defend Canadian territory, the whole population of this country will claim the supreme right of fighting the invader.
Let us examine the means employed by the government to obtain a "yes" vote. On March 24 last the Prime Minister asserted in this chamber that farmers, farmers' sons and farm hands would be exempted from compulsory military training. For many months and many years I had never ceased requesting this exemption, and on the same day I told the government how grateful and satisfied I was over the measure. I cannot express how surprised I was when I returned to my riding and became aware that the registrar was following his previous practice and calling up farmers and even the only sons of farmers whose occupation had always been farming. I could give to this house a long list of young farmers who have been called to the colours, such as the Guindons from St. Augustin, the Lauzons, the Ethiers, the Filiatreaults from Ste. Monique, the Gauthiers, the Godards from St. Eustache, the Pages from St. Hermas. The complete list would be much too long.
The reaction of the agricultural population which believed the word of the Prime Minister was quite widespread. It was even more so when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) stated subsequently that farmers and farmers' sons would be still liable to military service and compulsory training, except that they would have the privilege of asking for a postponement of training. How do you explain, Mr. Speaker, those statements, so formal and explicit, made by the Prime Minister upon such a capital question and then contradicted a few days after by his colleagues in the cabinet? From these contradictory statements part of the rural population quite naturally concluded that farmers and farmers' sons and farm hands were not exempt from compulsory military training, while others remained confident that they were.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lacombe
As I said a while ago, if we had not been denied the facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during the campaign on the plebiscite we could have enlightened the population of the whole country upon such a far-reaching matter as the flagrant contradiction between the statements of the Prime Minister and those of his colleagues. But it does not seem that the owners of radio receiving sets, who pay the government a high fee for their licence, as well as tremendous taxes, are entitled to know the truth. The Canadian population which sacrifices its sons and its income for the war was denied the right to hear the truth. The Canadian party was refused the facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and you will see on what a poor pretext, Mr. Speaker, when I read this letter which the Prime Minister wrote to me on April 13, 1942:
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, April 13, 1942. Liguori Lacombe, Esq., M.P.,
Ste. Scholastique,
Quebec.
Dear Mr. Lacombe:
I wish to acknowledge your letter of April the 10th regarding the use of the radio in the plebiscite campaign.
As you are, of course, aware, the government has no authority to give orders to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The policy worked out by arrangement with the corporation is set out in the statement given to the press yesterday by the Hon. W. P. Mulock which reads as follows:
"My attention has been drawn to a report in the press of to-day under the heading, 'Three Members to give addresses on Plebiscite,' and as acting Secretary of State, I wish to correct this statement immediately.
"The use of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's English and French networks, in dealing with the plebiscite, is restricted to use by the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet and the leaders of the recognized parties in the House of Commons.
"They are given free time similar to that received in election campaigns and are speaking by reason of the positions they hold and not by reason of the fact they are advocating a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question.
"Any private members or other persons who desire to speak, provided they comply with the necessary regulations and either pay for the time themselves or have it donated to them, can, of course, speak from a local privately-owned broadcasting station."
The Prime Minister's letter continues:
The question as to whether a party is recognized from the point of view of broadcasting,
I understand, is one which is settled according to a formula worked out by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in consultation with all the political parties prior to the last general election.
Yours sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
The night before I had received the following telegram from the director of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Augustin Frigon:
Montreal, Quebec, April 11, 1942.
I am not authorized to rent stations or network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to anyone or to loan others the networks indicated to me. The instructions I have received are explicit and final. You may use private stations.
Augustin Frigon.
Where is the truth, Mr. Speaker? Is it in the Prime Minister's letter or in the telegram sent to me by Mr. Augustin Frigon, a director of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? Mr. Frigon states that his instructions are formal and definite. Who gave him those instructions? One sentence in the Prime Minister's letter will provide the answer:
The question as to whether a party is recognized from the point of view of broadcasting, I understand, is one which is settled according to a formula worked out by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in consultation with all the political parties prior to the last general election.
That is nothing but a cynical joke. And so the various political parties united in violation of their solemn pledges and sacred commitments to deny the use of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's facilities to the Canadian party and its founder. Where are now these political parties which existed prior to the last general election? Where is the official opposition in this house, the so-called National government candidates in the election of the 26th of March, 1940? Where is the Social Credit party, now the New Democracy? Where is the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party since the loss of its distinguished leader, the late Mr. Woodsworth? Where are the other parties?


