1942-02-17

PRIVILEGE-MR. CHURCH 1941 WAS LOAN AND WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES- EXPENSES

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, with reference to remarks made in the house yesterday and a return for which I moved on November 12 last regarding the victory loan and war savings certificates. A return was brought down in November. It was not satisfactory, and I have asked for particulars in question No. 39 now on the order paper, and also in a motion. No. 8, for production of papers. When these two matters are reached I suggest the question be passed as an order for return and the motion for papers carried with the understanding that the return be tabled after Easter. There was never any intention of interfering with the present loan.



SECOND VICTORY LOAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. DECHENE (Athabaska):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance based upon reports appearing in the press this morning in relation to the new war loan. Has it come to the knowledge of the minister
Sugar

that once again communities in the fair and loyal province of Alberta have gone over the top in subscriptions to the new loan, and that Athabaska, in the riding which I have the honour to represent, stands at the very top of the honour roll?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I saw that report in the press, and assuming it is correct I wish to congratulate the province of Alberta and the hon. gentleman's riding.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: And what about Mr. Aberhart?



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

[Stage Direction]
IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY BY HANGING- TORONTO PRESS REPORT	«
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North):: I should like to refer to an old question which I brought up in the house years ago. The Toronto Evening Telegram contains a report -the editor sent me a copy-in regard to a man who was hanged in Toronto the other day. The report states that the man was left hanging for over half an hour before he died. I bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Justice.



APPLICATION OF TWENTY PER CENT REDUCTION IN COMMERCIAL USE-WINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: I wish to direct an inquiry to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the wartime prices and trade board, which reports to his department. An inquiry comes to me from Nova Scotia as to whether sugar used in the manufacture of beers, wines and liquors is subject to the twenty per cent reduction imposed on other commercial users of sugar. If not, why not?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I had a letter inquiring about the use of sugar in the manufacture of beers and spirits. I made some inquiry and it confirmed my own impression that no sugar is used in the manufacture of beers and spirits. But with regard to wines I will make further inquiry and give my hon. friend an answer later.



APPLICATION OF TWENTY PER CENT REDUCTION IN COMMERCIAL USE-SOFT DRINKS AND ICE CREAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. LECLERC (Shefford):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Finance in relation to sugar. According to the press, the

manufacturers of soft drinks and ice cream will have to reduce their consumption of sugar by twenty per cent. Will they be allowed to use any substitute, or will they have to cut down their production by the twenty per cent?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to get the information for the-hon. gentleman from the wartime prices and trade board and answer his question later.



REDUCTION IN EXCISE TAX-ENCOURAGEMENT OF DOMESTIC BEET SUGAR PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: I should like to make a statement on the subject of sugar. The increased cost of raw cane sugar, the necessity of rationing supplies-of sugar both for household and industrial uses, and the desirability of encouraging the production of domestic beet sugar in the present emergency, have necessitated certain changes in the sugar situation which I would' like to explain to the house.
As the house is aware, our purchases of cane-sugar are made for the joint account of the United Kingdom and Canada by the British ministry of food. From the beginning of the war they have purchased for our joint account the total exportable surplus of British empire countries. The contracts are on an f.ob. place of shipment basis and in the present calendar year the cost of such British empire sugars has been increased by 1 to 14 shillings per hundredweight. War risk insurance costs have substantially increased and freights will no doubt average higher during the present year. Approximately one-third of imported sugars have -been drawn from countries outside the empire. Last year these were purchased at an extraordinarily low price. They are mainly from Cuba and Santo Domingo, and the cost of such sugars in the present year will be $2.65 U.S. currency per one hundred pounds f.o.b. country of shipment, which is an increase of almost 14 cents per pound as compared with last year. All imported sugars are sold by the sugar administrator at a fixed price c.i.f. refineries. This price has been held unchanged since May, 1940, at the figure of $3.30 per one hundred pounds. It is now proposed to increase this price to $3.55 and to increase the refiner's margin between his cost of raw sugar and the net selling price for refined sugar by about 21 cents per one hundred pounds. In this connection it may be noted that there has been no change in refiners' margins since control was established at the outbreak of war and the margin allowed has been below the margins obtained by refiners in the pre-war years in

Wool
spite of the substantial increases in cost that have taken place. These increases in operating costs will now be further aggravated by the reduced volume of production necessitated by the rationing of sugar.
Under existing circumstances, relating to accessible supplies and shipping difficulties, it is obviously in the country's interests that the maximum amount of domestic beet sugar should be produced, and the sugar administrator some time ago notified all beet sugar producing companies that they should do everything possible to stimulate production. The increased value of about one-half cent per pound in refined cane sugar will of course extend to beet sugar and, in addition, contributions which have been made in the past to the sugar administrator to equalize the net price with the cost of cane sugar have been discontinued. This will result in an increased gross to the beet sugar factories of 83J cents per one hundred pounds of refined sugar.
The proportion of this increased value which will go to the beet farmers will, of course, vary on account of different terms of contracts with different factories and also as a result *of differences in yields of tonnage and sucrose of the beets, but will amount, I am advised, even under the most unfavourable circumstances, to over SI per ton in the price of sugar beets.
The new factory in Manitoba had an unfortunate experience last year. First, harvesting was interfered with by unusual rains, and an unusually early closing in of winter resulted in about one-quarter of the crop being left in the ground. With a considerable increase in the production in Alberta and normal expectations in Manitoba, it is anticipated that the production of beet sugars in these two provinces may slightly exceed the total requirements at the reduced rate of consumption of the three prairie provinces. Soft or brown sugars and other specialties are not made by the beet sugar factories, and some manufacturing processes require cane sugar. Therefore it seems probable that a considerable quantity of beet sugar from the prairies will be marketed outside that area. Prospects of an increase in Ontario beet sugar production are somewhat obscure, due principally to a shortage of labour. The departments of agriculture and labour are, I believe, studying this question with a view to possible relief.
On the recommendation of the wartime prices and trade board, we are taking certain steps to ensure that the above adjustments may not affect the price of sugar to the public. In the budget resolutions we shall propose a reduction in the excise tax on sugar from 2 cents to 1\ cents per pound. Pending such formal action, we are providing for a remission of this tax to the extent of one-half
cent per pound dating from yesterday, February 16. This remission of a part of the excise tax has, as I have said, been necessitated by the desire to avoid any increase in the cost of sugar to the public. To prevent the realization of any inventory profits, one-quarter cent per pound will be collected on all inventories in the hands of the refineries as at the close of business on February 14.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So far as the consumer is concerned, his position will not be affected?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The retail price will be the same, the loss being taken up by the treasury?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Those provisions with respect to the reduction of the excise tax went into effect yesterday?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How about prepayments on wholesalers' stocks; will they be refunded? This is an old sore in other lines of commodities of the same character, and I recommend to the minister that consideration be given the refunding of this reduction to wholesalers and other distributors. Otherwise these men are going to have to bear that loss themselves. If the principle of the loss being borne by the treasury is a good one, it ought to be carried through the piece.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall look into that situation. I would think it would depend on when the sugar was delivered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On sugar delivered after midnight last Sunday night I should think the tax would be one and a half cents, regardless of what returns were made. But I shall look into it.



CURTAILMENT OF IMPORTS AND SHORTAGE OF STOCKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. Owing to the curtailment of wool shipments from India, Australia and New Zealand, and the shortage of wool stocks in Canada, is the government going to ration wool in Canada at once?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: To the best of my information stocks of wool in Canada are not short. I have gone into the matter thoroughly and my officers see no purpose in rationing wool at the present time.
Old Age Pensions



FIRST VICTORY LOAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the apparent necessity of making the present victory loan a success and in view of the numerous inquiries I have received, all indicating a certain line of thought in the minds of many who might 'be considering subscribing to the present loan, would the minister indicate to the house the percentage of individual subscriptions, and more particularly with respect to large amounts than to small, which were taken out at the time of the last victory loan and which, in the course of a very few months, reached the channels of lending institutions or banks? That question has been asked me over the week-end. For instance, a certain firm or individual may have taken out $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 at the time of the last victory loan, and retained only $1,000, the rest reaching the channels of lending institutions. This is an urgent matter, and I should like to have some information concerning it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I shall see whether the information is available and can be made public. I made inquiries not long ago about this situation, and I must say that I was surprised at the greatness of the percentage of long-term bonds which remained in the hands of the persons who bought them. The information was very satisfactory. With regard to short-term bonds, of course more left the hands of the buyers. They did find! their way, I presume, into the hands of certain financial institutions. Our experience, however, with respect to the sale of long-term bonds was exceptionally good so far as the last victory loan was 'concerned.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I suggest that a clear indication of just what the situation is would be most timely.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: The other day the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) asked a question about old age pensions in British Columbia. I replied in a way which I find was not as complete or precise as it should have been. The hon. member asked whether the Canadian government by order in council had amended the old age pension regulations so that the increased pen-

sion being paid by the government of British Columbia will not involve a corresponding reduction on the part of the federal government, and also whether I could tell him what was "the immediate situation in British Columbia."
In regard to the first of these questions, I said at the time that I believed we had communicated with all the provinces with regard to such an amendment of the regulations, but that I did not know what replies had been received. Actually I find that we have not communicated with all the provinces but have instead been relying upon the statement I made in the house on November 14 last, to the effect that if any of the provinces desires us to take the necessary steps to allow a province to pay a supplemental pension without such payment affecting the maximum pension now payable under the present act and regulations, "the government is prepared to amend the regulations and, if necessary, the act, to ensure such supplementary payments by a province do not entail a reduction in the pension payable under the act." I find also that when one province raised this question during the meeting with representatives of provincial governments in December last, I again stated the dominion's position directly to all the provinces in substantially the same words as I used in November last.
The situation, therefore, is that if and when we receive a formal request from any province to amend our regulations in this respect, we shall be glad to make the necessary amendment. For some time it was not clear to me whether an amendment to the regulations would be sufficient or whether the act itself had to be amended. I am now advised by the Department of Justice that an appropriate amendment to the present regulations could be made under the power given in the act itself, to provide by regulation for the manner in which the income of a pensioner is to be determined for the purpose of the act.
In regard to the second question asked by the hon. member for Acadia, I find that the Premier and Minister of Finance of the province of British Columbia made the following statement in his budget speech delivered on January 23:
The government of the province has given careful consideration to this matter and is of the opinion that conditions in British Columbia warrant the increase of old age pensions to $30 per month, and, pending appropriate action by the dominion to that effect, it proposes to supplement the pension now paid by $5 per month. Of this amount, $2.50 is the provincial share of the increase recommended, and the other $2.50 represents a war-time cost of living bonus, which will cease if the scale of pensions is increased by the dominion before the cessation

Privilege-Mr. Poidiot
of Hostilities. The payment of this additional sum will be made on precisely the same basis as current pensions and will be subject to the maximum limitation provided in the act. Generally speaking, a British Columbia pensioner will now receive $25 instead of $20 per month. Should the supplemental payment, however, bring the total income above the maximum of $365 per annum, it will be reduced by that portion which would be in excess of the said maximum.
This statement apparently represents the present policy of the government of that province. I understand that an item was included in the estimates to provide the necessary appropriation for this supplemental pension, and as the provincial legislature has adjourned, the presumption is that the item was passed. I expect, therefore, that we will shortly be receiving a formal request from the province of British Columbia asking us to take any steps that may be necessary to make it possible for the province to implement its policy. I may add that if I understand correctly what the provincial government intends it may not be necessary for us to make any amendment even to the regulations, because you will note from the statement I have read from Mr. Hart's budget speech that the supplemental pension is only to be given in cases of pensioners who have supplemental income-that is, income above a maximum pension payable under our act of $20 per month-of less than $125 per year, and is only to be given in such cases to such an amount up to $5 per month as will bring the total income, including present pension, provincial supplemental pension and any supplemental income, to an amount not in excess of $365 per year.



CONTRIBUTIONS TO BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the government. Because the debate on the address in reply is drawing to a close, and there is no desire on my part to prolong the debate, may I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance whether any special legislation will be brought down during the discussion of which the billion dollar gift to Great Britain would be in order.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I believe there will be several opportunities for discussion of the matter to which the hon. member has referred. Certainly if the appropriation bill included that particular item, that bill would afford ample opportunity for discussion.
The Minister of Finance has just intimated to me the possibility that the billion dollar measure may be made the subject of a special bill. In that event, of course, there will be ample opportunity.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT REQUEST FOR ANSWER TO QUESTION CONCERNING BRUCE COAL COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, as a private Liberal member-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Thank God for that.


Mr. POULIOT:: -it is my painful duty to rise to a question of privilege, not for the redressing of any wrong, but to make my position clear.


Mr. McGREGOR:: You should never do that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hear only intelligent remarks. I did not hear what was said.
Paragraph 297, found at page 97 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, quotes May as follows:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn of misrepresentation, charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference.
I did not ask for interference, and I do not now. But I was deeply sorry yesterday when my leader, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said it was his understanding that my question regarding the use of mobile units and the improvement of ways of communication had been put with the intention or purpose of embarrassing the government.
It seems to me that what I said on January 30 when speaking on the debate we are now about to resume was not said to embarrass the government. I did on a later date raise the question about the sale of the same coal three times by the Bruce Coal company. I did so just to prevent waste and theft. And now may I bring the attention of the government to the fact that although my question of February 9 respecting the Bruoe Coal company has not been answered, a new government contract has been awarded the same company since that question was asked. I should like to know if that is true, and I should also like to have an answer to this question.
War in the Far East


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The last thing of which I would accuse my hon. friend is seeking to embarrass anyone.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is fine irony.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall seek to relieve the hon. member's embarrassment by securing an answer to his question as soon as possible.



JAPANESE NATIONALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, as a public Liberal member I would like to ask a question of the government. I regret not having submitted it in writing to the government beforehand, but my reason for not doing so was that I have not the faintest idea which branch of the government is handling the Japanese situation-nor has any other British Columbia member.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does anybody know?


George Alexander Cruickshank: The Japanese in British Columbia can still, under permit, purchase powder. That is the condition, according to a press dispatch of February 6. Is that a correct statement of the situation- that the Japanese can still purchase powder in British Columbia, under permit? My second question is whether the Japs-I do not say Japanese'-near the Ruskin power dam in British Columbia have been moved, and if not, why not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to the powder, that has been prohibited. As to the dam, I am not in position to say anything at the moment but I shall try to get my hon. friend the -information he desires shortly.



THE WAR IN THE FAR EAST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a question which I asked last week, as reported on page 497 of Hansard, regarding the Pacific, Singapore and the far east. At that time the Prime Minister answered me and said that he was consulting Britain and would give me a reply later-not on a Pacific council but on Singapore. I was not in the house

yesterday afternoon, but I understand that the Prime Minister has not as yet replied to my question. I gave him notice of it to-day. He has proposed a secret session which is not legal under the rules. On June 12 last I asked the Prime Minister about a secret meeting on this matter with the British Columbia members and not the whole house. In England the Singapore question was debated on a motion to adjourn the house; the Lord Privy Seal, the leader, allowed a debate on Singapore from early in the afternoon until midnight. The whole question was gone into, and Australia also spoke strongly, publicly and openly. I think it is a mistake that this matter of life and death to the empire should be dealt with in private.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: The life of the British commonwealth is at stake and I wish to protest against any secret meeting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know that I am sure of what my hon. friend has just said. He began, as I understood him, by referring to a question which he had asked with respect to the Pacific council. That question I answered yesterday. If I understand him aright, he is asking why I have not replied. I would say that I have replied. He will find on page 598 of Hansard the statement I gave to the house in answer to his question. As to my having had a meeting with the British Columbia members, that would have been a pleasure for me but it is one that I have not had this session.


Mr. GREEN:: He said last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, well, I beg the hon. member's pardon. I had a meeting last year with the British Columbia members of all parties in the house. I do not know whether my hon. friend is taking exception to that or whether he wishes me to repeat it this year. I shall be pleased to seek to meet his wishes. As to the house proceeding in secret session, my hon. friend is aware that arrangements are being made for a secret session. In connection with the proceedings of that session I shall be glad to take into account the representations he has just made about the unwisdom of pursuing certain courses in this house that have been pursued elsewhere.


Thomas Langton Church: Since the war started all meetings are in secret here. They are not reported under your press censorship, which should be abolished.

The Address-Mr. Eudes



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Alphonse Fournier for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. RAYMOND EUDES (Hochelaga) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, since the opening of this session parliament has been seeking which one of two path opening out before it will lead straight to the objective, which is victory and the establishment of a 'better order. This pause is not a waste of time. Indeed, effective action stems from thought which directs.
By what principles should this search be guided? In the first place, this war is a conflict between two ways of life, a conflict from which no people is free. All nations, in varying degrees, are shaken by it. In such a conflict, to seek refuge in indifference is equivalent to desertion. Either our civilization will perish or hitlerism, slavery and iniquity will be vanquished.
From this principle there flows a fundamental consequence: each country is fighting for itself. England, Russia, the United States, China, Canada are waging war each one for its own preservation. Canada, therefore, is not fighting for the triumph of England or even of the British empire. It is fighting to defend its soil, its history, its past, its future, its freedom, its civilization. We are .therefore fighting for a Christian ideal, for human civilization, for the liberty of the individual.
On what does victory depend? Only recently, a country's power was measured by its armed strength. To-day, in balancing the factors of strength, purely military might no longer has the absolute importance it once had. The strength of the best armed nation can only be measured in terms of its economic superiority. This is clearly shown by the methodical manner in which the enemy has used all his material and moral resources, as well as by the resistance offered by England, Czechoslovakia and Russia. The defeat of France is another evidence of that fact. Do you know how many German soldiers broke through the French line at Sedan, smashed the British and Belgian forces in Flanders, and destroyed at one fell swoop an army of five million Frenchmen? One hundred and fifty thousand men. Twelve panzer divisions with the assistance of a few thousand aeroplanes conquered France. The million German soldiers who followed had only a minor part to play: occupation.
Since war on the one hand brings into play all the strength and resources of the belligerent nations and since on the other hand the strength and resources of the warring countries will not become exhausted at the same time or in a single day, the basic problem in this war is one that implies a total as well as a lasting effort. Victory will come to whoever has sufficient resources to achieve a lasting effort, and enough strength to wear out the enemy.
The moral factor is an important part of that strength. In fact, public opinion or the morale of the people is an integral part of a nation's potential. History shows that an army which has a high morale and is fully conscious of its objective is a victorious army. To-day because of the constant risks of life modern man has become accustomed to calculation and reasoning, to appreciation of interdependent factors and to comparison of values. Man obeys a command and accepts a sacrifice for a purpose whenever he is in a position to appreciate the necessity of it.
Under what conditions is this long-drawn total effort to be carried on? Owing to the variety and multiplicity of needs, to the wide distribution of natural resources and to the highly specialized character of producticn, no one territory is capable of meeting alone the exigencies of a long-drawn-out war. Control of the sources of supply is essential to success. These sources are numerous, varied and scattered. Such control therefore implies freedom and mastery of the seas. The successful outcome of the war is therefore dependent upon a rational coordination of the total war effort contributed by each allied country.
A total effort, an enduring effort and a united determination to win, such are, Mr. Speaker, the conditions essential to victory.
In making its contribution each country will seek efficiency rather than quantity. Each country will take stock of the general need, of its own means and of the potential capacity of the Allied, Nations. Such contribution cannot be the same in each case, neither as to form, extent or kind.
These brief remarks may serve to determine how Canada can and should do its duty as a warring nation.
To provide for its own defence is its first duty. As a French economist once stated, Canada is a geographical paradox.
Although its boundary follows a parallel of latitude, nature has, on the contrary, by its mountain ranges, its climatic zones, its natural resource deposits divided the North American continent along meridians of longitude. Canada is the outcome of a free pact between provinces possessing each its own charac-

The Address-Mr. Eudes

teristics inhabited by ethnical groups of various origins, cultures and ideals. A deeper interest has served to unite them on a broader basis.
For the sake of security, the government must maintain these ethnical groups and dissimilar elements properly balanced and united. The existing bond must be strengthened and, in public policy, every step that might be of such a nature as to endanger harmonious relations or would not entirely promote the common good should be consistently avoided. In the interest of security, the government is also bound to provide for the defence of the country and all civil needs.
It is only after these civil needs are met, after the home defence is organized, in other words, after public security is assured, that Canada will be in a position to contribute to the allies' war effort. Otherwise the Canadian war effort would fall short of its object.
In order to reach maximum efficiency, our effort must take into account both our own possibilities and the needs of the allied nations. England, Russia, China, Australia and north Africa may all become theatres of war, and it is evident that this situation hampers the development of resources and the production of equipment and food in all these countries.
The considerable proportion of their population thus released from these various activities can without inconvenience be assigned to purely military tasks.
Because of its geographical situation, our country enjoys a greater measure of security than the other allied nations. Not that Canada is entirely safe from attack, but the geographical situation of the enemy countries as compared with its own makes it more secure. Consequently, Canadian production is less likely to suffer interruptions liable to jeopardize victory. On the other hand, Canada's natural resources are vast and varied. Its soil is fertile. Its population, however, is small, and this fact is aggravated by the dispersion of this population over a narrow stretch of land extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
In order to be logical and to attain its fullest effectiveness, Canada's contribution to the joint war effort must therefore be concentrated upon the production and the supply to the allied countries of the war material and foodstuffs which they cannot produce or can produce only in insufficient quantities. Anything that interferes with the accomplishment of this task is an obstacle to the role which Canada is expected to play in the defence of freedom and civilization.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that no one can honestly deny that Canada has so far
[Mr. Eudes.J
filled this role to the fullest. It must not be forgotten that when war was declared Canada had only recently emerged from a depression. Its agriculture and its manufacturing industry were just beginning to adapt themselves to the new markets they had had great difficulty in securing.
I invite those who criticize, either through inclination, interest or partisanship, to compare the quantity, quality and variety of our production, the effectives of our different armed forces, the amount of money raised by taxation and loans, in a word Canada's total contribution of to-day, with that of the last war. I ask them to think of the innumerable difficulties-the problems of transportation, to name only one of them

which this economic revolution, for that is what it really is, has involved. If they are sincere they will admit that our country has performed marvels. Our allies, the British people and their prime minister, our neighbours to the south and their president, have repeatedly praised and admired our achievement.
Yet, certain people are crying failure and demanding the head of the only man capable of carrying through the gigantic task which Canada has undertaken. Why? Because he has refused to yield to their wishes and make overseas military service compulsory.
In order to appraise it on its merits, conscription should be given its true perspective in the whole Canadian problem. This problem, I think I have shown, consists in providing collective security, in supplying our allies with foodstuffs and weapons, in maintaining an army, a navy and an air force. These four things are essential. Each one requires the same measure of attention in order that, a proper balance existing between them, the effort devoted to one of them may not injure the others. So, conscription is not an end in Canada's war effort. It is but a means of increasing the strength of the active army. Such is the only fair way of sizing up its importance.
Being a means, conscription must be judged by its results. If the latter are good, then conscription is desirable. If it impairs the efficiency of Canada's contribution to the common war effort, it must ruthlessly be rejected.
Let us now examine the effects of conscription. It will certainly be harmful to the war industry. It will take able-bodied men off the land, where they are already more and more needed. No one can deny the prime importance in this war of the navy and the air force, recruits for which are trained in this country. It is hard to see how conscrip-

