1942-06-10

Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I rise to a question of privilege. An editorial appearing in this morning's Montreal Gazette, referring to a statement I made in the house a few days ago, reads:
Most amazing of all was his protest on Monday against large shipments of Canadian beer to Libya for the use of the troops who are defending him and his family and his congregation under the appalling conditions of desert warfare. It was this that roused Mr. Ilsley's ire and the minister would have been less than a man if he had held his punch.
I desire to invite the gentleman who wrote that editorial to examine the remarks I made last Monday, and he will find that at no time did I make any reference either to. Libya or to the sending of beer to that battlefront; that as a matter of fact it was the minister himself who dealt with that question. In reply to the minister I said, as reported at page 3151 of Hansard:
Then he proceeded to build up a straw man and to knock him down again, by referring to what people have said about sending beer to Libya. I was not talking about sending beer to Libya.
I have no objection to accepting responsibility for what I have said, but I do not propose to accept responsibility for straw men set up by the Minister of Finance.



PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Wood Mountain) moved:: That the second and third reports of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, presented on June 8, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	What salary is paid to Mr. G. L. Goggin as general manager of the Wartime Housing Limited?
2.	What was the date of his appointment?
3.	What is the amount of his travelling expenses up to and including April 30, 1942?


Mr. HOWE:: 
WARTIME MERCHANT SHIPPING LIMITED
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What are the names of the members of Wartime Merchant Shipping Limited?
2.	What is the occupation or profession of each member and with what companies is each connected ?
3.	What are the functions of Wartime Merchant Shipping Limited?


Mr. HOWE:: 1 and 2. H. R. MacMillan, president, president, H. R. MacMillan Export Company Limited; C. R. Redfern, vice-president, engineer, president, Redfern Construction Company Limited; Austin C. Taylor, vicepresident, president, Bralorne Mines Limited; C. L. Dewar, comptroller, engineer, The Bell Telephone Company of Canada; H. A. Stevenson, assistant to the president, vice-president, Canadian Transport Company Limited; G. D. Eccott, treasurer, chartered accountant; Wm. Mitchell, secretary, lawyer, Kearney, Duquet and Mackay; D. B. McCoy, manager, Purchasing Dept., assistant general manager, The Steel Company of Canada, Limited; C. C. Coull, manager, Engineering Division, engineer; H. T. Mitchell, manager, Labour Training and.
Questions

Supply Division, president, Mitchell Printing and Publishing Company Limited; N. Beaton, manager, Plant and Yard Expansion Division, engineer; N. Dobson, manager, Shipbuilding Division, senior surveyor, Lloyd's Register of Shipping; G. 0. Vogan, executive assistant to the general manager, engineer; J. Husband, manager, Steel Division, salesman; G. S. Burrows, liaison officer, Washington, D.C., engineer, United Steel Corporation Limited; L. J. R. Sanders, manager, Production Division, engineer.
3.	(a) Supervision, direction and administration of all contracts entered into by His Majesty or the Minister of Munitions and Supply in respect of the construction and assembly of cargo vessels in Canada or the design, construction, equipment and operation of shipyards, plants, or other buildings or shipways for any such purposes, the whole in accordance with such general or specific instructions as the minister may give to the company from time to time.
(b)	The conduct of negotiations looking to the making of contracts in respect of the construction and assembly of cargo vessels in Canada or the design, construction, equipment and operation of shipyards, plants, or other buildings or shipways for any such purposes and the preparation of drafts of such contracts for submission to the minister for his consideration, the whole in accordance with such general or specific instructions as the minister may give to the company from time to time and subject to his approval.
(c)	The coordination and expedition, in cases in which the minister may so request, of the construction or assembly of cargo vessels in the Dominion of Canada under contracts, the performance of which is for the time being under administration by the company.
(d)	The payment of accounts properly chargeable against the above-mentioned contracts.


NATIONAL REGISTRATION-SKILLED WORKERS
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What use has been made by the government of the 1940 national registration to place experienced and preferred tradesmen into war industry?
2.	How many skilled tradesmen, toolmakers, metal workers, machinists and engineers are still unemployed or in non-essential industry?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	From the 1940 national registration lists were compiled of registrants who reported they were skilled in certain "specialized" occupations. These occupations were selected on a broad basis to determine the persons who, by training or experience, might be fitted for

employment in industries or services essential to Canada's war effort. From these lists requests, from government departments, from the armed forces, and from firms and individuals for names and addresses of persons skilled in designated occupations, were answered. The names of unemployed mechanics in the metal and shipbuilding trades were selected from the lists, and these men were communicated with in respect to placement in war industries. The names of those still available for employment were supplied to the most convenient offices of the employment service of Canada so that placements could be effected.
2.	Information in respect to the number of skilled tradesmen, toolmakers, metal workers, machinists and engineers still unemployed will not be available until the registration of unemployed male persons, presently in progress, is completed. Information in respect to the number of such persons in non-essential industries will not be available until completion of the tabulation of the unemployment insurance commission registration of April 1, 1942.
women's voluntary services


Mrs. NIELSEN:: 1.	What organizational plans have been carried into effect by the director of women's voluntary services?
2.	What plans have been made for coordination of voluntary services of women?
3.	What are the names of the organizations within the scope of the branch of women's voluntary services in each province, district or community to which women desiring to volunteer their services may apply?
4.	What channels of publicity, if any, are being used by this branch to inform women of the facilities of the women's voluntary services?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	The plan of organization and development of the women's voluntary services division, which is hereto attached, has been mimeographed and mailed to all the women's organizations. Four cities have appointed local committees to study the need of coordination of voluntary services and a number of other communities have made inquiries. A western trip is being made in the near future in response to requests for discussion and advice.
2.	The organization of central volunteer bureaux locally is being encouraged. These serve as manning pools for voluntary effort thereby functioning as the clearing house for volunteers serving existing local organizations and acting as a reservoir for organizations to secure additional volunteers for their increased activities.

3.	National Organizations: Red Cross, St. John Ambulance, Navy League, Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire, National Council of Women, Canadian Federation of University Women, Canadian Business and Professional Women's Club, national professional organizations, Catholic Women's leagues, national minority groups, Women's Institutes, fraternal organizations.
Provincial Organizations:	The provincial
counterparts of the national organizations, provincial home and school clubs, provincial adult education, La Ligue de la Jeunesse Feminine.
Community: Auxiliary services (coordinating councils, citizens committees, volunteer bureaux), health and welfare services, home and school clubs, trades and labour councils, labour auxiliaries, cooperatives, church groups. Each community has a certain number of these organizations or may have additional organizations not listed.
4.	Copies of the memorandum "Organization and Development of the Women's Voluntary Services" have been mailed to all the organizations named in the answer to question 3; speaking at provincial and national annual meetings of various women's organizations; press releases; radio-one radio talk; bulletin of set-up for volunteer bureaux is prepared; individual correspondence; many personal contacts with representatives of national, provincial and local organizations.
Organization and development of the women's voluntary services
World War One rallied to it a volunteer service that resulted in social service organizations being created in the period that followed. World War Two is rallying many volunteers who have had no previous volunteer experience but who are spurred on to give a maximum service in the war effort.
The women's voluntary services division gives impetus to this effort. Its objectives are:
1.	To unite both voluntary war work and civilian services in such a way that the whole volunteer movement marches forward in a coordinated whole on a community basis.
2.	To recognize the difference in community set-up so that the plan of coordination will vary as the structure of war work and civilian services varies.
3.	To be of service in an advisory capacity so that duplication and waste of effort may be reduced to a minimum. This may be accomplished by
(a)	Strengthening civilian morale by such volunteer activity as will provide satisfaction and a feeling of accomplishment to the volunteer.
Questions
(b)	Stimulating women to understand total war so that organizations may be encouraged to give volunteer service that will adapt itself to the constantly changing war scene.
(c)	Encouraging the development and extension of training and lecture courses so that volunteers may be more proficient in their performance; but more especially, that they may understand the reasons for changes and development in war and civilian activities.
4.	To stimulate interest in needed war time projects by organizing and directing these on a demonstration basis.
5.	To encourage the organizing of emergency squads to be called upon as necessary.
6.	To help create a community volunteer structure that will continue as the nation passes from war to peace.
Keeping in mind communities have difference in tradition, geographic position, size, etc., each community must be studied as an entity, yet certain basic procedures apply to all. For general purposes communities may be classified into two groups.
1.	The large urban community. These usually have a council of social agencies or a welfare council which sponsors a volunteer bureau and through it correlates volunteer effort and acts as a clearing house for volunteers.
In these communities the principle of cooperation and coordination is not new. The council of social agencies has for years been the planning body for welfare organizations and their civilian services while the welfare council, later in development, functions to coordinate all community endeavour for the general welfare of its citizens.
The volunteer bureau may be set up as a committee of either council. It surveys the need for volunteers and recruits them. It keeps records of their qualifications, capabilities and experience so they may be placed with the organization where they can give the most effective service.
Training courses and lectures of a specific nature given by experts in various fields should be a function of a well organized bureau.
Every community is developing auxiliary services or citizens committees to assist in the welfare, comfort and recreation of the men in training.
The volunteer effort is directed mainly through
(1)	Welfare councils or councils of social agencies.
(2)	Volunteer bureaux.
(3)	Citizen committees and auxiliary services.
Questions

It is therefore most important that in order to prevent overlapping and wasted effort there should be coordination. This may be achieved through a coordinating council representative of councils of social agencies, national organizations and governmental bodies. The interrelation between civilian and war services might be strengthened by the secretary of the council of social agencies or welfare council acting as secretary to the coordinating council. In any event the person selected as secretary of the coordinating council should have intimate knowledge of the welfare set-up of the community.
2.	The smaller community. These communities are not likely to have a council of social agencies or a welfare council, but there will be one or two social agencies such as the childrens aid society, Victorian Order of Nurses, the relief officer, or the medical officer of health or a unit of the women's institutes.
Where such is the case, it would seem possible to coordinate the volunteer effort through a volunteer bureau. As the war progresses, new committees will be set up to meet new war-time services such as consumer groups to assist in price control, salvage committees to organize the salvage of the community, rehabilitation committees to assist in the rehabilitation of the returned soldier. This effort will be most effectively directed if organized through a volunteer bureau.
The foregoing statement of the women's voluntary services division clearly indicates that its purpose is not to set up a national organization in Ottawa forcing a set plan of volunteer organization on local communities, but rather by studying a community, help it so to organize its effort that total war may be waged without waste or duplication of effort in the volunteer field.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD- MRS. MCLAWS
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Is Mrs. McLaivs employed in any position with the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	What are the duties attached to such position?
4.	What salary and/or allowance does she receive?
5.	What is the amount of travelling expenses and/or living allowance which she has drawn since her appointment?
6.	By whom and upon whose recommendation was she appointed?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. Answered by 1.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-JEAN BURNS
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Is Miss Jean Burns employed in any position with the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	If so, in what capacity?
3.	What are the duties attached to such position ?
4.	What salary and/or allowance does she
reeei\Te?
5.	What is the amount of travelling expenses and/or living allowance Avhich she has drawn since her appointment?
6.	By whom and upon whose recommendation was she appointed?
. Mr. ILSLEY:
1.	Yes.
2.	Clerk.
3.	Supervising routines and procedures, female stenographic and clerical staff.
4.	SI ,380 per annum.
5.	None.
6.	Civil service commission.


JAMES FRANCESCHINI-CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AT LAC TREMBLANT, QUE.
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Was a permit issued to James Franceschini for the construction of a building at Lac Tremblant?
2.	If so, what materials did the permit release ?
3.	Did the permit release any steel?
4.	What was the cost of the materials released by the permit?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No. A permit No. 4604 was issued to the Quebec Paving Company Limited for construction of a residence at Lac Tremblant for the use of James Franceschini. This permit was issued on the basis of prior commitment, work having been started in November, 1941, before P.C. 660, January 30th, 1942, covering dwellings, came into effect. At this time all dwelling houses, on which work had started before January 30th, 1942, but had not been completed by that date, were issued licences.
2.	As required for the work, subject to the conditions of the licence.
3.	No.
4.	Not known. The information required on the application for a building permit does not separate materials from labour.


SALMON FISHING REGULATIONS
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has the dominion government passed a regulation compelling all holders of salmon fishing licences in the province of Quebec to limit their annual catch to 12.000 pounds?

Questions as Orders for Returns
2.	If so, (a) upon what date was such order adopted; (b) does it apply only to the province of Quebec, or is the province of New Brunswick equally included?
3.	Was such regulation requested by the government of the province of Quebec? If so, by what department?


Mr. POWER (for Mr. Michaud):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROY;
1.	What is the name of the head of the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	What position did he occupy before he received his present appointment?
4.	Where was he born?
5.	How long has he lived in Canada?
6.	Where did he live before taking up his residence in the dominion?
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Donald Gordon.
2.	November 19, 1941.
3.	Deputy Governor, Bank of Canada.
4.	Oldmeldrum, Scotland.
5.	Twenty-eight years.
6.	Oldmeldrum, Scotland.


CANADIAN ASSOCIATED AIRCRAFT LIMITED-PLACEMENT OF WORKERS ON CLOSING OF PLANT
Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: What steps have been taken by the government to secure placement for the aircraft workers already discharged and about to be discharged by reason of the closing of Canadian Associated Aircraft Limited?


Mr. MITCHELL:: The matter of finding other essential jobs for the men released . through the closing down of Canadian Associated Aircraft Limited has been taken up by the Department of 'Labour and through the employment service it is expected that men of the skilled classes required in other war industries will be placed without delay.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: 1.	What was the number of applications for loans under the Canadian farm loan board in the province of British Columbia in each month since January 1, 1939, to May 30, 1942?
2.	What number of such loans were granted and for what amount, during each of these months ?
3.	What amount was collected by the Canadian farm loan board in the province of British Columbia during each of the above months?


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	How much has the wartime prices and trade board spent on newspaper advertising up to the 31st of May, 1942?
2.	What amount was spent for newspaper advertising in each province?
3.	What amount was spent for magazine advertising? In what magazines did the advertising appear?
4.	Does this board give its advertising to an advertising agency or agencies?
5.	If so, to what agency or agencies?
6.	If it does not give the advertising to an agency, does the board employ advertising men?
7.	If so, who are they?