Maurice Lalonde: Where is the Canadian party?


Liguori Lacombe: Yes, the Canadian party, my dear friend. I ask you, where is the Libera] party?


Maurice Lalonde: Right here.


Liguori Lacombe: It is merged forever with the Conservative opposition, and you know it. It is merged with all the parties who advocated a "yes" answer in the plebiscite vote. Union government? Why create one? We have one right now, and it is more united than ever. The Conservative opposition, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, the Social Credit party or the New Democracy, and the government itself, said so to the Canadian people during the plebiscite campaign. Let them pull together, and in these sacred and

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lacombe
farmers' sons and farm hands before starvation sets in in our army, among our civilian population and1 in our dear country. I implore them to cease tearing away from their farms young farmers who own their lands, using brute strength to do so, as happened at Sainte Monique and Saint Augustin, in Two-Mountains, during the night of the 9th of June. Is that the exemption promised by the Prime Minister on March 24 last?
If we adopt such a measure as this we shall give to the government and the opposition a free hand to destroy at a single stroke the work of Laurier, who devoted his long and brave career to the welfare of the country, and who at the end of that career fought with the energy of a lion the conscription act introduced by Borden in 1917. If we adopt such a measure we shall be taking an active part in insulting by means of this conscription issue the memory of that great Canadian. If we reject this amendment the nine provinces of the dominion will be given an opportunity to respect once more the illustrious name of Laurier. If we reject this amendment we will save in our dear country the national unity symbolized in our local cemetery by Laurier's glorious tombstone.
Mr. Speaker, we have many good reasons to fight this bill. Would we leave the protection of our sons against conscription in the hands of the present government, which has just rejected the mandate which it received from the people of Canada on March 26, 1940? Would we commit our dearest possessions to the charge of a government that was elected upon a policy condemning formally conscription for service everywhere and at all times, and that is now ready to pass conscription? Personally I am determined to fight with all my strength this infamous measure which more than sixty thousand soldiers defending this country urge us not to adopt. In the name of more than one million, six hundred thousand Canadians from all parts of the country I am determined to fight with all my strength this pernicious amendment. Why? Because the freedom and sovereignty of this country, as expressed by the statute of Westminster, urge us to do so. Why? In order to do away once and for all with this deplorable colonial mentality which still persists in Canada. Why? In order to recall the government to the true meaning of facts, and remind it that Canada is still Canada^ that our first line of defence is here and must remain here, on our own shores. Why? In order to tell the government that we refuse to migrate to Europe with the last shred of our homeland, the last cent of our public moneys, and the last son of Canada. Why? In order to protest against this project of