The Address-Mr. Eudes
tion will help either of these .two services. On the contrary, it is liable to disorganize the navy and cripple the air training plan.
Moreover, the controversy that has developed about conscription shows that the latter has not the unanimous support of public opinion. Consequently, it is a serious threat to national unity. Besides, it is a coercive measure, and coercion destroys enthusiasm and heroism, without which no victory can be won.
And if Canada were attacked, does any one believe that the soldiers sent to England or Asia through conscription-a mere handful of men in the allied armies-could defend our territoiy?
I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, the admonishments given to the French Canadians by certain persons who urge them to desist from opposing conscription. I think I have clearly shown that conscription is not a problem restricted to Quebec. It concerns the whole Canadian people. Besides,-as has been stated by many honourable members from different provinces-the French Canadians have identified themselves with the cause defended by Canada and her allies with the devotion, the bravery and1 the generosity characteristic of the French soul. It follows, Mr. Speaker, that under the circumstances conscription is a nefarious theory, hardly consistent with true partiotism.
To my mind, such is the material contribution of Canada to the war. Before discussing her moral contribution, I wish to say a few words about the plebiscite.
It has been claimed that the government should have continued to administer the public affairs without resorting to a plebiscite. I sincerely confess that I would have preferred such an attitude. However, I cannot be persuaded that a member elected1 by the people can oppose the plebiscite. A democratic government derives its mandate from the people. The latter are governed by their elected representatives, who in turn must express the views of their constituents in so far as they do not conflict with the common weal. It is claimed that former statements by government leaders gave no indication that a plebiscite would be held and that, consequently, parliament should reject such a measure.
Does such reasoning sufficiently take into account every element of the problem? Politics must ensure the common good within the limits set by justice, charity and liberty. How can politics hope to live up to such virtues when deliberately setting aside the needs of the hour for the consideration of
statements made under different circumstances and of directions designed to deal with needs which are no longer the same to-day.
Some still contend that the government cannot now break pledges taken at the time of the last general elections. Perfectly true. Does it follow that the parties to such contract are incapable of modifying its terms by common consent? Now, in a plebiscite, the government is asking the people if they believe that a clause in that contract between them should be changed. Should the people refuse, then such clause would remain in its original form. To refuse a contracting party the right of consulting the other is the very denial of liberty. To refuse the right of holding a plebiscite is to deny to the people the exercise of an inherent privilege of liberty, that of stating one's opinion, a privilege which the democratic system does essentially grant to the people.
In order that their war contribution may be thoroughly efficient, the Canadian people must be united in their ardent and enthusiastic determination to win. A lofty conception of their purpose must serve as the inspiration for the necessary sacrifices they must accept.
Why is there war? Why this tremendous sacrifice of the Canadian people? Is it simply for the joy of victory, simply to preserve prewar conditions under which the individual certainly did not enjoy the fair share of well-being which the state should provide? No. We are not fighting for victory alone, but for peace, for real peace. And this does not mean the mere absence of conflict. It means a state wherein, under the aegis of justice, charity and liberty, human faculties may attain a full development. Post-war will be such as we shall have made it. The people have selected us to direct their destinies. A politician must not let events overtake him. He must scan the future that he may foresee and master it.
The new order which the post-war period will bring cannot easily be foreseen in every detail. It must first be born in the heart of each and every one. Then only can the state supply the appropriate setting wherein legitimate needs may obtain just satisfaction. Democracy will supply this setting. For the democratic formula is not static. It is dynamic and naturally tends towards improvement.
Our government has already taken steps in this direction. Under the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) a group of experts are studying post-war problems. On the other hand, unemployment insurance, stabilized trade and prices and other measures al-e due to temper the trying hours of the post-war days to come.
The Address-Mr. Eudes

These measures are but the first step. Dealing with one of its aspects only is not solving the whole problem. The inauguration of a new order presupposes a general consideration of all post-war problems and a thorough knowledge of all questions relating to manpower and material.
This new order must be founded on justice and freedom. But there can be no justice unless the rights of the poor, the workers, the minorities and every other class are respected. Without equality and fraternity, justice is a vain word. However, equality and fraternity lose their beneficial character when the leaders use them as a bait for the weak and the lowly.
Liberty must be enjoyed by everyone. Enjoyment of power, privileges and fortune by a few while the majority labour under the weight of restraint cannot be considered as freedom. There is no freedom in the absence of political rights and these are a , mere illusion unless accompanied by economic rights. There is no freedom for the worker whose future is unsettled. Finally no freedom is possible unless the representatives of the people govern with the greatest possible efficiency.
Mr. Speaker, this new order erected on justice and freedom is our goal. I am confident that our efforts will not be in vain, which would be the case unless we are guided by the principles for which we are fighting. In the present conflict we fight the enemy by our own methods. It were better not to fight than to use nazi methods.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I express the hope that when the struggle is ended in victory, this new order will prevail. Let us spread this ideal through the land. Let everyone's ambition be that of living in a united Canada in the enjoyment of justice and freedom. Then will our efforts and our hearts be united through the struggle ended by victory, for if it be true that men die in combat, it is equally true that nations often disappear for refusing to fight.


Mr. A. S. RENNIE (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few observations on the question now before the house, may I grasp this belated opportunity to congratulate the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I should like to compliment them upon the splendid speeches which they made in moving and seconding that motion. I venture to say, and I believe most hon. members will agree, that the material which they used in their
[Mr. Eudes.)
presentations.was excellent; and I believe that if we turned back over the pages of Hansard we should find that their speeches have been excelled by few.
The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) had the splendid opportunity of visiting England and seeing conditions there at first hand. They naturally, therefore, speak with some authority. They have returned to Canada and have given us a vivid picture of what those stout-hearted people of Britain are enduring in this tremendous conflict.
In passing, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. O'Brien), who a few evenings ago gave us of this house an opportunity of seeing some of the pictures which he had taken in England, and of realizing more fully the courage and endurance of those brave people. I have personally spoken to a number of Canadians who recently returned from Britain, and have been amazed at what I have learne'd of the gallantry and determination of the British people, and the sacrifices which they are making to preserve freedom not only for themselves but for all the peoples of the world.
I recall a speech made in this house by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) on November 19, 1940, reported on page 208 of Hansard. He said:
Some two months ago I listened^ to a radio commentator from London who said that one of the amazing sights in that great city, was the number of flags that could be seen flying there. Most touching of all, I thought, was his statement that in instance after instance these flags could be seen floating over ruined buildings, many of them the humble dwellings of the poor. These people, forced to see their homes destroyed, their personal possessions gone, sometimes members of their families maimed or killed, digged themselves out of the wreckage and at once they planted above it the flag of Britain. That act seems to me symbolic. They plant that great flag there, not only to defy Hitler, not only to encourage the weak and ' inspire the faltering among themselves, but also as an emblem of hope and of prophecy. And the hope and the prophecy are this: that just as the flag of Britain rises over the physical ruins of some of its homes, so out of the wreck and welter of this war there will arise a greater Britain, a Britain strengthened and stiffened by its heroic struggle, a Britain which will lead the world into better and fairer ways of life, not for one class or group, but for all people.
So long as that spirit remains we need have no doubt as to the ultimate outcome of this war. The whole of Britain is under attack now, but in her own time she and her dominions will take the offensive. They are on the offensive even now; for our gallant airmen are carrying the war to the heart of enemy countries and to the territories which Germany has conquered,

The Address-Mr. Rennie
and our incomparable fleet still commands the seas. Her soldiers at Dunkirk have proven their quality We shall see Britain triumphant, anci long after the name of Hitler will have become nothing but an unpleasant memory, the same flag which now waves over disordered heaps of crumbled brick and stone and mortar will be flying freely and proudly in the airs of heaven, sheltering liberty and justice and freedom and truth in its benevolent shade. That is the hope and the promise of the British flag flying over the ruins of British homes.
In these difficult days, when our empire is faced with the greatest crisis in its history, one cannot help but recall the words of a great Canadian, Doctor MacDonald, when he said on one occasion, "It would be indeed a calamity beyond compare were that world empire broken and its fragments scattered abroad." Yet on the other side of the picture one has the encouraging words of Burke, who said that the ties of empire are as light as air but strong as links of steel.
In the preservation of this British empire we need to-day the encouraging words of Burke. Canadians played a great part in the first world war, and when the history of that war was written the pages were bright with the matchless deeds of valour of our men. And, sir, after a quarter of a century we still think of those fine, stout-hearted men and their deeds at Ypres, Passchendaele, the Somme and Vimy Ridge. So to-day we must show to the world that what Canada did in 1914-18, Canada can do to-day on a larger scale.
But in order that we shall do our best in this country there must be cooperation on the part of every individual citizen of this dominion. Cooperation is not merely a sentiment; it is an economic necessity. The efforts of every man and woman in this dominion I believe should be directed through the government into the avenues of service for which they find themselves best fitted. May I quote here Mr. Churchill's words spoken in this chamber on December 30, 1941, as reported at page 4480 of Hansard, January 21, 1942:
In this strange, terrible world war there is a place for everyone, man and woman, old and young, hale and halt. Service in a thousand forms is open. There is no room now for the dilettante, for the weakling, for the shirker or the sluggard. The mine, the factory, the dockyard, the salt sea waves, the fields to till, the home, the hospital, the chair of the scientist, the pulpit of the preacher-from the highest to the humblest, the tasks are all of equal honour. All have their part to play. [DOT]
I think it is the consensus of the Canadian people that Canada has taken a preeminent position in this great world scene. Men have their own views on politics and on political personalities; they may prefer one Canadian statesman to another. These are important
matters; they are the blood and bone and muscle of democracy at work. But in a world convulsed with the mighty shock of the fiercest war of which history has record, factional, political and partisan differences should sink into their proper and proportionate place. When great forces are in action, with powerful tides and undercurrents sweeping over and through countries and peoples, the obvious has a way of being overlooked. But just because a fact is obvious it is not less significant. It is no less fraught with rich cargoes of ideas and ideals. Obviously Winston Churchill is the man of the hour of Britain; obviously President Roosevelt is the man of the hour in the United States; obviously Joseph Stalin is the man of the hour in Russia, and obviously Prime Minister Mackenzie King is the man of the hour in Canada.
While there are some who are outspoken in their condemnation of the Prime Minister's policy for Canada's war effort, these same critics are just as ready to admit that because of the happy personal relations between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States, relationships which have their roots in the common understanding of the ways of life of Canada and the United States, the three thousand miles of unfortified border between the two countries are marked with the personalities of Mackenzie King and Roosevelt. Who but our Prime Minister could have appealed to the United States in forthright language for help for Great Britain? Our Prime Minister did this in a broadcast from London last year. Canada could speak to the United States as an American nation.
Did not Canada declare war on Germany of her own volition? And in the succeeding year under the good neighbour policy our Prime Minister entered into a joint north American agreement with President Roosevelt. When Pearl Harbour was attacked, Canada declared war on Japan in advance of both the United States and Great Britain. Canada could do these things because, to put it bluntly, she was a free agent. Canada is a member of the British commonwealth of nations, but she is a nation. She showed her loyalty to the crown in the brilliant reception given to Their Majesties King George and Queen Elizabeth in 1939. She again showed , her loyalty in the tumultuous welcome given to Winston Churchill in Ottawa. So I say, how properly can we assay the qualities, the seemingly paradoxical qualities of Canada? With the structure of the world organization rudely, roughly shaken, Canada, through her Prime Minister, became the stabilizer and acted to maintain the equilibrium. Winston
The Address-Mr. Rennie

Churchill perfectly illustrates the situation. He visits Washington; he comes to Ottawa, and then' visits Washington again. Speaking in this very chamber Prime Minister Churchill said:
Canada, sir, occupies a unique position in the British empire because of its unbreakable ties with Britain and its ever-growing friendship and intimate association with the United States. Canada is a potent magnet, drawing together those in the new world and in the old whose fortunes are now united in a deadly struggle for life and honour against the common foe.
I should like to say a word on behalf of that great mass of patriotic men and women in Canada who derive their living from tilling the soil. In my own county, according to the latest available figures, we have a land area of about 489,000 acres; the number of occupied farms is about 5,000, and the farm population is something over 20,467. These fine men and women are bending every effort to help Canada fill her quotas of cheese, bacon, eggs and other farm products for Britain, and in order to do this they are toiling from early morning until late at night. There is no eight-hour day for these hard-working people. I should like to quote a few words from the very fine address of the Prime Minister on January 26, when he presented to this parliament what one might call Canada's balanced war effort. He said, at page 34 of Hansard:
A vital aspect of Canada's war effort is our contribution to the food supply of Great Britain. This contribution has grown steadily in importance. Britain cannot feed herself, and her own great and growing armed forces. Still less can she feed the ever-increasing numbers of men we are sending from Canada to add to her armed strength. In the present war, unlike the last, her sources of food on the continent of Europe have all been closed off by enemy occupation. Canada is the nearest source of food left open. Without our food, the people of Britain might starve.
Then, at page 40 of Hansard, the Prime Minister went on to say:
Canada has contracts with Great Britain for bacon, hams and other pork products amounting to 618,000,000 pounds. The forthcoming agreement for cheese is expected to be for at least 125,000,000 pounds. Then, 675,000 cases of evaporated milk will probably, again this year, be required by Britain. The present contract for eggs is for 30,000,000 dozen. Further large contracts for summer and fall delivery are anticipated. Canada has also undertaken to supply Britain with 4,500,000 pounds of honey; 510,000 barrels of fresh apples; 425,000 cases of processed apples; 300,000 cases of canned tomatoes, and other fruit and vegetable products in substantial quantities. Altogether, the value of the exports of the above commodities will be at least
8180.000.	000. Exports of the same products in the year before the war were valued at about
850.000.	000.
TMr. Rennie.]
Prosperity on the land, Mr. Speaker, means prosperity for all. I believe no calling surpasses farming from the standpoint of health and vigour, both of body and of intellect. Farmers as a class do not ask for charity; they are willing to work for what they get. Moreover, they constitute such a large proportion of our population that their welfare demands the consideration of all. This, coupled with the fact that they are engaged in our basic industry, makes the need for such consideration doubly great. Unfortunately many city people do not know the farmer. They have no appreciation of what he contributes to Canadian life as a whole, or the relationship that exists between his work and the earning of a livelihood in urban centres. So that in passing I should like to mention briefly one or two points which I believe are in the interests of the farmer, because after all I believe farming holds the key to prosperity in Canada and that this basic industry must therefore come first in legislative thought and action.
I should like to touch briefly on the mobilization act, in regard to young men being called up for training. I come from military district No. 1, which has contributed a great many fine young men both for overseas service and for the defence of Canada. But I have long since come to the conclusion that it is most unreasonable that we in Canada should take away from our farms the help that is so essential if we are to produce the food supplies which the Prime Minister stressed so much in his address a few days ago. I appreciate the fact that if a young man appeals to the registrar he is given consideration. In passing I should like to express my appreciation of the work done by Mr. Martin, registrar for military district No. 1. I do not know the gentleman very well; I have never gone to him to ask that any young man be relieved from training, but I believe he is a reasonable and fair-minded man, who gives every consideration to any request he receives, which is as it should be. The point I should like to make, however, and the point I should like to draw to the attention of the government, is this. I do not believe that in this crisis, when the farmers are finding things most difficult, they should have postponements for only perhaps six months. A young man who is on a farm, where the only other available labour is that of an old man perhaps fifty or sixty or seventy years of age, should be given an undertaking that he will not be called for military service, because I do not believe any industry requires early preparation for its annual activities more than does farming. Then, too-and this is not a new thought-we realize that the farmer

The Address-Mr. Rennie
is greatly handicapped in having to pay wages more or less equivalent to those paid in factories making the munitions of war.
I have every confidence in our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and I believe the policies w'hich will be worked out by the government for this year will be of benefit to the farmer. But I suggest to the minister that these policies should not be left in abeyance any longer. Let us frame our programme so that the farmer will know this spring just what his position will be, so that he may put in his seed as early as possible.
There is another point in connection with farming I should like to mention in passing. I refer to the price of farm implements. I realize, too, that in war-time farm implements are bound to cost more money. Nevertheless I believe some arrangement should be made by the government under which the prices of what the farmer has to buy will be closer to parity with the prices of the commodities he offers for sale.
I come from a part of Canada in which the growing of tobacco has developed into a great industry. I would ask the government to realize that this is a seasonal occupation. The men involved have spent large sums of money in equipping their farms. Usually they have five or six kilns costing about $500 each. I am inclined to the belief that in connection with the sale of tobacco there is something radically wrong with the process of grading. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to give the matter his attention.
May I be permitted to say a few words respecting compulsory service, and the committee for total war. I shall state frankly that I have taken exception to that committee for calling men from ail parts of Ontario to attend a dinner at the Royal York hotel, without first informing those men as to the matters to be discussed at the meeting. I know some men attended the meeting believing it to be called for the purpose of organizing the victory loan campaign, and they were somewhat disappointed when they learned otherwise. In my view the committee by its agitation did more harm than good. Had their method been one of cooperation rather than one of destroying and tearing down, they would have contributed much more to Canada's war effort.
Although I have not the authority for this, I am told that the cost of advertising and other activities of the committee must have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of $150,000 to $200,000. In addition to that, large quantities of gasoline were used by two hundred men who drove to Toronto from all parts of Ontario. Had the committee put that amount of money to the credit of the government to purchase a corvette or a minesweeper, or some equipment for the benefit of our soldiers, it would have been making a greater contribution.
I received letters and cards from my own constituency, some of which were in favour of a total war effort, some in favour of conscription of man-power only, and some in favour of conscription of wealth. But from a constituency with a voting'population of about
35,000,	in comparison the number of letters and cards received was small.
In my constituency the committee for total war, sincere in its efforts but overzealous in its patriotism and its wish to see the war ended as soon as possible, gave vent to its feelings through the medium of this organization. I have received telegrams from my constituency, some of which favoured, and others of which objected to the operations of that committee. For instance, I hold in my hand a letter from a veteran of the last war, an extract from which I shall read to the house:
As a veteran of the last war, I suppose I might be expected to be in full support of a total war effort. This is so true that I ani prepared to place my property at the disposal of the government, and serve in any capacity at the army scale of pay, if the people behind this movement, including those who signed the petition, are prepared to do the same. But I am not prepared to assist in any way to conscript my neighbor's son on any other basis. You probably know that at least some of the people whose names appeared as taking the petition, made fortunes out of the last war and hope to add to them out of this one; and I want to record my objection as strongly as possible to this conscription for the other fellow. I have no authority to speak for others, but I am sure you would find my sentiments approved by a large majority of people, irrespective of politics.
And one other clipping:
I have three sons in the air force, and I applied for enlistment myself. I do not know about military conscription. If it were absolutely necessary, I suppose it will have to be; but I believe a good, honest, wholehearted war effort, governed by good sense as at present, is what I stand for.
I should like now to touch on the question of the bits-and-pieces programme which has been functioning under the Department of Munitions and Supply. In that connection I would register a complaint which, I believe, is worthy of consideration and is in fact receiving some consideration. I am inclined to the belief that in this great war effort, and especially in connection with the development of our industry, there has been too much centralization in the larger centres, with the result that the smaller towns have not had the opportunity to compete in connection with a variety of industrial activities.

