1942-06-24

Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to inform the house that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), at the invitation of President Roosevelt, left to-day for Washington to attend a meeting to-morrow of the

Questions
Pacific council at which Mr. Churchill will also be present. During his visit the Prime Minister will also have an opportunity for further conferences with Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill. I should perhaps add that Mr. Churchill had also expressed a desire to confer, during his brief visit to this continent, with the Prime Minister.



QUESTIONS

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

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


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Recruiting centres in the province of Quebec are located in Montreal and Quebec city, and the enlistments from these two centres as at June 3, 1942, totalled 12,513 (including 352 Women's Division).
2.	Where an officer or airman or airwoman does not indicate in his application or attestation papers that he is of French-Canadian origin the following points are taken into consideration in making the assessment:
(i)	If he or she has a French-Canadian name as determined by a French-Canadian clerk.
(ii)	If he or she completes in French the necessary information on an attestation paper printed in French.
(iii)	If he or she makes the declaration on the attestation paper that he or she speaks French fluently and/or speaks very little or no English.
(iv)	If he or she was born of French-Canadian parents in any part of Canada which is populated by French Canadians (Quebec, Gravelbourg, Sask., St. Boniface, Man., etc.).
(v)	If the mother is definitely French Canadian, and the father is of French-Canadian extraction (even though the name may be "MacKinnon"),-especially if living in the eastern townships of Quebec.
Subject to the foregoing assessment the total enlistments indicated in 1 above are divided (a) 5,110, (b) 7,403 (including 867 U.S. citizens).
3.	(a) French, 1,041; other than French, ?,231 (incl. 807 UJS. citizens), (b) French,
2.402; other than French. 3.305.	(c) French,
1,582; other than French, 600. French. 85 (airwomen); other than French, 267 (airwomen).


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


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	It is not possible without an examination of over three hundred thousand records to segregate the total enlistments of residents of the province of Quebec. It is assumed that this question refers to the total number of enlistments which took place in the province of Quebec. The whole of the province of Quebec except four counties (Gatineau, Hull, Pontiac and Temiscamingue) is contained in military district No. 4 and military district No. 5. These four counties are included in military district No. 3 with headquarters at Kingston, Ontario. The total enlistments actually taking place in military district No. 4 and military district No. 5 in active units and formations of the Canadian army from 1st September, 1939 to 6th June, 1942 were 56,722.
2.	Records of enlistments by racial origin are not kept, so that the question can not be answered accurately. The method of taking the names as indicating racial origin has been urged. This method is obviously open to the objection that French names are borne by those of other than French origin. On the other hand, those of French origin bear names which are other than French. However, a compilation has been made using this method, from which it is ascertained that the number of those enlisting from the province of Quebec (without counting the three counties above mentioned) who bear names which are generally considered to indicate French origin, whether French Canadian, French Acadian, or otherwise, is 29,651, and the number enlisting from the province of Quebec (without counting the three counties above mentioned) who bear names which are generally considered to indicate other than French origin, whether French Canadian, French Acadian, or otherwise, is 27,071.
3.	All of the above have enlisted for active service anywhere. There is no provision for
Questions

voluntary enlistment in active units and formations of the Canadian army for service in Canada only.


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


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: 1.	(Approximate)
Royal Canadian Navy	 153
Royal Canadian Naval Reserve 521 Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve	 4,506
Total	 5,180
2.	(a) (Approximate) 1.474.
(b) (Approximate) 3,706.
It should be stated that all recruiting for the Naval Service in the province of Quebec is done at one or other of the three R.C.N.V.R. divisions. One of these is in the city of Quebec and two are in the city of Montreal. At one of the Montreal divisions most of the recruiting is from the English population. In the city of Quebec, the division enlists both English and French recruits. In compiling the above figures an account was taken of the enlistments from the city of Hull which are dealt with at the Ottawa R.C.N.V.R. division.
3. All personnel joining the naval forces whether in the Royal Canadian Navy or reserve-forces enrolled for active service where required.


RAILWAY TANK CARS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	How many railway tank ears are owned and operated by the Canadian railways?
2.	How many railway tank cars are owned by private companies?
3.	How many railway tank cars are leased from outside oi Canada and operated in Canada?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The board of transport commissioners reports that Canadian railways have about 400 tank cars on the books but it is not known how many of these are in service. The board states that these cars are used in company service for various purposes including transportation for water and fuel oil services in connection with oil burning locomotives and for other services.