raising en masse all our young men, all the inhabitants of Canada, all our natural resources, all our vital strength, unless it be for the defence of Canada. Why? Because we must, before all, organize the defence of our territory, because Canada is our country, our homeland, the only one we have, and because we are more than ever determined to defend it.
One last word. I listened with great interest to the speech delivered last week by the former Minister of Public Works and Transport (Mr. Cardin). This speech from the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres would have been more practical and more effective if it had been delivered last February, during the debate on the dominion plebiscite bill. It is most unfortunate that such a piece of eloquence is given us at a moment when all hopes seem lost. How much more precious the intervention of the hon. member would have been for our province and our country if it had occurred when the government introduced its famous plebiscite bill! One might object that too late is better than never. To this I reply: Indeed, let us save what we can still save if, however, there is still something that can be saved. But I fear it is too late unless the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres and bis followers concur in the doctrine I have always advocated-an exclusively Canadian policy.
Mr. Speaker, can we accept a condition under which hon. members who never ceased to assert their anti-conscriptionist feelings still continue to sit beside the Prime Minister who is getting ready to raise all our vital strength, all our youth, all our sons, by repealing section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act, our last safeguard against conscription for overseas service? If my hon. colleagues are really against conscription, will they agree to be party to what the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres termed with such energy "the treason of the Prime Minister"? Personally, I never played upon words or upon the future of my country. He who violates his pledges, plays upon words and imperils the future of his country. The speech delivered by the former Minister of Public Works and Transport is the solemn assertion that actual events are proving that I was right. Furthermore, because the Canadian party does not proclaim the doctrine of one man, of one class or of one race in particular, but that of one nation, I invite the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres ,\nd his colleagues who share his views to join our ranks, in the next forty-eight hours, because afterwards it will be too late. Do not forget that.
Time presses. Hon. members may laugh. They will not laugh after the next general

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bradette
election if they do not join the ranks of the Canadian party; be sure of that. The interest of Canada orders you, orders them to sever the last links which still bind them to this government which the former Minister of Public Works and Transport branded so thoroughly and which will carry to the eyes of future generations the responsibility of having deceived and betrayed the Canadian people who honoured this government with a confidence never before equalled in the political history of this country.
I have the honour to move, seconded by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy):
That all the words after the word "that" in the principal motion be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
this house is of the opinion that the ministers and most of the members from "Quebec" do not have a mandate allowing them to modify the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940; that the voluntary contribution of soldiers for overseas service is satisfactory because of the dangers which are now threatening Canada and of growing difficulties arising from shortage of labour for production of food and other war necessities; that it is essential to maintain national unity; also that if there is a compulsory measure, the survey of which may be necessary, it is not conscription of men for overseas service but rather compulsory mobilization of accumulated wealth for the purpose of lightening the burden of the cost of war that lies so heavily on those in the lower income brackets of society.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre); Mr. Speaker, this amendment is obviously out of order. If you will refer to a motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) on June 18, 1940, at that time it was ruled by Mr. Speaker that the motion, which was similar to the one now before the Chair, was a substantive motion which did not seek to amend the main motion. The amendment now moved by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) does not seek to amend the main motion, and on that count alone is out of order. In the second place it mentions again the issue of the conscription of wealth, which has been twice disposed of in the judgment of this house during the present session of parliament. On that ground also it is definitely out of order.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER; Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the point of order?


Liguori Lacombe: I want to know first on what grounds the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) bases his point of order. I did not understand his objection, and I would ask him to repeat it.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I shall be glad to do so. The only way in
which my hon. friend could move such a resolution would be within the terms of citation 755 of Beauchesne. A motion similar to the present amendment was moved on June 18, 1940, and was ruled out of order by the Speaker, which ruling was sustained by the house, on the ground that it was a substantive motion and did not seek to amend the main motion. There is nothing in the resolution now moved by my hon. friend that seeks to amend in the slightest way the motion for the second reading of the bill now before the house. The second point is that my hon. friend mentions an issue already twice disposed of by the house during the present session, once as an amendment to the address in reply and once as an amendment to the plebiscite bill.


Liguori Lacombe: I submit respectfully
that the case mentioned by the minister absolutely does not apply in the present instance.


Thomas Vien: If no other
hon. member desires to speak, I shall give my ruling on the amendment. I find the amendment out of order because it covers a subject matter already discussed and dealt with earlier in the present session. Further, for the reasons suggested by the minister, namely, that it is a substantive motion, and that it anticipates possible amendments which may be made when the bill is in committee, I must also find this amendment out of order.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I regret I am obliged to appeal from your ruling.