The Address-Mr. Rennie
There are many small towns in Ontario where the housing situation is not acute, and where large numbers of men could be accommodated1. But we find that at least up to the present time industry has been directed toward the larger cities. I leave this thought with the. government, in the hope that as time passes this condition may be remedied.
I should like to make a few brief observations concerning the plebiscite. I did not feel I could add much to the debate, but I do wish to make my position perfectly clear in regard to this important matter. When I had the honour of being elected as member for the constituency of Oxford, I believed that in all matters of public interest I should use my best judgment in respect of any action I might take. I believed that that should be my course with respect to matters such as the one I am now discussing. Having first obtained information as to the facts, I believed I should vote according to the dictates of my own conscience, and, Mr. Speaker, that is what I intend to do. I believe in the truth of the old adage that honesty is the best policy. The Prime Minister and practically every hon. member supporting the government stated clearly during the 1940 election campaign, "No conscription of men for overseas service." Doctor Manion, the then leader of the National Conservative party, also made his position clear. Some have urged that because the government has the largest number of supporters, it should disregard its pledge. My thought is that the larger numbers on the government side constitute all the more reason why they should appeal to the people and have the people make the decision.
At the moment I am not saying what stand I should take if it comes to a matter of conscription. I reserve that decision for myself. In the light of my vote on the plebiscite -and I shall vote for the plebiscite-I shall then endeavour to gather a knowledge of the facts, as I have done in this instance, and shall try to vote intelligently on the matter of conscription when it becomes an issue.
At this point I had intended to quote some authorities to support my vote on the plebiscite. I had intended to quote the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), than whom there is no more outstanding man in this great dominion. I refer hon. members to his speech. In this connection I think of the Prime Minister's speech with respect to the plebiscite. I think, too, of the fine contribution made to the debate by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). I think of the splendid contributions of the Minister
[Mr. Rennie.l
of National Defence, (Mr. Ralston) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I have perfect confidence in these men who are trying to direct Canada's war effort, and while I am in this house I shall be guided considerably by them. I feel that after all they know the situation better than we do; and more than anything else I am interested in the preservation of the unity of this great dominion of Canada. National unity is no bogy. National unity is of vital importance, even beyond the present crisis. After this war we shall have to face tremendous problems of world reconstruction and nations and men of goodwill must cooperate. I believe that Kipling's "The Law of the Jungle" still holds good:
For the strength of the pack is the wolf,
and the strength of the wolf is the pack.
How can we play a part in the new world order if we have failed in the duties of brotherhood and cooperation here in our own country? With tolerance and goodwill at home we shall have taken a long step toward helping in an international world and toward the solution of Canada's own social and economic problems. Canadian unity, warm, effective and vital, is the key to our entire future.
During the last war I think all men in Canada had great admiration for Marshal Foch who led the allied armies. He represented to us the type of perfectly functioning mind which amid the storms and stresses of conflict found its way to victory. I recall that on one occasion when General Foch was addressing the students of the war college in France he said:
You are to be the brains of an army, I beseech you in the name of God, think!
In so many places tolerance and friendship have been replaced by bitterness, freedom has given way to tyranny, the light of democracy has been somewhat extinguished. I can think of no more needed message to leave with the leaders of this country than words similar to those Marshal Foch uttered to the men who were to lead the armies of France:
You are to be leaders in the nation;
You are the builders of Canada;
You are thinking for the people,
I beseech you in the name of God, think!


Mr. H. A. MacKENZIE (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the question now before the house has been under debate for over three weeks, so I appreciate fully that anything I may say will be largely repetition. But I feel that I cannot let the question pass without making a few suggestions, and I shall try to be brief in my remarks. It seems a peculiar state of affairs, and there must be something

The Address-Mr. MdcKenzie (Lambton)
radically wrong with world conditions, that after engaging in and winning a world war in 1914-18, and after dictating the terms of peace, in a little over twenty years we should be in a second world war which is being waged with much greater fury, more powerful armaments and equipment, and with much more disastrous results to both human life and property than the war of 1914-18. Winning this war is essential, but winning the peace that will be a lasting peace, that will give us national security, is much more important.
We are facing the greatest crisis, not only of this century but in the world's history. So much has been said about total war effort and total mobilization of all our resources that the average Canadian citizen is confused as to what total war means and what is really needed for a total war effort. Every Canadian worthy of the name wants this to be a total war. I shall not repeat in this house details of the magnificent contribution Canada has made thus far in the war with her air force, her navy, her army and the great industrial development that has taken place in providing munitions and instruments of war, when, prior to September, 1939, practically all of Canada's industries were engaged in supplying domestic needs. In the present situation the drive for total war and conscription was made by a powerful Toronto group backed by an extensive newspaper campaign. This question of total war first arose in Toronto, then in Montreal, and then it spread throughout Canada and has caused a great deal of confusion. If it can be proved or successfully argued that the previous pledge not to conscript men for overseas service without consulting the people has actually impaired the war effort thus far; if there is a serious shortage of enlistments to fill out the plans of the army chiefs; if there is any shortage of industrial man-power to turn out the instruments of war, then the issue would be much clearer. But the best sources of information in Ottawa state that none of these things are true. However, the time may come when that will not be so and, of course, we must be prepared.
One of the greatest dangers to an all-out war effort is, I believe, a shortage of labour on the farm. I am speaking now particularly of Ontario where many hired men have left the farms to work in munitions plants for wages the farmer cannot afford to pay. In many cases the farm boy was drafted for military training, and when he asked for postponement he was, in some cases, advised by the Department of National War Services to take his four months' training in the winter' when farm work is slack so that he might be home for 44561-42
seeding and harvesting. The act was, however, changed, and these boys now find themselves in the army for the duration of the war with very little hope of getting released. I believe it would be in the national interest if all farmers who are in the armed forces and who are needed on the farms were given leave of absence for seeding and harvesting. If this is not done, I fear our farmers will not be able to supply the foodstuffs that may be required for the feeding of Britain and our allies.
I shall place the contributing forces in three categories, and one is probably just as important as the other: the armed forces, the instruments of war and munitions, and the supplying of foodstuffs. The latter could easily be the deciding factor in the ultimate conclusion of the war. I have received many postcards from residents in my riding, and no doubt many hon. members have had a similar experience, which read:
I believe the most efficient and honourable way for Canada to prosecute total war is by compulsory selective service without restrictions. The government of Canada should introduce this measure so that men who are best on the farms will be placed on the farms; those who are most helpful in the factories will work in the factories, and those best fitted will serve in the armed forces, wherever needed. Such a plan is fair to all the people of Canada.
That, would be conscription of man-power, but would it be an all-out effort? We all remember back in 1914-18 when many thousands of Canadian soldiers went to Europe to fight, many paying the supreme sacrifice. But what happened at home? At that time many industries made so much money because of the war, that they have never had to do much since-many millions were made. At the beginning of this war the government took the stand that a similar situation must not exist, and the Excess Profits Tax Act was passed. This would take by taxation over eighty per cent of all profits made in excess of the profits made in the average four years preceding 1939. There was some logic in this because of the experience of the last war, but it does not go far enough. Many industries made big dividends during the four years prior to 1939, and they should be required to make an equal contribution. War at the best is waste. What financier, what farmer, what employee, what man in the armed forces should hope to come out of this war as well off financially as when he went into it? Nevertheless, many thousands of people apparently do. We talk about equality of service and sacrifice; how much has the average man in Canada sacrificed? If total war means contribution in kind and according to ability to winning the war, then total war

650	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. MacKenzie (Lambton)
must reach everyone, no matter who he or she may be. It must exempt no one. Then, if you divide the contributing forces into the three categories, the armed forces, the factories, and the farm, they should be put as nearly as possible on the same pay basis.
The income tax does take a large toll on salaries and on the revenue that is derived from our investments, but it does not go far enough. If the government is going to organize labour completely, it must also organize and regiment the capital resources of this nation. The Toronto Globe and Mail a few days ago in an editorial claimed that some people, when talking about conscription of wealth, meant confiscation of wealth. I do not think that is anyone's intention or is in anyone's mind. But what if some wealth had to be confiscated? What happens to the young man who gives his all, his life? Is that not confiscation? What about the soldier who comes back from the war crippled and broken in health? Is his health not confiscated? We say that the government looks after him and his dependents, and the Canadian government has done as well as or better than most other countries in looking after our war veterans; yet I know of several men who served in the last war who, because the pension board does not attribute their disabilities to war causes, are deprived of a pension or have to eke out an existence on a war veteran's allowance. We talk glibly about an all-out war effort, but let us go all the way. We live in a democracy; then let us start with the highest office in the dominion and end with the private in the army or the labouring man and be as nearly equal in service and sacrifice as possible until this war is won.
We have in Canada a fairly large population of foreign birth. Many have taken out their citizenship papers, and are good loyal Canadian citizens. Under the provisions of our Naturalization Act they must be domiciled within the British empire for five years before they can become naturalized citizens. Many find themselves in an embarrassing position because they have not been here for five years. I submit that the Naturalization Act should be amended so that they can take out their first or second year citizenship papers and assume their responsibilities as such, or else the mobilization act should be amended so that they, too, can contribute towards our war effort-and many of them are anxious to do their share.
We have many non-permanent reserve units in Canada, and I doubt if they are making any worth-while contribution to our war effort. There may have been a time in the

early days of the war when they served a useful purpose, but with the selective drafts now in operation they are not much support to recruiting. I am not able to find out the exact number of these units, but there are probably eighty or ninety units of infantry, and probably nearly as many artillery units. Each unit has from two to four fulltime officers, with the rank of anywhere from corporal to lieutenant-colonel. They usually train part-time a couple of nights a week. I contend that they are an added expense and are not making any werth-while contribution, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these units should be mobilized for active service either at home or abroad, or dispensed with altogether. The defence department has worked out something along this line but it does not go far enough.
In 1867 the fathers of confederation were successful in uniting the two great races of this continent, with the status of equal rights and privileges, and with a common purpose for a united Canada. After seventy-five years have we been successful, and if not, why not? We have gone a long way, it is true, but I should like to see a law passed that would make it a serious offence for any politician to raise a racial or a religious cry in order to gain some political advantage. We must admit that that has been done many times in the past, and no true patriot would do it.
My father came to Canada as a young immigrant boy from Scotland. My mother's ancestors also came from Scotland and I have a great regard for the mother country. True, I am a Canadian first, but I believe that Canada will give her all to aid the motherland at, this time.
Unfortunately politics has apparently entered into this question, and the question of conscription cannot be fairly dealt with on that basis. I stated in my election campaign of 1940 that I was opposed to conscription and did not believe it was necessary, and that the voluntary system was the best. I am still opposed to the principle of conscription; it is foreign to the very spirit of democracy. In this present crisis, if conscription is necessary to win this war, let us not only conscript man-power but go all the way and conscript all our resources. We already have conscription, and it is selective so far as age groups and medical fitness go. Young men are being conscripted every day for the army, and conscripted for the duration of the war.
We have three Ministers of National Defence. We have faith in these men. They have surrounded themselves with qualified military men and army advisers, and these

The Address-Mr. Roy
military authorities in cooperation with the British war office should know where these troops can best meet the enemy and engage them. If outside Canada, so much the better. If we expect help in case of attack or invasion, and we might need it, surely we must be prepared to give help. Look at the map of the world in September, 1939, and look at it to-day; and then ask yourself, are we winning this war?
The plebiscite will not settle this question of conscription for the armed forces overseas. It was never intended that it should. If that question is introduced by the government, it will be settled on the floor of this house and members will make their own decision in view of all the Circumstances, and abide by the consequences. I have faith that, if properly presented, the plebiscite will carry, and if we must have a plebiscite, let us bring in the bill without delay and get it over with. Anything that tends to confuse, retards our war effort. I cannot see why objection to the plebiscite should be regarded as a want-of-confidence motion. I do not consider it as such. We are living in the darkest days of Canadian history and we have a job to do. Let not politics or anything else interfere with it. Let us get on with the job.


Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I fain would express the usual commendations in connection with the speech from the throne and compliment the mover of the address (Mr. Fournier), as well as the seconder (Mr. Macdonald, Brantford), without excepting the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), but the measures announced and the statements contained in the speeches are of such a distressing nature as to Leave me no inclination to compliment their authors. Congratulations are worthless unless sincere. The remarks I desire to make are far from congratulatory. You may be positive that I deeply deplore this fact.
Besides various financial measures of an astonishing character, the speech from the throne announces a plebiscite to release the government from pledges and commitments concerning conscription and to allow them to alter the methods of raising men for service overseas. In fact, this is the last step towards conscription as the Prime Minister told us in his speech of January 26, as reported on page 44 of Hansard:
National selective service is the method by which the government proposes to accomplish the mobilization of man-power on an extended scale. Let me define national service as it is understood by the government. By national service is meant any form of service, either voluntary or compulsory, which contributes directly to Canada's war effort.
And, later, he added:
In announcing that national selective service is the method by which the government proposes to accomplish the mobilization of man-power on an extended scale, the government is not announcing a new policy. What we propose to do is to extend what, in fact, we have been doing right along, that is, to apply the principle progressively. In other words, we intend to continue to extend the application of national selective service to meet new needs as they arise.
As I have already said, this policy, too, is not new, nor is it being advanced to-day for the first time, or as a consequence of high-pressure methods employed to influence the independence of members of parliament. The principle itself, as I have already explained, was approved by this parliament in June, 1940. It has already been applied to some extent. On November 12 last, I made it very plain to parliament that, with respect to the mobilization of man-power, the government's policy was one of national selective service; and, also, that an extension of the application of compulsory selective service-conscription, if you will-was a part of that policy.
Therefore, the Liberal party forgoes the doctrine which has ensured it public support for the last 25 years. This is a national political event the extreme importance of which no one underestimates.
The speech from the throne is a typical example of the usual methods used by the government in the consideration of a difficult problem and in the handling of a given situation. They wish to skirt the obstacle. So clever are they in their impertinence that they even attempt to bring the public to approve a policy that the Liberals have always represented as a national crime. The great question of the day is conscription for service anywhere in the world.
The Conservatives make it the main issue. An important number of English-speaking Liberal members are in favour of this measure. It is said that some members of the cabinet- and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) left little doubt on this subject in the minds of his hearers the other day-are conscriptionists at heart. The Prime Minister, a modern sphynx-and I regret his absence-claims that the government are gradually enforcing this measure; however, at the same time, he leaves us under the impression that he is opposed to it. He courts both the conscriptionists and the anti-conscriptionists. He claims that, in his mind, national unity is first and foremost.
In 1916 and 1917, did the Liberals act this way, did they give a thought to national unity? Have they preached a doctrine of unity, since then, while they were encouraging anti-conscriptionists in one part of the country and ultra-loyalists in another? Is it not to be feared that, at a time when national
The Address-Mr. Roy

unity ,is more necessary than ever, the impression may be gained that the chief purpose of the Prime Minister is to avoid a cabinet crisis and to preserve above all unity within the Liberal party.
Notwithstanding the complete reversal of their attitude the Liberal government make a show of fulfilling their promises. They assume an appearance of righteousness. They pretend to attach more importance to the pledged word. However, their opportunism causes them to create a political situation more and more tense and confused.
There are attitudes and statements that would be comical were they not so tragic.
The mover of the address, in expounding the policies of the government to the satisfaction of the Prime Minister has stated with a courage worthy of recognition, that he will ask his electors and his fellow-citizens to release the government from their promises and commitments against conscription and to accept the sacrifice of submitting to compulsory military services overseas, in order to preserve national unity.
At the outset of his remarks in reply to the speech delivered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) on January 26, the Prime Minister blamed the Conservative leader for not having dared to use the word "conscription" in his amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, in spite of his advocacy of conscription in his speech.
The Prime Minister's outburst is all the more frivolous and childish that the said amendment provides for compulsory military service in all theatres of war. Moreover, when asked what he will do after the plebiscite will have released him from his pledges and his promises against conscription, the Prime Minister evaded the issue and refused to commit himself, though his intentions had been clearly -disclosed in the speech from the throne, in the speech of the hon. member who moved the address and in his own speech. It is a case of a mote in the neighbour's eye and a beam in one's own. The Prime Minister plays on words and obtains an easy victory.
After pointing out the gigantic proportions of our war effort and of our assistance and gifts to England, the Prime Minister declared that, except for some slight differences, the Liberal government's policy is the same as that of the Tory party in the matter of war and selective service. '
What an astonishing confession! The Prime Minister was certainly not thinking at the moment of all the abuse, opprobrium and ignominy the Liberal party had heaped on
[Vjr. Roy.]
this same Tory policy which it now makes its own. It must then be true that the punishment is found in the sin itself.
A little further on, perhaps under pangs of remorse, the Prime Minister candidly admits that, were it not for the pledges taken and the promises made during the provincial election campaign in 1939, the election results might perhaps have not been the same.
If it be true, Mr. Speaker, that inconsiderate pledges and promises were instrumental in tricking the people into approval in 1939, then the party led by the Prime Minister must also admit having as stealthily garnered the votes which returned them to power since 1921, for such is the only method they have used in every campaign. Is it to be wondered that rancours still endure and that bitter opposition is encountered? Neither should we wonder if, based on such methods, on prejudices and a most cynical opportunism, the government is now in a tottering situation and national unity is crumbling.
That very illusive national unity, invented for use by the Liberal party, based on nonparticipation in foreign wars and on insults for the opponents of this doctrine, is not the Prime Minister betraying it when, admitting that his party's successes are due to solemn pledges, he singles out as a target for prejudice that very province of Quebec which bore him to power and kept him there and which received at his hands that very political training which is now held against it? This is what the Prime Minister stated on January 26, as appears on page 46 of Hansard:
Hon. members are also aware that if, at the time when Canada's participation in the war was challenged in an election in the province of Quebec by a government professing a different political faith, a like assurance with respect to service overseas had not been given in the name of the present government by the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, by the Minister of Public Works (Mr Cardin), and other Liberal leaders and members of this House of Commons from the province of Quebec, the verdict of the people of that province might have been wholly different.
The Quebec Liberal leaders bear a great share of responsibility for the present situation and their electors [DOT]null certainly not be satisfied with fictitious and futile explanations nor with pious regrets. They will insist that these leaders protect them against conscription, as they agreed to do when they claimed to constitute their rampart against conscription. But wrhy does the Prime Minister, when mentioning those who have taken pledges and made commitments against conscription, always exclude himself and the English-speaking Liberal leaders?

The Address-Mr. Roy
Has not the Prime Minister himself spoken against conscription in his radio address to the nation at the beginning of the 1940 campaign? Has not the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated at Markineh, during that same campaign, that the Liberal government would never enforce conscription of manpower for overseas service? Again recently did not the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) go to Montreal in early December of 1941 and advocate opposition to this measure in the province of Quebec? Did not the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) also repeat recently his opposition to this measure which he called nefarious and futile. Has not the Prime Minister himself endorsed not only commitments against conscription but also promises made against any participation in empire wars by the then Minister of Justice, by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) and the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), when he wired Mr. Francoeur on December 26th, 1937, the following:
Lotbiniere electors have voted as Canadians who put national interest above all else.
I could submit evidence to the fact that English-Canadian Liberals, with the Prime Minister at their head, have just like French-Canadian Liberals advocated in this country, particularly in the Province of Quebec, a policy of non-participation to foreign wars and, right up to recent weeks, given solemn pledges against conscription. The country must surely be aware that they are all equally responsible in trying to win over public confidence by making false promises, as the Prime Minister admits.
Why are the Quebec Liberal leaders, the honourable Minister of Public Works and his friend, the late Mr. Lapointe, alone called upon by the Prime Minister to justify their stand before imperialistic opinion? The Prime Minister makes it necessary for us to denounce his ingratitude for those and for him to whom he owes his present position and all the honours conferred upon him; he would have us believe that his friendship for the late Mr. Lapointe, his friend and benefactor, was as artificial as the tribute to his memory paid by him in this house on January 21st last.


Mr. BRADETTE:: What shameful language!


Joseph Sasseville Roy: It is a fact. To such evident proof of opportunism and lack of sincerity on the part of the Liberal party, I would add further evidence, more concrete proof, if I may so express myself. Let us look up page 363 of the Parliamentary Guide, Mr. Speaker, where the numerical strength of the various parties is mentioned. We see that in 1921,
out of 117 Liberal members, Quebec had contributed 65 to the Liberal party. In 1925, 60 out of 101; in 1926, 60 out of 116; in 1930, 40 out of 88. Up to that time, then, Quebec constituted the main element in the Liberal forces. But in the 1935 elections, we note that the other provinces swelled the ranks of the Liberal party by adding to the 55 members from Quebec a contingent of 116 other members, making a total of 171. The new Liberal family has still grown with the 1940 elections, when Quebec contributed 61 members out of 178 or 185, if the Progressive and Independent Liberals sitting on the government side of the house are included.
Therefore, the Liberal party has started to implement its armament programme after the elections of 1935, that is in 1937, while the new family had a decided influence on the old. That was the beginning of the Liberal government's evolution towards a policy of war.
As the moving power of the Liberal party's opportunism is now coming from a different direction, the Prime Minister immediately endorses the policy of the imperialistic group forming the majority and hardly conceals his relinquishment of former policy and his severance from former supporters. The Liberal party expounded its former policy to the French population in order to climb into power. To remain in power, it now endorses the policy of the other group. This purely opportunistic evolution is the direct cause of the violent conflict existing at present between our two main racial groups whose training is so profoundly at variance.
These are the ghastly straits into which the Liberal party's opportunism has enticed the Canadian nation by promises and pledges from which it now requests a release. Before imposing conscription on Quebec, we shall grant it a plebiscite. As the government will not be released from its promises and commitments regarding conscription by Quebec, but rather by the other provinces, this, in itself, evidences the opportunism and trickery of the Liberal party.
At this dangerous turning-point of our history, I believe, Mr. Speaker,' that all Canadians of good will, who are desirous of maintaining national unity, so indispensable in this hour of grave danger and who are desirous of not endangering our war effort unanimously supported for the fostering of the general interest, should react against this wave of opportunism which threatens to plunge us into disunion. We should all oppose the holding of this plebiscite which all groups of the Canadian population disapprove for various reasons.
The Address-Mr. Roy

The present trend of events more and more convinces me that conscription would be disastrous for our war effort as well as for the future of the country.
Popular confidence, especially among our youth, has been badly shaken by the pronounced depression of 1929 to 1940. Let us not forget that the financial interests, who have enlisted the conscriptionists as standard-bearers, have abandoned our youth to moral and physical suffering during that long period by the fact that they have deprived it of the enjoyment of our national resources which they make so much about to-day. What right have we, of forcing our youth to rush, on strange lands and at the cost of life, to the defence of those assets, a share of which was heretofore denied them?
The government has given us a foretaste of what may be expected if conscription is resorted to. On a request from Great Britain, they have sent bright and gifted young men to Hong Kong before they were properly trained. They were removed to China, lacking the necessary armament to bolster the defence of an insufficiently fortified outpost. May I be allowed at this point, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that about one hundred of these unfortunate young men came from the Gaspe constituency, to offer my sincerest sympathies to their families who endure such frightful anxiety and who dread the news they have been awaiting for nearly two months. We have to fear the recurrence of incidents of that kind if conscription for overseas service is enforced.
In view of the disunity now prevailing and increasing in alarming proportions from day to day, the best advice we could offer the government and the opposition, is to respect the pledges taken by both parties during the 1940 election. On this condition, it may yet be possible to maintain confidence, peace and harmony.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that I shall vote against the main motion and the amendments because I am opposed to the plebiscite and to conscription, measures that I consider as inopportune.
I fail to see how else I could act. It would be useless to speak against conscription and then vote for the adoption of the speech from the throne announcing the holding of a plebiscite to grant the government the freedom they wish for imposing conscription when they please. We should fear, if this threat ever becomes a reality, to be accused of complicity and hypocrisy.