WARTIME HOUSING-ONTARIO
Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	To what firms have contracts for the erection of houses in the province of Ontario been awarded by the Wartime Housing Limited up to May 15, 1942?
2.	At what places were such houses erected or now under contract for construction and how many at each place?
3.	What was the actual amount paid or to be paid each building contractor under each contract for each of the several types of dwellings?
4.	Were tenders called in all eases?
5.	Was the tender extended in any case for additional houses in excess of the original contract? If so, in what cases and did the same prices prevail as in the original contract; if not, what differences existed in each case?
C. Has any amount been paid to any of the contractors over and above the original contract? If so, give details of each instance?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Joseph William Noseworthy: For a statement showing a day by day breakdown of the amount of duty paid on coal at the port of Toronto between April 1 and July 31, 1940.



CANADIAN OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS

Mr. GREEN:: For a return showing the universities, colleges and schools which have an officers' training corps recognized by the Department of National Defence, the number enrolled in each corps and what grants are paid by the government in respect of each corps.
Labour Conditions



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, based on a telegram from Montreal received by a number pf members to-day, signed by Paul Fournier. It reads as follows:
Over the period of the last two months workers have been fired, intimidated and blacklisted for union membership in the Dominion Engineering Company, Marconi Company, Montreal Locomotive Company and Robert Mitchells. Repeated appeals to the Department of Labour for investigations and actions have failed to have those men and women who were fired reinstated. Intimidation still goes on. Unless these practises are immediately stopped we feel that serious consequences will result.
What has the government done in regard to these disputes, and what is its intention as to future action?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is passing strange that these telegrams should be broadcast in this way. It is only fair to say that on eveiy occasion on which a request of this nature has come to the Department of Labour it has been handled with expedition. We received a similar request from Mr. Fournier, asking for an appointment with me to meet a delegation on the 24th or 25th of this month. I have already answered Mr. Fournier's communication, stating that I would meet the delegation.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Has this particular matter been investigated by the Department of Labour, or by someone from that department?


Humphrey Mitchell: My understanding is that this delegation wants to meet me to consider the whole question as to conditions in Montreal. I have some knowledge of the situation there, and I have replied to their request.



POOLING OF RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In to-ctay's issue of the Montreal Gazette under date of Washington, June 9, there is a statement to the effect that

the factories and farms of the United States and the United Kingdom were pooled to-day by the establishment of two joint boards. One is a combined production and resources board, and the other a combined food board. President Roosevelt stated that Canada has no direct representation on either board, but would line up with the United States on the production board, and that for all practical purposes Canada was represented, because "Nelson will speak for North America as a result of the close integration of the Canadian-American production programmes already in effect." Does the Prime Minister consider it satisfactory that Canada should be represented by a United States official?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I shall give my hon. friend a statement in the matter to-morrow.



JAPANESE NATIONALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops):	Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Labour arising out of an item appearing in a Kamloops paper. The item says that the foremen in the camps in the North Thompson area are only flunkies for the Japanese, that the Japanese are in full control of the rations; that the Japanese are not rationed for sugar; that the Japanese are being fed the best canned peaches, canned pears and canned plums, while the guards have only dried fruit. It states that the guards are laughed at by the Japanese, and that they have no backing at all. Has the Department of Labour any information as to the truth of these statements, and if there is any foundation for them, what action does the government propose to take?
Humphrey Mitchell: In the first place-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I should have interrupted the hon. member when he began his observations, but I must point out now that this is certainly a question which should be placed on the order paper. It is improperly asked at this stage.


Mr. NEILL:: On a point of order, this is a very urgent matter in British Columbia. The minister is ready to reply; could he not be allowed to give his answer?

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King



READING OF SPEECHES-FORTY MINUTE RULE- STATEMENT OF MR. SPEAKER

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 80, an act to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940.-The Prime Minister.
Georges Parent: Before proceeding with this order there is a matter I should like to draw to the attention of the house. At the conclusion of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I called the attention of the house to serious infringements of the rules relating to forty-minute speeches, and the reading of speeches. Since that time hon. members have observed very faithfully the meaning and intent of those rules. This is, of course, a very important debate, and at the opening of it I should like to say that so far as I can I intend to apply those rules to all parties in the house. It is true that the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition have the right to speak at length, and it has been the practice and has been acquiesced in by the house to extend this privilege to the leaders of two other groups, namely, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). They have been permitted to speak longer than forty minutes, and also if necessary to read their speeches, on the principle, as I understand it, that they are speaking not only for themselves as individual members but also as the exponents of the policy of the groups of which they are the leaders.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. SO, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in what I propose
to say this afternoon I intend to make my remarks under two main divisions. The first division will relate to the amendment, and will also have reference to the plebiscite. The second part will deal particularly with the issue of conscription.
On Monday, May 11, I moved for leave to introduce the bill which is now before the house. Leave being granted, it was introduced and read the first time. As then explained, the bill seeks to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, which was assented to on the 21st of June, 1940. There is but one amendment of significance. It is to repeal
section 3 of the Act. Such further amendr ments as are sought are consequential upon the striking out of section 3. They do not go beyond deleting from section 2 of the Act, the words "subject to the provisions of section 3 hereof" in the first line of the section as it stands at present, and the renumbering of the sections affected.
Section 2 of the National Resources Mobilization Act reads as follows:
2.	Subject to the provisions of section three hereof, the governor in council may do and authorize such -acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of His Majesty in the right of Canada, as may be deemed necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of Canada, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community.
Section 3 of the Act reads:
3.	The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
Let me immediately direct the attention of hon. members to the wording and exact meaning of these two clauses. They give expression to the law as it is at the present time. They help to make clear the precise effect of the proposed amendment.
By section 2, special powers are conferred upon the governor in council. By another section of the act, the powers conferred are to remain in force only during the continuance of the present war. There can be no doubt whatever as to what these powers are. The governor in council possesses and- has possessed ever since June 21, 1940, power to require persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of His Majesty, as may be deemed necessary or expedient for the defence of Canada, or the efficient prosecution of the war.
Power to require persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of His Majesty-is nothing more or less than what is meant by conscription. The power here given is that of conscripting all persons, which, in law, include corporations, all their services, and all their property, for the defence of Canada, or the efficient prosecution of the war.
It is well that this fact should not only be made perfectly clear, but that it should be emphasized. Because ever since the act was passed, and even up to to-day, there are many who say, others who think, and yet others who believe, or who would have it appear, that conscription does not exist in
3226	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
Canada. These people say that conscription is the right principle; that conscription is in force in other countries, and that we ought to have conscription in Canada. They say that it is wrong and unfair that, in any part of the country, men. should not be conscripted for military or other service while the men in other parts give their services voluntarily. That, above all, "slackers" and "shirkers" should not be allowed to "go free," while others are left to do the fighting.
Extraordinary as it may seem, the persons who say or who would have others believe that we do not have conscription in Canada are not confined to citizens of other countries. If we are to judge by what we hear, and what we read in the press from time to time, they include a very large number of our own citizens. They certainly are among the number who are loudest in their utterances.
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.
Under the original plan, some 80,000 young men received thirty days military training. Under the revised plan, which provided for four months training to be followed by service for the duration, more than 30,000 young men are now in course of training or service. This number does not include the very considerable proportion of those called up who, subsequently, volunteered for the navy and the air force, or for service in the army anywhere in the world.
There are two methods by which most ends are attained by government. The one is the voluntary method, the other the compulsory method. Power to require persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty-is the power of government to employ the compulsory method. In other words it is the power to conscript. How then can there be any question as to there being conscription in Canada, or any doubt that the principle of conscription has been approved by the parliament of Canada? The principle is there. It is embodied in the National Resources Mobilization Act. It is part of the law of the land, and has been so by statute ever since June 21, 1940. The whole purpose of the National Resources

Mobilization Act was to give to the governor in council power to conscript the property and services of individuals or corporations. That power, where it has been deemed necessary or expedient to do so, has been exercised ever since, and is being exercised by the government to-day.
There was, it is true, at the time the act was passed, a limitation placed upon the exercise of the special powers conferred upon the governor in council. That limitation still exists. It is set forth in section 3, which provides that the powers conferred may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof. The meaning of the section is perfectly clear. Section 3 was not intended to deny the existence of the powers of compulsion or conscription conferred upon the governor in council, much less was it intended to take away any of those powers. Indeed, the section begins with the words "the powers conferred by the next preceding section", and thereby constitutes an affirmation of the existence of the powers. What the section does, and all it does, is to limit the exercise of those powers, and to limit them in one particular only. That limitation is in respect of their exercise "for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada, and the territorial waters thereof".
This is the one and only limitation upon the exercise of the powers conferred on the governor in council, on June 21, 1940. The amendment proposes to remove this limitation. The adoption of the amendment clearly does not mean the adoption of any new principle with respect to the method of raising men for military service. It extends the area in which the powers of the governor in council may be exercised but does not change the character of those powers. In other words, the amendment is not related to the principle of conscription, but to the extent that its application may be deemed necessary or expedient for the defence of Canada or for the efficient prosecution of the war.
I come now to a most important fact with respect to the powers conferred upon the governor in council under the National Resources Mobilization Act. The act itself is enabling legislation. It does not necessarily contemplate the immediate, and certainly does not contemplate the total exercise of the powers conferred. Were those powers to be immediately and totally exercised we should have established at once a communist state. What the act does contemplate, as is expressed in the statute itself, is the exercise "from time

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
to time" of such of the powers conferred as may be deemed "necessary or expedient". While full and complete powers for the exercise of compulsion are given to the governor in council by the act, under its provisions, it is left to the governor in council to decide when, and to what extent, it may be necessary or expedient to exercise the powers thus conferred. This will be equally true of the powers of the governor in council under the act as amended. The discretion of the government will remain precisely what it is at the present time.
Perhaps I cannot do better, by way of illustration of the difference between the possession of unlimited powers of conscription by the government and the exercise of these powers in the manner deemed "necessary or expedient" at a particular stage of the war, than by quoting what I said in this house on February 25 last.
In Hansard at pages 831, 832, I am reported as follows:
In order to carry on war, men are necessary, money is necessary. Both have to he raised, one in large numbers and the other in large quantities. With respect to the men that are being raised at the present time, we have two methods. They are not ends in themselves but methods, and we are taking the methods which we believe will be most effective and serviceable to Canada's war effort when we resort to the one or to the other. We have two methods of raising men for the army. Some of them are raised by compulsion; they are serving within the territorial limits of Canada. Others are being raised by voluntary enlistment, some of them also are serving in Canada. But all that are going overseas are being raised by the voluntary enlistment system, which has proved effective up to the present.
Now with respect to the raising of money, we are using the same two methods. We are raising monev by compulsion, under taxation in its different forms; and we are raising money voluntarily by the loan system which is in progress at the present time, and which the people of the country are supporting splendidly and, I believe, will continue to support. Supposing my lion, friend were to ask me: "What are you going to do if the voluntary system fails in the matter of the loan? Will you tell the people that now?" Could I tell them that? Would it be wise to tell them that? But a decision will have to be made if the voluntary system in the matter of loans should fail to produce the results which it is necessary should be produced in the securing of an amount of money requisite for the purpose. Under such circumstances, I think probably there would be resort to the conscription of wealth. I do not see any other alternative than for the government just to come along and take the wealth that exists, if the required sums cannot be raised voluntarily.
... I wish to have that parallel kept in mind. What the government is going to do when the voluntary method fails in the matter of loans it will decide when the time comes; and it will
do exactly the same thing as respects the matter of raising men. . . . And may I say this:
I think the people of the country will see to it that both things are linked pretty closely together if one or the other becomes necessary.
I hope I have made it quite clear that the National Resources Mobilization Act, as it stands, is not mandatory but enabling legislation; and that, if amended as proposed, it will continue to be enabling legislation.
The extent of the use of the powers conferred upon the government by the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act is, and has been from the outset, a matter of government policy. Government policy has always to be decided in the light of all relevant circumstances. This will remain true of the unrestricted powers which the amendment, if enacted, will afford.
I come now to the plebiscite and its bearing upon the amendment before the house.
I shall endeavour to anticipate the various questions that may arise in the course of debate, and to answer them in turn.
First of all, why was the plebiscite held? The answer to that question will be found in three paragraphs which appear in the speech from the throne:
My advisers believe that the magnitude and balanced nature of Canada's war effort is being obscured and impaired by controversy concerning commitments with respect to the methods of raising men for military service which were made prior to the spread of the war to all parts of the world.	...
The government is of the opinion that, at this time of gravest crisis in the world's history, the administration, Bubject only to its responsibility to parliament, should in this connection and irrespective of any previous commitments, possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise.
My ministers accordingly will seek, from the people, by means of a plebiscite, release from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service.
You will observe that there were three purposes in holding the plebiscite. The first was that nothing should be allowed to obscure or impair the magnitude and balanced nature of Canada's war effort; the second, that the administration, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, should possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise in the prosecution of the war; and the third, which has a direct bearing upon the first two, that the government and parliament should not be bound by past commitments, but be free to discuss and to decide, on its merits, the extent of the use of conscription.
3228	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
The real nature and extent of Canada's war effort has, for more than a year past, been obscured because of a persistent effort to make conscription for overseas service the symbol of a total war effort, regardless of whether or not the voluntary method was proving wholly adequate. For example, it was said that Canada's effort was not an allout effort, and could not be an all-out effort because the possibility of conscripting men for service overseas was excluded by existing commitments. This was said regardless of the fact that it has been unnecessary to resort to compulsion, because volunteers in the required numbers have been available.
No one could deny that such commitments had been made. It was useless to argue that in reality, the commitments were not a limiting factor. So long as the government was held in honour bound by these commitments, it was next to impossible to demonstrate that this seeming restriction was not a limiting factor on an all-out effort.
A release from the moral obligation not to resort to conscription for overseas service was a necessary first step before Canada's war effort could be placed in its true light. Release, on that score, was sought by means of the plebiscite, and release has been obtained as a result of the plebiscite. The government and members of parliament are no longer bound by any moral obligation arising out of past commitments. There is now entire freedom to discuss and to decide upon its merits the question of the method to be employed in enlisting men for service overseas. The government is now free to propose without breach of faith, any extension of the application of conscription which may be thought desirable or necessary to a furtherance of Canada's war effort. In the consideration of the matter, both in parliament and in the country, controversy arising out of past commitments cat no longer be used to obscure the magnitude and balanced nature of our war effort.
A release from the moral obligation not to resort to conscription for overseas service was equally a necessary first step before the government could seek from parliament freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation, as they might arise in the prosecution of the war. That release the government obtained as a result of the plebiscite. Complete freedom to act in accordance with its best judgment will, however, not exist until parliament has removed section 3 of the mobilization act.
Let me now deal with the relationship of the plebiscite to conscription, and in particular, as to whether a "yes" or "no" vote