Thomas Vien: The hon.
member being alone to appeal from my decision, his appeal fails.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Speaker, although I have the honour to speak after the Canadian party has spoken, and after receiving an invitation to join that exclusive club, I do not anticipate that I shall belong to it in the near or even distant future. Anyone listening to the remarks of the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Lacombe) will realize now more than ever before how hard it is to govern this country. It is a big contract in times of peace; it is a much bigger one in time of war, times like these when every nation in the world seems to experience a certain anxiety and a certain amount of nervousness. It also shows that no matter what a government may do, no matter what a prime minister may do to try to satisfy every section of our population, geographically, racially or religiously speaking, the thing is humanly impossible.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bradette
I make that statement now because I want to ask the house to act as the Canadian people generally act in times of crisis-to be indulgent, to study fully and try to realize the situation we are facing at the present time, not only as it relates to Canada but as it relates to the whole of the civilized, world and to Christianity; to face it in a coolheaded way, so that whatever we decide here may be in the interests of the things we cherish the most. As we have seen in this house, it is absolutely impossible to bring in any policy relating to the present war which will satisfy all the parties here, including even the Liberal party itself. In his remarks the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) came out immediately for a total war effort, with which we can all agree. That is one common ground on which the people of Canada are in full accord, namely the necessity for a total war effort in order that we may achieve the victory as soon as possible for the principles we cherish. But again the hon. gentleman brought to this house the bogy that was raised during the election of 1940, the suggestion of a union or national government, something which was severely rejected by the Canadian electorate at that time. Again the hon. gentleman made that appeal; and I have never doubted his sincerity for a single moment, even when he made that appeal. He did not name any of those he intended to have in his government, but I well remember that last session the talented young member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), during the course of one of his speeches, mentioned with fervour the name of a distinguished Canadian now in the British House of Lords, Lord Bennett, a man wonderfully gifted, who was at the head of this government during one of the most difficult periods in our history, the great depression. However, that fell flat, like a frozen pancake; it was not mentioned again in the newspapers or anywhere else, though this outstanding gentleman was mentioned as a possible member of that superman cabinet.
Who were the men the leader of the opposition had in mind? I know the first one who would go from this side of the house; it would be the Prime Minister of this country. So far as I am concerned I am going to stand by him through thick and thin, because he has done a wonderful job, in connection with Canada's war effort, in maintaining national unity. In making that statement I believe I am voicing the sentiment not only of my own constituents but also of the great majority of the Canadian people. The leader of the opposition received an answer to his suggestion only a few days after he made it, 
from Mr. J. M. Macdonnell, who is a potential leader of the Conservative party in Canada. Speaking before a Conservative business men's club at Toronto on June 11, 1942, Mr. Macdonnell is reported as follows:
The party system, he said, was one of the chief institutions on which freedom depended. A national government, one which faced virtually no opposition, was an evil thing, the negation of all free institutions, and if it had to come it would have to be made as brief as possible.
That should settle the question of national government, or the so-called superman cabinet to run this country during the present period of stress. Again, to indicate how hard it is to please every section of this house, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group tried, during the course of this discussion, to sell us state socialism. By a well-worded document, well prepared and well delivered by their leader, the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) they repeated the old cliche of socialism. I do not for one moment doubt his sincerity, but I would ask some questions at this time, just to know exactly what is meant. Are they going to socialize industries only during war time, or for all time? Do they want to socialize the farms? An hon. member from western Canada asked them a few days ago if they were not going to socialize labour. One thing that has impressed me is this: They want to take -to confiscate, because that is the only proper expression-the savings of the Canadian people.


Angus MacInnis: Who said that?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It was said in so many words.
Mr. MacINNIS No, it was not "said in so many words".


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes, it was; and I will quote what was said.