John Knox Blair: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to express our deep gratitude to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the splendid harmony he has brought about among the nations with which we are now associated. For years he has sought to be friendly with the United States. He brought about trade agreements with that country; he established the British preference, and he maintained friendly relations with the British empire. He was the medium that brought the Americans and the British together, and I consider that the meeting of the leaders of those countries on the high seas was the work of our own Prime Minister. Hon. members will remember when the British empire was somewhat antagonistic toward Russia, and will also remember the attitude of this government, which sought to maintain friendship with Russia. To-day we are glad that this spirit guided our leader. I hate to think what might have happened if we had not dealt kindly with Russia in those times. Our relations with China have been almost perfect for many years, and now these countries are in harmony in support of the British empire.
The Prime Minister has been a master not only in international affairs but also in promoting unity within this country itself. He had at his side, of course, an equally strong advocate of unity in the person of the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. We in Canada ought to realize that in some respects the people of Quebec may be a little different from the rest of us. They left Europe three hundred years ago, and their songs and their hearts are all for Quebec. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) is of Irish descent. He puts on his orange lily and speaks at orange gatherings on the 12th of July. His heart goes back to old Ireland. I put on a bit of heather and march to The Road to the Isles played by the pipes; we sing the songs of old Scotland, an odd psalm and Mary oj Argyle. Our hearts go back to the land of our fathers. So it is with the Sons of England. Why, when you gather with the Sons of England in Toronto you would think there was no place on God's earth except England. But that is not so with the people of Quebec. They are more parochial; they are true to the country in which they live; they marry early, have large families, and think home is the ideal place. So we must accept them as they are. But this war is the war of Canada, and we are receiving splendid support from our Quebec friends. They are showing a spirit of true patriotism, and will continue to do so, but we must not expect them to love the British isles as you and I love them. Our

The Address-Mr. Blair
hearts and souls go back to Britain. If we thought anything might happen to Britain, we would be unable to express our feelings. Britain was the home of our fathers, and that makes a vast difference in our feelings toward it.
I do not like this defeatist talk that one hears almost everywhere one goes. Defeat is something we should never mention. It is true that other empires rose and fell. There was old Babylonia, but drunkenness and debauchery were the only things it wrote into history. It was weighed in the balance and found wanting. Then came the Persian empire. It wrote into history only one thing of importance, one thing that maintained it for many years, the word "truth". That word is still commonly used in the Liberal party. The people of the world had confidence in the Persians, but eventually they came to worship the god of Bacchus too freely and fell into drunken ways. Then came the Grecian empire. Their contribution was science and education, but they too fell by the wayside. They also worshipped the god of Bacchus too freely, and Alexander died a drunken wretch. Then came the Roman empire, and it established the word "law". Our laws are based almost entirely upon Roman law. We were part of the Roman empire for four hundred years. Four hundred years is a long time, equal to the time from the reformation to the present day. We fashioned our laws upon those of Caesar. We got our churches from the Romans, and the Roman empire lasted for many years because it had a more solid foundation than the previous empires.
We come now to our own empire. Why should it endure? It will endure because of the ingredients of which it is composed, because of the ideals and standards that go to make it up. We in the British empire have the word "truth" well established; that is well known the world over. We have the education and the sciences of the Greeks. We have a nobler, a larger vision; we have the love of humanity, and the brotherhood of mankind is stamped upon British people as it is upon no other race. We do not proclaim these things as much as we should among our own people. We do not altogether appreciate the opportunities we enjoy. For instance, there was Rufus Isaacs, who was a wharf rat. He went to India, where he stayed for a few months, returning to England as a waif, but eventually going back to India as viceroy. Opportunities of this kind are not accorded to the people of other nations. Take the Boer leaders; they were our bitter enemies; but after Britain defeated the Boers, they became true British subjects. We must remember that in the British empire there are practically no conquered races. They are given the privileges of freedom and citizenship and can rise to the highest levels. We saw Mr. Thomas sitting in one of the seats of this chamber not so many years ago. He was a blacksmith in England, and through his own efforts he rose to become minister of labour there, one of the highest honours his country had to give.
These are things that go to build up the heart and soul of an empire. But not only are we true to our own citizens; we have a kindly feeling toward all other nations. This is shown by those who rallied round us during this time of war. The other nations have confidence in the spirit of Great Britain; they have confidence in the truth of the British word, and they understand the kindly spirit that goes with it.
I believe we do not tell enough about our own race. Not long ago I asked a man where a certain German lived. That man said to me, "You know, he is a German, and we should take our hats off to Germans." I said, "I always touch my hat in deep respect to every race, but I take my hat off to none." He said to me, "They are above us in matters of culture, education and scientific development. What is your profession?" My reply was, "Well, I am a medical doctor." My friend said, "Where would the profession of medicine be without the Germans"-and he began to take his hat off. As a matter of fact he took his hat off two or three times, and asked me to follow suit. But I said, "Oh, no. Do you know about the plagues which have taken place in this world, and cut people down by millions? Do you know about smallpox, and do you know that the person who made a cure possible was Doctor Edward Jenner? Do you know that the circulation of blood was discovered by Harvey, an Englishman? Supposing I were called out to attend a case of appendicitis, and I had to go to a hospital, what would call the hospital for me but the invention of Alexander Graham Bell of Brantford, an old country Scot? Then, when I got to the hospital, who would disinfect all instruments used in the operation but Lord Lister of Edinburgh? When I put the patient on the operating table to be chloroformed, who gave us chloroform, if it was not old Doctor George Ferguson of Glasgow, the discoverer of anaesthetics? When I got my cheque for performing the operation, who would be behind that cheque? It would be William Paterson, a tramp from the highlands of Scotland, the founder of the Bank of England and all other banks."
The Address-Mr. Blair

We have a fine race of people, and we do not take our hats off to any. This ought to be made known. We do not tell our own people about our race, and I hate to see anyone sitting over here in sham modesty while we hear the Germans prate about their accomplishments, their culture and even their songs and music-and I do not like any of it very much. They say, of course, that it is better than ours, but so far as I am concerned it is not.
May I draw the attention of the house to the singing we hear from Toronto. Probably I should not criticize that city, but if one listens to his radio he will soon find that they do not even know how to sing God Save The King. They do not know the difference between "the king" and "our king". We must remember that when we sing "God save our king", the word "our" is the possessive, personal adjective, and refers to the personal king. When, as in the last line of our national anthem, we sing "God save the king", we are singing something altogether different. The expression "the king" is more comprehensive, including the British people, our institutions, our courts, our churches and everything else. But in spite of this fact we hear singing in churches and lodges-I was going to say in Toronto, a place where I often go-which does not seem to take notice of this fact; they sing the last line, "God save our king." While in Windsor I heard a judge of the supreme court singing the words "God save our king" in the last line of the national anthem, and I said to him, "Don't you think you are a little off the tune?"
I stand to attention when I hear the singing of "God save our king", but I stand doubly to attention when I hear the words "God save the king." And here is another thing: When we are singing God Save The King we mean that we are trying to cooperate with every form of democracy. Yet when our Prime Minister was elected by the largest majority ever accorded any prime minister, the men down in this front row got up and fold him to get out. They would not stand for his being Prime Minister; they wanted someone else in his place. I say that those men who wanted the Prime Minister to vacate his seat after the people elected him were all off the tune, and they did not understand the meaning of God Save The King.
There is a vast difference between "the king" and "our king", and we ought to recognize that difference. One should listen to those churches in Toronto. I did so, the last Sunday I was home. They were singing, "God save our king", and I said, "Oh. they are just those Irish Orangemen over in Parkdale." But

my wife was listening to the radio in the evening, and she heard the congregation at Old St. Andrew's singing the same way. So heaven help Toronto if they make no distinction between "our king" and "the king"! They sang it wrong in both churches.
When we sing God Save The King we should try to harmonize and put that thought into every speech made in the house. The House of Commons should be a great choir. When we rise in our places to make our speeches, are we singing God Save The King, or are we trying to disrupt? Are we trying to condemn the government unnecessarily, or are we trying to harmonize through the government a spirit of democracy and coop^ eration? Are we trying to sing God Save The King? I hear it sung in the churches, and I can think of no place it should be sung more frequently than right here in the House of Commons. This is the place where we should sing God Save The King. Every time a man rises in his place, I say, "Is he singing God Save The King when he is making his speech?" I appreciate the fact that frequently he is, but sometimes he is not.
I should not criticize Toronto, but its club rooms are dangerous places. I have great respect for the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson): I knew him years ago, and I consider him a noble leader. But he went to Toronto, and spent a night or two in those club rooms. After coming out he gave one of the silliest speeches possible, making references to friendship between the Prime Minister and the United States. It was a sort of political ballyhoo, and was done for political purposes. That speech was one of the hardest blows, not to him personally, but to the Conservative party.
The sooner we get together and realize that we have leaders, that we must stand behind them, that we must support them until the war is over, the better for all of us. After the war is over, do what you like with them; Vote them out when election day comes. That is the way to sing God Save The King.
The reeve in my home town is the hotel keeper. At the time of election I fight against him, but as soon as he is elected I shake hands with him and say "God save the king"- to myself, of course. I am a coroner and a health officer. I can send a man a summons to serve on a jury. If I am going to sing God Save The King I should enquire from him if service on the jury meets with his convenience. I should not be a dictator. Then I have the right to expect cooperation. We must have cooperation so far as possible, whether we are in office or whether we are members of an opposition. If we are going

The Address*-Mr. Henderson
to sing God Save The King we must have cooperation and harmony. I sincerely hope that this will be the key-note of every speech made in the house. If we are not in tune with that sentiment, we should be, and should be ready at all times to sing God Save The King.


Mr. C. A. HENDERSON (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, being a new member of this house I have not taken up much of its time in debate. I have done most of my talking to private members, the acquaintance of whom I have tried to make in committees and party caucuses. I have taken most of my problems to the departmental offices. I have taken this course because I sit on this side of the house where we are in such great numbers. I have thought it best to leave the talking to older members, more especially when I consider the great cost of carrying on these debates. I had thought that this debate would have been finished in three days, but it is now going into its third week. I am reminded of the advice given me by a good friend out west who quoted from a biography of Disraeli. When Disraeli was Prime Minister of Great Britain he was asked by a new member if he thought he should speak at the first session. Mr. Disraeli said: "Well, on the whole I think you had better not, for it is always better to have the people wonder why you do not speak in the house than to have them wonder why you do." I think that is pretty good advice for a new member.
I represent the constituency of Kindersley in Saskatchewan, named for Lord Kindersley, president of the Hudson's Bay company. I desire to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his government upon the contents of the speech from the throne. The mover and the seconder of the address in reply, the Prime Minister and the ministers of the government who have spoken in this debate, have made a splendid contribution in outlining our war effort to date and our future war plans. I came to this country some thirty-five or thirty-six years ago when thousands and thousands of immigrants were going into western Canada. We went 85 to 150 miles south of the railroad at Battle-ford and we considered ourselves real pioneers in those days. Among the farmers who settled there were many business men and we all worked together. As additional lines of railway were put through the country, we endeavoured to build for the future. Villages were put up, and banks, lumber yards, schools, churches, hospitals, flour mills and so on were built. Under the leadership of the Hon. Mr. Motherwell, the Hon. George Langley, the Hon. Mr. Dunning and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) we were helped by the provincial government to erect creameries and1 cooperative elevators. Manitoba under the leadership of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) and others carried on a somewhat similar programme.
We ploughed straight furrows; we tamed the wild lands; we built our homes and erected better schools, universities and so on. We tried to build a citizenship that would be an asset to all Canada. As time went on, more railroads were built through the district, and soon the 150 mile stretch I mentioned was crossed by eleven lines of railways. Mr. James J. Hill said that if these lands were properly tilled and cultivated, they would provide tonnage for a railroad not to exceed a distance of ten to eleven miles on either side.
In those days we had markets and we prospered. We got along quite well until 1911 when we had our first setback. Our lands depreciated at least $5 an acre under the defeat of reciprocity. The United States was the first to pass the act, but they left it on the books for a number of years and we enjoyed their markets and got on splendidly until 1917. At that time more markets were opened abroad and we were asked to produce more products. The west was opened up to a greater extent than it should have been. Some of the lighter land was broken that never should have been broken. In the district where I am farming we have heavy land, dark chocolate in colour, known as edge-grain soil. This soil ranges in depth from fifteen to ninety feet and is able to store considerable moisture. We shall be able to produce crops on this land for many years provided it is properly tilled and cultivated.
Conditions changed considerably during the dry years and during the economic war that preceded this physical war. We lost our markets during the depression and now we are faced with accumulated debts. Many of our farmers have had to go on relief while others have lived on their capital and profits made during better times. We had to ask for debt adjustments and readjustments. Banks and schools closed and many lost their homes. Federal, provincial and voluntary debt adjustments have run into several millions. We have been seeking monetary reform, lower rates of interest and assisted markets, but we still have in mind the establishment of a central bank. We feel that we should have this because, when the war is over, we hope to be able to bring debtor and creditor together. Only by doing that shall we be able to settle with most of our creditors at two dollars to one on occasions.
The Address-Mr. Henderson

With the help of these adjustments many of us were able to save our homes and we built up a morale that is becoming stronger day by day. The crops in 1939 were quite good and we managed to pay off some of our mortgage and machine debts. In the meantime, however, we have lost much money and many of our people. According to the last census the representation of Saskatchewan will be reduced by four, if the ratio with Quebec is applied. It would seem that our province is the dead-end province as it was called by one of the press representatives now sitting in the gallery. That may be the truth, but it hurts. We are, however, ready to stay on and win. This reduction in representation was referred to last night by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven), and I have his permission to associate myself with what he has said. I think Saskatchewan should receive the same treatment as has been given to Ontario on two or three different occasions. That province has been able to maintain its membership at eighty-two members and, according to my figuring, based on the Quebec membership the Ontario membership should be only seventy-four. If something could be done to equalize the representation as between the east and the west, it would help us very much.
I have heard it said on the floor of this house that if we cannot get on, we should get out. Even though our numbers are fewer, we are ready to remain loyal to Canada. Even though it happened that we were no longer in the federation, we would still be loyal ' to the empire and would continue to deal with the motherland via the Hudson Bay railway and to fight Hitler to the end to prevent his entry into our wheatlands. We have preached Canadian citizenship to all our people. In fact I have been doing this work myself more or less from coast to coast. After all, we are all good, loyal citizens.
Perhaps I may be permitted at this time to say a word with regard to the Hudson Bay railway. If Jim Hill had been permitted to exercise the charter he asked for in the early days, he would have built up an empire in that north country. He would have opened up those mineral lands just as he opened up the lands in the lake Superior district, and all this would have been greatly to our advantage. The mineral wealth of the pre-Cambrian shield has hardly been scratched, yet the two or three mines operating there have justified the expenditure twofold, and in any event it has been very largely paid for by western Canada lands. There is ample power in the north, and if through scientific development and discovery we should be able to have that transferred, it would help us industrially. We

have no great quarrel with labour and industry in this country. It is simply a question of agriculture having been the first to suffer and the last to recover.
I come now to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which has been referred to this afternoon, and which was passed under the administration of Mr. Bennett. Perhaps that is the act which my hon. friend opposite had in mind when he spoke of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, with its provisions extended under the present Minister of Agriculture, has done a lot of good, in the opening up of grazing pastures and the rehabilitation and reclaiming of many abandoned farm lands. Much more could be done along that line. Much more could be done for western Canada in the way of irrigation, if the waters were stored in Tramping Lake coulee and other large coulees. That would be better than paying money out for relief, and with irrigation we should be able to grow our feed, fodder and garden produce to make a livelihood on the prairies, without having to ask our eastern friends to come to our aid. The cheques that have been paid out by way of bonus have helped to raise the morale of our people and are much better than relief cheques. Rehabilitation would, I believe, be a splendid investment for the whole of Canada. We want to cooperate with all Canada, east and west, right across, in regard to agriculture, and so far as we are concerned we are quite prepared to assist the east with lower freight rates to aid in the movement of feed grain and fertilizer, and would support subsidies where necessary.
I believe that it would be a good thing to guarantee the price of live stock until one or two years after the war. I believe that would encourage our agriculturists to go into the raising of live stock more than they are doing to-day.
I should like to refer to the brief which was submitted recently to the wheat committee of the cabinet and the government by the 440 farmers from Saskatchewan, in which they asked for an initial payment of $1 a bushel for wheat, parity prices, and an amendment to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act as outlined by my colleague the member for Swift Current (Mr. Graham). I had his permission to be associated with him in that, and I shall save time now by not going into the matter in detail. In my portion of the country, for which I can speak, we have every confidence in the wheat committee of the cabinet, which was headed last year by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), the other members being the Minister of Finance (Mr. FEBRUARY 17, 1942
659,
The Address-Mr. Ferron
Ilsley), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). We know they have our interests at heart just as they have at heart the interests of all Canada. They have a very difficult problem to handle, and we know, too, that they realize that our problem is great. We are not asking for anything unfair or that would make the west a burden on the treasury, but now after more than two years of war there is a great need for food for the armies, particularly in view of the one billion dollars worth of supplies that is being appropriated for Great Britain. During the first war the wheat board brought the price of our wheat down, but we believe the time has come when we should have fair play and a fair chance. We are quite prepared to cooperate with labour, with whom we have no quarrel at all.
Surely in the new order that is to come when the war is over, we shall be rid of tariffs and trade restrictions, as outlined by Prime Minister Churchill, President Roosevelt and our own Prime Minister, so that our goods will move freely into the world markets.
With regard to the plebiscite, I think that is the only honourable way of dealing with the situation. The plebiscite is not definitely conscription as yet, but I think the hands of the government should be freed so that if the need for conscription arises, the government will be free to bring it in. So far as conscription being an issue in the last campaign is concerned, in my constituency it certainly was an issue. My opponent came out for conscription in his first address, while another opponent of mine was said to be a pacifist. I supported one hundred per cent total war, with a balanced agriculture and industry, and man-power sufficient to provide all the required equipment and to keep our supply lines open.
All things considered, I think our war effort has been a splendid one for a small nation of eleven million people. I think it would be well if we were more tolerant with one another, and then we should get on better, particularly with an educational propaganda, in which, as I have good reason to know, most of our French-Canadian members have been engaged over the weekends, as I myself have been doing in the west. The first volunteer we had in my constituency in this war was a Ukrainian, a returned man. We have many Germans there too. A German lad came to my farm to take my first boy's place. He was born in Germany and naturalized in this country. He afterwards volunteered and is now overseas. We require a united people, and I think we can
accomplish that with proper educational propaganda. We should be tolerant of our peoples, as Churchill is tolerant of Eire, south Africa, India and all the peoples of the British commonwealth. I listened to his speech the other night when he spoke of divisions among us, and I think we should take that lesson to heart.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that we now have Japan arrayed against us, but we have the United States in the war on our side, with all her great resources, and I do not have any fear that we shall be able to equip China and Russia and the million and a half Poles who are anxious to be armed. I am sure also, without any question of doubt, that we shall be able to complete the job. I shall have pleasure in supporting the government on the main motion.