2.	Information not of record with the Department of Transport, the board of transport commissioners or the transportation and public utilities branch of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Tank cars of oil companies and other private companies are leased to shippers for the transportation of commodities as required, and the railways have no control over the movement of these cars except as they are billed from loading points to destination. This applies not only to Canadian private car companies but also to United States private car companies. Consequently, additional cars belonging to United States companies might be just as numerous on Canadian lines as cars belonging to Canadian car companies.
3.	Information not of record in Department of Transport, Board of Transport Commissioners or Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


EMPLOYMENT OF F. LEDUC
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Have the professional services of Mr. F. Leduc, C.E., of Montreal, been engaged by the government to make a survey into silk intended for use in parachute construction?
2.	If so, when was Mr. Leduc appointed and for what length of time?
3.	How much has been paid to Mr. Leduc to date for his professional services in this connection?
4.	Has the government entrusted to Mr. F. Leduc other surveys or analyses into chemical products intended for use in war industries?
5.	If so, when and for what period?
6.	How much has been paid to Mr. Leduc to date in payment for his professional services in each case?


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


FUEL OIL AND GASOLINE
Mr. ISNOR:: _ 1. What quantity of fuel oil was in storage in Nova Scotia on March 31, 1942?
2.	What quantities have since been received between the period of April 1 and May 31, 1942?
3.	What was the average monthly quantity of fuel oil in storage in Nova Scotia during the years 1939-40 and 1941?
4.	What was the average monthly quantity of gasoline refined in Nova Scotia during the years 1939, 1940 and 1941?
5.	What has been the monthly quantity of gasoline refined in Nova Scotia from January 1 to May 31?
6.	Has the refining of gasoline been continuous (along same lines as years 1939-1940) since January 1 to May 31 of present year?
7.	How many oil tank cars are owned by the railways operating in Canada?

Questions as Orders jor Returns
8.	How many oil tank railway cars are owned by private companies in Canada?
9.	How many oil tank cars have been used to transport gasoline to the maritimes (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island) from April 1 to May 31?
10.	What total amount in gallons of gasoline was shipped from other points to the maritimes from April 1 to May 31, 1942?
11.	What total amount in gallons of gasoline was shipped from other points to Nova Scotia from April 1 to May 31?
12.	In view of the extra heavy special wartime demands being made on supplies of fuel oil and gasoline in Nova Scotia, are steps being taken for greater storage? If so, will such plans provide for sufficient fuel oil and gasoline to meet the present requirements?


Mr. HOWE:: Mr. Speaker, it is quite impossible to give the information asked for in this question. The first question is "What quantity of fuel oil was in storage in Nova Scotia on March 31, 1942?" I am sure Hitler would like to know the answer to that, also the quantities received between April 1 and May 31. I would ask that this question be dropped.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Not all
of it, surely.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then let it be redrafted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister may be quite correct as to the first question, but there are other questions on matters of great public importance to the province of Nova Scotia. I have no brief for the member who asks this question but I do know that this matter is agitating the minds of the people down there and that they believe they have not had a square deal. I have not followed up this hue and cry, as the minister knows. Instead I have tried to help him. But the plain fact is that the people just do not believe what the minister has been telling them. It may be an improper attitude for them to take. I am not going to pass judgment on that. But the people down there have been stirred up and they certainly should be reassured.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am doing my best to operate the supplies of petroleum in the best interests of the war. I do not know that I am called upon to prove my position. I am not greatly worried whether people believe what I have said or not, so that we can leave that part of it out. I repeat however, that to make public the quantity of fuel oil storage at Halifax for the navy would not be in the public interest, nor would it be in the public interest to state what quantities have been 44561-231
received between April 1, and May 31, 1942.
I suggest that it is also not in the public interest to state the average monthly quantity of fuel oil in storage in Nova Scotia during the years 1939-40 and 1941.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, all right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely hon. members know what is reasonable information to make public. I shall be glad to answer any questions other than those that concern storage and shipment of stocks of strategic materials.
Question dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


GASOLINE RATIONING


Mr. PURDY:: 1.	How many gasoline rationing books in categories higher than "A" were issued in, (a) Nova Scotia, (b) New Brunswick, as at 1st May, 1942?
2.	What is the number in each category?
3.	How many books in each province and in each category have now been recalled and lower categories issued in place thereof, and to what categories have these been reduced?
4.	What are the occupations of those who have had their categories reduced and are their cars used for other than pleasure driving?
5.	Is the Quebec-New Brunswick border the dividing line at which the value of the gasoline coupon is reduced from five to two gallons?
6.	If so, will the Minister of Munitions and Supply explain why this demarkation point was decided upon?
7.	Are all points in the five eastern provinces, where gasoline is conveyed to the distributing centre by means of small tankers and tank cars, on the same rations?
8.	If not, why not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-PURCHASE OF COAL FOR USE IN PICTOU COUNTY, N.8.