Angus MacInnis: Confiscation was never
mentioned.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That is what it would amount to, after all. This is the platform of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation:
Compulsory interest-free loans, levied according to ability to contribute, as one of the means of war financing.
I can only say that my interpretation of that would be that it would give authority to the federal treasury to go out and confiscate at will, in whole or in part, the savings of the people.


Angus MacInnis: It is done in New
Zealand now.

Mobilization Act-Air. Bradette


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Well, this is Canada. I
am not worrying about New Zealand; I am worrying about our own people, the older ones and the younger ones, the people who want to put away a nest-egg of savings who still believe in thrift. But the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation would have the government take that money. They would put a premium on not saving a cent. The person who would not have the foresightedness to put. away some savings would go 9cot free. They pat him on the head and say, "Oh, you are a good fellow; don't think of the future; we will do that for you. You are just going to let things go." If the people do save something, then this party will come along and attempt to force the hand of the government. They will say, "We are going to expropriate that money, against your will"-and there is no other interpretation to be placed upon it.


Angus MacInnis: Is that not what they
are doing

taking the people's savings?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No, there is a great
difference.


Angus MacInnis: Of course you are.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No.


Angus MacInnis: It is only a life; it does not matter.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Call it what you like. I am not at the moment dealing with life. Then they draw again, or try to draw a picture, trying to confuse the minds of the Canadian people, when they say:
Replacing all dollar-a-year men by full-time national administrators paid only by the state and working in conjunction with war boards on which labour and farm organizations are properly represented.
I hold no brief for the so-called dollar-a-year men. I do not know any of them. I have never had any connection with any of them, directly or indirectly, either in private or in public life. But can anyone make me believe that most of those men, sometimes the heads of their own organizations, both industrial and financial, men who have added something to our Canadian life, are not honest and sincere, and doing something for the country? They came here to help the government to do yeoman work, and yet these people are going to throw them out, holus bolus, without giving them a chance to go before the public, to receive public opinion. Oh, no; those men cannot be forgiven because they happened to work for big corporations.
If we follow that mentality in this country, an attitude which means that men who have
succeeded in their professions, in farming, in finance or in. industry must be outcasts from our Canadian society, then I do not want to live in Canada under those conditions. Why do we find this condemnation? Why does that party try to make the Canadian people believe that these men are unjust and unfair in their activities? I say that in this country most of the big men-and I shall not call them by name-are acting fairly. The so-called dollar-a-year men come here well qualified in certain lines of endeavour, and I am sure, without knowing them personally, that they are honest and sincere. The idea in their minds is to see that we come out victorious in this terrific conflict, and to that end they are giving the best they have in them. They love their country as any other Canadians do. If my hon. friends opposite have their way, their names will remain infamous for all time to come. So far as I am concerned I will not be a party to that kind of thing.
As I have pointed out, I have been told that at least eighty per cent of those men were followers of the Conservative party. I have read about, heard about and know something about their actions. I have been convinced and I sincerely believe that each one of them is working as hard as he possibly can-not for the Liberal party, not for any particular government, but for Canada, our allies and the British empire.
In a well-prepared and well-delivered speech, the sincerity of which I do not doubt, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) tried to fix war guilt. He went back in history, and because he did so I suppose I may be allowed the same privilege. Referring to what happened in England at one time he used these words:
We saw the reactionary Tory government of Great Britain making concession after concession to the dictators of Rome and Berlin.
This is not fair to British politics; it is not fair to what happened in England. No matter what we say now, the fact is that we were all Munich men, when Mr. Chamberlain went to Munich.


Angus MacInnis: Let the hon. member speak for himself.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I will come back to that again. Chamberlain went to Munich because he knew that Great Britain was not ready.


Mr. GILLIS:: Why was she not ready?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Why? I will ask the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Bradette
Gillis) to look at the history of Great Britain. I would ask him to go back to the time when they had a near-socialist government in England that pretty nearly scuttled the British navy, and wanted peace at any price. If he does that he will find the answer to his question. We must keep the record straight.