Mr. J. E. FERRON (Berthier-Maskinonge) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the session of 1942 offers a very strange spectacle. That the opposition should blame the government because the speech from the throne does not provide for conscription for overseas service and that two or three conscriptionists in the Liberal ranks should join in this blame, is in no way abnormal. But that a dozen members professing anti-conscriptionist views, as I do myself, should rise against the government because the same speech from the throne leads them to expect recourse to conscription for overseas service, and that they should vote with the avowedly conscriptionist opposition, is something that cannot but disturb a mind as little complicated as mine.
I would not for anything in the world wish to offend a single one of these hon. gentlemen. I do not question their sincerity and I know they will pardon my telling them in all frankness that I fail to understand their conduct. I cannot understand their making a profession of confidence in the Prime Minister and ending it by saying, "I have my doubts." I cannot comprehend their making eloquent assertions that there is in this country only one party leader capable of giving to the nation a government that is wise and that truly conforms to the aspirations of those who really seek national unity, and then declaring that they will not support that leader. They describe as nefarious the policy advocated by the Conservative opposition and its leader, but when it comes to voting the address in reply to the speech from the throne they intend to place themselves at the side of the latter and to vote for and with him.
It is this confusion, Mr. Speaker, which prompts me to rise in my place and explain the vote I shall shortly be called upon to give. My views have not changed since the 1940

The Address-Mr. Ferron
election. I then solemnly pledged myself to oppose any measure providing for conscription of the youth of my country for service overseas, and to-day I say to the leader of the Conservative opposition (Mr. Hanson), "Go no further!" I say to him that he shall not pass with his amendment which contains the following clause:
Completely mobilize the wealth and material resources aDd, 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.
There is no doubt that this motion, particularly after the explanations subsequently given by the hon. gentleman who moved it, is one for complete conscription for overseas service. Moreover, it involves non-confidence in the only government in which I have confidence. For similar reasons I shall vote against the amendment moved by the leader of the C.C.F., the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) who likewise demands "total mobilization of wealth, industry and finance, as well as human resources."
Having voted on two occasions against motions requesting conscription for overseas service, my views in the matter can admit of no doubt.
I shall now revert to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. What does it contain? I see in it three main propositions: first, an enormous and total effort for our national defence, accompanied by a thousand sacrifices to protect our territory and help our allies resist the enemy across the seas; second, improved national selective service; third, the plebiscite.
Regarding the first proposition, I admit, Mr. Speaker, that the words "effort" and "sacrifice" are not very attractive. But thinking of the axis menace which is daily becoming graver, thinking of the enemy submarines prowling close to our shores, seeing our freedom in jeopardy and also pondering upon the value of this freedom which I heard my venerable parish priest, Canon D. Baril, appraise from the pulpit in the following words: "Never forget that under the shade of the British flag we enjoy a greater freedom than if we were free"; I would fear that if I gave a negative vote the people of my constituency and the people of my province, who want to neglect nothing to properly defend their homes, their farms, their churches, their parochial and municipal institutions and, above all, their freedom, would reproach me some day for not having agreed to those many sacrifices. In any event, I prefer being sorry for having done too much than feeling remorse at having done too little.

With respect to national selective service- for the defence of our country, be it understood-I strongly approve such a measure. I support it because it will allow farmers' sons who are indispensable to the operation of their farms-they are very numerous in my constituency-to remain on the land and produce the foodstuffs required to feed our armed forces, our factory workers and also our allies who are fighting the same fight as we are. I am in favour of selective service because I wish our hardy woodsmen to return to the forest at the proper season and get out the lumber so greatly needed for shipbuilding and countless other war purposes. In a word, I want every one to be kept where he is the most useful, in the best interests of this country.
I now come, Mr. Speaker, to one of the most controverted matters, the plebiscite. If I were to consider the feeling in my constituency as reflecting the opinion of Canada as a whole, I think I could say without any fear of being mistaken that a plebiscite is not necessary. On behalf of my constituents I would tell you: Our people want to win the war. They want to do their utmost to preserve our freedom. They are willing to accept the greatest sacrifices for the defence of our territory and they are voluntarily enlisting in great numbers to help our allies overseas. But among the numerous means of achieving victory, one only is distasteful to them: compulsion as regards overseas service. We have done our duty so far, and we are more than ever determined to do it in future. But my constituency is not the only one in the dominion, my province is not the only one in the confederation, and since the last general election many important events have happened. More than a dozen nations have been overrun by the enemy, the United States, then neutral, is now at war and Hong Kong and Singapore have fallen. In view of this situation, could I voice any objection to a question being put to the Canadian people? As regards the reply to be given, I intend to tell my constituents: "Consider the situation as it is to-day, and analyse all the facts until the date of the plebiscite. With your usual good judgment try to foresee the possible trend of the enemy action and then without passion and prejudice, vote according to the dictates of your conscience". That is the course I shall follow myself.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and to summarize what I have said, let me state that I have always been, that I still am and that I shall always be in favour of sparing no effort for our national defence. I am opposed to conscription for overseas service, because it is

The Address-Mr. Corman
intrinsically recognized as harmful to Canadian unity and further because it has been proven quite unnecessary.
I shall vote against both amendments because they are in conflict with the latter principle, and also because they have the character of motions of want of confidence in a government to which the opposition itself cannot direct any sound criticism.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote for the address because I believe in preserving national unity; this I think I can do only by supporting my leader the Prime Minister as well as the man who has assumed leadership in my province, the honourable the Minsiter of Public Works and Transport (Mr. Cardin).
Before I resume my seat, I may say that if I had the needed authority, I would direct to my friends and colleagues from Quebec a last appeal as follows:	You as everyone
else have the duty of looking into the future. But on the other hand, you have no right to ignore the past of the two great leaders, I have just named. Both have reached their second quarter of a century of public life. And their past speaks for itself. With you I beseech Providence not to remove them from our midst, but when, to my great comfort, I see the principles of Laurier and Lapointe ever advocated and ever triumphant, I say: those are hot men who die forever. Their pleas for union, harmony and common sense remain alive in our memory.
I have just mentioned the name of the Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe. Tribute has already .been paid to the memory of that great man; and in words that expressed my own thoughts much more fittingly than I could voice them myself. However it is my desire that the vote I shall give in a few hours, at the side of his son the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Lapointe) should be a tribute to his memory and to the principles of tolerance and harmony to which he devoted his life.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. E. H. CORMAN (Wentworth):: In rising to make my contribution in this debate my first words must be of congratulation to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) did very well, as did also the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald). May I add that I have a very high regard for the hon. member for Brantford, since his riding lies
adjacent to the constituency of Wentworth which I have the honour to represent in this house.
Wentworth, as every hon. member knows, has been represented in this house for a long time, but this is the first occasion in some years when it has been represented from this side of the house. I do not, however, take the stand that I am here to speak exclusively for the Liberal party. I feel that I also represent the county of Wentworth as a whole.
May I at this point pay tribute to the late Gordon Wilson who represented this riding for twenty-four years. Although we disagreed politically, the late Gordon Wilson was a very fine man and highly regarded in his community.	.
Let me at the beginning inform the house of my views on the big issues now before us. I am personally in favour of total selective service for overseas or anywhere in the world. In that view I think I represent the great majority in my county, both inside and outside the Liberal ranks. Wentworth has a record of which any county might be proud. More than one hundred and twenty-five years ago people in the county of Wentworth were repelling a foreign foe. Her sons have taken part in every fight since, and the contribution she made to the first great war was no small or inconsiderable one. In Wentworth county we take the stand that the fight for Canada does not begin on the shores of Canada. Wentworth county boys have fought all over the world and are willing and anxious to do so at this time.
In making the statement that I am in favour of total selective service I am not influenced in any way by the committee of two hundred whose headquarters seem to be in Toronto and who apparently are backed by influential mining interests. As I see it, their patriotic zeal is not so much impelled by love of country as by love of power. I personally do not admire their super-patriotism; they are apparently willing to sit behind their golden towers on Bay street and try to force the boys to go and fight for them. It is all very well to wrap the union jack about their wealthy' well-fed persons and call on someone else's sons to defend their wealth. I think it very fine that we should have total selective service, but not because this specially privileged group wants it. Nor am I so sure that conscription is their real goal. I think conscription is really a red herring across the trail, which, if the signs were marked properly, would point to a return to the abuses of the last war. The committee of "two hundred" dress their front windows with conscription, but let us see what they have in the back of the shop. Concealed under the counters is
The Address-Mr. Corman

national government, and with that enormous power, and a little further back but ready to bring out later are such things as abolition of the excess profits tax and the destruction of the price ceiling. This committee of two hundred, who use conscription as a come-on, also have in mind the return of a great many things which made the last war linger in an unpleasant way in the nostrils of not a few people. We want no shameless exploitation of the war to make a new crop of millionaires, and we want no conscription under these terms. The purpose of this conscription ruse, as initiated from the "two hundred," is to get the gold crowd into power. If they get their way, the rest of us will be reduced as quickly as possible to economic vassalage. We shall become hewers of wood and drawers of water to Bay street.
I said I favour total selective service, and I do. But it should not be obtained by the means the Toronto group seek, namely, to ram it down our throats like a gestapo order. The proper way is to obtain it through a plebiscite. This government made certain definite pledges in 1940. I am not going to linger long over this point since it has all been gone over so often, but the government now asks to be relieved of its non-conscription pledges. When that release is obtained, as I believe it will be, then the government will be free to do as it sees fit.
When that release is obtained I intend to press for total selective service anywhere it is required at that time. Let there be no doubt how and where I stand on this. I want to see total selective service put into force by the will of the people of Canada; not instituted by a little group of fascist-minded people who would split the country wide open to get their way. It may be that in the matter of total selective service, properly and constitutionally introduced, I would go further than they, but I want to go about it in the democratic way, the Mackenzie King way.
Here I should like to read an article published in the Hamilton Spectator on January 23, 1942, in which the editor of that paper comments on the government's decision to take the plebiscite. The Hamilton Spectator is an independent newspaper; its views are read and respected by many people in Canada. The policy of the Spectator is directed by Mr. Fred Ker, an outstanding citizen of Hamilton, who has always been very proBritish and pro-empire, for which he is to be admired. His opinions are highly regarded. I quote the editorial:
Prime Minister King will seek an expression of the will of the people to determine their attitude on the issue of conscripting Canada's

man power for overseas service in this war. A plebiscite will be submitted to them in which they will be asked to release the government from any past commitments which restricted the methods of raising men in this dominion for military service.
In resolving to pursue this course, it is difficult to see where the Prime Minister is impairing this country's war effort or doing violence to empire unity. Rather does it appear that he is striving to prevent the very disunity and bitter division which some of his partisan opponents are charging him with fomenting.
Mr. ICing's course should appeal to all even-tempered persons as a reasonable one, and also the most satisfactory way of settling this issue. After all, there is no safer tribunal in a democracy than the people themselves. Their voice ought therefore to be heard; and the premier has ensured that it shall be heard. His present position is consistent with his past stand on this question. On the outbreak of war he told parliament that no conscription for overseas service would be enacted so long as his government was in power. Later he again said that he further construed the verdict of the people, in the general election of March, 1940, as a mandate from them that they were opposed to conscription for overseas service. In the face of those facts, he should not be expected to repudiate his pledges. Were he to do so, he might invite widespread discord and reap serious results. The Conservative party leadership and candidates made no issue of Mr. King's position at the last election. They stood indeed on the same anti-conscription ground.
The speech from the throne implies that an affirmative response is sought from the people; the government asks to be "released from any obligations arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service." Canada's war effort to date has not been either feeble or meagre; so far as it has gone, it has been wholehearted and generous. That Canada can enlarge this effort is admitted, and plans are now well advanced by the government to gear the country for total war. A policy of national selective service will soon be in operation whereby the federal authorities aim to place every available person in the job for which he or she is best fitted to serve. The human and material resources of the dominion will be totally mobilized to intensify the production of munitions and foodstuffs; the armed forces will be expanded, all with the purpose of giving the fullest aid to Britain of which this country is capable. Financial provisions are also to be made on an unprecedented scale, and the wealth of Canada is to be drawn upon by an orderly and equitable process to the utmost limit of its capacity.
Premier King's government need thus make no apology for the war-time leadership it has given the Canadian people. But it is not disposed to carry that leadership beyond the limits of the mandate the people have given it as regards conscription for overseas service-not until the people themselves authorize this step. If the plebiscite rejects compulsory selective service for overseas the fat will indeed be in the fire and it is hard to see how either a national election or a new parliamentary alignment that would disregard the plebiscite and enact conscription regardless of consequences,

The Address-Mr. Corman
could be avoided. Certain it is that one way or another we must have compulsory selection for service on any battlefront in the world.
Let me quote also part of another editorial from the Hamilton Spectator of February 10, which was written after the recent byelections :
The outcome, on the whole, is gratifying, inasmuch as it reflects an ability on the part of the people not to lose sight of the vital issues even in campaigns that were marked by such excesses of strife, party cleavage, class prejudice and confusion as these contests were. Representative government still means something in Canada, and the electors who voted yesterday have shown that they are quite capable of discharging their responsibility and not becoming lost in a foggy atmosphere of extreme partyism. In three constituencies, at least, they make it plain that their faith still reposes in the administration of Prime Minister King; and they have given him a mandate not only to carry on, but to prosecute Canada's war effort with increased vigour and adopt every measure that will contribute to that end.
The editorials I have just quoted represent the thought and feeling around Hamilton, and I have placed them on record in order that everyone in Canada may know the fair-mindedness of the press in the vicinity of Hamilton and their attitude toward the government's decision to take a plebiscite.
To turn to the question of money, it may become necessary that all profits be conscripted. We may reach the point where we shall so desperately need money to carry on this war that we must resort to this extreme expedient. We may have to take all capital, wherever we can find it, however we can get it, to prosecute this war to a successful conclusion. So we may have to have fiscal conscription, too. But this is nothing new or drastic; all these powers have already been given us under the National Resources Mobilization Act. We have only to take what is already ours. But we hear precious little from this total war group about this kind of conscription. Could it possibly be that, fearing the present government might just do that very thing, they want to get into power in time to stop that move? Conscript the boys by all means, they cry, but hands off our dividends!
I want to point out to those who seek conscription so eagerly and violently that conscription is only one part of a part of our war effort. The trouble is this. There are quite a few people in this country who think that the proper way to fight a war is to get a lot of men together in a hurry and send them some place; it does not matter where you send them, or why, or how; just send them, and the war problem is solved. To me, this ostrich-like attitude gets nobody anywhere.
First of all let us look at the man-power situation. We are already ahead of the last war, in the number of soldiers we have available for service anywhere in the world; in other words, we are better fitted in man-power in this war than in the last. But that is only part of it. In the last war our air service was very small in numbers. This time we already have raised over 100,000 men, and a steady stream of recruits is on the way. I do not have to emphasize the magnificent series of airports developed all over Canada since the beginning of the war. The erection of these is due entirely to the untiring work of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). They deserve great credit, and I believe the people of Canada are realizing this more and more each day. It is a mighty effort in itself, and will do much to win this war, since it has been shown in past battles that an army without air force protection is helpless against the enemy. I sincerely believe that the air force will play a very large part in our future campaigns. Let us pay homage and respect to the gallant boys who fly against the enemy, especially the brave lads who fly the bombers over Germany. The people of Canada and of the world owe them their deepest gratitude.
In addition to the activities of the air force, let us not forget the activities of the Royal Canadian Navy. In our navy we have hundreds of ships manned by the gallant boys of Canada. Every day we read of their exploits and see where some Canadian destroyer or corvette has left its mark upon the enemy. According to figures recently released, we have over 30,000 men enlisted in Canada's navy, and it is expected that another 13,000 will be added this year, as soon as ships can be provided. The people of Canada, especially those who live inland, do not realize the enormous work our navy is doing. It is indeed a big war effort in itself; and if we only knew the hardships and privations that these men undergo, we would surely take off our hats to these gallant seamen.
Now let us come to agriculture. My constituency is mainly an agricultural one, and the contribution our farmers are making, not only in Wentworth but, I am sure, in every other constituency in Canada, is a vast one. To feed the defence forces of Canada is a huge war effort in itself, let alone sending enormous quantities of wheat, pork, eggs, cheese and canned fruits and vegetables to Britain to feed our brothers in arms overseas. The farmers are certainly doing their part. May I interject at this point that I believe the government should have some yardstick
The Address-Mr. Corman

for the postponement of the training of farmers' sons who are really producing agricultural products for the winning of the war. For instance, I would suggest that the last boy on the farm should not be taken; and in the case of a large farm, where two boys are producing twice as much, I think there should be a further postponement. I feel sure that if a yardstick for postponement were established, there would be less confusion in the minds of our farmer friends as to the calling of their sons for military training. As it is now, they cannot get help on the farms and are worried continually that their sons will be called, leaving them with no help. I agree with the policy of the government that men in industry, really doing a war job in the manufacture of munitions, should receive postponement of training, and I believe this is being done at the present time. I would suggest also that the age limit in the proclamation be raised to thirty-five, because I know there are many single men in Canada above the age of twenty-four who are doing very little to support our war effort. I believe these men should be called before farmers' sons are interfered with, and I would ask the government to take this into serious consideration.
Part of my riding is one of the most highly industrialized portions of Canada. At a later date, and in a later speech, I hope to make more extended reference to Wentworth county, of which I am proud. But I may say now that the workers in Wentworth who are turning out the sinews of war very much resent the allegations of the total war committee, who see no other effort in this war but military enlistment. The workers believe that the man behind the man behind the gun is important also. I do not < intend1 to dwell on the war worker unduly, but I do say that Canada's whole war production has been magnificent. Starting from nothing we have reached a productive capacity little short of amazing. There has been no industrial development like it in the history of this or perhaps any other country. This is due to the management of the present government, and especially to the work of the Minister of Munitions and Supply. If you seek to blame any administration for its shortcomings, as the opposition is only too ready to do, then you must also give credit to the administration under which such vast strides have been made.
Then there is the question of finance. To me this is a highly important part of our effort, and great credit must be given the government for their assistance to Great Britain at this time, in the gift of a billion

dollars and the lending of $700,000,000 without interest. I have not time to go into the question of the financing of this war, but it is reaching unbelievable proportions. The ' time may come when the money system should be changed. For instance, why not have an internal currency separate and apart from our external currency for the payment of imports and exports? In other words, why not arrange with the ether allied nations to agree on an allied dollar, to be used for international purposes only? If we had such a system, we could do pretty well what we liked1 with our internal dollar, controlled, of course, by loans and taxation. With the government's present policy of a price ceiling, we could have controlled inflation.
While dealing with the subject of finance,
I should like to protest in the strongest possible terms against the decision of the wartime prices and trade board to subsidize the importation of canned grapefruit juice. In the first place, this commodity should be placed on schedule 1 under the Foreign Exchange Conservation Act, and therefore would be embargoed. However, as it is allowable for imports, I can see no reason why the people of Canada as a whole should pay somewhere around $200,000 a year subsidy to United States importers.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Better give it to the
growers.


Ellis Hopkins Corman: I would lift the price
ceiling and let those who use canned grapefruit juice pay for it. When we have so many good fruit juices for sale in Canada, such as tomato juice, apple juice, loganberry juice, carrot juice and many other juices, I cannot see why the importation of canned grapefruit juice should be encouraged.
In conclusion, I want to repeat that I am for total selective service of man-power, and woman-power if necessary, to win this war. I agree to some extent with the subamendment in believing that if we are to have conscription of man-power we should also have conscription of wealth and industry. I believe that everyone should put everything he has into a common effort to win this war. I also believe that any young man's life is worth more than all the money in the country, and that we should have equal sacrifice as nearly as possible for everyone. I have sufficient faith in our leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), to carry us through to victory, and I would ask the people of Canada at this time to place their faith in him, because I am convinced he is the only man in Canada who can keep Canada united successfully to prosecute this war.

The Address-Mr. Tremblay
Five times my leader has been returned to parliament by the will of the people. I have, therefore, more faith in the man who has had five mandates from the people than anyone else in Canada I know of. I intend to vote for the plebiscite, and ask the people of this country to vote "yes," so that the government's hands will be free to do what they think is best for our nation.