was a vote for or against conscription. On this point, I should, first of all, remind hon. members of what was said in the course of the plebiscite campaign. Both in this house and throughout the country, it was made perfectly clear by myself as leader of the government, by the leader of the official opposition, and by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and by members of their respective parties, that an affirmative vote was not a vote for conscription. I am afraid I cannot tell the house what stand the leader of the Social Credit party took. I have, however, found nothing in any of his utterances which would enable it to be said that he regarded an affirmative vote as a vote for conscription for service overseas.
The question on the ballot is, however, the best answer as to whether or not the plebiscite was a vote for or against conscription.
The question on which the people of Canada were asked to express an opinion was:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
Clearly the plebiscite merely released the government from its obligation not to resort , to conscription for service overseas. It did not commit the government to conscription for services overseas. The result of the plebiscite leaves no doubt as to the freedom of the government and of parliament to discuss the question of conscription for service overseas upon its merits. It equally leaves no doubt as to the freedom of the government and of parliament to decide, for or against conscription for service overseas, either conditionally or unconditionally.
The result of the plebiscite is no more to be construed as a vote for conscription for service overseas than it is to be construed as a vote of confidence in the present administration, or a vote for any political party. That, too, was stressed throughout the plebiscite campaign.
The people were not called upon to express any opinion on the merits of conscription, or on its desirability or necessity. In fact, the plebiscite was selected as the method of obtaining their views precisely because it afforded the best known means of obtaining an expression of opinion regardless of political affiliations, and regardless of military considerations.
Since conscription was not the question on which the vote was taken, the result of the plebiscite cannot be considered or construed as a mandate for conscription. It was not even in the category of a mandate. It was wholly and solely an expression of opinion.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
The vast majority of the citizens of Canada indicated that in their opinion the government, in deciding upon the course to be pursued in the prosecution of Canada's war effort, should not be hampered by any restriction respecting the methods of raising men for military service.
Some, however, will say: Would the government have asked to be released from its commitments unless it envisaged the possibility, at some future time, of a need arising for conscription for service overseas? As I have just said, one of the purposes of the plebiscite was to give to the government freedom thereafter to recommend to parliament any measure respecting military service deemed essential to the security of our country and the effectiveness of an all-out war effort. We were thereby taking, in plenty of time, a precaution which would enable the government to meet, in the most effective manner without any possible breach of faith, any emergency that might arise in the future course of the war.
To sum up concisely the relationship of the plebiscite to the issue of conscription, I would say: (1) that the plebiscite cleared the deck for unrestricted discussion and debate; (2) that the amendment if adopted will clear the deck for unrestricted decision and action by the government, subject only to its constitutional responsibility to parliament.
The vote on the plebiscite was taken on Monday, April 27. On Friday, May 8, I informed the house of the government's intention to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, and on Monday, the 11th of May, the bill containing the proposed amendment was introduced and given its first reading. In the interval, on Saturday the 9th of May, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) tendered his resignation. I felt that the reasons given by the minister evidenced a mistaken view of the government's purpose and intention and therefore sought to have him reconsider his resignation. But the minister felt he could not change his views, so I had no alternative but to inform his excellency of the correspondence which had passed between us, and to advise the acceptance of the minister's resignation.
In the minister's letter of resignation, there will be found, I believe, not only the reasons which occasioned the resignation, but an explanation of the misgivings which lie at the root of the reasons themselves. Similar reasons and misgivings are naturally in the minds of some supporters of the government, not only from the province of which the minister was one of the representatives in the cabinet, but from other provinces as well. In the case of
all but a few of the government's supporters, they account, I believe, for such objections as have been raised to the amendment. It is important, therefore, that the arguments set forth by the minister in justification of his resignation should be examined with the utmost care. In presenting these arguments, I cannot do better than quote from the words of the minister's letter.
The minister said:
I feel that there is no necessity for repeating here the arguments which, I sincerely believe, justify my action. Suffice it to say at present that, as far as Canada is concerned, since the question of the plebiscite was first discussed and since the vote has been taken, nothing has been said nor anything established to indicate that the war situation has rendered necessary, just a few days after the vote, the introduction of a measure containing the principle of compulsory military service for overseas.
In this paragraph is set forth very clearly a circumstance which has greatly perplexed many of those who saw in the plebiscite simply a clearing of the decks for freedom of discussion and possible future action. They had not envisaged the immediate introduction of legislation; much less, as the minister said, "the introduction of a measure containing the principle of compulsory military service for overseas." The misunderstanding of the exact situation has been further aggravated by the fact that since the result of the plebiscite was known, a deliberate effort has been made to construe the result as a mandate for conscription. Not only has it been said that the result of the plebiscite constitutes a mandate -but what is still farther from the truth-a mandate that necessitates immediate resort to conscription for service overseas.
Had the government's action, in introducing the amendment, been due to any such interpretation, either of the purpose of the plebiscite, or of the result of the plebiscite, I would have been the first to support the minister in his protest. I can, however, find no justification for any such interpretation, either of the purpose of the plebiscite or of its results.
I have already said this afternoon that a "yes" or "no" in the plebiscite was not to be, and could not truthfully be construed as a "yes" or "no" for conscription for service overseas. I said precisely the same thing in the debate on the speech from the throne, and in the debate on the plebiscite bill. I said the same thing in my radio broadcasts. In interpreting, through the press and in this house, the results of the plebiscite, I also repeated what I had previously said.
The issue was not conscription but whether the government, subject to its responsibility to parliament, should have a free hand in the discharge of its duty in carrying on the war.
3230	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
This free hand the government has still to secure from parliament. Prior to the plebiscite, because of past commitments, the government was precluded from coming to parliament to request a free hand. The government is no longer in that position. It is free to come to parliament, as it does to-day, because of the release as a result of the plebiscite from all such commitments.
In order to confirm what I have just said, allow me to read from the nation-wide broadcast I delivered on April 7, in an opening appeal to the Canadian electorate for an affirmative vote:
The issue at present is not conscription; it is whether or not the government, subject to its responsibility to parliament, is to be free to decide that question itself, in the light of all national considerations. The government is not asking you to say whether or not conscription should be adopted. That responsibility the government is asking you to leave to itself, and to parliament, with entire freedom to decide the question on its merits.
Let me also read what I said on April 24 in a final appeal to the electorate for an affirmative vote. This appeal was also made in a broadcast which was nationwide:
When the plebiscite was announced many did not understand what it was on which they were going to be asked to express an opinion. Many thought that conscription was the question to be decided. In other words, they believed that the government was placing on the people the responsibility of deciding the issue of conscription, instead of assuming that responsibility itself, and making its own recommendation to parliament.
It has now ben made clear that conscription is not the issue. Let me emphasize that fact. Those who tell you that conscription is the issue are misleading you. The sole purpose of the plebiscite is to obtain for the government, and for parliament, a perfectly free hand in dealing with this, as with all other questions. All you are being asked to say is whether or not you are in favour of the government's hands being perfectly free at this time of war. That is the meaning of the question to which you are being asked to reply yes or no. If you reply yes, you will not be committing the government to conscription for service overseas; but you will be enabling the government and parliament to discuss and decide that question solely on its merits.
I have quoted from my own nation-wide broadcasts. Let me now quote a paragraph or two from the nation-wide broadcasts delivered by the leader of the opposition on April 20. I quote:
This plebiscite is simply to give to the government and Mr. King release from a commitment not to enlist men for overseas service by compulsory methods. That, primarily, is the only issue involved. Emphatically, it is not, in this specific vote, an issue for or against compulsory service for overseas. It is merely a vote to release or refuse to release, Mr. King from a pre-electon pledge. . . . You are not called

upon, by this plebiscite, to declare for or against conscription for overseas service. That may come; it does not follow from this plebiscite. . . . The only question involved is whether the government shall be free to follow any policy it may deem necessary in the future.
Let me also quote from the nation-wide broadcast delivered by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, on April 21. I quote:
The vote on Monday is not a vote for or against the conscription of man-power for overseas service. It is a vote to release members of parliament from their pledge not even to consider such conscription. Thus, while the Prime Minister in his radio address on April 7 quite properly stated the reasons why it is necessary to obtain a release from the pledges against conscription for overseas service, he made it quite clear that such conscription is not the issue which will be decided by the plebiscite. That issue will be decided by parliament when and if the government presents it for discussion.
From these quotations, it will be seen that the leader of the opposition and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation expressed precisely the same view as myself of the issue in the plebiscite.
It cannot serve any useful purpose, indeed it can only do a great injustice to the Canadian electorate, to attempt to place upon the results of the plebiscite any interpretation other than that which, before the vote was taken, the electors were told would be placed upon the results. To interpret the results otherwise would be doing a cruel injustice to many members of this House of Commons who most certainly would never have advocated an affirmative vote had it not been made clear beyond all doubt that in so doing they were not endorsing conscription. I know of many members, some of them with sons serving in Canada's army overseas, who were themselves opposed to conscription, but who did all in their power, in their several constituencies, to secure an affirmative vote. This they did in order that they themselves and "the government and parliament should be wholly free to exercise their best judgment in dealing with every situation in the light of what is best for Canada, and for Canada's effort in the present war".
To claim that what had been sought or obtained by the plebiscite was a mandate for conscription is to assert that the plebiscite was a mere subterfuge. Such a claim goes further than that: it is equivalent to saying that those who stated that the issue was not conscription, did not mean what they said; that they were deliberately seeking to deceive the electorate.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
Such a claim does a particular injustice to hon. members of this house, who knowing the importance of national unity at a time of war did their best to remove the prejudices which some others were doing their utmost to inflame. In the endeavour to bring home to the people of their province the truth of Canada's position in the present war, and the need in the interests of national security as well as of national unity for an affirmative vote, none fought more valiantly than the majority of the members of this house from the province of Quebec, including my former colleague, the then Minister of Public Works and of Transport.
Let me make this perfectly clear. If the government has brought in the amendment at the time it has, it is not because of any false interpretation of the results of the plebiscite, but for reasons that are in complete accord with the purpose for which the plebiscite was held.
I have said that the purposes of the plebiscite were to place the magnitude and balanced nature of Canada's war effort in its true light, and to secure for the government a free hand in the prosecution of the war, Both purposes, I believe, should be achieved as speedily as possible.
I made this abundantly clear in the words with which I concluded my final broadcast on April 24. I quote:
Let me just say this, that if disaster should ever overtake us, it will certainly be said for generations to come that had the government's powers not been restricted, the disaster would never have occurred. Such is the responsibility that may come to rest upon those who, in the existing crisis, are unwilling to remove restrictions and give to the government a free hand in its war policies.
To-day, the enemy is so strong that he can only be held at bay, and finally defeated, by the common action of all the united nations. For her own security, Canada should make it perfectly clear to the other united nations and, above all, to the United States, that Canada is as ready to help them as we know they will be ready to help us. An overwhelming affirmative vote on Monday next will serve to make that perfectly clear.
To-day, despite the magnificence of Canada's war effort, the impression is being fostered among other nations that because of a restriction on the powers of the government, Canada's war effort is not an all-out effort. This impression is quite unfounded. Nevertheless, it is working a grave injustice to our country as a whole, and to every man and woman who is making any contribution towards the winning of the war. I want that injustice to end. And so I ask you, my fellow-countrymen-every one of you-to help give to our country complete freedom and strength for an utmost effort both in its own eyes, and in the eyes of the world. You can do this by voting "yes" on Monday next.
How very much to the point the words of that appeal were has been brought home to us all within the past few days, with surprising suddenness. For more than a fortnight past, the forces of the United States and Canada have been combining their strength to meet imminent attack by Japanese forces upon Canada and the United States.
May I say that only in to-day's papers and over the radio this morning we were informed that one of the United States ships just off the coast had been torpedoed. Some men were brought ashore alive, but unfortunately one of the number died before his raft could reach the shore. That is on the Pacific ocean-a ship torpedoed by a Japanese submarine.
The people of Canada, on Monday the 27th of April, made it unmistakably clear that they desired for Canada and for its war-time government "complete freedom and strength for an utmost effort both in its own eyes and in the eyes of the world."
In the eyes of some in our own land, and even more in the eyes of many in other countries, so long as clause 3 remains in the National Resources Mobilization Act, that "complete freedom and strength for an utmost effort" does not and cannot exist. Regardless altogether of whether the removal of clause 3 would make the difference of an additional man going overseas, so long as, in the statutes of Canada, any restriction remains it will continue to be cited as a bar to a total effort, and a bar, moreover, which finds its expression in the law of our land.
We have been released by the plebiscite from commitments which, up to the time of the plebiscite, had been pointed to as the bar to an all-out effort. Surely, every argument that could be urged in support of a release from a moral obligation, can be urged with equal force against a legal obligation, the effect of which, in so far as it may constitute a bar to a total effort, is exactly the same. If there be any wisdom in removing false impressions, surely the sooner they are removed the better.
It will be said that it may be perfectly true that there is need for some action as a consequence of the plebiscite, and need even for immediate action. But why, it is asked, go so far? Why seek to do everything at once? Why not proceed by stages? The people need educating. What they may not see to-day, they may come to understand to-morrow. It was difficult enough, in some quarters, to have them see the wisdom of trusting the government, and of giving to it, subject to its responsibility to parliament, a free hand at a time of war. Why arouse suspicions? Above all, why give to those who
3232	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
said that the plebiscite was a mere subterfuge and that its real purpose was the immediate application of conscription for service overseas, the chance to say "we told you so; we are the real leaders; the rest have been deceiving you". Why should those who spoke otherwise be placed in a false light by the introduction of a measure containing the principle of compulsory military service for overseas, and that, as my former colleague said: "just a few days after the vote"?
These are pertinent questions. They are questions to the significance of which too careful attention cannot be paid by members of parliament, and, I might add, by all who have to do with the moulding of public opinion in Canada. They may seem difficult questions to answer, but if they cannot be answered, and answered to the satisfaction of an impartial listener, then I am prepared to say that I would be unworthy of the confidence placed in myself, and the government would be unworthy of the support it has received from those who so loyally supported us in our effort to obtain an affirmative vote on the plebiscite.
Let me first of all refer to what some would have regarded as a preferable way of proceeding. I do not think I need to say more about the mistake it would have been for the government, once the moral restriction was removed, to have delayed in seeking the removal of the legal restriction.
But, it is said, could not the removal of the legal restriction have been effected by two or more steps, instead of one? It has, for example, been said that if, in due course, the government had brought in an amendment which would have substituted "the northern half of the western hemisphere", or, for that matter, "the western hemisphere", for the words "Canada and the territorial waters thereof", where the latter words appear in section 3 of the mobilization act that in all probability such an amendment would have encountered little, if any, opposition.
That, I believe is true. As long ago as February 26, I stated that the government would, if necessary, not hesitate to use the War Measures Act to send troops called up under the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act, to "the panhandle or any place in the vicinity of the coast of Canada". No exception was taken to that statement at the time it was made, nor am I aware of any having been taken since. It is probably now apparent why, in speaking at the time, I related that possible action particularly to Alaska.
The question is: Would such an amendment have served to meet the purposes of the