Angus MacInnis: Let the hon. member go back to his own party.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am speaking about the hon. member's party now.
In my opinion that is not a very good record either-by a long shot. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 we fought here for national defence. Our Prime Minister had the foresight to see what was developing on the European horizon. He was thinking of the safety and security of Canada, and the development of national defence. He could see the dangerous war clouds rising on the European horizon. Were there any greater opponents to increases in expenditures for national defence than hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation?
In my own constituency in 1939 they held an organization meeting, and they asked tjiese questions: "Whom is the Liberal party going to fight? Whom is Canada going to fight? Are they going to fight Japan? Surely they do not intend to fight Germany?" It just happened that they were close to Moosonee, and they said they were "probably going to fight the Eskimos." Those are the things they were trying to say in those days. Let us keep the record straight. The condition of the world was not due to the Tory party in Great Britain; it was not due to any party. It was due to the state of mind of civilized people, of the democracies-nothing more or less than that. They all wished for and wanted peace. This is no place to try to besmirch the reputation of the British people or their government.
And now a word about social credit. They always have a wonderful bargain counter, but there is only one article on it, and that is social credit. They will cooperate with anyone or with anybody-not the New Democracy, of course, because they threw that name away a few days ago. I have nothing to say against the Social Credit party or its leader.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down


John Horne Blackmore: I have never refused a question from anyone in the house. If hon.

members will not permit me the same privilege, then I say shame on them. The hon. member for Cochrane has just said that we had thrown away the New Democracy name. That is absolutely incorrect.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I said-


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Martin):: The hon. gentleman has asked permission to put a question and the hon. gentleman who has the floor has consented. Will the hon. member put his question?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I withdraw anything I said against New Democracy. For five or-six years these people in Alberta have tried out their theories. However, we will leave that aside for the moment. What puzzles me is that the leader of this party is in favour of female civil servants in his province going out and buying farms which cost $4,000 to $5,000 in some cases, and then bringing in chinchillas, mink and other fur-bearing animals. He said that to do this would increase our foreign exchange. Time after time the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has risen in his place to attack the gold mining industry in my section of the country and apparently he wants to destroy it. This industry produces $200,000,000 of new wealth a year, which helps to maintain the ratio of the Canadian dollar to the United States currency. What is the sense in making such an attack? Nearly
500,000	Canadians, miners, farmers and workers, are fruitfully employed in producing a commodity which has a ready market in the United States.
I want to speak now on national unity.


Angus MacInnis: It would be out of order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Is the hon. member against national unity? I seldom interrupt the hon. gentleman when he is speaking. I have never doubted his sincerity, and I ask him to treat me in the same way.


Angus MacInnis: A little while ago the hon. gentleman said that what we were saying-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Angus MacInnis: -was said just to poison the minds of the people.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I was referring to the policies of his party, not to the hon. member individually.