Mr. L. D. TREMBLAY (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, since 1940 it has seldom been my privilege to take my seat in the house. I must admit that while I may be almost a veteran in the house, I almost feel that I am making another maiden speech, and that indeed I am desperately young.
May I apologize to hon. members for not having had the time in preparing my few remarks that I should have liked to have. I take great comfort however in seeing you, Mr. Speaker, in the chair. For the first time in my experience in the house I am going to attempt to deliver my speech in English, without the aid of notes.
Since June, 1940, I do not believe I have been in the house more than half a dozen times, and many changes have occurred since that date. May I take a moment, however, to add an expression of deep regret upon my failure to see in his seat, where particularly we Quebeckers were so happy and proud to see him, the late Minister of Justice, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. In these times of struggle, these tragic times, he made a great contribution to Canada's effort. In Quebec he was not only considered our leader, but recognized as a great Canadian. When we fail to see him in his seat we are indeed reminded of our great loss.
I had not intended at first to speak in this debate. From the camp in which I am now on duty I followed as best I could the trend of discussions in the house. I have been gratified and happy to see so many of my French-speaking fellow citizens from Quebec voicing their views and, under circumstances such as we have to-day, they did well to do so.
It is not my intention to add anything new to the debate, because I believe practically all shades of feeling in Quebec have been expressed, and other hon. members from other parts of Canada have spoken for their constituencies. I wish, however, to be somewhat outspoken concerning my stand on several points which I shall now detail.
First, I wish to consider Canada's war effort. Then I shall discuss Quebec's participation, and make some observations about Quebec, a province which in my estimation is not understood in every quarter of our country. I
desire to point out that not only am I opposed to compulsory military service for overseas, but in such opposition I am expressing the views of my fellow citizens in Quebec. I wish to say why that is so.
Let me add that we shall carry on. We are doing our very best, our utmost, for the great cause of civilization, the cause of freedom of mankind which our leaders in Quebec and other leaders across Canada have asked us to support, to fight for. I shall also say why we take this stand.
For the past several months I have been stationed outside my own province, and for the last four months I have been living in close proximity to the queen, and so greatly discussed, city of Toronto. I am perfectly happy to be there, and I am doing my utmost to understand a mentality different from that found in Quebec. As a matter of fact I sometimes have the impression that one is as far from the other as the north pole is from the south. If narrow-minded citizens are to be found in the province of Quebec, they are just as likely to be found in the queen city, in any other province of the dominion or in any place in the world.
On January 26 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) attempted to answer the question that everyone in Canada seemed to be asking-what is Canada doing; what is our navy; what is our army; what is our air force? This question was being asked during the election campaign, and I find the answer given by the Prime Minister reported on page 36 of Hansard. He said in connection with our navy:
At the outbreak of war, there were some 20 ships and less than 2,000 men in the Royal Canadian Navy.
At the beginning of 1940 the navy had grown to 80 ships, and over 5,000 men; at the beginning of 1941 the numbers had risen to 175 ships, and 14,800 men. At the beginning of this year the navy comprised over 350 ships and 27,600 men.
With reference to the army he said:
At the outbreak of war the permanent active militia, as Canada's regular army was then called, included about 4,500 men. By the end of 1939, the Canadian Active Service Force, to give the armv its name at that date, had increased to 64,000 men. The first Canadian division had just arrived in Britain.
At the close of 1940, the active army included almost 170,000 men. A Canadian corps of two divisions had already been formed in Britain. Canadian troops were also on active service in Newfoundland, the British West Indies and Iceland.
At the close of 1941, there were more than 260,000 men in the Canadian active army, enlisted for service in any part of the world. About half this number were on active service outside Canada. A third infantry division, an
The Address-Mr. Tremblay

armoured division, an army tank brigade, forestry troops, and other specialized units, and thousands of reinforcements were in Britain, in addition to the original corps of two divisions.
About the air force he said:
At the outbreak of war the active strength of the Royal Canadian Air Force was some 4,000, all ranks. By the close of 1939, the strength had risen to over 8,000; by the close of 1940, it had reached 43,000; by the close of 1941, it exceeded 100,000 men.
Is that the total of Canada's war effort? I could read pages and pages of facts cited by the right hon. the Prime Minister, which demonstrate that Canada's war effort is large and magnificent. Its magnitude has been recognized and praised by people outside Canada as well as throughout the world. The Prime Minister referred to another aspect of our war effort, as reported on pages 35 and 37 of Hansard. He stressed the importance of our contribution in food, munitions, machines, ships, aircraft, tanks and other supplies of all kinds. Canada's war effort in these items is surprising and amazing. As I said, we have had testimonials from outside Canada, and we find one in the Toronto Telegram, that paper so often spoken of. Commenting upon a visit of what they termed key men to Toronto arsenals and munitions plants, the Telegram had this to say on January 26:
Key men of democracy's arsenal pay Toronto surprise visit.
Munitions experts from U.S. tour Toronto war plants are impressed with work.
"Most encouraging," Roosevelt's personal representative says-praise for women.
Here is what Milo Perkins, personal representative of President Roosevelt had to say:
"Our inspection of your plants was very interesting," he said. "We covered a lot of territory in the brief time at our disposal. I *was particularly pleased with the plant of Research Enterprises Limited. It is a manufacturer's paradise. It is just w-hat a plant should look like. The trouble with many of our plants is that they are old and have not always the modern machinery we saw to-day.
I was also greatly impressed by the number of young women working in the plants we visited. They all seemed capable and intelligent. They appear to be fine types of citizens who are doing important jobs and doing them well."
These experts stated that they had learned a lot in their few hours' visit to some of our war plants. The article continues:
The size and production capacity of the plants inspected yesterday was both surprising and encouraging, Mr. Currie, the president's representative, said.
"We have learned a lot which we can't discuss at this time," he added. "I will say, however, that it is most encouraging to the people of the United States to realize how much Canada is capable of doing towards our common cause, in the Pacific and in the Atlantic."

Testimonials of that kind are much more comforting than some of the speeches which were made in some of the constituencies in the last by-elections. They are more comforting than some of the things we heard from a gentleman who has been in public life but who, I hope, is not likely to be in public life very soon again. He belittled Canada's effort, so much so that true, loyal Canadians had reason to be ashamed and veil their faces. Fortunately that gentleman encountered defeat. Then why ask for conscription? Why give the world the impression, or at least try to give the impression, because as a matter of fact you cannot fool the world, that Canada is not doing its utmost? Why deny the facts? Why insist on having conscription? A headline on the other side of the very same page of the very same newspaper might help us to understand why. The article is entitled, "Defence, excess profits and corporation taxes said in line for boost-Canada's war financing problem also likely to bring further controls on buying." Why should the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) tax excess profits heavily? Why should the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) put a limit on contractors' profits? Was the Canadian government not doing that already? It is a hundred chances to one that but for that gentleman to whom I have referred we would never have heard about conscription at a time when things were evidently going very nicely and when Canada should have been more than proud of the gigantic effort we were making. Why bring up this conscription question which, it has been said in this house by some of my fellow members from the province of Quebec, could only bring about misunderstanding and hurt Canada's war effort as a whole?
In the province of Quebec we have many a reason and every reason to be not only happy but very proud indeed of the efforts of our French-speaking province in this war. May I quote what the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) said the other day, as reported at page 250 of Hansard of February 2. He was speaking of Canada's efforts during the last war compared with this war and said:
I am reminded of figures which we sometimes forget, that of all those gallant gentlemen who went in the name of Canada in the last war, I believe only about 125,000 were Canadian-born.
In the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, we can say that we are all Canadian-born. In the other English-speaking provinces of the dominion, in the city of Toronto, for instance, a large proportion of the citizens came to Canada quite recently, within the last ten or fifteen or twenty or thirty years. They were born overseas. Some have been born in Canada of parents who came from overseas.

The Address-Mr. Tremblay
I perfectly understand the feelings of these citizens of Canada and can well understand their anxiety in matters where Great Britain or the British empire is deeply concerned. I have sometimes been shocked at hearing what I had considered good Canadians talk of this Canada of ours as "this country". Evidently their affections, their heart and soul, were first of all with the old land, England. Their parents, their brothers and sisters and other members of their families may be over there.
But with the citizens of Quebec province it is different. In Quebec, especially in the rural constituencies such as Dorchester county, which I have the honour to represent, practically every citizen's father is lying in the parish cemetery. His grandfather might lie there, and his great grandfather. We are rooted in the Canadian soil and have been for two or three centuries. We have no other country. We have no motherland except Canada. Canada is our only motherland. It has been said that we in the province of Quebec are not world-minded. We cannot be. Nor are we empire-minded. We are Canada-minded, and it must be said too that we are a bit Quebec-minded. Sometimes I have had the question put to me: What is the matter with Quebec? Well, here is one answer, and I hope when I have given it, that whenever the question is asked again throughout this Canada of ours, what is the matter with Quebec? We might answer with another question: What is the matter with you? Quebec, a province composed of wholly Canadian-born, has given to the navy up to October 31, 1941, 4,077 recruits; to the army, almost 50,000 recruits; to the air force, almost 800 officers and to other ranks of the air force over
11,000	voluntary recruits. I have been asked not to give exact figures, but we can put the total number of enlistments in all arms of the service as pretty close to 70,000.
We have had some handicaps; we surely have. May I quote from an article entitled "Language Difficulty" in Maclean's magazine of August 1, 1941, and let me say that I personally had experience of cases over a year and a half ago of many French-speaking electors-welders, electricians, radio operators and so forth-who wanted to join the Royal Canadian Air Force but were refused because they could not understand English. These are facts of which I know. This is what Maclean's magazine says:
Take, first, the air force. In setting forth qualifications for young men desirous of becoming pilots, observers, gunners and navigators, an educational standard was necessary. So one was written into the rules. It entailed, among other items, fluency in English, in which language the commonwealth countries happen
to be conducting the war. Other yardsticks were required and these, too, were established. In general they may be described as those of the Ontario educational system. They were not set up by the politicians, but by the qualified top men of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
These are facts.
But the major language of Ontario is not the language of Quebec, and the education standards of Ontario are not those of Quebec either. Quebec schools of the higher learning have leaned from the time of their inception toward what are generally called the liberal arts. Not until June, 1941, for example, did Laval university produce a course leading to the degree of mining engineer satisfactory to the Corporation of Professional Engineers of Quebec. Ontario, on the other hand, carries the student along more rapidly in the subjects classed under the science heading.
That is one handicap. Nethertheless we can boast of this, and I may give the testimony of the provincial secretary of Quebec, speaking on November 24, 1941, of what is being done in that province:
Ships are now being built in Canada in such numbers and at such speed that soon our yards will be turning out a volume of tonnage comparable with that produced in England. Much of that shipbuilding is now being done in the province of Quebec.
You all know of the expansion of the Canadian navy: from thirteen vessels to about four hundred, in two years, is not a bad record. Not only have many of those vessels been built, but much of their equipment, including guns of various calibres, has been made right here in the province of Quebec. Ships have been manned with competent officers and crews found and trained on the banks of the St. Lawrence river.
Rifled cannon barrels, as well as the controlling mechanism, consisting of wheels and cogs, springs and pinions and levers, are being fashioned by Quebec craftsmen who are conscious of their responsibility. They know that the failure of a part may mean the failure of a gun, and the failure of a gun may mean the failure of artillery support for their own brothers and sons locked in battle with the enemy.
High-speed tanks, too, are rolling off the assembly lines right here in Montreal. ... In Quebec we are producing more in a week than was produced in a month in the last war.
So much for what we are doing in a material way. Now, what about manpower? Quebec can justly boast that it provided the first full regiment of infantry in Canada. It was a French-Canadian regiment.
Le Regiment de Maisonneuve.
It was recruited to full strength under its gallant leader, Colonel Robert Bourassa, himself a veteran of the last war, and who unfortunately, after proceeding to England with his unit, has now been invalided back and lies here paralysed. He led the van of Canada in recruiting and the sympathy of all Canadians must go out to him now, to console him in his suffering.
His was the first regiment. The two regiments which followed in recruiting to full
The Address-Mr. Tremblay

strength were one from Ontario and the other one again from the province of Quebec. Several other regiments, both English-Canadian and French-Canadian, have gone from this province.
These are facts which are known to all and which it is right to recall in times like these.
That is what Quebec has done. Now, what is Quebec doing? We are increasing our production. We can boast of one plant in particular, which is being operated in Sorel, the city of the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), which experts marvel at, and the war products of which are going all over the world. The premier of the province and all our leaders, religious, civil and political, have brought home to Quebec the ideals for which we and our allies are fighting. Recently the premier of Quebec said:
More than ever determined that the war must bring us triumph, Canada's largest province is leaving no stone unturned in seeking means to have its share of the national effort in keeping with its important place in confederation. Its sons, worthy representatives of whom the old French province may well be proud, are serving under the colours on divers fronts. Behind them stands, solidly to a man, the whole population of their province, with an indomitable will that their effort under arms be rendered effective by the total employment of every resource of the home front-mines, forests, the land, production and service -to the great end of victory.
Progress is enormous in every department of our governmental service and every domain of our economic life. Our proverbially sound business and industrial organization has been raised to unprecedented proportions, and in its entirety is being utilized in the battle for freedom.
Our beloved leader whose departure we regret so much, and whom I mentioned a while ago, led us towards this war effort, and we are proud of it. He fought prejudices wherever he met them, and we belong to his school. We are proud to be his disciples.
But there are things we cannot understand; things in which we cannot acquiesce. I have reference to the sort of appeal to prejudice w'hich has been made in recent by-elections against the province of Quebec, belittling everything and ignoring totally the contribution of that province in the present war. One cannot believe for a minute that speeches such as that reported in the Toronto Evening Telegram., made by that dear Doctor Shields, at Aurora, can improve the situation in circumstances such as we are living under to-day. I would not care to put any of his divagations on Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: But if such men really wanted to contribute to Canada's effort, they would not preach disunity; they would avoid everything tending in that direction.

Now, sir, why is the anti-conscription sentiment so strong in the province of Quebec? That is a known fact; it has been so apparent in the house since this debate started, that Quebec stands to a man against conscription. We are against conscription. Why? Precisely by reason of the means and ways by which conscription was just thrown at us in 1917. We are willing to do, we are indeed doing all that is humanly possible. But hon. members may remember the discussions that took place in this house in 1917 and before the general election of that year on conscription. Quebec then was the billy-goat. The way conscription was put into force in Quebec was atrocious, just terrible. There was an evident will to misunderstanding. In our little parishes you can go into practically every house in the county of Dorchester and in every rural county in Quebec and they will tell you what seem like wild stories; they will tell you of their youngsters, seventeen and eighteen years old, quite a number of whom had hardly left their own parishes before, had never seen a soldier or a khaki uniform. They were working on the farms with their fathers -and that is another respect in which Quebec may differ from other provinces; the son to-day is working his father's land, and his father may be the second or third generation on that same land. Well, what happened when conscription was brought about? Military police were sent throughout those Frenchspeaking parishes in Quebec province and at night pulled these boys right out of their beds and, without being able to give any explanation of what was happening, brought them down to the drill hall. It is this procedure which brought about this testimony which I found in Maclean's magazine of January 15, 1942:
No matter how things may appear on the surface in Quebec, the fact remains that the word "conscription" is still the issue of the hour, even with our own Pacific coast an imminent danger zone. And yet, strange to say, it is not the question of service to the state or the democratic cause which is the burning issue, but the use of a word which has come to enjoy a grisly connotation in French-Canadian minds . . .
Many people believed the Jap attack on the United States would bring about an immediate volte face. It did not, with the new battlefield of the Pacific barely opened the Hon. Arthur Matthewson, English Protestant provincial treasurer, and a Black Watch officer of fine fighting record from the last wrar, was on the air speaking of "sinister forces" at work to destroy national unity through their insistent drive on this one bogey-word. He Bpolce of certain sections of the press. It is a well-known fact that Matthewson was gunning primarily for the Montreal Gazette and, in lesser degree perhaps, for Jean Charles Harvey's Le Jour, the very name of which is anathema to French-

The Address-Mr. Weir
speaking leaders of church and public life. The Toronto Telegram may also have been included.
All that is associated in our mind in Quebec with the personality of Arthur Meighen. Can you imagine anything worse? He was, rightly or wrongly-we are convinced rightly-blamed for what happened in 1917. At any rate it would have been sinister to see that same Meighen returned to this house. - This writer appreciates that so well that he said:
The latest point is Arthur Meighen. Feeling here is that if the Conservative party had definitely wanted to assure itself of no seats in Quebec at the next federal election, even though Meighen steps down before that time, it could not have made a better leadership selection.
That is a truism in Quebec. How could well-intentioned people expect, or how could it be explained, that those who undertook that conscription campaign, knowing these facts, really wanted to increase Canada's war effort? They merely wanted to secure power; that is quite obvious. Fortunately for Canada, fortunately for peace and good understanding throughout the country, the good and sensible citizens of Quebec were guided rather by common sense than by appeals to prejudice. Let us hope this may indeed constitute a lesson, painful as it may be, which will assure harmony and goodwill and cooperation from all sections of Canada.
It has been said, I have heard it in the house since this morning, that another good, kind-hearted Conservative member would resign his seat in the house to give Mr. Meighen another chance. I say-Give Canada a chance, not Mr. Meighen. Here I might make a practical suggestion. I am sure he would be defeated anyway in any constituency in Canada wherever he decided to run; why sacrifice one of the remaining Conservative seats in the house? We have a county open in Quebec, Charlevoix-Saguenay; send him there; the result will be the same.
The reason why we in Quebec like the present Prime Minister and support him and have confidence in him is just because of the psychological fact that he understands Quebec, or at least seeks to do so; he is fair; he is just; that is his record, and we are prepared to support him again, even if we have one or two defections.
I should like to quote from the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 12, following the recent by-elections.
In countries where the British flag waves no politician ever permanently wrecked his career by taking a courageous stand in a good cause which failed at the moment to prevail. Let Mr. Hepburn and Colonel Drew remember the career of Lloyd George. In 1900 he narrowly escaped death at the hands of an irate mob
in Birmingham, who resented his pro-Boer sympathies, and within eight years he was chancellor of the exchequer and the idol of the working classes of Britain.
They need not have cited this example; they could have mentioned the case of the present Prime Minister, in 1917, which would have given the same lesson to Mr. Drew and the others.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the fact that lion, members have unanimously permitted me to speak beyond my allotted time. I appreciate it the more because it is unlikely that I shall be back here very often; that may account for the generosity of my hon. friends.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of hesitancy that I rise to continue this debate this evening, a debate which has been going on now for some time. I am sure every phase of the discussion has been pretty well covered, and no doubt most hon. members would like to bring the debate to a close as quickly as possible. I should like to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. That they acquitted themselves well, no one will deny.
On this, as on other occasions, the speech from the throne provides an opportunity for the widest possible range of discusssion. Anything may be talked about during this debate. It is only natural, however, that the discussion so far should have been devoted largely to the one matter that has created the greatest interest, not only in this house but throughout the country; that is, the reference to the holding of a plebiscite asking the people of Canada to release the government from previous pledges made in connection with one phase of Canada's war effort. It is only natural that the discussion should largely centre round that point, and I should like to confine my remarks this evening more particularly to the same matter.
The constituency which I have the honour to represent in this house is for the most part Anglo-Saxon, and is looked upon as such. At the same time it contains numbers of French, Belgians, Icelanders, Ukrainians, Hut-terites, Germans, and some Czechoslovakians and Norwegians-all Canadians, I may say, but I merely mention them to indicate the complexion of the constituency. While it is trpe that the Anglo-Saxon group is in the majority, nevertheless the other groups make up well-nigh forty per cent of the population of my riding, and of this number the French-Canadians form the largest group. Here again these French-Canadians are representative not only of the province of Quebec but also of France itself.
The Address-Mr. Weir

Naturally there is in my constituency as wide a division of opinion on the issue of conscription for overseas service as is manifest throughout the country at this time. Even so, I have had Frenchmen come to me and say they were in favour of conscription. On the other hand I have 'had English people come to me and say they were opposed to conscription. I had an opportunity to talk with one man who has lost a son in this war. I discussed with him what the government was doing, what its war programme was, and what the programme was for the future. I tried to place it before him in as reasonable a manner as possible. He was a man with a good many contacts among the people, and when I got through I asked what he thought would be the attitude of the people with whom he was in contact with respect to the government's conduct of the war. His reply was that if the people were told what I had told him on that occasion, he thought the vast majority would agree with what I had said.
This conversation brought home to me one other point; that is, the value of the instrument of propaganda in this war. I fear that we have failed to tell the people of this country about Canada's war effort in such a manner as to drive it home and cause them fully to realize what this war means not only to Canada as a nation but to each person individually. Probably we as members of parliament have failed to do our part in this regard, more particularly among our nonEnglish-speaking Canadians. In time of war the instrument of propaganda is so important that I am bound to say I think we should make the best possible use of it.
There is another point I should like to mention, which I fear is not fully appreciated, and again this arises in connection with the French-Canadians in my own constituency. A number of them were called back to France at the time of the last war, to fight with the French armies. Later they returned to Canada. These men are as true Canadians as one could find anywhere, but to-day they are mystified and bewildered as to just what is going on and just what is going to happen. To some extent it is their desire to help the free French, but it is difficult for them to realize exactly what has taken place.
I mention these few points merely to aid in appraising the situation that exists in Canada to-day, because I am sure what I have said with respect to my own constituency could be repeated with respect to other constituencies throughout Canada, in greater or less degree. I keep asking myself, then, what there is to be gained by forcing the issue of conscription at this time. If it would help

win the war, or if it would shorten the length of the conflict, there might be some purpose in urging its adoption now. It is doubtful, however, whether it would do either at the present time. It is admitted that we could not satisfactorily conscript men for the air force or the navy; in fact it is not necessary to do so, since men for these services are coming forward voluntarily in greater numbers than can be accommodated and trained. Then, under our National Resources Mobilization Act the government already has authority to call men and women for home defence, and to place them in any kind of service the state may require. If this authority is not being used to the extent it should be, there may be ground for criticism. That authority could easily be extended to take in a much wider age group, if necessary, and it could be expanded in other directions. If necessary, we could call up men and train them for four or six months, giving them a thorough training and then letting them return to civilian life. This could be done with group after group, making certain that we would have a large number of men in this country thoroughly trained at least for home defence.
The issue, therefore, comes down to the one question of selecting men by conscription for overseas service only. In other words, its application would affect only that group of men whom we might desire to send beyond our territorial waters. The enactment of conscription is not going to change the situation with respect to the postponement of military service, or the method of dealing with conscientious objectors. These items are details of what we already have, and would not likely be changed by the extension of conscription for overseas service. We would likely continue to call up men by age groups; so that feature of the present policy would not be changed.
Here we are; we have, on the one hand, those who propose conscription for overseas service, regardless of anything else; and we have on the other another group just as strongly opposed to conscription as those who are in support of it. The two groups are as far apart as the poles.
Then, also, the people of this country had commitments made to them during the last election by at least the government and the official opposition, to the effect that no conscription measure would be enacted. I should think, sir, that those who supported the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or Doctor Manion during the last election campaign, would all welcome the opportunity of being relieved of the commitments made at that time. Anyone who claims that conscrip-

The Address-Mr. Weir
tion was not an issue in the last election is not telling the truth. For my part I tried to keep it from being an issue; but when a former cabinet minister came to my constituency, visited certain districts, and raised the issue in those places, I had to refer to it as well. I did so simply by reading statements made in this house by the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. I said that I did not know what the future had in store for us, or what changed conditions might bring about, but there was a statement made by a responsible minister of the crown, and as such it must be accepted, for the time being at least, as a matter of government policy.
I was not aware of the position taken in this regard by my opponents in the last election. For the most part I had thought that they, too, had refrained from making it an issue in that campaign. I found, however, in the local press, the week preceding election day, that both of my opponents, in a paid advertisement over their own names, and over the signatures of their respective associations, declared themselves in those advertisements as being opposed to conscription.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Which parties?