plebiscite as they were outlined in the speech from the throne? Would it have removed from clause 3 of the mobilization act everything that could be construed as a legal limitation upon Canada's war effort? Would it have given the government freedom of action? Would it not rather have been construed, by those who wished so to misrepresent the government's purpose and intention, as the substitution of another limitation for the one removed? Would this new legal limitation, just as has been the case with the existing one, not have continued to be pointed to as a restriction upon a total or utmost effort?
But that is not the only objection to proceeding by stages. To amend the act, in any particular, means a debate in both houses of parliament. It means a debate which, whatever the amendment proposed, would be a debate on the question of conscription. Should a second or third amendment become necessary later on, it would certainly mean as many subsequent debates, going over all the same ground again. Unnecessary discussion and prolonged debate in parliament at a time when our country is hourly being drawn into greater danger would not serve to place Canada's war effort in its true light, either before our own people or before the people of other countries, nor would it gain respect for parliament.
This brings me to a further reason why I feel the government is right in seeking, once and for all, to secure complete freedom to exercise its best judgment in dealing with every situation in the light of what is best for Canada and for Canada's effort in the present war, and that events will so prove.
In concluding my first appeal for an affirmative vote on the plebiscite, I said:
Aggression has followed aggression with such speed in so many parts of the world that no one can now predict what new areas the war may reach next year, next month, or next week. Danger threatens us from the east and from the west. It is in the face of this peril that, for the defence of our freedom and of our country, the government asks you to give it a free band.
For the same reason, we now ask the same from parliament.
I take no exception to the statement made by my former colleague in his letter of resignation when he says:
As far as Canada is concerned, since the question of the plebiscite was first discussed, and since the vote has been taken, nothing has been said nor anything established to indicate that the war situation has rendered necessary just a few days after the vote, the introduction of a measure containing the principle of compulsory military service for overseas.

Were the element of surprise not an out- , standing feature of enemy strategy; and were it not a fact that no one knows at what moment the war situation may take some wholly unexpected turn, there would be, at the present time, no practical need for the introduction of an amendment which contains the principle of compulsory military service for overseas. It is always well, however, to be prepared as far in advance as may be possible for any contingency.
If the reasons for having introduced the proposed amendment, just a few days after the vote on the plebiscite, were solely those of meeting some new war situation, or a war situation other than was envisaged when the question of the plebiscite was first discussed, I would be the first to say that such reasons were wholly insufficient to justify the deletion of clause 3 in its entirety at the present time. But such, as I have explained, are not the reasons either for the amendment being introduced so soon after the taking of the plebiscite, or for the government seeking, at the present time, to have the whole of section 3 deleted.
Up to the present, I have said nothing of the powers which, under the War Measures Act, the governor in council already possesses. Under that act, as interpreted by judicial decision and by the legal advisers of the government, the governor in council has authority, notwithstanding section 3, to send men enlisted under the National Resources Mobilization Act to points outside the boundaries of Canada and the territorial waters thereof. In other words, if, to-day, in the opinion of the government, the war situation demanded the dispatch overseas of men already called up under compulsion for military service, the government has the necessary legal power to order their dispatch.
Why then, it will be asked, does the government come to parliament for powers which it already possesses? The answer to this question is the sense the executive has of its responsibility to parliament.
To defeat the enemy overseas, and thereby lessen the possibility of the actual invasion of Canada itself, is the objective of Canada's armed forces overseas, whether they be upon the sea, in the air, or on land.
The government does not believe that, to serve that end, conscription for overseas service is necessary at the present time. Moreover, it may never become necessary. But, in case it should ever become necessary, it is surely the part, of wisdom that there should be no doubt whatever of the power of the government to take the necessary action the 44561-204
\Iobilizqt~' )V Ad-Mr. Mackenzie King
moment. *\e necessity to do so may arise. There should equally be no doubt that this power isrderived from the present parliament ratjier than from a statute enacted in 1914.
There is nothing in the proposed amendment which could imply that the government's attitude towards conscription for service overseas, as set forth in parliament and as expressed from time to time in the plebiscite campaign, has been altered in the least, or that there is any intention of a change of government policy or attitude. The government's policy as to being given complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise was clearly stated in the speech from the throne at the opening of parliament in the following words;
My advisers believe that the magnitude and balanced nature of Canada's war effort is being obscured and impaired by controversy concerning commitments with respect to the methods of raising men for military service which were made prior to the spread of the war to all parts of the world.
The government is of the opinion that, at this time of gravest crisis in the world's history, the administration, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, should in this connection and irrespective of any previous commitments, possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise.
The words, "in this connection", in the paragraph I have just read, refer of course to the words "the methods of raising men for military service" in the preceding paragraph. I am, therefore, as I said in my reply to the former minister of public works, unable to agree that there has been any change of policy or attitude on the part of the government. No new policy has been adopted.
The government's policy with respect to the method of enlisting men for service in the army overseas was set forth clearly and unequivocally, on February 10, by my colleague the Minister of National Defence, in discussing the 1942-43 army programme. The minister of defence said that he wanted to see voluntary enlistments kept up, and that he believed it was better for our voluntary army if the men coming to reinforce it were also volunteers. After giving figures which clearly showed that, up to that time, the voluntary system had not failed, the minister added these words:
I have faith iu the success of the voluntary method if we all do our part. With the background and tradition which this country possesses and which it would be folly to ignore, I prefer the voluntary method if it works, and I shall do all I can to make it work.
This statement is by no means the only statement of the position of the government with respect to the method of enlistment for
[Stage Direction]
3234	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
service overseas. I desire particularly to draw attention to and to repeat the words I used in this house on February 25, in the debate on the second reading of the Plebiscite bill. After setting out the reasons why the government believed the request for a release from any commitments should be submitted to the people, I explained the position the government was then in with respect to the adoption of conscription for overseas service and, in plain and unequivocal language, why it was the government desired to have that position changed and to be given a free hand to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they might arise. Here are my words-and I am quoting from what I said on February 25:
The position is that the government has full power with respect to everything, excepting one thing; and that one thing is that commitment, that obligation, with respect to the enlisting of men for overseas service. There the government is not free. You may ask why the government should come forward at the present time and ask to be made free. First of all, may I make it clear that it is not because of any situation that exists at the moment. The Minister of National Defence has made it perfectly clear that with respect to voluntary enlistment, we are obtaining men for overseas service at the present time as rapidly as we can train them.
And these are my words:
For our programme this year, and up to March, 1943, there is an honest belief on the part of the government that we will be able to get the men by voluntary enlistment for service overseas, and will not have to resort to conscription. But no one can say how long this war is going to last. No one can say what particular turn it is going to take. None of us knows what the conditions are going to be in a few months hence, or several months hence, or a year or two hence. . . .
Nothing, I think, could be plainer than that. It was made perfectly clear that the government had no thought of resorting to conscription for overseas service so long as the voluntary system continued to produce the necessary recruits; also, that we honestly believed the voluntary system would suffice to secure the necessary enlistments for the 1942-43 programme. The government, however, wished to be free, without any breach of faith, to resort to conscription for overseas service should that become necessary to our national security and to the effectiveness of our war effort.
If the bill is amended as proposed, it is not the intention of the government to resort to conscription for service overseas unless circumstances should arise which would render the use of compulsion imperative, such, for example, as the maintenance of the necessary reinforcements for Canada's array overseas.

In saying this, let me make it equally clear that, having regard to the stage the war has reached, the government is asking parliament now, just as it did at the time of the enactment of the National Resources Mobilization Act, in June, 1940, to give to it the powers it believes it should possess, quite independently of any powers the governor in council may possess under the War Measures Act. The power to which I refer is the power to decide if, when, and to what extent the use of compulsion may be necessary for military service outside Canada and to exercise that power accordingly.
The amendment before the house necessarily opens up the whole question of conscription for overseas service. The government welcomes this opportunity of having the subject debated. Now that the question can be discussed upon its merits, it is well that it Should be so discussed. As I pointed out on January 26 in the debate on the address, and again on February 25, in the debate on the plebiscite bill, parliament is the place for that discussion.
With reference to the specific question of enlistment for service overseas, I said, on February 25:
When we find that we cannot raise the required numbers of men for enlistment overseas by the voluntary method, and it is absolutely necessary to raise more men by other methods, then we will make our decision, present it to parliament and have it discussed on its merits.
Unless the question of conscription for overseas service is to be twice debated, that, as I see it, is the stage we have now reached. The government is making its policy with respect to the raising of men for service overseas, fully known. We are presenting that policy to parliament, and, as I have just said, we welcome the opportunity of having the whole question discussed upon its merits.
In order that the government may have the power if required to resort to the compulsory method of raising men for service overseas, if it is found that men in the numbers required cannot be raised by the voluntary method, as well as for the other reasons I have mentioned, the government has reached the decision that it should now ask parliament to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act by the deletion of section 3 of the act.
If the powers for this purpose are to be conferred upon the governor in council at all, it is well they should be given as long as possible in advance of the time at which it fnay become necessary to exercise them, should it ever become necessary so to do. Also, it will, I think, be generally agreed that discussion on so important a subject should

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
not be left to a time of crisis. As between debating the issue now or later on, obviously the wisdom and advantage is wholly in favour of the earlier moment.
What really is important is that the government's policy should be fully known, presented to parliament, and agreed to by parliament before any action is taken. In this way and in this way only, the people's representatives in parliament can be afforded a full opportunity to discuss the whole subject upon its merits.
While not seeking the deletion of section 3 because of any present need of applying conscription for service overseas, the government is desirous of having the power immediately to move some of the men who have been called up and trained under the National Resources Mobilization Act, to Newfoundland and possibly to other islands in the western hemisphere, and to territories adjacent to Canada, including the territory of the United States. If that power is to be exercised under authority of parliament, apart from the authority contained in the War Measures Act, the section would have to be immediately amended. The amending of the section to any extent would, in the light of discussions that have already taken place, open up the whole question of conscription, and we should have here and now a full debate thereon. As I already have said, I am certain that with war on every side, hon. members of parliament would not wish two debates upon the subject of conscription when one should suffice, and I am even more certain that the people of Canada would not view with patience any such action on the part of their representatives.
There remains the question as to how, should the necessity of resorting to compulsion for service overseas arise, the government proposes to proceed in exercising the powers which parliament may confer. Here, again, the government intends to continue the practice which it has followed under the powers it at present possesses under the National Resources Mobilization Act.
The decision of the governor in council will be communicated to parliament in exactly the same manner as orders and regulations are communicated to parliament under the act as it stands. The procedure, in this particular, is set forth in section 5 of the act, which reads:
5. Every order or regulation passed under the authority of this Act shall be tabled in parliament forthwith if parliament is in session and a copy thereof sent to every member of the House of Commons and of the Senate; and if parliament is not in session, then every such order or regulation shall be forthwith published
in the Canada Gazette and copies thereof sent to every member of the House of Commons and of the Senate forthwith; provided that any of the steps specified in this section may be omitted or deferred if the governor in council considers such omission or deferment necessary in the national interest having regard to the special circumstances.
Clause 5 was inserted in the mobilization act only after very careful consideration of the situation as it existed at the time the act was passed. It must be apparent that the reasons which governed at that time, as to the procedure to be followed by the administration in exercising the powers given to the governor in council under its provisions, would obtain with equal, if not greater force as the war situation becomes more critical.
I notice that it has been said, that once the amendment is adopted, the decision respecting conscription for overseas service will rest solely with the military authorities. I wish, therefore, to make it wholly clear that action taken under the act as amended, must be authorized by order of the governor in council. In other words the decision will be the decision of the cabinet.
On February 25 I gave to parliament a very clear statement of the factors of which account would be taken by the government in reaching a decision. These were known to the people of Canada at the time they were being asked to give the government a free hand.
Replying to a question of the leader of the opposition as to what the government was going to do in certain eventualities, I said, as reported on page 830 of Hansard of February 25, 1942:
Let me answer the question first of all in a broad way. The government is asking the people for a free hand in order that it may do in the circumstances as they may arise what is most in the interests of the people of Canada. We wish to make Canada's war effort as effective as it can possibly be made. What we shall do at any particular time will depend upon the course which we think at the time is necessary and advisable and most effective in Canada's war effort. That decision is not going to be made in the light of any one factor. It is going to be made in the light of all conditions as they exist and as they are known to the government at the time. . . .
And later:
The government is going to do the thing that it believes is going to further to the uttermost Canada's war effort, all circumstances considered. May I say that when I say "all circumstances considered," I have in mind the conditions as they may exist in respect to the war in different theatres and the condition* that may exist in Canada itself.
As to the right thing being done at the right time and in the right way, it seems to
3236	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
me that necessarily comes to be a matter of the degree of confidence which parliament and the people have in the administration charged with the responsibilities of carrying on the war.
In most controversies, there are those who take extreme views. They want everything their own way, and if not allowed to have their own way, they begin to threaten and abuse those who venture to hold an opinion contrary to their own. They become impatient even of a consideration of a question upon its merits, or the effect their attitude may have upon the well-being of others.
In national affairs, this sort of attitude is bad enough at any time. In times of war, however, where the preservation of national unity is of first importance to the war effort of the nation, and where the issue is the most controversial in a country's history, the insistence, by any considerable portion of the population, upon an extreme position is almost certain to be fraught with the gravest possible dangers to the state.
Surveying the field of public controversy on the issue of conscription for service overseas, as it has been reflected in the press, and as doubtless it will find expression in this House of Commons, there would appear to be three general views, two of them diametrically opposed. The first is that conscription for service overseas should be inaugurated at once, that nothing less will suffice; the second is that conscription for service overseas should not be inaugurated under any circumstances. In other words, there are some who want conscription for overseas service, and this at once even if it is not necessary; and some who say they won't support conscription for overseas service at any time no matter how necessary it might be to help to save our own country. Each of these is a very extreme view and attitude. Neither extreme, I believe, should be permitted to prevail.
There is, fortunately, a third view-a view which I believe, accords with the opinion most generally held throughout the dominion. It is that conscription for service overseas should be inaugurated only if and when, in the opinion of the government, it becomes necessary to the security of our country and to the maintenance of its war effort. That view is the one which is held by the government. It represents the government's policy with respect to conscription for service overseas. In a word, that policy may be described as not necessarily conscription but conscription if necessary. Considering all relevant circumstances, I submit that no other policy will serve to keep Canada united, or to further