['On division.\nMotion agreed to on division.']
Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.

Motions jor Papers,



Mr. CHUECH:: For a copy of the sylabus of training in the Royal Canadian Air Force at manning pool, Toronto, showing, (a) the length of time spent there by each recruit for air training, (b) the amount of time per day spent on fatigue and guard duties, and a copy of the rules and regulations relating thereto, (c) the number *who have spent, (i) over six months' time, (ii) over three months' time at this depot; (d) the regulations as to weekend leave and fines imposed.


R.C.A.F.-STAFF AT TORONTO HEADQUARTERS, MANNING POOL AND EXHIBITION GROUNDS
Thomas Langton Church: For a return showing-1. Who compose the R.C.A.F. headquarters staff at Toronto and the officers at manning pool, and at the exhibition grounds?
2.	The number of chaplains, clerks, stenographers, accountants, pay and bank officials, press liaison officers, amusement, physical training and sports, civilian and other quasi officers, their salaries, pay, emoluments, subsistence and other allowances.
3.	Uniforms worn by these persons and the cost of same.
4.	Their military training, if any, before appointment as officers.
5.	How many will later go overseas.
6.	How many are engaged in purely civilian duties at home, who appointed them, and what are their names and pay.
7.	How many of those there now had any training in the universities C.O.T.C. when they joined, what is the length of time for training for this classification and what fatigue, guard and kitchen duties do they perform.
Mr. POWER; I would ask the hon. member to clarify his meaning of the words "quasi officers." With that restriction, I have no objection.


HONOURS AND DECORATIONS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. McLarty, for the appointment of a select committee of the house to consider the application of the principle accepted in 1919 with resrpect to honours and decorations to members of the Canadian armed forces.
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I think the motion might be amended to enable the committee to consider the cancellation of hereditary titles now held by persons domiciled in the dominion. I believe it is in the public interest that citizens of

this country should not pass on to their heirs and successors titles that are meaningless here, and which embarrass the holders of such titles in future years.


Thomas Langton Church: Last night I asked the minister in charge of this resolution certain questions on some parts of it. It is true that according to the ruling given by the Deputy Speaker, reference may not be made to the question of titles, but if one carefully examines the Nickle resolution of 1919 he will find that it deals with honours and decorations and also at least refers directly and indirectly to the subject matter of titles.
This resolution is based on the report of the Nickle committee of May 14 and May 22, 1919. I had the text of that report before me last night and quoted from it that soldiers' honours did not come under it. I find on further examination of the debate on the subject that there was a considerable number of speakers at that time, including members from Ontario as well as from all the other provinces, and it is clear from the text of the resolution and of the report of the committee and of its meetings that what the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Stirling) said last night is borne out as true, and that he stated the facts. I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. member for Yale, because he is one of the most courteous men I know, but I would point out that this whole question was raised by him at the last session, when he asked, quite rightly, for a ruling on soldiers' honours and decorations.
I have no intention of detaining the house, but I am bound to point out to the government that over a month ago the Canadian people, by a "yes" vote on the plebiscite that was submitted to them, gave the government power to deal with the whole war question itself, and not by reference to committees, and in that vote the Canadian people showed a decidedly bellicose spirit toward the government and the House of Commons, including all parties, for our failure to get on with the war. In that vote the people urged the government and the members of this house to get an with a total war effort. Here we are, on the ninety-third day of the session talking about honours and decorations and all that kind of tomfoolery after the waste of time on a plebiscite. The enemy is at our front door, our back door, our side door and everywhere else, and still, at this late date of the session, we are engaged in discussing an academic question-because that is all it is-which is not primary, but secondary, and could wait until the end of the war.
If the legal officers of the crown are right in the opinion which they have expressed in