Angus MacInnis: Our party is sincere; we are not poisoning the minds of the people.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I will say yes definitely. The hon. member has said worse things at times about the Liberal party.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bradette
We have just heard two hon. members from the province of Quebec. They represent an . important section of the country that voted a definite "no", but I must tell them that there are other sections of the country where the Canadian people voted a definite "yes". If the extremists of our country can find a common ground then it will be possible to maintain Canadian unity. I believe it was last session that a member on the Conservative side stated that the majority should not be governed by the minority. I never heard a more sinister statement made, because I never knew that minorities could govern majorities.
In the British empire we have a marvellous spectacle of a small British minority, as far as the British people are concerned, doing one of the finest jobs the world has ever known. This result has been achieved by their endeavouring to understand every section of that empire. Only a few days ago one Hindu leader made a statement that three out of four people in the British empire are Hindus. The fact that that little island has become one of the great institutions of the world is due to its ability to listen to the problems of the people, to understand and respect the aspirations of all its people. Here in Canada we have the descendants of two great races, the French and the English, as well as the descendants of other European races, living together and working to make a greater prosperity and a happier Canada. It was my good fortune to be born and raised in Quebec. That is my second country within my country. When I go back to the French-speaking part of Canada it is like making a pilgrimage. However, I am living now in Ontario and I must give this message to you. To you in Quebec who are an integral part in our national life, to you who have done so well in your own province, remember that the Laurentian mountains are not the border of your country. The whole of Canada belongs to you, to the French-speaking Canadians as well as to the English-speaking Canadians, indeed, as well as to all Canadians.
If we can move forward, if we can eliminate the rough spots in this time of crisis, then there is no reason to doubt the future of this country. But to run roughshod over the minorities is un-Canadian and un-British. As a loyal son of British institutions and of Canada, I believe it is my duty to repeat what has been said so well by previous speakers and by several members of the cabinet. We are not satisfied with what has been done in our war effort, we want it to be accentuated still more. This effort should not meet with derision, and Canadian unity must be maintained at all times. Would any
Canadian have the audacity to say that they are not loyal to their institutions in south Africa because their mobilization act states definitely that there will be no service required outside the African continent? No one will dare say that they are not loyal or are not ready to fight for Christianity or civilization.
Australia has been mentioned time and time again. Her sons are fighting in every section of the civilized world, but I do not think any one will dare criticize them because they have not passed legislation for service overseas. We have many things to learn from the present conflict. Anyone who has watched events in Burma during the last three months must come to the conclusion that certain racial and social problems must be dealt with.
To refer again to the Indian empire, only a few weeks ago Great Britain found it possible to send one of her greatest statesmen, a progressive in every sense of the word, to that country to attempt to deal with questions that had arisen. Sir Stafford Cripps had a mandate from his own government, and he stayed on the ground in an effort to comprehend the aspirations of every section of the population of that great Indian empire. I well remember when a newspaperman on the Ottawa Journal went to England last year to attend a press conference. When he came home he wrote a series of very fine articles. It was his good fortune, probably because his ancestors came from Ireland, to have had a personal interview with the Prime Minister of Eire.
This newspaperman wrote a series of articles in which he did not beg, because there was no need to beg, but in which he asked the Canadian people to try to comprehend the position of Eire, to realize what she had done so far and what could be expected of her. It was not necessary that those articles should be read in the province of Quebec, or, for that matter, anywhere else in Canada. So far as I know, there has not been a single adverse comment in the province of Quebec over the attitude of Eire in this war. If it is possible to analyse coolly the actions of any peoples of the British empire, surely we the Canadian people, who have had the good fortune to live together for so many years, should try to understand each other and achieve national unity in a time of crisis. We do not want indulgence; we do not want mercy. All we ask is that every section of our population take the trouble to try to understand the mentality of the Canadian people and its different racial groups.
I listened attentively last evening to the masterly address of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). He spoke as a true Cana-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bradette

dian and a true statesman. His appeal was addressed to reason. A previous speaker has referred to Doctor Shields, and although we may have one or two men of that type in the province of Quebec also, who would try to arouse one section of the population against the other, I have been highly elated at the general feeling of good understanding there is between our people. It shows how easy it is for us to cooperate harmoniously in a common cause when only we try to understand each other.
I want to speak now on the plebiscite. For three solid weeks I spent all of my time in my constituency, working in cooperation with the Canadian Legion and with various political organizations. I worked almost day and' night to get a "yes" vote in my con-stitency, and I received the smallest "yes" majority given in any riding in Canada. It was almost next to "no". But I am proud of my work and of that "yes" majority, and I believe that if I had had more time at my disposal the majority would have been much greater. I was appealing to a section of the country in which we have no war industries of any kind but one in which we have always gone over the top with a vengeance in raising money for war activities, one in which I can say, without boasting, there have been the largest enlistments in proportion to population of any riding in Canada. Our young Canadians in that part of the country, regardless of their racial origin, have joined the colours of their own accord-Finnish, Polish, Russian, French speaking, English speaking, and so on. For them all there was only one common cause. Indeed at the present time our supply of man-power is so sh ->rt because of the great numbers who have enlisted, and I say that with pride, that our industries are hampered.
I have here two issues of the Daily Press of Timmins, Ontario, of the 11th and 12th of this month, and each contains a picture of the latest recruits to join the armed forces from that part of the country. I should like to read their names. The first picture shows one of the largest groups to be dispatched to headquarters in Toronto within the last month, and in the front row, left to right, are: Fernand Carriere, Harvey Kenty, Jean Belisle, Elmo Pissonnette, George Miller and Hector Madon. In the back row, left to right, are: Private J. P. McFarlane, member of the local recruiting staff, Charles Laahanem, Mansfield Francis, Alexander Gauthier, John Daly and Patrice Mone. Another recruit who had left the night before, Marcel Tichette, was not present for the picture.