Canada's war effort in the manner which, at this time of war, will best serve the interests of Canada, the interests of the British commonwealth of nations, and of the other united nations which are linked together in the common cause of freedom.
Knowing the disastrous effect upon Canada's war effort which a controversy concerning conscription for service overseas would occasion in Canada, to say nothing of the problems to which the enforcement of such a policy might give rise, the government, I need hardly say. has done all in its power to prevent our country from becoming divided over the conscription issue. It has done so without sacrifice in the slightest particular, of any step essential to an all-out effort. It would have been fatal to the unity of Canada for the government to have done otherwise. It lies beyond the power of the government to prevent an issue from arising. But it would be equally fatal for the government not to continue to do all in its power to prevent the issue becoming one which could ever impair the efficiency of our war effort and the magnificent record our country has already achieved, and which every citizen of the dominion is justified in viewing with the utmost pride.
I cannot believe this parliament is going to permit that unity to be destroyed by a political quarrel over a question of the method by which men are to be raised for overseas service. Canada, and Canada's future, is far more vital than any question of conscription. It is not for me to tell any hon. member how he should proceed in presenting the issue to his constituents. I do believe, however, that the issue of conscription for overseas service would soon vanish from the realm of political controversy if those who prefer conscription for service overseas would say to their constituents: "There are thousands of patriotic Canadians who, for reasons that are readily understood, are opposed to conscription for service overseas and that we should be prepared, at this time, to take those reasons into account"; and if those who are opposed to conscription for overseas service would say to their constituents: "I prefer the voluntary system and I will do my utmost to make it work, and I appeal to you to do the same; but, if conscription is ever needed for Canada's sake and for Canada's future, I will not oppose its application."
Both might say to their constituents; "We . are fighting this war as one free and united people against an enemy who seeks first to destroy our unity so that later he may take away our freedom and our country itself. In

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
the face of that terrible danger, we cannot afford to have any differences that it is at all possible to avoid."
In the whole history of the world, no two peoples have ever lived so long in such close association with so little friction as those of French and British descent in Canada. In a centuiy of political union we have built a nation which stretches across half a continent. We have conquered the wilderness. We have achieved great material progress. We all have become deeply attached to one common homeland. We have accomplished miracles in order to help defend our homeland against a ruthless enemy. No one will ever make me believe that in the hour of testing, the achievement of a century is to be imperilled by permitting any issue to arise which might threaten our national unity, and that in the hour of its greatest danger and in the time of gravest crisis for all mankind.
1 am sure I need not ask hon. members of this house of all shades of politics and from all parts of Canada to weigh and consider with the utmost wisdom and prudence all that is involved of Canada's present and future in the national aspect of the problem which is now before us. It may well prove to be the most critical of any the parliament of Canada has ever faced.
Lest words of mine might appear to be biased or exaggerated, I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Montreal Standard of May 30, and which is entitled "Crisis in Canada." It is but one of a number of editorials which have recently appeared in publications throughout Canada, which sense with clearness the real danger to Canada, should the right attitude not be assumed at this time by all whose responsibility it is to guide our country's present course and help to shape its future destiny. It presents an appeal which I believe will meet with a ready response in this House of Commons, and which I also believe expresses the true spirit of Canada. The editorial reads as follows:
The Dominion of Canada stands at the most critical hour of its history. Its future as a nation depends on understanding between English and French-speaking Canadians. One cannot make Canada without the other. At the present moment there is a grave danger of a cleft being driven between the two that would not close over for generations.
It is not a political situation, a crisis of corridor and caucus. It is a crisis of feeling. And a nation's life depends on the feelings of its people
' Only if there is a strong will for understanding on both sides can we come through the difficult times that have arrived. Canada must come first in thought, in action and in words.
English-speaking Canadians must force their minds to understand the background of the thinking of their French-speaking compatriots. They must realize that their fellows in Quebec are intensely loyal to Canada, that they hate the enemy and his works as much as anybody, that they have contributed mightily to the country's war effort. English-speaking Canadians must realize that the hard fact that Canada is fighting for her owm survival in this war has not been brought home to Frenchspeaking Canadians and that the lack has been intensified by words and actions not truly Canadian from many individuals; that there is a long history behind the recently expressed opinion of French Canada. They must guard against giving too great weight to extreme elements in Quebec.
French-speaking Canadians in their turn, must grasp that the mass of their fellow countrymen are thinking of Canada, its safety and _ its future, are not putting other considerations above that of their own nation. They must understand the perils that beset their country, and realize that it is better to keep those dangers as far away from our own shores as possible. They must have forbearance for those who are prejudice-bound on the other side, and see that the feelings of the majority of other Canadians are fundamentally as their own.
If the will to understanding does not grow on both sides. Canada is heading into disaster. If the will swells on both sides, Canada will play her full part in beating back the enemy that seeks her life, and will be assured of a future as a nation worthy of the two great peoples, each retaining their own strengths, united to form a whole that will be an example to the world.
And this brings me, if I may be permitted to do so. to say just a word upon the duty which hon. members owe alike to their constituencies and to Canada as a whole. I know there are some who feel that as a majority in the constituencies they represent voted "Yes" or "No" on the plebiscite, they are under an obligation to take a particular stand in the present debate. I hope I made it sufficiently clear just exactly what it was on which the electors were asked to express and did express their opinion. It is not only the right but it is a duty of hon. members to interpret the view of their constituents, but it is equally a duty in so doing to see that a construction is not placed upon their view's which was never, and could never have been intended. There is above all else a duty which every member owes to his constituency and to the country, once he is returned to parliament and that is to exercise all that is possible of reason and judgment in reaching a decision upon questions of supreme national interest and concern.
Here may 1 ask the house to permit me to cite the opinion of one whom the parliament at Westminster for more than a century and a half has been proud to acknowledge as not
3238	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
less outstanding among its authorities on political obligation than as a leader in the art of parliamentary eloquence.
Addressing the electors of Bristol on November 3, 1774, Edmund Burke, in circumstances not dissimilar to those with which hon. members in our own parliament are faced at the present time, made the following declaration, the wisdom of which has been generally accepted by all democratic assemblies from that day to our own.
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But, his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
My worthy colleague says, his will ought to ' be subservient to yours. If that be ail, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?
In our own country, it might need be three thousand miles.	[DOT]
To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience-these are things utterly unknown to the laws or this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenour of our constitution.
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should

form a hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far. as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect.
That opinion never carried more weight in any assembly than should be attached to it by this House of Commons as we enter upon the present debate.
I turn now from a consideration of the amendment, as such, to a consideration of the question of conscripution for overseas service which it raises. You will recall I stated that the plebiscite had three purposes. The first was that nothing should be allowed to obscure or impair the magnitude and balanced nature of Canada's war effort; the second, that the administration, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, should possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise in the prosecution of the war; and the third, which has a direct bearing upon the first two, that the government and parliament should not be bound by past commitments, but be free to discuss and decide on its merits the extent of the use of conscription.
The third purpose has already been achieved as a result of the holding of the plebiscite. The government and parliament are no longer bound by past commitments. We are, therefore, in a position to discuss the question of conscription from the point of view of the other two purposes of the plebiscite.
Controversy over the question of conscription has, I believe, obscured the magnitude and balanced nature of Canada's war effort. Unless the controversy can be ended, it will, I believe, impair the efficiency of our war effort.
The policy of the government is and has been the achievement of a total effort for total war.
Let me, therefore, outline briefly, so far only as the mobilization of man-power is concerned, some of the requirements that must be met in order to achieve a total war effort. Until the whole man-power picture is before us, we cannot see what effect the application of conscription for overseas service would have on the achievement of a total effort for total war.
The war programme for the period up to March 31, 1943, was outlined in all its aspects on January 26. That programme, in its objective, represents, in the opinion of the government, a total effort for Canada. By a total effort is meant the utmost effort of which the country is capable. On February 4, the Minister of Finance gave the reasons for believing that the government's war programme for

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
1942-43 would constitute the utmost effort of which the country is capable. The minister said:
I believe that the programme which we plan should for the immediate future the coming year, be a programme which will strain the human and material resources of this country to the limit. I have, therefore, agreed as Minister of Finance, to a war programme for the coming fiscal year which, in my opinion, and in the opinion of my advisers, is the extreme limit of what this country can do, having in mind its human and material resources.
By a total effort is also meant an effort so balanced in all its aspects that no essential task will be left undone because a disproportionate effort is devoted to some other task.
The achievement of a total effort involves much more than the raising of large numbers of men. It involves the most effective use of all the available resources of the nation, material as well as human.
The mobilization of human resources, of man-power and woman-power, for a total war effort is far more complicated than is yet generally realized. It is not merely a question of raising men for the army, which was the main problem in the last war.
It should not be forgotten that Canada has only 11J million people, of whom a considerable proportion are children or old people who cannot engage in active war service. From our limited population we must provide:
1.	Men and women to perform the essential services without which life could not go on: such as the manufacture and distribution of the necessaries of life, essential transportation over great distances, and the production of food for our own people.
2.	Men and women to produce food, not only for our own people and our own armed forces, but also to help feed the people of Britain and other allied countries which cannot produce all the food they need for themselves.
3.	Men and women to produce the machines and munitions of war for Canada, for Britain, and for the other united nations.
4.	Men and women for service in all three of the armed forces.
All these man-power needs must be satisfied from one man-power pool. It is important always to remember that the total man-power is limited. If too many men are taken from one service there will not be enough left for some other service. All man-power demands must be kept in balance.
When asked in the House of Commons last November what was the ultimate objective of man-power which it was hoped Canada would
contribute, the Minister of National Defence replied, quoting words of my own, that Canada was determined to contribute "to the utmost of her strength". The minister added these significant words: "By an all-out contribution,
I am not talking about divisions alone; I am not talking merely of squadrons, of ships, of production, of finance; I am talking about a balanced programme which represents the very best and most that Canada can do. That is the ultimate objective." That, may I say, is the ultimate objective as I also understand it.
It should also be remembered that the demand for man-power is continuous. The armed forces require reinforcements, and will continue to require them until the war is ended. As still more war plants come into production there is a growing demand for labour to man them. Labour is also required for the construction of defence works, such as airports, coastal defences, military highways, et cetera, many of which on a wide scale have become increasingly urgent because of war in the Pacific. There is a limit to the numbers of men who can be drained from the farms and from essential services without paralyzing the life of the community. The government must take account of all these factors in planning and organizing the mobilization of man-power.
A vigorous effort, as I have pointed out, has been made to identify conscription for overseas service in the army with a total effort for total war. The fact that it is conscription for the army, rather than for the navy or for the air force, which is made the symbol of a total war effort shows clearly that its advocates continue to think more in terms of the last war than of the present war.
I should like, therefore, to indicate the proportions of the problem of mobilizing the men for the army enlisted for service anywhere in relation to the total problem of man-power mobilization.
On February 10, the Minister of National Defence stated that the estimated man-power requirements of the army, for service arr [DOT] where, from January 1, 1942, to March 31, 1943, a period of fifteen months, were 90,000 to 100,000 men. Of that number over 50,000 had enlisted by the end of May. That is in a period of only five months. These figures show clearly that, at the present time, the voluntary system of recruitment is functioning adequately.
In the same period of fifteen months it is estimated that 13,000 men will be required for the navy, and from 70,000 to 80,000 for the air force, a total roughly equal to the estimate
3240	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
of the number required for the army for service anywhere overseas. There is, however, no suggestion that Canada is not making a total effort because the men for the navy and the air force are not raised by compulsion.
It is also estimated that, in the present year, at least 100,000 additional men and women will be needed in war industry. It is not suggested that these men and women must be recruited by compulsion in order to achieve a total war effort.
It is surely time that we began to call things by their right names. The total mobilization of man-power means the most effective use of all the men and women available: it has nothing whatever to do with the method by which that mobilization is achieved.
When it is realized that at the beginning of the present year some 600,000 men and women were directly engaged in war industry, and that by the end of the year the number will probably exceed 700,000; when it is realized that up to the end of May of the present year, over half a million men had already enlisted in the three armed forces for service anywhere in the world, and that enlistments in all three services are continuing at a satisfactory rate; when it is further realized that thousands more who have been recruited by the compulsory method are serving in home defence units and that their numbers are growing every month; when to these are added the hundreds of thousands of men who are necessarily employed in essential heavy industry, in construction, on the railways, on the farms and as merchant sailors, it is surely apparent that Canada is rapidly moving towards the total mobilization of man-power for a total war effort!
In order to assist in shifting the man-power and woman-power of the nation as largely as possible from civilian activities into the various forms of war service, the government instituted, some months ago a flexible and comprehensive scheme of national selective service. In this scheme voluntary and compulsory features have both been incorporated.
The government does not propose to resort to compulsion simply for the sake of compulsion. Compulsion has not been made an end in itself. It is only in the dictator states, and in the countries they have conquered, and which for the time being are under their control, that compulsion is made an end in itself, as well as a means to an end. Here, in Canada. we, thus far, have had resort to compulsion only where, all circumstances considered, it was believed that compulsory means would contribute to a greater total effort. There has, for example, been no need of compulsion to secure all the men who can be 
taken into the navy, or to secure all the men required for the air force. No one has suggested that the application of conscription would be desirable in order to raise men for either of these services. Compulsion has not been required to raise the men needed for the active army which is enlisted for service anywhere in the world. There has so far been no need of industrial conscription to provide the workmen required for war industry.
For the armed forces, compulsion is, of course, applied, and, since October, 1940, has been applied for service in the army for the territorial defence of Canada. The decision, announced on March 25, to mobilize the 7th and 8th divisions has considerably increased the demand for man-power for home defence service. This demand is being increasingly met by resort to compulsory training and service.
In a war for the preservation of freedom, it might well be asked how can the use of compulsion be justified in any aspects of the war effort
The reason for resorting to compulsion of any kind in the prosecution of the war is set out in formal language in section 2 of the National Resources Mobilization Act which empowers the governor in council to require "persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty in the right of Canada, as may be deemed necessary and expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of Canada, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community."
Translated into the language of the man in the street, that means that the government has the power to conscript any property, any wealth, or the services of any individual in Canada, whenever they are needed to make Canada stronger to resist attack, and to help Canada to do its full share to defeat the enemy.
Compulsion, in any form, should be used in the war effort only if it will make Canada stronger, and add to Canada's part in winning the war. Here let me repeat that compulsion is regarded by the government, not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. That end is a total war effort.
As I pointed out to the house in my statement on national selective service:
In those aspects of our war effort in which voluntary methods are working satisfactorily, voluntary selection including a measure of choice by the individual of the appropriate field of service, has been and will be continued. The more expensive and complicated methods of compulsion have been employed, only where