Honours and Decorations
regard to decorations and honours-and it is only an opinion; merely because they say so does not mean that what they say is right or what they take the law to be; it is a matter of policy, not of law-then a good many decorations given by certain bodies such as secret societies and other agencies in this country would be illegal. If these legal officers are correct in their position, then the Knights of Pythias and other secret orders, spiritual and temporal, have no right also under the principle of the Nickle resolution and would, for example, have no right to hand out to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), the title of lord high potentate of the Knights of Pythias or anything else. We have numerous other civilian bodies in this country that decorate their members and hand out honours. The Nickle resolution and the action of the parliament of 1919 cannot bind this parliament. Their powers ceased on the dissolution in 1921 of that parliament.
We see people parading on March 17 and on July 12 respectively. We see them on the streets wearing all kinds of civilian honours and decorations, and if the legal opinion we have on this subject now is correct, then these gorgeous decorations are also out. And so are university degrees. There are very few men on the front benches who have not doctors' degrees. I am glad to see them get these degrees. I remember when the Prime Minister was leaving the house in 1923 to get a degree from Yale; I told him, as he went out, that he was "becoming popular by degrees". I say, Mr. Speaker, that the time has gone by for fun or for talking of these matters in time of war.
Yesterday, June 23, was what we might call decoration day with the budget speech and this decoration debate. Well, I can remember many years ago, forty-six years ago, June 23, 1896 when the Tory government of Sir Charles Tupper went out of office because they would not stick to their principles, and Ontario and other provinces upset the government and elected another in their place. They elected the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I remember a temperance committee that once waited upon his government. I am not a temperance man myself, and I do not pose as one, so I was not on the deputation, but I did hear of that deputation being received by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The deputation was led by the Rev. Mr. Huxtable, and it asked for legislation based on a prohibition vote as a result of a referendum that had been held-it was called a referendum then; now it is a plebiscite. The Rev. Mr. Huxtable, in the course of his remarks, referred to Mr. 44561-231 i
Laurier, as he was then, as Sir Wilfrid. Sir Wilfrid Laurier replied, "Do not call me Sir Wilfrid; I am simply Mr. Laurier"; he said, "I am a democrat to the hilt". I am glad that afterwards Sir Wilfrid forgot his pledge against titles and was prevailed upon to accept a title, because he had earned it. He deserved that title as head of this country, and there was no law to stop it, nor did he take a plebiscite on it.
Let me point out to the government that in this resolution we have an example of the committee system of government. Instead of taking the responsibility for this question, the government passes it over to a committee. Who is asking for this anyhow? It is not the soldiers. We have been trying to get a committee appointed to consider soldier questions in regard to pensions, readjustments of pay, dependents' bonuses, soldiers' insurance, cheap fares, and other matters in which there are hundreds of anomalies and inequalities in the pay of the army, the navy and the air force, but nothing is done. All these matters of first importance should go to a committee ahead of the question of medals. We cannot get the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) to take appropriate action on dependents bonuses. Perhaps the government do not realize that they have conferred a decoration on 99 per cent of the people-they did so last night, for they are sending 99 per cent of the people to the poorhouse. That is where the proletarian Canadian people are headed for. I repeat, this is not a matter for a committee, but for the government which has the power. A committee is not the proper forum to consider this question. The government must accept the responsibility for any changes that are made. Since the beginning of this war we have had nothing but the committee form of government, government by order in council and the controls system. I have sat on some of these committees, and the system has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. There are five or six of these committees sitting now. I myself have attended meetings of committees, and I am disappointed in the work that is being done. We have had no report in regard to what is being done in the war expenditures committee; we have had no report in connection with the radio, and so on. The government has initiated this decoration question itself without any demand for it, and must abide by its decision; it must take responsibility for the whole thing. I am not going to refer to the word "titles", or discuss that question, because the Deputy Speaker last night properly ruled that only honours and decorations are
iit>56
Honours and Decorations

being considered; but the fact is that the government is simply trying to shift the responsibility from their own shoulders to a committee. In other words, the door will be wide open for the committee to send on titles. I am a supporter of soldiers' medals, honours and decorations, but not hereditary titles.
This committee will not add anything to the powers which the government already has in regard to decorations and honours for soldiers. Why appoint it? Honours and decorations are the only question before the house, and the government can take action in that respect. I am not going to labour the point much further, but it seems to me a pity that we should be discussing this matter now while we are leaving undiscussed the important and urgent questions I mentioned with regard to soldiers and their dependents. What does it matter if someone wants an honour or a decoration at once when the war is on and he may be decorated immediately? I cannot understand the mentality of this house when it will consider, without much effort, an academic resolution like this, while it refuses to do something for our soldiers along the lines I have mentioned. This is a purely academic motion while the war is going on. We do not want a motion of this sort. This is a motion from a government that does not govern, a government that has no policy and is guided only by political expediency. The people are wondering when this House of Commons is going to wake up to a realization of the real war situation, before it is too late and we are invaded. We have been here a long time now, and in my opinion the government has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. The people of Canada showed that through the ballot box a month ago. It showed a hostile, bellicose spirit toward the way in which we have been conducting the business of the country. If representative government is to survive in Canada-I say this with all due respect to your high office, Mr. Speaker-there must be an end of politics in this house in war time, because since the war started, the government has been carrying on the affairs of the country from the party point of view. Every backbencher as well as every front-bencher must take his responsibility in the matter and, if necessary, supporters of the government must make the sacrifice involved in standing up for principle. Everyone must be prepared to spend some time in the wilderness for principle's sake, and every member of the government should be willing to do his duty