In the other picture, shown in the front row, left to right, are:	Reginald Forster,
James Rusenstrom, Howard Tomlinson and Augustin Langlois. In the back row, left to right, are:	Sapper Hines, member of the
recruiting staff, Raoul Nadon and Private Clouthier, Canadian Provost Corps, who acted as an escort on the trip to Toronto. Edward Lynch also left with this group but was not present for the picture.
Hon. members will see from those names a representative cross-section of our people. The recruiting generally represents every section of northern Ontario. North Bay, Sudbury, Kapuskasing, Timmins, Kirkland Lake -everywhere there is the same answer to the call of duty, regardless of race or creed. They enlist freely as young Canadians, ready to make the sacrifice so that we may be victorious. In that section of the country it has been possible to create a huge melting pot in which Canadian aspirations are given full sway, and if that be possible in one part of the country, it is possible elsewhere in Canada.
Strong and injudicious statements were made by some speakers in the plebiscite campaign. One gentleman in addressing a meeting said that if we had had conscription in the fall of 1939, the war would be over by now. Such a statement did not help our cause in any way, shape or form. At another meeting a speaker said that Canada should have one million men overseas. These sweeping, far-fetched statements were no help to me in getting out a "yes" vote. But I want to say that our people, when they voted "yes" in my section of the country, were not voting for conscription. Following the lead of the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, I emphasized the importance-I used the very words of the Prime Minister-of a balanced war effort, the necessity for which has been so well pointed out by the cabinet ministers who have spoken in this debate. I also said that so far as I personally was concerned I would never take the responsibility upon my own weak shoulders of sending one single Canadian soldier over to Europe unless he was completely equipped with all the weapons that modern warfare demands. Nor would I take the responsibility of putting men in uniform if I believed that it would diminish the production of vital supplies that are sorely needed at the present time by dear old Great Britain. I also made it very clear that this was not just a war of infantry, but a balanced war, and my people understood.
But, and I say this in no spirit of criticism, I want no more Hong Kong. I want our young Canadians who have enlisted for over-

Questions
seas service anywhere in the world to be, as General McNaughton so well said, a real striking force, thoroughly equipped with modern weapons, so that, as was so well expressed by the Minister of National War Services this afternoon, human life may be spared as much as possible.
To-day is to me, as it is to every Canadian, a very sad anniversary indeed. It is the second anniversary of the defeat of my old motherland, France. But mind you, Mr. Speaker, it was not lack of man-power that destroyed France. It was not lack of courage, or lack of valour. It was purely and simply a lack of modern equipment-of tanks, of planes, of guns. Wherever we have met the enemy on equal terms in the matter of equipment, we have beaten him. I would not think for a single moment of sending human flesh, unprotected, against a German panzer division. I believe that our soldiers should have the very best in weapons, in food and clothing, and in equipment generally. I should be remiss in my duty if I urged anything less.
On motion of Mr. Bradette the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 18, 1942