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
it is felt that compulsory selection is necessary in order to increase efficiency in the prosecution of the war. Compulsion, however, will be applied without fear or favour wherever in the opinion of the government its use will aid in the achievement of a maximum war effort.
The application of conscription to service in the army overseas is only one aspect of the far wider question of the use of compulsion to secure an all-out war effort.
The next question is: Would the application of conscription to military service overseas at the present time make Canada stronger, or add to Canada's war effort?
How could resort to conscription for overseas service add to our war effort? The one way, in which so far as I can see, it might add to our war effort, would be by securing more men for service in the army overseas than can be secured by voluntary means.
If the size of the overseas army was unlimited; if we did not require men urgently for other purposes as well as for the army; there might be a possibility of increasing the total war effort by conscripting men fqr the overseas army.
But the fact is we can only spare a limited proportion of our total man-power for the army overseas. In addition to our army overseas, we need men for a great and growing army which must be kept in Canada or in the adjacent territories for the defence of our home base, and for the joint defence of this continent in cooperation with, the forces of the United States. The torpedoing in recent weeks, by German submarines, of ships in the waters of the St. Lawrence, and the destruction since the beginning of the year of many vessels off the coasts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the attack upon the Aleutian islands by Japanese ships and planes, the growing submarine menace in the Pacific, should surely have made it plain to everyone that apart from our forces overseas we need men for a great and growing air force and navy and for a much larger army, to be employed in the immediate protection of our own coasts and territory. We need men for our war industries which are still expanding. Our farms and essential civilian services cannot be left without man-power. The total man-power of the nation must be divided up among all these services.
What is the position of the Canadian army in regard to man-power?
The units already overseas are up to strength and adequate reinforcements are available. The new units, destined for overseas service, are being rapidly recruited by voluntary enlistment. Additional volunteers, 44561-205
enlisting for service anywhere in the world, are adding steadily to the numbers available for reinforcements.
The units destined for home defence service, recently increased in number, are formed or are being formed partly of volunteers and partly of men called up for compulsory military service.
Men are being called up for compulsory training and service as fast as they can be trained and equipped. These men receive the same training, in the same camps, as volunteers.
Clearly there are no grounds for asserting that compulsion is needed at the present time to secure the men required for service in the army overseas. There is nothing to indicate that its application now would add anything to Canada's total contribution to the winning of the war.
Here may I quote a second significant statement made by the Minister of Finance, on February 4. It is equally relevant to-day:
One issue between the government and its more sincere opponents seems to me to be this: Will the continuation of the voluntary system for overseas service, at least for the time being-we have the compulsory system in many other lines of the war activity-make for a greater success in our programme than would its abandonment? I wish to say that neither as a member of the government nor as a member of the war committee of the cabinet, nor otherwise, have I been able to find any evidence that the abandonment of the voluntary system and the substitution of the compulsory system in respect to that part of our war effort represented by overseas army service would help at this moment in our war effort.
Surely no one can deny that the voluntary system to date has functioned magnificently. In what single respect has it fallen down? Any question as	to the	success of	the	voluntarysystem for	overseas	service is	not	as to its
success at the moment but as to its success in the future.
There is, I know, a widespread feeling that the voluntary system is unfair because it is thought to mean that the willing men see their duty	and do	it, while	the	unwillinghang back	and evade their	share of the
burden and sacrifice of war. This is a perfectly natural feeling.
To bring about greater equality of service at a time of war, there might be, there certainly would be, justification for the immediate introduction of a system of compulsory service, if such a system were not already in existence. Compulsory service for the whole of Canada, over the whole of Canada is already a part of the law of the land. And make no mistake about it, the government is determined, as far as is humanly possible, to make sure that et ery able-bodied man
[Stage Direction]
3242	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
undertakes sqme form of direct war service. It may be on the farm; it may be in the factory; it may be in the forest or the mine; or it may be in the armed forces. But all must serve somewhere, and to achieve that end compulsion, where needed, will ' be employed.
There are some, I know, who believe conscription should be applied universally whether it is needed or not. There are others who believe equally strongly and equally sincerely that Canada can achieve a greater total effort by reliance, as far as possible, upon voluntary methods.
The government has accepted neither view in its entirety. It is our policy to use whichever of the two methods we believe, all factors considered, will give the best results.
The government has encouraged and intends to continue to encourage voluntary service in the armed forces, as well as in a host of other voluntary activities which are contributing to Canada's all-out effort. The government intends also to use compulsory selective service measures to the utmost limit required to ensure not only an adequate supply of recruits for the army, but also to provide, as far as possible, an adequate supply of man-power for all phases of our total war effort.
But what conceivable object would be served by resorting to conscription for service overseas, not because men in sufficient numbers were not available under voluntary enlistment, but just in order to employ the compulsory rather than the voluntary method of enlistment? There are those who ask why the willing men should be sent, while the unwilling are allowed to stay at home. That is a question which should be answered. Because of our small population, Canada's army overseas can never be a very large army and every Canadian should want it to be the best army possible. It is no military secret that willing men make better soldiers, on the average, than those who are compelled to serve. Moreover, the army overseas is composed entirely of volunteers. Its spirit and morale will undoubtedly be higher if its reinforcements are also volunteers.
Why, some also ask, should volunteers be sent into danger while men called up for compulsory service remain in safety in Canada? Prom the beginning of the war, I have stressed both tasks of the Canadian army. On the one hand, it must help to defeat the enemy abroad; on the other it must defend our own and neighbouring territory. Events to-day are showing us clearly that the second task may in the course of time, and that in no distant future, become exceedingly dangerous. If there were no danger, there would be no need of any army in Canada!

The army must employ the volunteers in some theatre; it must also employ the men called up for compulsory service. Surely it is only common sense to avoid any excuse for controversy, and consequent weakening of our total effort, by allowing those who volunteer for service anywhere to proceed overseas, so long as they are available. To reverse the process would certainly not increase our total effort.
Apart altogether from any consideration of the sharp cleavage of opinion in Canada on the question of actually resorting to conscription for service overseas, there can be no argument that Canada will have a better army overseas, if it can continue to be maintained and reinforced by volunteers.
There is one other observation I should like to make, and I make it because I know it is very much in the hearts and minds of many of those who have volunteered for service overseas. It is that an outstanding feature of Canada's war effort is that everyone who has contributed and is at present contributing his services overseas has done so voluntarily. That is something that should never be forgotten. It is a record which all Canada may well view with pride and, if at all possible, it should be maintained. It embodies all that is noblest and finest in the spirit of our young country. It is the particular pride of every man who has volunteered for service overseas whether he be in the army, the navy, the air force, or, in the latest of our volunteer forces, the Canadian corps of fire-fighters to Great Britain.
I doubt if we have yet begun to realize how much Canada's reputation has grown in other parts of the world because, at the outbreak of war, Canada decided of her own free will to participate in the struggle. I do not believe that we appreciate how much is added to Canada's strength in the eyes of the world by the fact that every man serving overseas in the armed forces of Canada is there of his own free will and at the dictates of his own conscience. It is the glory of Canada that we rallied freely and at once to the call of freedom. If we can, to the end, without aught of sacrifice to the common cause, maintain overseas our free participation in the common struggle for freedom, Canada and the gallant young men who have freely offered their lives will preserve that honour and that glory for all time. Surely, this is no unworthy ambition for the people of Canada.
It cannot be denied that the issue of conscription for service overseas is the most controversial issue that has arisen in Canada since confederation. That, I think, will be generally admitted. At any rate, if there is an issue that has occasioned more dissension

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie. King
in Canada; that has left a greater legacy of suspicion and distrust; that has inflicted a deeper wound in the side of the nation, I should like to be told what it is, for I confess I do not know. The knowledge of this fact caused the leaders of all political parties and others who had the unity of the country at heart, before the outbreak of war, and when Canada entered the war, to see to it that this issue was kept in the background. On all sides, an honest effort was made to see that it should not be permitted to arise. That attitude was maintained in public discussions throughout the general elections of 1940, and I am happy to say up to just about a year ago.
I do not propose to go at this time into the reasons which have since occasioned a change of attitude on the part of some. I readily admit that it may have been due in part to the changed character and world-wide scope of the war. Indeed one of the purposes of the plebiscite, as I have so frequently said was to make the way clear for a consideration, on its merits, of the question of conscription, in the light of the changed conditions.
When Canada entered what, in September, 1939, most people believed was going to be "just another European war," it was recognized if the war were not successfully ended, our national security would be menaced. But very few contemplated a war which might come to threaten our national existence. That is the position Canada is in to-day. We are engaged with the other free nations of the world in a war of survival.
The fact that the war has reached world embracing proportions; that there is combat on every ocean; and that there is certain to be conflict on every continent; that Canada is by no means exempt from the possibility of attack, at any moment, and even of invasion, are not reasons why the government should abandon a policy based upon considerations of the preservation of national unity. It is the strongest of reasons why the government should give the most careful consideration to all possible consequences of any change of policy which might result in division and a weakening of national unity.
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 west. 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, 44561-205J
that continues to look only across the Atlantic [DOT] 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 acrdss the Pacific.
In deciding upon the disposition of the armed forces, the government has to consider from day to day, just what proportion of its forces our country is justified in sending overseas, and what proportion it is necessary to keep at home. That question has had to be considered from the outbreak of war but, until Japan entered the war, it did not begin to have the importance it has now come to have.
It is perfectly clear that the enemy will have to be destroyed overseas if this continent is not to be the field of the final conflict, or possibly even an immediate field of conflict, with Canada the scene of the first invasion. It is equally true that in the event of an attack, come when it may, and from whichever direction it may, unless we have forces adequately equipped, and trained in sufficient numbers to prevent the enemy from getting a foothold upon our soil, our entire national existence will be imperilled. While we must continue to do all we possibly can to assist in accomplishing the defeat of the enemy away from our shores, we must also be in constant readiness to meet and hold him at bay should he attempt an attack upon our shores. What guarantee have we that the enemy having begun to destroy shipping off the coasts of the maritime provinces, in the gulf of St. Lawrence and in the river itself, and having attempted to gain a base for operations against the Pacific coast, we may not witness at any moment bombing of our harbours and cities alike on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and attempts to destroy railway terminals and facilities, munition plants, aerodromes and other military targets in any part of the country.
With those possibilities before our very eyes, and let me tell this house as I have told the country time and again, they are possibilities which are by no means remote, can we afford to allow any question of conscription to become the occasion of a political battle in parliament, or of political warfare throughout the country; can we allow the country itself to become distracted by and divided over such an issue? Surely the only reasonable course to take in dealing with this question is to leave to the government, subject to its responsibility to parliament, to decide what disposition it may be best to make between the forces to be sent abroad and those that are
3244	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
. to be kept at home, and what means it may be necessary to take to keep up the strength of the armed forces which are already overseas.
The people of Canada have clearly indicated their desire that freedom to decide on these matters should be given to the government, subject only to its responsibility to parliament. It is that freedom which, by the amendment, the government asks should now be given to it by parliament.
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the remarks I propose to make this afternoon I shall proceed in a manner contrary to the example set by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I hope to be as brief as possible, and yet cover most of the aspects of the question now before parliament. However, since I cannot promise to conclude before six o'clock, and since I would desire to be relieved of the obligation imposed upon me of concluding before the adjournment, this being a short day, I would ask the indulgence of hon. members to be permitted to speak for a few minutes after six o'clock, if necessary. I should like to conclude to-day, rather than move the adjournment of the debate.
The speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon and the bill at present under discussion constitute the answer of the government and the Prime Minister to the overwhelming mandate given by the people of Canada in the plebiscite. I have listened with undivided attention to the speech of the right hon. gentleman this afternoon, and I confess at once that it left me cold, and will send a chill of disillusionment down the spine of all loyal Canadians who believed that once the moral limitation so strongly stressed by the Prime Minister in his speeches in this house during the debate on the plebiscite bill, and more particularly in his broadcast addresses, was lifted, the Prime Minister would practise total war in deed and in truth.
Instead, we are told that while the government is freed from its self-imposed vow, it has no present intention to put into immediate effect the objectives which the great mass of affirmative voters believed would be government policy. Indeed they may never be put into effect at all. We are told that should conscription be decided upon, the government will not return to parliament with any new measure, or for any new debate on the principle. That, I submit, is skilful political strategy-just such strategy as we should expect from the right hon. gentleman, who, above everything else, desires to preserve his political position.
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
Such a position is based on the policy of political expediency which has been characteristic of government policy with respect to the principle of complete national selective service ever since war was declared. It is the same old policy of appeasement-a game which the Prime Minister has played to the limit, with the avowed purpose of maintaining national unity, but which, correctly interpreted in practice, means unity of the Liberal party, and nothing else.
At this time in our history I say that policy has failed, and to-day as a result of the Prime Minister's own political strategy, this nation is more divided than at any time in its history. The Prime Minister's speech, and the attitude which he has taken with respect to conscription remind me of those lines in Gilbert and Sullivan's comic opera, "Utopia Limited", in which the princess presented the distinguished barrister, Sir Bailey Barre, Q.C., M.P., to her father, the king, in these words:
A complicated gentleman allow me to present.
Of all the arts and faculties the terse embodiment,
He's a great arithmetician who can demonstrate with ease
That two and two are three, or five, or anything you please;
An eminent Logician who can make it clear to you
That black is white-when looked at from the proper point of view;
A marvellous philologist who'll undertake to show
That "yes" is but another and a neater form of "no".
Those eight lines describe the Prime Minister's attitude and action more accurately and aptly than any words of mine could do.
At the outset, I desire to make it plain that I do not intend to discuss the merits or demerits of conscription this afternoon beyond saying that I believe in the principle. However, I desire to make some observations with respect to the result of the plebiscite. By a vote of approximately two to one in the aggregate, and by eight provinces to one in terms of geographical subdivisions, the people of Canada have given release to the Prime Minister and his government from the commitment which he and they made to the electors in 1940.