William Gilbert Weir: The Conservative party and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. We thus have these two points of view which, as I have mentioned, are as far apart as it is possible to be. We have the commitments which were previously made, and now we have these impassioned and emotional appeals from both sides, appeals which are only opening the gulf wider.
In the face of this turmoil and excitement, and having regard to the experiences of the past, can anyone contend that an appeal by way of plebiscite back to the people is not the sane and reasonable course to pursue? The gulf is too widely open to risk taking any other choice. For my own part I am supporting the proposal for a plebiscite, and I shall ask my constituents to relieve the government of the pledges previously made. I would appeal to them, regardless of their political faith, or to what race they may belong, to support this plebiscite and to vote wholeheartedly to give the government full authority to proceed with the prosecution of the war in whatever manner may be necessary, as occasion arises.
I do not think we can fail to keep in mind what happened in Australia during the last war. In that country, on two different occasions a vote of the people was taken with respect to conscription, and the sending of men outside of that country. On both those
occasions it was defeated. The second time the proposal was made the government gave the measure its wholehearted support, and yet it was defeated by a larger majority than it had been on the first vote.
Having said that, I should like to say something along a little different line. I believe there is some criticism which can be made, and I am surprised that in this debate some reference has not been made to some of these matters. The National Resources Mobilization Act gave authority to call men and women in Canada for any purpose the state might require. I am bound to say that I do not think this authority, so far as the direction of man-power is concerned, has been exercised to the extent it could have been, or to the extent the country expected it would be.
I recognize immediately that it is not easy, and that it takes time to redirect people to classes of work other than those to which they have been normally accustomed. In the province from which I come there is a shortage of men on the farms. That, I believe, is recognized more and more throughout farming areas all across Canada. There is also a reported shortage of men for bush work, and also a shortage of men for some other lines of work. At the same time there are a number of men probably unfit for military service, and unfit to undertake heavy manual labour, who are without jobs. Perhaps we can look upon them as the nonmanual-labour type of men. These men, however, are useful, and they could do much, if they were directed to where there is work to be done. I have had letters from and conversations with travellers who have been laid off. I have talked to men who were semi-retired office men, who are looking for something to do. Apparently as yet we have no plans to use them. I am bound to say this is a feature of our man-power situation which deserves more attention.
Then there is the question of conscientious objectors who were required to perform some service for the state. In Manitoba, for the most part they have been used in the national parks. There is no doubt that they did good work and that they were easy to handle. That kind of work, however, can wait. These men must be put to more useful employment. Under the circumstances which existed last year I am free to confess I do not know to what other type of work they could have been turned. But I feel they should be put to something more useful in the future.
I realize here again-and I do not wish to be misunderstood in this regard-that there are difficulties in the way of utilizing these people.
The Address-Mr. Weir

We had an experience recently which shows the difficulty that arises when we attempt to move a people from one area to another. We must keep these things in mind, and I have an appreciation of what the government is up against in its attempt to reallocate people to different types of work and in different places.
May I here, however, suggest to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) that he give consideration to utilizing the services of these conscientious objectors in essential work, where they could be utilized in groups, under supervision. I have in mind at the moment the production of sugar beets, woodcutting, lumber mill work, and work in some of our coal mines. All these are essential requirements, and all are experiencing difficulty in securing labour.
So far as the sugar beet growers of Manitoba are concerned. I believe I may say that unless some steps are taken to assure them of a supply of labour, the sugar beet acreage in that province will be greatly reduced in the coming year. The beet growers would, I believe, be prepared to use this type of labour. They would be willing to pay to the government an agreed-upon contract price for work done. The government, on the other hand, could continue to require these people to perform a service, and, a useful service, under supervision, as it has in the past. Of course, the government would be required to provide accommodation and pay whatever compensation was decided upon, but it is doing that anyway. If it carried out the. suggestion I have made, it would only be extending that principle a little further. A similar policy might be worked out with respect to the other types of work that I have suggested, and it might be extended to other types of seasonal farm work.
I do not propose to place on the record again what Canada is accomplishing in providing men and weapons of war. This has been done already by others in a most effective manner, and I am sure that the country has now a pretty complete picture of what Canada has done in a very short period of time. I wish, however, to refer to certain other features of our production which I fear are being lost sight of but which, to me at least, are most important. These have a direct bearing upon the extent to which our man-power may be available for military service. These things were of secondary importance during the last war. We are liable to lose sight of what is being done and of what it may be necessary to do in order to maintain the flow of things we are manufacturing at the present time.

Right now our munitions and supplies are going to every theatre of war. Our ships are sailing every sea and our aircraft are to be seen in every sky. Our foodstuffs are available in ever-increasing quantities. Do we ever stop to think of what is behind this effort, the effort that Prime Minister Churchill called magnificent? This is a war that requires equipment superior to that of the enemy, and lots of it. Equipment, planes, tanks and ships are the items being called for. These things require not only men to make them, but men to keep the raw materials flowing and men to move these things to the places where they are required. To illustrate what I have in mind I should like to refer briefly to a few changes that have taken place in our production field during this war compared with the last war. In 1914 our production of aluminum was 13,000,000 pounds; in 1939 this production had risen to 150,000,000 pounds. The comparative productions in other metals are as follows:
1914	1939
Pounds	Pounds
Copper	
75,000,000	608.000,000Nickel	
45,000,000	226,000.000Lead	
36,000,000	338,000,000Zinc	
21,000,000	394,000,000
The production to-day of alloys is ten times what it was in 1914. We are producing our own requirements of mercury and are sending substantial quantities to Great Britain. Our oil production in 1914 was some few' (thousand barrels; to-day it is over eight and a half million barrels. Our gold production is away up as compared to what it was then. Timber production is another important item, and this has been expanded both for our own purposes and to meet the needs of Great Britain. Before the war Great Britain secured immense stocks of foodstuffs from European countries and from other parts of . the British empire. As we know and regret, these supplies have been largely cut off, thus throwing a greater responsibility upon this country to provide these essentials. Our financing arrangements with Great Britain, which have been mentioned in this house on several occasions, amount virtually to an open charge account in Canada for Great Britain. This financing must be of inestimable assistance to the mother country These things are essential, and their production must be maintained, and increased in many instances.
Keeping what I have said in mind, and adding to it our industrial production; our financial assistance; our contribution to the armed forces, to the air force, to the navy; our efforts in charitable work through the Red Cross and other services, one cannot help but realize, having regard to. our geographical position,

The Address-Mr. Gingues
that the contribution of Canada is something of which every Canadian can be justly proud.
For the moment some of these accomplishments are being lost sight of. For the time being our efforts are being overshadowed by developments elsewhere. The centre of the stage is being taken by developments on the battle fronts and the diplomatic activities in London, Washington and Moscow. Our minds are filled with what is happening in Libya, on the Pacific, at Singapore, at Hong Kong and in Russia. The success of the efforts in these far-flung battlefields nevertheless is still dependent to a very large extent upon what we as individuals do on the home front to maintain those in the front lines.
I had intended to refer to two or three other matters, but other opportunities will be provided for that. In 1940 the present government received a mandate to prosecute this war. There is no doubt that the efforts of the government were under review at that time. The people of Canada showed their confidence in the present Prime Minister in a manner unexcelled in the history of this country. When the history of this period is written I feel confident that the name of W. L. Mackenzie King will stand high among the names of the great world leaders because of the part he has played at this time. We entered this conflict determined to see it through regardless of cost, and we are still going to do that. The people of Canada are prepared for added sacrifices; they are ready to do whatever may be required of them. For the most part many are doing that already in their own quiet way, probably about as effectively as if they were under more rigid direction. All they ask is that they be told the job the government wants to have done. They are prepared to do it. The only other thing they ask of those who are directing the war effort of this country at the present time is that the burden of this terrific effort shall be distributed equitably.


Mr. MAURICE GINGUES (Sherbrooke) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues who have already spoken in this debate in congratulating the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) for the speech he has delivered in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I also wish to compliment the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) on the effective manner in which he has seconded that motion.
I regret that I do not have their parliamentary experience on the occasion of my first speech in this house, for, as a matter of fact, I rise to-night for the first time since I have the honour to represent the
constituency of Sherbrooke, in order to express my views to the Parliament of this country in such an important debate.
It has been ordained by Providence that I should deliver my first speech in this house at the most critical period in the history of the world and of our country. But, Mr. Speaker, before coming to the matter which to my mind transcends all others, may I thank the good people of Sherbrooke-a constituency both agricultural and industrial, where citizens of both races give to the country the example of practical and true harmony-for the honour they have done me in selecting me as their representative in the Canadian parliament. I said that I would discuss a matter which in my opinion transcends all others, and I meant the plebiscite. Since the reading of the speech from the throne, much has been written and said about conscription of both man-power and wealth, and the subject has entailed the expenditure of much money and energy. It seems that if we had taken as much care to explain to the nation the reasons for the plebiscite this house would probably be ready to-night to vote on the main motion. But once again in Canada politics had to come before country. Conscription for overseas service is the only thing that some people have seen or wanted to see in this question. The plebiscite does not mean that we shall have conscription, either of man-power or of wealth. Mr. Speaker, the plebiscite is necessary if we wish to continue to assert and proclaim everywhere that we are fighting for the preservation of democracy, for in asking the people to release them from pledges given at the 1940 general election, the administration upholds and maintains the basic principle of democracy, which is the free expression of the people's will. Moreover, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government are acting in an honest and statesmanlike manner; they are showing once again that they do not want to imitate our enemies and break their pledged word.
The plebiscite will in no way tend to hasten or delay conscription, but it is needed because the conflict is drawing ever closer to our shores and a time may come when the Canadian government will be compelled, for the defence of our territory and our homes, to take emergency measures. Let us not forget that the dreadful scourge of war is at our very door and that Canada, our fatherland, is threatened.
Never, as I say, have we faced such a terrible threat and this government know the danger that hangs over us, they are fully

The Address-Mr. Gingues

aware of it. Such is tffe reason why, while it is still time, he is calling upon the people of Canada to appreciate the gravity of the situation and asking them to give him the confidence which he needs, not to apply conscription but simply to be ready at any time to defend Canada and carry out a total and voluntary war effort.
The situation in the Pacific is daily becoming darker, and in spite of the magnificent effort put forth by this country, to use the words of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, the threat to Canada is becoming more and more serious. It would be criminal indeed to let ourselves be lulled by over-confidence and then awaken just a little too late and find ourselves under the yoke of the enemy. This government enjoys the confidence of the people. It received a vote of confidence from the people in March, 1940, when we were already at war. The situation has worsened since then. As this government has conducted the war effort efficiently so far, the people are confident that it will do nothing to weaken that war effort, but will do all that is required for the defence of the country. That does not mean resort to conscription for overseas service, for the government will always be responsible to parliament and the people's representatives remain free to approve or reject the measures submitted to them.
For my part, I will show my confidence in the government by my vote on the main motion and I shall vote against both amendments; for I know that if I am here to-day it is not so much because of the esteem my fellow-citizens have kindly shown me as because of the fact that I was the candidate of the leader of the government, of the Prime Minister. I deem it my duty to give a vote of confidence to the present administration. And all who hesitate to show such confidence in the government play into the hands of those who would overthrow the Prime Minister and disunite us that they may rule. Alas, I know full well that in every parliament the world over are to be found elected representatives of the people for whom a renewal of their mandate is more important than the country itself. In this critical hour when danger threatens everything that we hold dear we must forget re-election and think only of the country. As far as I am concerned, even if it means an end to my political career, I will be doing my duty if my stand is such as I conceive it to be in the interest of my countrymen, my province and my country.

As the only man whom we can confidently trust is our Prime Minister, I intend supporting him by voting for the main motion. It is unfortunate that plebiscite and conscription should appear synonymous in the eyes of certain people. After the speeches heard during the present debate from government leaders as well as from some honourable members, I am convinced that there is no ground for such a conscriptionist measure. On the contrary, it would hamper our war effort.
Since the question of conscription has been raised, Mr. Speaker, I must make known my opinion on this measure and the attitude I will take if it is ever brought before us. Before taking my seat in this house, I was opposed to this measure which I considered unjust and inhuman, neither useful nor necessary. I still hold the same opinion and nothing will change my mind on this point. I oppose conscription of wealth as much as conscription of man-power, for in my opinion we are at this time making the best possible use of Canadian resources. If we stop to consider the taxes which Canadians are called upon to pay, we soon realize that taxation has reached a point beyond which we risk achieving destruction of private enterprise. The present taxes of every kind which must be paid by the humblest workingman as well as by the greatest financier, national defence tax, income tax, excess profits tax, succession duties, are all very well, but it cannot be denied that we have gone far enough and I trust the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), when presenting his next budget, will not increase unduly the burden already carried by the Canadian people and will rest content with the taxes we already have to meet. After all, we cannot ask from the taxpayer more than he can pay.
Notwithstanding all these taxes and all these measures, opposition members attack the government for being unwilling to assume their responsibilities. When has the government hesitated to assume responsibility, I ask you? Was it when they submitted their bill for the mobilization of national resources? Was it when they increased taxation, was it when they forced employers to pay cost-of-living bonuses to their employees or when they enforced that radical but necessary measure of price control?
No, Mr. Speaker, the present government never has refused to assume responsibility. Far from it. They have been wise enough to make it impossible for certain individuals to exploit for their own benefit the financial and industrial resources of the country. This

The Address-Mr. Gingues
explains perhaps the reason why a small group of men would overthrow the Prime Minister, while loudly proclaiming their would-be love of country, trying to appear more patriotic than their neighbour and endeavouring, in this critical period, to divide the Liberal party so as to obtain power and thereafter so direct our war effort that this same group of men may hold sway over the economic life of the country just like they did after the last war. The people must be cautioned against those evil persons who are ready to revive, for the workers and the farmers, the sorry policy of relief and bread lines.
I wish to state frankly, that we are fighting and we shall keep on fighting not only to defeat nazism, but also to ward off the return of disastrous conditions, to increase economic security for the worker and the farmer.
I am opposed to conscription of manpower. In the course of this debate, all kinds of sound arguments have been stated to show that this method has been a failure, but there is another reason on which I would like to dwell. This matter, Mr. Speaker, reminds me of the Canadian mothers. I wish to state that, at this particular moment, I am not speaking as the representative of Sherbrooke constituency only; I wish to speak on behalf of Canadian mothers, whether they speak French or English or any other language, provided they be Canadian. It is for them that I speak against this unfair, useless and inhuman measure; while doing so, I think of the Canadian mothers whose lives are filled with self-denial, devotion to duty, and who raise large families for their country. During the last war, the government of the day, believing that there could be no victory without conscription, enforced that method of raising men. The results are so well known that I need not recall them.
What happened since? Canadian mothers have pondered over this. In the last 25 years the birth rate has fallen to an alarming degree. If we are unfortunate enough to enforce such an unfair measure now, birth control will become more prevalent in the future and, Mr. Speaker, I claim that by the enactment of a law that would undermine the family, we would endanger the very foundation of the nation. We are fighting for the conservation of our property and the continued development of our country, for building a great Canada, a Canadian mentality, a Canadian spirit. This end will never be
44561-434 [DOT]
attained through immigration, but rather by encouraging large families, by showing that we are worthy of the great cause for which we are fighting: Christian civilization.
It behooves us, the parliament of the nation, to act in such a way that the world may gauge the depth of our sincerity. In opposing this measure for this reason based on common sense and truth, I have confidence of acting as a Christian, as a member of a Christian parliament. And whenever consription is brought up, I shall fight it with all my strength. I hope that, at the conclusion of the war, when we see the flag waving as an emblem and a guarantee of peace and freedom, then the citizens of our large cities may erect, on our public squares, not only memorials to our gallant soldiers as a reminder for generations to come, but also monuments to the Canadian mothers.
I wish to say a few words about the province of Quebec, the loyalty of which is apparently questioned by some. Have hon. members already forgotten that on October 25, 1939, the people of that province, called upon to select a government, chose the party which had had the courage to fight for the principle of participation in the war? Has there been a proper realization of the importance of that, election and has due credit been given to -those who were responsible for the result obtained? If Quebec had unfortunately turned out to be what some think it is and *had returned to power the Conservative party disguised as the "National Union" government, Canada's war effort would have been considerably weakened.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to say that on that occasion it was the Liberal party that risked everything and that it was the Liberal leaders who waged the good fight, not the leader of the opposition nor the men who to-day are seeking to divide the nation. On the contrary the whole Conservative organization of Quebec supported the "National Union ' candidates. It seems to me that on that occasion the people of Quebec gave manifest proof of their loyalty and patriotism, as they have given since at every opportunity. There are extremists in Quebec as there are elsewhere, but believe me, Mr. Speaker, their number is small in Quebec as it is small elsewhere.
If I remind the house of this action taken by my province in 1939, it is because of the important effect I believe it has had on our war effort.
Mr. Speaker, the situation is serious, danger is at our door. Let us not wait until we have to defend ourselves at Vancouver, Halifax, Quebec or Toronto. Let us join in a holy
The Address-Mr. Gingues

union, laying aside all prejudice and political passion. Let us put our trust in the best administration Canada has ever had. To those who abstain from voting on the main motion or who vote against it, I say that they are doing a disservice to their country.
As was so well said in his first speech in this house by an lion, member whom I wish to warmly congratulate, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Cote): Let all those who have lately devoted so much energy to dividing the nation now concentrate their activities on helping our war effort, and I am convinced that this effort will remain voluntary and will be able to bring us victory and peace.
The people of the United States are now using a motto which constantly reminds them that they are at war. On all sides they see posted up the words "Remember Pearl Harbor." The regretted Minister of Justice, Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe, speaking in Sherbrooke at the outset of the war, gave us a motto when he said: "One country, two languages, different religions, but only one heart." This is what we see in Canada to-day and what we will always see:
11,500,000	Canadians living side by side, speaking two languages, professing different religions, but with a single heart tending towards the one ideal-the maintenance of democracy as the unshakeable bulwark of our liberty.


Mr. B. M. HILL (Charlotte):: I wish to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) upon their admirable speeches in opening this debate. The experience which they obtained in England, together with their legal training, helped them much and added to the excellence of their addresses.
We have heard a great deal in this debate concerning an all-out war effort. This is a term used to indicate a balanced war effort in which our military establishments, combined with our industrial effort in the production of war equipment and material for the use of our citizens, are so balanced as to result in the greatest possible war effort of our country. This can be brought to one hundred per cent effectiveness only by a certain measure of national selective service. I would add to the criticism of the government voiced by some hon. members this one thing, that a greater proportion of national selective service might have been brought about.

Canada's war effort to-day is second to that of none of the united nations, having regard to our population. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a great deal has been accomplished. I followed for many years his efforts to bring about economic cooperation between the United States and Canada, and between the British empire and the United States. I am one who believes that if this cooperation had been brought about several years ago, it would have had a steadying influence in the world and might have prevented this world war. When the history of this war is written I am sure that the work of our Prime Minister in bringing about cooperation between the great Anglo-Saxon nations will be recognized as one of the most important phases of our war effort.
Since the outbreak of the war the heads of our military, naval and air departments have given outstanding service. The figures covering the expansion in these departments have been given to the house; and I shall not repeat them. But may I say that the successful handling of Canada's financial effort by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is second to that of none of the other united nations. The excellence of his work is being recognized by the people of Canada. On February 10 the Minister of Finance spoke before the Rotary club of Montreal. In an editorial on February 11 the Montreal Star paid him this tribute:
There is, as a rule, very little in financial matters that makes for inspiration, but Mr. Ilsley's handling of his theme was not only masterly, it was inspired. And it stirred responsive emotions in the minds of all who were privileged to hear him. There were passages in his speech that reached a high measure of eloquence, but they were not mere flights of rhetoric. They came straight from the heart of a man who has shouldered a great responsibility and a tremendous task, who is conscious of the immense strain which Canada's commitments place upon the nation, but who has absolute confidence that the nation will not fail.
That is a well-earned tribute. In his speech the Minister of Finance said:
Let me tell you what I think we should aim to do: I think we should aim to make a reputation for Canadian achievement in this war which will be the talk of the world for generations, that will be the pride of ourselves, our children, and our children's children.
I agree with the sentiment there expressed. Let me add that I feel, and I believe all hon. members feel, that no sacrifice is too great for our generation to make to ensure that when those children's children take our places as citizens of this great dominion, Canada will still be Canada.