Mr. GARDINER:: And the opposition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I gave no commitment. The hon. gentleman can speak only for himself, not for me.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Your leader did

Mobilization Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)


Richard Burpee Hanson: Eighty per cent of the voters in eight provinces voted in the affirmative.
The result achieved was by no manner of means accomplished solely through the efforts of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. It was brought about by the united effort of Canadian citizens of every shade of political opinion.
We, of the opposition, disliked and deplored the procedure of the plebiscite; we felt irked at the position into which we were thrust; but, recognizing a patriotic duty, we laboured unitedly to achieve an affirmative result. In assuming that attitude, I know we did the right thing-the patriotic thing; and I believe we contributed mightily to the result.
If ever there was an occasion upon which a political party placed the interests of the country before party, it was when the Conservative party-with, I am convinced, but few dissenters-went into the constituencies across Canada, and organized and counselled the people to rise above party considerations and make a decisive affirmative vote possible. The Conservative party, as a whole, will forever have that to its credit.
1 do not propose to enter into any detailed analysis of the plebiscite vote. Much has been said and written as to its significance. One thing I shall say: I regret more deeply than I can express the action of certain portions of our fellow-countrymen in voting contrary to the decisive and overwhelming expression of public opinion registered in eight provinces of Canada. The causes for that action can be assessed at another time, I do not propose to enter into a discussion of that now. The regrettable fact, clearly apparent from the vote, is that we have not, at this most critical juncture, complete national unity in Canada. That fact cannot be avoided; nor should we flinch from it.
But in the result of the vote there is no implication that this country should not do its full duty at this time. On the contrary, there are unmistakable signs that the people of Canada want decisive and immediate affirmative action.
Let there be no mistake about the will of the people as reflected by the plebiscite. Any effort to make it appear that the affirmative vote was nothing more than a release of the government and of parliament is not facing the facts as expressed at the polls. When the government is freed from its pledges, which release has been secured on the terms which the government itself defined, the very act which frees the government makes compulsory service at home and abroad the law of the
land. That law of the land must be given effect to-are we to have a law and leave it on the shelf?-if not by this government, then by some other government. The will of the people must be respected. It is not what we thought but what the people thought when they voted "yes". What justification is there for establishing a principle if the constituted authority does not give effect to it?
We live, thank God. in a democracy where it is recognized that the will of the majority, as expressed at the polls, must prevail. That is the democratic course; that is the course which is essential if this nation is to survive. And that is the course counselled and urged by the public men who were the predecessors of my hon. friends opposite, the leaders of the Liberal party in this house a generation ago.
Recently I have reviewed the debates in this house in 1917 on the Military Service Act. During the course of those debates, Sir Wilfrid Laurier pleaded that the Military Service Act should be submitted to the people by way of a referendum. Here are his words, as reported in Hansard of June 18, 1917:
. . . in British countries there is only one way, and the sovereign way, of meeting all these dmeiences. it is to appeal to the country and to appeal to the whole country, not to one section, but to all sections, and when the country has pronounced then the question is settled and all must submit to the law.
Then I call particular attention to this passage:
When the consultation with the people has been had, when the verdict has been pronounced, I pledge my word, my reputation, that to the verdict, such as it is, every man will submit, and I claim to speak at least so far as is concerned the province from which I come.
On the same day, June 18, 1917, Hon. Charles Marcil, a gentleman whom I was glad to call my friend in former years, a previous Speaker of this house, is reported at page 2431 of the same Hansard as saying:
[DOT] [DOT] - I am prepared to submit to the verdict of the people loyally nc matter what that verdict is because in British governed countries when the people have spoken we must submit to their verdict.
Another former speaker of this house, a former cabinet minister, and a leader of the Libera] party in the province of Quebec, Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, added his voice in these words, to be found at page 2497 of Hansard of that year:
... If a referendum is taken, whether it goes for or against conscription, the French Canadians . . . will abide by the verdict of the majority . . . will obey the law and fight the battles of Canada as valiantly as their fellow-men of a different race and a different creed.
3246	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
I have referred to these debates in the hope that public men of this day will take the .same stand, and will give to the people the same counsel and guidance.
May I pause briefly to beseech my compatriots in this country who are of French ancestry not to occupy an isolationist position. I ask them this question, and I do it with the utmost good will: Have you thought this matter through to the end? I fear not. I beg them while there is yet time to pause and think this thing clear through.
I come now to consideration of the principle of the measure before the house. Right at the outset, let us, squarely and honestly, face the facts. If there be any member of this house, or if there be any person in this country, who ever believed that, on the passage of this bill, the principle of selective national service for overseas will be put into immediate practice or operation, let me at once hasten to undeceive him. Such was never the intention of the ministry opposite, and such is not apparent from the observations of the Prime Minister to-day.
From the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) it is abundantly clear that such is not the intention and may never become the fact. I confess that the whole situation fills me with a sense of futility and unreality, a feeling which has not disappeared with the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon. At each stage I have been puzzled and bewildered as to what were the government's real intentions. You will recall that there have been four stages in connection with this matter; since the Prime Minister introduced the mobilization bill in June, 1940, we have had four homeopathic doses of conscription. Anyone who understands what I mean by homeopathic will know how small and meagre the doses are.
In his letter of May 9 to the Prime Minister, the former Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, speaks of the bill as being the "new policy of the government," and in his reply the Prime Minister states:	"There has, however, been no
change of policy. No new policy has been adopted." My interpretation is that it is one step further, a continuation of a policy that was started two years ago and has nov reached fruition save and except for one step which can come any time by the will and whim of the Prime Minister and the ministry. It is an extension of policy if it is not a new policy. When I arrive at that conclusion I ask myself, What then are we confronted with, and at what conclusions can we arrive,
{Mr. E. B. Hanson.]
when two men who have participated in all the secret discussions which preceded this bill, differ as to its meaning and significance?
If the Prime Minister is correct, can anyone assert that this bill is anything more than shadow-boxing or window-dressing, or worse- prdcrastination?
If there has been no change in government policy I ask this question: Why does a trusted colleague of the Prime Minister resign his position in the cabinet?
The policy of this government, the policy of the Liberal party over twenty-five years, has been that under no circumstances-and I emphasize that-under no circumstances whatsoever should men be compulsorily drafted for service overseas. I think everyone within sound of my voice will agree with that statement. Certainly the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) will agree. He has been one of the most outstanding proponents of that policy, and I am sure he will not deny it. I am sure he will assert it on the floor of this house when he comes to speak in this debate.
If you, sir, and the members of this house want any corroboration of the assertion I have just made, regarding tne policy of this government and of the Liberal party under the leadership of the right hon. gentleman for nearly twenty-five years, I have only to refer to the letter written a few days ago by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to an officer of a political association in his own constituency, in which will be found this statement:
There is no intention for the time being to bring in conscription for overseas service, and I am sure that the present government would bring in such a measure only if it were absolutely necessary for our own salvation.
Note the words "for our own salvation"- not for world salvation, not for the salvation of the united nations, not for the salvation of democracy and Christian civilization and all the ideals for which we are fighting-no, for our own salvation. What a narrow, limited-I was almost going to say unworthy vision is there, my countrymen!
Further on in the same letter the minister wrote:
I stated that I would be true to Mr. King as long as he was true to himself and to his record.
Is there anyone in this house who will say that when the minister wrote those words he did not know what was in the Prime Minister's mind? Is there anyone who does not know what that record is, and that the letter is a true interpretation of that record? Well, the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
record speaks for itself. True, the tragedy of events has driven the Prime Minister step by step a long way until to-day we are to have the full and complete principle of compulsory national service on the statute book-compulsion not only for service of man-power overseas but in every other sphere of human activity. When this bill passes, the full principle of compulsion for everything will be the law of this country-make no mistake about that.
I desire now to return to a consideration of the bill. The Prime Minister has sought and secured from the people of Canada release from the restrictive policy enunciated in June, 1940-two long years ago. He now seeks full freedom from parliament.
It is true that this bill merely repeals the limitations imposed by the restrictive clauses of the act itself. That is all. But in law it means much more than that. As amended- and I want hon. gentlemen to mark these words-the National Resources Mobilization Act will be, in express terms and as an instrument of war policy, complete authority to the government to draft men and all the material resources of the nation and to utilize them for prosecuting total war, without let, hindrance or restriction. That is what it will mean. In a word, by virtue of all the legislation on the statute books-the Militia Act, the War Measures Act, and, when this bill is enacted, the National Resources Mobilization Act-the government of this country will be free to wage total war by total effort without any limitations whatsoever and to carry out in practice what is advocated in theory.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.):: You would agree with that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am stating what the legal position is and what effects will flow from it. The government will be clothed with the most complete and plenary powers, that parliament can delegate. That is the legal position. No democratic government in the world will possess greater powers.


Mr. McNEVIN:: What is wrong with that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with it. I hope the hon. gentleman will keep quiet and allow me to proceed. The government will then have at its hand complete authority to draft the man-power of this country for service in any and every capacity and in any and every theatre of war or other activity relative to the war. There is no manner of doubt about that.. So, after thirty-two months of war, this government, under the leadership of the right hon. the Prime Minister, will have
clothed itself with the full power of conscription of man-power for service in any and every theatre of war. This government has espoused the policy of conscription of manpower for service anywhere. That is the fact.
But whether the government will put those powers into full operation at once is quite another matter. While the man-power of this country will then be subject to compulsory service in any theatre of war, it does not follow that they will be sent now-in fact, it is quite clear that that will not follow- or in the immediate future or indeed at any time to any theatre of war beyond the territorial limits of this continent. In other words, it is one thing to have the power, and it is quite another thing to exercise that power. The government has that power; but it has given no indication that it will exercise it. In fact, it has indicated that it will not exercise that power and really wage total war with total effort now or at any other time.
From the Prime Minister's statement that there has been no change of policy, we can only understand that once he has secured full freedom from parliament he proposes to hold fast to his old policy, and not to use that freedom under any circumstances. Undoubtedly it is not the intention of the government to exercise the power which will be conferred upon them in the national interest and in the interest of total war. If this be government policy-and I think it is- then I suggest to this house and to the country that this bill is meaningless, that it is a snare and a delusion.
Let us have from the Prime Minister, instead of this battle of words that we heard this afternoon, a full and frank statement of the future course of the government. Let them say they will or they won't. That is what the people of this country want to know. There will be a roar go up in this country from one end to the other at this policy of appeasement.
Do they propose-I ask this question direct-to exercise the powers which this bill will give them, or don't they-yes or no? Let us know where they stand, and not continue to straddle the fence after thirty-two months of war.


Mr. ROWE:: Or have another plebiscite.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, or have another plebiscite. If then they propose to use them, when and under what circumstances and conditions do they propose to use them? What are the future prospects and potentialities? Without a complete and rounded statement from the Prime Minister
3248	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
of Canada's future war policy in this regard this house is left completely in the dark, and we are voting a blind confidence in the government.
One of the most significant of the Prime Minister's statements in his reply to his former colleague is this:
Already it is desirable to extend the scope of service under the National Resources Mobilization Act to other parts of this continent and adjacent islands.
This statement was not then expanded, but it would appear therefrom that the position with which we are confronted to-day is that as soon as this bill is passed, action will be taken to dispatch men drafted for service to parts of this continent outside Canada and to adjacent islands. Indeed under order in council P.C. 4105 passed on May 15, authority has been granted to use two units on prisoner-of-war duty in the United States. But apparently for the time being no action will be taken to utilize the fpll legal and moral powers of the government to dispatch men compulsorily drafted to battle positions outside this continent.
Here then is what the position appears to be. In June, 1940, we had local conscription, and for a limited period of time-thirty days. What a farce it was! Then we had local conscription for four months-that was the second step-and still later for an unlimited period of time. Now and for some indefinite period in the future we are to have continental conscription. And then, finally, some day- we are uncertain as to when it will be, if ever -we may have full compulsory selective service for any and every theatre of war. It is going to take five bites at this thing, five different homeopathic doses, before we arrive at total war under the right hon. gentleman. If that is not playing the game of expediency, I do not know what is.