The Address-Mr. Hill
The work of our Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) sitands out as one of the greatest pieces of organization in our war effort. I know that other hon. members who belong to the engineering profession will join with me in expressing satisfaction at the splendid service given to Canada by a member of our profession. Canada was indeed fortunate that at the outbreak of the war there was a member of the cabinet so highly trained in engineering and whose later experience in industrial engineering had so fitted him for the great task of directing the reorganization of the industrial life of Canada for war. As soon as the war broke out, the minister called many of the best industrial organizers and organizations of the dominion to Ottawa. Many of these men were experts in various lines of industry, and to their credit be it said that they volunteered their services and were permitted by their companies to give their time and effort to placing the industrial life of Canada on a war footing.
There was much to be done at the start; in fact chaotic conditions existed. Canada had but one munitions plant producing war equipment. The whole industrial life of the country had to be changed from peace-time pursuits to a war-time basis. During the first year of the war many of us felt that the progress which was being made was not as great as it should be. But in changing over the entire industrial life of Canada we had to creep before we could walk and walk before we could run, and I believe we have yet to learn to run efficiently enough to enable us to win this war. If, however, one takes the actual production month by month since the beginning of the war, it will be noted that while at first we progressed in arithmetical progression, we are now going ahead in geometrical progression.
When we look at the present output of Canada in war material and farm production we realize that we are well on the way to the goal of mass production, a term which has been used for all-out efficient production. And when we look at the number of people employed on war work and the number in our army, navy and air force, we realize that we are approaching the limit of our manpower along certain lines. There is, however, one large field which, I believe, has not yet been touched; that is in the smaller centres of population in our country. I am convinced that the Minister of Munitions and Supply has organized the great centres of mass production in Ontario and Quebec so well that he may now turn his organizing ability to the smaller centres without hurting production in the larger centres; those centres will go on under their own momentum. But
in many small towns in Canada-and I know for a fact in many small towns in New Brunswick-there are many thousands of men and women who could be employed in ivar work without in any way interfering with the ordinary life of the country. I assume that the work of organizing these people, which has to do with national selective service, will be done by the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) in conjunction with the Minister of Munitions and Supply. In New Brunswick, in the smaller towns of 1,000 to 5,000 population, there are many men and women, men not eligible for war service, who are employed only part time, or employed in non-essential work. These people could be organized to advantage, and I believe it is the duty of the Minister of Munitions and Supply to give this matter his most serious attention at an early date.
In the constituency which I have the honour to represent there are four small towns with populations ranging from 1,500 to 5,000. No war work is being done for the Canadian government in any of these towns, though one small factory in one town is doing work for the British government, in the production of shell boxes. I believe this condition exists also in many small towns throughout Canada. It is just possible that the smaller communities in Quebec and Ontario have had their available labour moved to the larger centres, but that is not the case in many sections of the prairies and in eastern Canada. I know also that when the rationing of gasoline, the rationing of tires, the reduction in the use of automobiles and the reduction in tourist traffic take place, many men will be thrown out of employment in our garages and service stations. They are not men of military age. They are practical mechanics, with many years of experience in this work. These men should be most valuable in the war service of Canada, and steps should be taken at once to see that when they are thrown out of work in the spring, their services will be utilized.
In many sections of New Brunswick there is a feeling of frustration among the people because of the fact that they are not employed at something they feel is of value to the war effort of this dominion. I should like to suggest to the Minister of Munitions and Supply that one method by which this situation could be overcome would be by the appointment of an assistant, or perhaps two assistants, one of whom should be a business man, who would be located in these smaller provinces. They should be located, not in Ottawa, but in the province whose war effort they are interested in building up. Then they could be in constant touch with the local

The Address-Mr. Hill
government, and with industries throughout the province; they would know where labour could be found and could advise the minister as to the steps that should be taken to place industries in suitable locations, where these men might be given employment in active war work.
I have been told that the unit cost of production is far greater in these small centres than in the mass-production centres. I believe this is true, up to the point where you have to bring labour from other sections or other provinces to these mass-production centres. The moment you do this, you have to add the cost of transporting these men. They have to leave their families behind; they have to maintain themselves in these centres. Already the government has embarked upon housing schemes for these workers. If it would take all these costs, which are costs to this country, into consideration, I believe it would find that the cost of extending production in these mass-production centres is greater than would be the cost of production in the smaller places. Then, again, suppose we are not getting the production we should get in these smaller centres, and these people are not taken to the larger centres. This means that we lose a certain amount of production. Supposing a shell produced in a smaller centre cost $2 instead of $1.75. Many battles have been lost in this war because of lack of equipment, and I would rather have a $2 shell than none at all.
I would recommend to the minister that he give most serious consideration to this matter, for I believe that production can be stepped up to a far greater extent by this method in the coming year than by the further extension *of facilities which already exist in the more thickly populated centres of production.
I have some information here which comes from a quarterly review of public affairs published by Dalhousie university, in the city of Halifax. The Minister of Munitions and Supply was formerly professor of engineering at that university, so he should have some regard for these suggestions. In this publication I find that on a per capita basis, in the maritime provinces only one-third of the amount of money has been spent on war products that has been spent in the whole of Canada, When this matter was brought to the attention of the government it was said that in the maritimes we did not have the industrial equipment with which to do this work; but according to this report, having regard to each thousand dollars invested in industrial plant, we still have only one-half as much money being spent in the maritimes as is being spent in the rest of Canada. The greatest injustice to New Brunswick is shown 
in the final figures, which have to do with grants in connection with the construction of industrial plants in Canada. I find that New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island obtained only one-fourth of one per cent of the total amount spent for this purpose throughout Canada, though this district has five per cent of the population of this country. This, I think, accounts for the fact that we are not getting war orders in that part of the country, and for the further fact that there is a feeling of frustration among the workers there.
All hon. members must realize that there is a limit to the man-power that can be secured for military purposes. This is governed by the number of men in our population who are physically fit and between certain ages. The only way by which any increase can be brought about is by new classes coming of age or by the extension of the age limit. There is a grave question in my mind as to whether the extension of the age limit will not result in men being placed in military service who could be far more useful to our war effort in the production of military equipment. While this is true of the men available for war purposes, I am not one of those who believe that our production of materials, equipment and food for the carrying on of our war effort will ever reach a maximum. If this war should go on for another ten years, I think every hon. member is convinced that our production at the end of that period will be greater than at any intermediate stage. The reason is that while our man- and woman-power available for industrial production may reach its limit, the improvement in machines, the bringing into production of more electrical power, and the use of more efficient methods of production will each year enable the same number of employees to produce larger quantities of goods. Then, again, as the necessity arises, greater effort will be made by the man-power employed in the production of equipment.
A great deal has been said in this house with reference to the immediate conscription of man-power for overseas service as an absolute essential to an all-out war effort. After listening to the enlistment records as given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), I am quite convinced that voluntary enlistment has not failed; in fact, that it has not yet faltered. I am one of those who believe that an army of men enlisted for overseas service of their own free will is a far more effective army than one of men who had to be enlisted by compulsion. I also believe that as long as our voluntary enlistment method does not fail, we should not bring in compulsory service for overseas. I believe, too, that an army for home defence

The Address-Mr. Hill
obtained by compulsory service is just as effective in its own land as one which is formed by voluntary enlistment. My reason for making that statement is that the men have the incentive of fighting on their own soil. Therefore I believe that conscription for home service would produce an able and efficient army for the defence of our shores, should that defence be required.
The county and province I represent in the house has, I am proud to say, shown voluntary enlistments for overseas service equal to those of any other part of the Dominion of Canada. In proportion to its population, New Brunswick has the best record for voluntary enlistment in the army, for active service overseas, of any military district.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about Prince Edward Island? They are classed along, with Nova Scotia, but their average is very high.


Burton Maxwell Hill: They are mixed with the Nova Scotia district, so we cannot get the exact figure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, but their average is extremely high.


Burton Maxwell Hill: Yes, I believe it is; but I am speaking of military districts. The voluntary enlistment record of New Brunswick, for all branches of the service, including the navy and the air force, stands with three other districts as being highest in the dominion. Every time recruits have been called for, or a drive has been put on to increase the numbers of those enlisted for active service overseas, the county of Charlotte, and the province of New Brunswick as a whole, have always filled their quota. In New Brunswick we have a mixed population, comprising the two great races of Canada. Approximately one-third of our population in New Brunswick is of French origin. I know all hon. members from New Brunswick, on both the government and opposition benches, and including the house leader of the official opposition party, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) will agree with me when I say that we are justly proud of the record of our French citizens, as far as enlistments for active service for overseas are concerned. They have kept that record up, man for man, according to their population, along with their Englishspeaking compatriots in our province, and I know that all citizens of New Brunswick are proud of this fact. When a further call is made to bring up the strength of our overseas service, New Brunswick will not be lacking.
We have heard a great deal in the house about the conscription of wealth. I say that we have already started on the conscription of wealth. When a country which produced only $10,000,000 from income tax during the whole four years of the last great war, now produces between S600,000,000 and $700,000,000 from the same source within twelve months, we are certainly on the road to the conscription of wealth. It is my firm conviction that when the Minister of Finance brings down his next budget, hon. members and the people of Canada generally will be satisfied that we are increasing the conscription of wealth in Canada.
The government proposes a plebiscite of the people, not to decide the question with respect to compulsory national selective service, but to determine whether the people are prepared to release the government and private members from pledges given during the last election campaign. In that campaign the Prime Minister and other Liberal leaders pledged their party that conscription of men for overseas service would not be brought into force without consulting the people. The leader of the National government party went farther, and pledging his party and himself, stated that he was unalterably and absolutely opposed to conscription. He based his opposition on the fact that during the last war he had supported conscription, and supported the Union government; but he claimed that conscription was a failure at the time of the last war, and that it stirred up so much misunderstanding throughout the country that it had retarded Canada's war effort. He added that for that reason, and because it was the duty of a public man to uphold the unity of Canada, he was absolutely opposed to conscription of men for overseas service. I believe that that speech pledged his party and his supporters to no conscription for overseas service.
The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) was reported in the press during the campaign as stating that his party was unalterably opposed to conscription of men for overseas service. In view of the definite pledges given to the people at that time, binding practically every hon. member, I cannot see how any hon. member can object to referring this matter to the people for their decision, as promised by the Prime Minister. The people are to be asked whether they are prepared to release the government and every member of parliament from the pledges given, and to place full responsibility for every action and decision
6S0
The Address-Mr. Hill

with reference to our war effort squarely on the shoulders of their representatives in parliament.
I, for one, Mr. Speaker, believe that pledges made to the people should be carried out, and I have confidence that the decision of the majority of people in Canada will be in the best interests of the country as a whole. I have confidence that the people of the constituency of Charlotte, which I have the honour to represent, are prepared to make any sacrifice to win the war. If they will by their vote place the responsibility on me as their representative to take decisions on the serious problems which come before parliament-and these problems will be serious, before the war is ended, problems which I believe will affect the entire way of life in the country-I am prepared to assume that responsibility, and do what I believe is in the best interests of Canada, and the war effort of the dominion.


Mr. HECTOR AUTHIER (Chapleau) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, although we have now reached the nineteenth sitting of the house no one has yet forgotten the eloquence and the remarkable reasoning of the mover, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), and the seconder, the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and, after so many others, I also wish to offer my congratulations. Brevity is imperative at this stage and I will be brief.
The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has moved an amendment containing but one point-and it is not striking for its novelty-namely conscription of Canadians for overseas service. His speech, fair enough in form, was spoiled by two or three partisan tirades and certain passages, which I really find quite insulting, where he quoted Lincoln to show off as cowards and slackers those who favour voluntary enlistment. I had attached little importance at first to this quotation from Lincoln, as we are in the habit -save perhaps for the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot)-to overlook many things from the leader of the opposition. But since hearing this same quotation from the lips of the honourable member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), I could not overcome the urge to protest.
Needless to state that I do not hold anything against Abraham Lincoln, who never spoke a word about us.
The generous soul of the great emancipator must be very sad when Tories use his words to insult people whose only' crime is to be loyal to their country first and above all. Lincoln
[Mr. Hill.)
fought to preserve unity in his country; but our Tories are doing their utmost to divide theirs.
No, French Canadians are not cowards because they are opposed to conscription for overseas service. On the contrary, they endure sarcasm, abuse and severe retaliation on the part of a fanatical press and others. They accepted conscription for the defence of our country without a moment's hesitation; they will accept it also for the defence of the continent. They have approved the policy of voluntary participation and have generously contributed to Canada's war effort outside the country.
Why did they do it? To please their compatriots of Anglo-Saxon origin who were naturally and spontaneously drawn in this war by the call of blood. We certainly hate nazism, that German form of superimperialism which is repugnant to our Catholic mind; but such ideological considerations would have been insufficient to make us vote for war. The reason why we voted with our fellow Canadians of Anglo-Saxon origin, whose feelings we understand and appreciate, resides in a true desire to cooperate with them. Since then, we have been cooperating with them throughout. But we are not ready to accept conscription of man-power for overseas service, which would only result in disrupting the country without adding anything worthwhile to our war effort. Our English-speaking fellow Canadians should, instead of pressing this point, abide by the well defined attitude which prevailed when we entered the war. When the defence of Canada is at stake-the urgency of which is daily becoming greater-French Canadians are prepared to make all necessary sacrifices. I am one of those who believe that we should have larger home-defence forces, better equipped and better trained than those we now have. Too many people are apparently obsessed by the idea of sending overseas as many of our soldiers as we can. It is a fixed idea with them. And in a changing world like ours fixed ideas must be looked upon with a great deal of suspicion.
People who have neither learned nor forgotten anything since the last war are dangerous people.
How much nearer to my heart is the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) who so ably manages to analyse fresh developments and the changing aspects of the world drama, and who knows how to draw from them the conclusions of real interest to us. When the history of this country is written, his prudence and circumspection will assume a legendary character. And it is this sage among sages

The Address-Mr. Authier
who has been attacked and vilified throughout the country by a press in the pay of narrow and fanatical partisans, worthy successors of those who, in the last century, set fire to the Canadian parliament buildings and cast stones at a noble representative of the King in Canada, the father of our constitutional liberties. Fortunately, the majority of the people see clearly in the matter and, on February 9, those enemies of the Canadian mind already reaped part of the punishment they deserve and which will surely be visited upon them.
I anticipate with much pleasure the forthcoming entrance into this house of the victors in the recent elections: my old friend the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Saint-Laurent); my former colleague in the Quebec provincial legislature, the member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Fauteux) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), whose special ability is everywhere acknowledged; and, finally, the vanquisher of the Tory leader in the constituency of York South. Since this latter victory. I think less unkindly of Toronto.
Incidentally, I wish to tell the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation that I share many of their views in the field of economics. I shall not, however, support the amendment proposed by their leader. He goes too far. We cannot, in the midst of a war crisis, risk so radical an economic and social revolution. But the after-war will bring a new order which will surely borrow something, perhaps a good deal, from the doctrine to which they adhere. With the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) I suggest to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well) and to the leader of the official opposition that they withdraw their amendments so as to make the adoption of the address unanimous, as it should be.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot resume my seat without saying a few words about the proposed plebiscite and a few other questions which command the attention of my electors and of parliament.
The war takes a new turn from month to month, and sometimes oftener. We must be prepared for any emergency.
I said a moment ago that I would have no objection to our conscripts serving for the defence of the American continent. But it would be necessary to modify the existing act for that purpose. The Prime Minister, wishing to be true to his promise and to respect the will of the people, is asking by means of a plebiscite to be freed from all obstacles that would prevent him from adopting measures which the government might deem necessary.
I have enough confidence in the Prime Minister to support him on this occasion. All measures submitted to the house later on will be judged on their merits. Moreover, the electors will be free to vote according to the dictates of their conscience on this plebiscite.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) is asking the Canadian people to subscribe to a $600,000,000 loan. I wish him all the success possible, but I must say frankly that the circumstances are not as favourable in my district on this occasion as they were for the preceding loan. Rumours have been heard that the gold mines may soon be forced to curtail their production. Miners and those living in mining towns, alarmed at such rumours, will naturally keep their savings instead of buying government bonds. They are likely to forget that government bonds are for all practical purposes like money in the bank.
I cannot see how the country would benefit by closing gold mines producing at the rate of $200,000,000 a year. Even if the United States were to suspend all gold imports, it would still be to the advantage of Canada to build up reserves for the future. A reserve of two billion dollars in Canada would be the equivalent of that existing in the United States. That would mean ten years' production for our mines.
Logging is also an important industry in the section of Quebec which I represent. I read in the press recently that the price of pulpwood was fixed by the timber controller. By unanimous request of the. people of Quebec, the government of this province are investigating prices and sales conditions of pulpwood, in order that reasonable prices may obtain in certain sections of the province where wood is practically given away for nothing. In fact, in my constituency settlers clearing new land several miles from the railroad have often had to deliver their wood, with the bark removed, on the car for $6 and $7 a cord. This price represents poor wages for cutting and barking, very little for hauling and nothing at all for the wood itself. There can be no justification for the maintenance of such unfair prices, and I hope that the timber controller will cooperate with the provincial administration, which is willing to remove such abuses.
In his amendment to the address, the leader of the opposition referred to the necessity of preparing for the after-war period. Everyone knows that the government has the question under consideration. In a statement subsequent to the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister referred to colonization as a means to that end.

The Address-Mr. Auihier

I wish, Mr. Speaker, to recall that I have been living for thirty years in the colonization district which I have the honour to represent in this house. When I first settled in that part of the country, there were only a few squatters, possibly a dozen families in the neighbourhood, and the labourers working on the construction of the Transcontinental railway. One hundred miles from that railroad, on the shores of lake Temiskaming, there were half a dozen parishes, and less than ten thousand people all told. According to the figures of the latest census, the two constituencies Temiscamingue and Abitibi, forming the northwestern portion of the province of Quebec, now have a population of 110,000. The fact that their population increased by
100.000	in thirty years is chiefly due to land settlement, which ought to go on for a long time to come in that vast area. I do not say that the best tillable land in Canada is to be found there, lest I should distress my right-hand neighbour the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Sissons). But it is the last extensive land settlement area that remains in the province of Quebec. May this fact not be forgotten in the post-war programme. It would be advisable to do some preliminary work there. The Canadian government has for some years extended assistance for the building of roads in mining areas. A similar policy should be adopted with a view to opening or completing certain main roads leading into our best remaining lands.
During this session I shall no doubt have another opportunity to bring up this subject which is of vital importance in any post-war planning. I have no objection to the government helping the farmers of the west, the industries of central Canada and the fishermen of our coastal provinces, but they should also encourage the efforts of the settlers in the newly opened lands of Quebec, who are constantly extending our agricultural area through hard and often thankless work, for which they deserve all the more credit.
Mr. JOSEPH H. LECLERC (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, as very few minutes remain before adjournment, I shall be brief. I have but a few remarks to make, anyhow.
At this stage of the debate on the address, which has now lasted for three weeks, I must say how much I admire your patience in listening to the same arguments put forth in different tones. I intend being very brief as I do not approve of indefinitely travelling beaten roads. Believing, however, that the people of my constituency wish to know what stand their representative is taking, I wish

to say a few words on the subject of conscription, which is so much in the public mind at the present.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need for me to play both ends against the middle, as I expect nothing from politics and- my sole ambition is to remain ever faithful to those whom I represent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Hermas Leclerc: I do not hesitate to say that the electors in my constituency, in my province and in the country have much more confidence at the present moment in the Right Hon. Mackenzie King than in the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen who has just met defeat in York South. All Liberal members, including the dissentients, state that their confidence is far greater in the King administration than in any other.
I am not a real politician, Mr. Speaker, but it does seem to me that you will readily understand how illogical those dissenting Liberals are. Should we all follow their example and vote with the Conservatives against adopting the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the present government would be overthrown only to be succeeded' by a union government. For my part, I do not feel inclined to present the electors of Shefford constituency with such an offering. Has not the Liberal party just won four victories? This is a clear proof of the confidence the electors still place in the hon. Prime Minister. So that my position will leave no doubt whatever, I wish to state that I am personally opposed to conscription for overseas service for many reasons. The first is that I took this pledge at the last election and if there is anything I wish above all else, it is to continue to deserve the respect of my compatriots. A second reason is that, at the present time, events are taking a disquieting turn and in spite of what certain strategists, with nothing but defeats to their credit so far, might say, I feel that the sending of troops to foreign lands becomes more and more a reckless adventure.
Mr. Speaker, after this explanation, which I believe is clear enough, I shall add that it is not my intention, in constituencies which I do not represent, of holding meetings that might stir emotions in a time when composure and moderation are desirable. I do not look upon myself as the saviour of my race and I do not take myself seriously enough to assume leadership of a new party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Hermas Leclerc: The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) has

The Address-Mr. Leclerc
assumed leadership of the Canadian party; however, noblesse oblige; will he prove equal to the task? Using the expression this hon. . leader has coined to designate his humble colleagues, I trust his "followers" in the future will be sufficient in number to insure greater success for him than at the last election.
I could add much more, but I said I would be brief. The electors of Ontario, along with those of my province, have rejected the ultra-conscriptionists. Common sense has prevailed. The electors of those constituencies have done good work for national unity and I congratulate them. Therefore, for the sake of unity, I shall not rehash the old or the new stories; 1 shall follow the advice of the well-meaning people and remain calm and moderate, so as to assuage the bad feelings all too prevalent.
Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my remarks I want to make a request to the government concerning farmers' sons who, though indispensable on the farm, are called for military service. At the present time, we experience all kinds of difficulties when we try to obtain even short postponements for those who are necessary on the farm the whole year around. The mobilization act should be amended so that farmers' sons who have never left the farm and bona fide farm workers could obtain an indefinite postponement. I maintain that the farmer who owns fifteen or twenty milch cows, not taking into account his other live stock-yearlings, hogs, et cetera-and a maple bush, never enjoys free time from one end of the year to the other. A farmer who has to look after twenty-five or thirty milch cows, even if he enjoys perfect health, cannot do all his work without the aid of at least two helpers. Whether these helpers are his own sons or hired men, they are absolutely needed for the operation of his farm. In 1941 there was a labour shortage. In 1942 the situation appears to be getting worse, with indications of a smaller agricultural production. The government is aware that England, whose people are now on short rations, needs all that we can produce on our farms.
I wish to point out that I have received no requests for postponement from men of the town of Granby and that those I have received from farmers' sons are legitimate. We are at present obliged to parley with the registrars 'who apparently know very little about farming.
Needless to say that the production of foodstuffs is just as essential as that of arms and munitions. The government should therefore leave the farm workers on the farm and have the mobilization act amended so that farmers' sons absolutely needed on the farm may obtain an indefinite postponement.
44561-44 ^
On motion of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.52 p.m.
Wednesday, February 18, 1942