William Earl Rowe: "Wait and see".


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that is giving the lead to the people of Canada, then God forbid we should have any more leads of that kind. It is utter lack of leadership on a great principle at a time of national emergency. The government is only temporizing. Expediency, not principle, is still the guiding star of this administration.
In his reply to his former colleague the Prime Minister spoke again, as he did in his radio broadcasts, of the false impressions created in other nations by reason of the restrictions upon our man-power, and he gave this as a reason why the mobilization act should be amended. Undoubtedly he was referring particularly to the United States.

I ask this question: Does the Prime Minister intend to assert that the mere repeal of the limiting sertions of the mobilization act, without the full utilization of the powers which such appeal will confer, will remove those so-called false impressions? He knows they will nol.
The reason for the impressions which unfortunately do exist in the United States regarding our war effort is not found in any legal restrictions on our power to send draftees outside of Canada. These impressions exist because of the fact that we do not send men outside of Canada. The people of the United States are interested only in the facts of the situation; they are interested in what we do, not what we profess. The fact remains, apparently. that we will not dispatch outside this continent men raised by compulsory methods. Surely our position will become even more incomprehensible to the people of the United States. They know now that the people of Canada, by an overwhelming vote, have given the government freedom, absolute and full to send drafted men anywhere, and they are confronted with the spectacle of the government apparently refusing to utilize that freedom. How can any average citizen of the United States come to any other conclusion but that the people of Canada are ready enough for an all-out effort in every theatre of war, but that the government of Canada still holds back? That is a true statement of the position. Rather than removing this false impression to which the Prime Minister alluded, his actions are only intensifying and confirming those impressions in the United States and in the other united nations. If we are to place the weight and importance upon the opinions of the citizens of other nations which the Prime Minister urged us to do in his broadcasts, surely he himself does not by his actions carry out his argument.
I come now to another aspect of this matter. This measure, without any indication of action proposed thereunder, perpetuates the anomaly of two armies. At this most critical juncture can we afford the anomaly of two armies, one of which is free to serve in any theatre of war while the other may be sent only to positions on the North American continent or islands adjacent thereto? Can we afford the duplication which the existence of these two types of army recruits involves? Surely now, if ever, is the time to do away with the sham and hypocrisy raised by isolationist theories. Surely now is the time to create one powerful striking force capable of operating in any theatre of war in which it may best be utilized.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
Back of the government's policy is the selective service programme announced by the Prime Minister on March 24 last. I have indicated to the house my views with respect to that programme, and I shall not reiterate my arguments here. In my view that programme is the back-door approach to selective service. It bears no resemblance to the true principles of selective service. It is unworthy of a proud nation. The whole basis is "enlist or starve". It is the indirect, the hesitant, the faltering method, not the open, clear-cut. direct method calculated and designed to bring into full operation the true principle of selective service, which means simply the allotment of each person to the task for which he is best fitted. That is the true principle of selective service.
I appeal to the government to adopt the direct method, boldly to take the honest course, not the back-door and indirect method, and to bring into operation a true and worthy system of compulsory selective service without limitation or restriction. I appeal to them to abandon, to cast aside these palliatives, these hesitant steps, these half measures, these appeasement policies-for that is all they are. I urge them in all earnestness to institute at once a firm, courageous straightforward policy, a policy designed to ensure that each citizen of this country shall render to the full that war service for which he or she is best qualified. The nation will support that. Surely in our progress to and attainment of full nationhood we have been led past the unsteady, creeping, faltering stages of our existence. Surely the Canadian people have given ample proof of their ability to stand firm, and of their willingness-yes, their eagerness-boldly and fearlessly to march forward to meet and overcome, wherever he may be found, the enemy who threatens to destroy not only their security but the security of all Christian civilization. What we need to-day, as we have needed all along, is courageous national leadership. We have never had it since the war began.
As in the past, my position to-day is that a full, all-out effort on the part of Canada is possible only if all the material resources and man-power of the nation are fully mobilized, without restrictions of any kind. I believe now, as I have believed from the outset, that the highest efficiency in carrying out such a programme can be guaranteed only by the establishment of a truly national government, a government composed of the best men in Canada, representative of all shades of opinion, but united by a common and single purpose-the waging of total war
by total effort. I have urged this view many times in this house. I emphatically reiterate it to-day. More than ever am I convinced that unity of purpose and action will be achieved only under such a policy and position.
We are all agreed that we cannot win this war, that Canada cannot do her full share toward winning this war, without what is termed "total war effort". I say to the government now, and I say it with great sincerity, that all of us know in our hearts that we cannot have total war effort without unlimited selective national service. The terms are synonymous.
The mere drafting of men for military service because they happen to be of military age is not the only need of this country. It is only a portion of the need. If our war effort is to be effective and sincere, what we do need, and need urgently and desperately, is selective national service, without limitation, geographical or otherwise, with all its implications and ramifications in every sphere of human activity.
And what does selective national service imply? It implies, it means, simply and solely, the practical application of total war in a sensible, just, and effective manner. It means in a word, that every man among us shall be called upon to perform the right war job at the right time, in the right place, in the right way. It is "total war" in practice. And there can be no total war without it. To the government I say this: "It is your responsibility to recommend to parliament measures designed to achieve that end". And I say to them further: "Do not shirk that responsibility. Do not be afraid of your duty. You have a mandate from the people to wage 'total war!' The people have freed you from every restriction. Unless you deny that mandate; unless you are willing that your war professions become a mockery and a sham; and unless you do not fear to invite and deserve the reproach and condemnation of history, you must do your duty". On behalf of those of us who sit on this side, I say to the government: "We will support you in a selective national service programme which is unlimited in the area of its application or otherwise, and we will support you in any other measure you believe and we believe to be necessary at this hour".
We of this party, and those whom we represent, are anxious to avoid party or sectional strife over our war effort. We want and we shall strive for unity. We want and we shall strive for common purpose. To that
3250	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
end I call upon the government, with all the earnestness I can summon, to accept its responsibility; to do its plain duty.
I do not shrink from the responsibilities which attach to and rest upon an opposition in time of grave national crisis. The government is responsible for giving effect to the will of the people as evidenced in the recent plebiscite-and, indeed, is responsible for all means adopted to meet the terrible and peremptory demands of this war. This fact does not, however, subtract in any degree from the responsibilities of those of us who constitute the opposition. We have positive duties, and never have those positive duties been clearer than they are at this present time.
What, then, is the position which we of the opposition take? When the speech from the throne which contained the proposal to hold the plebiscite was under debate I had the honour to move an amendment, which set forth the views and principles which we of the opposition held. The latter part of that amendment reads as follows:
And this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have not seen fit to recommend to parliament without delay additional measures designed to-[DOT]
(a)	completely mobilize the wealth and material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man and woman power of the nation, to the end that the nation may wage total war in any theatre of war;
(b)	supply the imperative needs of agriculture, industry, and the fighting forces of tile nation; and
(e) prepare for the post-war period.
By the principles enunciated in that amendment, we of the opposition stand1. We believe to-day, as we believed then, that the urgency of the situation requires the complete and immediate-and I emphasize the word "immediate"-mobilization of the wealth, material resources, and, on a selective basis, the man and woman power of the nation, without geographical or other limitation. We believe that the hour has struck when that must be done if Canada is to play a worthy part in this world conflict.
In two sentences I give the position to which we adhere. We believe in the immediate' and full application of the true principles of national selective service, administered in a direct, clear-cut, and straightforward manner, without geographical or other limitation. We believe that, hand in hand with national selective service of man-power must go full mobilization of material resources, so that the contribution of all citizens and all classes of citizens shall be equalized in so far as that is possible, and so that the nation may wage total or unlimited war in any and every theatre of war.

I do not propose at this stage to elaborate the question of mobilization of wealth and resources. The section of the mobilization act which this bill seeks to repeal imposes a limitation on the use of man-power only. There is in the act no limitation upon the utilization of material resources. In that respect the government has the most ample and plenary powers. Upon the government must rest the responsibility for failure to utilize fully the unrestricted powers which they possess in this respect. Consequently, until the principle of removing the limitation with respect to man-power has been approved by the adoption of second reading, I think we would be well advised to confine our discussion to that point. When we have approved the principle of removing the existing limitations in the act, we can then take up at once the question of the methods whereby all our resources, material as well as man-power, may be fully utilized without limitation.
Here, in this House of Commons, is the place and now is the time to discuss and determine whether, and by what methods, the resources and man-power of the nation shall be mobilized. Parliament, not the cabinet in the secrecy of the council chamber, is the proper body to determine the methods by and the conditions under which the principles of national selective service shall be enforced. Now is the time for parliament to determine, once and for all, that the immediate enforcement of compulsory selective service over the whole field of the war is urgently necessary. This is the time and this is the place to determine the methods and conditions under which it shall be enforced.
I call upon parliament, with all the emphasis and sincerity at my command, to assume that responsibility now. I call upon parliament to decide here and now that compulsory selective service is immediately necessary, and then to proceed to work out the details under which it shall operate. I am not content, nor do I think the people of Canada will be content, to leave these questions to the Prime Minister and his colleagues assembled in the secrecy of the cabinet chamber, or to come back to parliament six months hence and have this debate all over again. The time is now. I appeal to the government to incorporate in this bill, in the committee stage, mandatory provisions for the immediate enforcement of the principles of compulsory selective service, without geographical or other limitation. And I appeal to them to incorporate in the bill the full terms and conditions under which it shall be administered, rather than leave those terms and conditions for future determination by the governor in council.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
That was done in 1917; the conditions under which men were to be drafted were brought to parliament, not left to the secrecy of the council chamber. Parliament passed upon them, and the only regulations that were left to order in council were those relating merely to matters of procedure.
It may be said that the whole framework of the National Resources Mobilization Act is an outright delegation of the powers of parliament to the governor in council, and in express terms that is true. But I have always looked upon the mobilization act as emergency legislation. * God knows it was produced under an emergency. It never would have been produced if my trusted colleague and myself had not confronted the Prime Minister with the position after Dunkirk. Does anyone doubt that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, it
never would have been done. The day we went to see the Prime Minister and demanded this legislation, he had not even read his dispatches from overseas after the fall of Dunkirk, or so he told us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but I
also told the hon. gentleman that the government was considering the very matter with which he was concerned, and were taking action on it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, the
Prime Minister did not tell us until the next day what the government was proposing to do. I have upstairs now a memorandum in the Prime Minister's own little handwriting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has referred to a document which he says he has in his possession. I ask him to lay it on the table of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I
do not have it with me, but I think I can find it and I shall be glad to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do so tomorrow.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I can
find the memorandum which the Prime Minister sent me I will be glad to do so. I hope it has not been destroyed; I think it is in my file. In any case the Prime Minister remembers that he sent me such a memorandum.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but my
hon. friend is placing an interpretation on that memorandum for which there is no justification whatever. The memorandum was to the effect that the government intended to take the action which it has taken; I agree to that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes,
twenty-four hours after I had made the demand. It was emergency legislation, there is no doubt about that; and when parliament is not in session of course the government must have power to act. But when parliament is in session I do not believe that the government should make use of that delegated power. That is the principle for which I am contending. I believe that in this, as in all other cases, the proper course is to ask parliament to pass legislation, if parliament be in session, specifying the manner in which those powers shall be used.
So that in this particular instance, the proper course for the government to pursue, and the one which I urge upon them with all the earnestness at my command, is to ask parliament now, by way of amendments incor-corporated in this bill, to prescribe the methods by which the power shall be utilized. I renew my plea that there be incorporated in this bill, in the committee stage, not only mandatory provisions imposing at once full compulsory selective service, but detailed provisions for the operation of that system, as was done in 1917. That is the democratic way, and the other is the fascist way. That is exactly the position that was taken by the Liberal party in 1917. They demanded that it be done, and it was done. I assert that we seek to have these provisions set forth now by parliament, rather than left for future determination in the secrecy of the cabinet council. Under no circumstances should the terms and principles of the administration of compulsory selective service for overseas, or for service in Canada, be delayed for future consideration, or considered behind the backs of the representatives of the people and without submitting them to the representatives of the people in parliament. That is a safe principle for every hon. member of this house to support.
Failure to do that which I have outlined will assuredly mean that we will not have the proper kind of compulsory selective service in any practical sense. Submit your principles to parliament. "Trust the people" is an old cry of the Prime Minister. He has never been willing to do that in connection with the conscription of man-power in this country. He has never been willing to trust the people. Yet there is no man in this country, no man in the whole history of Canada, who has played upon the principle of trusting the people more than has the present Prime Minister. In respect to one vital matter, which affects the liberty of the subject, he legislates in the secrecy of the council chamber; he is afraid to trust the people. If we pursue our present course we shall have only the theory of selective service on the statute books; we shall
Pooling of Resources

not have its application. Statesmanship and national honour alike require the immediate determination of all questions relating to the fullest mobilization of man-power and material resources. Let parliament act now and, in acting, strike a great blow for victory. For myself, my course is clear. I shall vote for the second reading of this bill; but I shall insist that there be incorporated in the bill the necessary mandatory provisions to place at once at the dispoal of the state, without limitation and upon terms to be decided by parliament and not by the cabinet, the full resources of the nation in man-power, wealth and materials.
We have come now to the cross roads in our history. Two paths lie before us. The one is dark and uncertain, the other straight and direct. Which of the two will the Prime Minister and the government take? Shall he insist that we continue with interminable detours to victory? That is what we have had for thirty-two months. Shall he insist that we plod wearily along a winding and unlighted road, in the pious hope that somehow, some time, somewhere, we may grope, stumble and flounder into the open light of victory? Or will he, casting aside all fears and doubts, political and personal, boldly and confidently choose the open, the well-marked path along which the Canadian people, strong and united, will march forward to the goal we all seek to achieve, a well earned victory and an honourable peace?
On motion of Mr. Coldwell the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 6.10 p.m.
Thursday, June 11, 1942