and stand by his principles and forget politics until victory comes. This is not the time for this resolution.
No one objects to decorations and honours for our soldiers. As I said before, the government has the necessary power, as will be found by reference to the report submitted in 1919. I am not going to read that report, but hon. members can find it in Hansard of May 22 of that year. Mr. Nickle of Kingston City moved the adoption of the special committee's report, and it was pointed out in the report that decorations and honours, so far as soldiers were concerned, were not being interfered with. The Nickle report also referred to the fact that a report, signed by twenty members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons in Great Britain, had criticized the corruption which prevailed in England at that time in connection with the granting of honours, decorations, titles and all that sort of thing for purely party purposes. No sensible person will object to honours and decorations for our soldiers, but this is certainly not the time to raise or debate such a policy, when the enemy is at our door. I do not know what is wrong, but it seems that we in Canada are lacking entirely in war mentality, and that is largely because the government is introducing academic measures, such as the one now before us, and taking up the time of parliament in that way. The government cannot get away from the principle of the resolution that was passed in 1919. The Canadian people, in the "yes" vote which they gave in the ballot box a month ago, showed what they thought of the government and want a real war spirit. In conclusion, I object to this motion, for these reasons now. The committee will not have power, by the text of this resolution, to add to any of the powers which the government now has and which the Nickle resolution left with the government, so far as decorations for soldiers, and honours of that sort, are concerned. A declaration from a committee will not add to the powers of the government in this regard.
Hon, H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale): I do not intend to delay the house by discussing the question of honours or decorations. I simply wish to protest against the time of the house being taken up by this discussion when such an important measure as Bill No. 80, having to do with man-power, should be under consideration. With the Huns sinking our ships on the Atlantic coast, and the Japs shelling our Pacific coast, surely the question of man-power is the urgent one that should engage the attention of the house at this time. I would suggest that this resolution

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mulock
be referred to a special committee for consideration, and then any hon. member who wishes to speak later on will have an opportunity at a more propitious time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall the motion carry?


Mr. POULIOT:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Roy.
Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, we the members of the House of Commons are the representatives of the people of Canada at the hour of her gravest danger, at a time when her very existence is threatened and when defeat means death or slavery to our people. Under conditions such as these one thing and one alone should be considered; that is, how can Canada and the Canadian people make the most effective effort to help the freedom-loving nations of the world, and to save themselves from the perils which day by day are coming closer to our shores. This is no time for false optimism. The months before us will be filled with grave danger; they will test the resources of the united nations and the character of their peoples to the utmost limits. Let us not take it for granted that we are sure to win this war. If we and the united nations have the will to win; if we and our people and the peoples of the united nations are prepared to make sacrifices, increasing sacrifices, under more difficult and trying conditions, then we shall win. But if we are not prepared to make those sacrifices, we will not win.
Let us consider the conditions and the outlook facing Canada to-day. On the Atlantic, German submarines are sinking ships along the American coast; not off the coast of the United States alone and in the Caribbean, but off our coasts, off Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, right in the St. Lawrence. On the island of Newfoundland our troops stand side by side with their brothers in arms from the great republic to the south, defending the approaches to Canada and the north American continent from the forces of the axis powers.
Farther to the east and north the United States has assumed the protection of Greenland and Iceland. In the case of Iceland they relieved troops from Great Britain and from Canada, which fortunately arrived in Iceland before the invasion forces from nazi Germany were able to do so.
Farther to the east and south we have Great Britain with a large army, together with our own Canadian army of volunteers overseas who stand on guard protecting Britain itself and preparing for the day when a second front can be established on the continent of Europe. It is well for us to remember the important part played by our first division overseas when, after Dunkirk, in so far as organized land forces were concerned, they would to a great extent have been called upon to bear the brunt of any attempt of invasion of Britain. We all remember the terrible air attacks of the German luftwaffe, and the destruction, suffering and death they brought to the British people. But even that terrorism could not break the morale of the British; their courage saw them through. Nor did those attacks lessen their grim determination to resist aggression.
I wish to pay tribute to the men of the Royal Air Force whose courage and determination stood between a victorious German army and the world domination which they nearly achieved at that time. We as Canadians are proud to know that many from Canada were in those immortal squadrons that saved the freedom-loving peoples of the world at that time. The names of those airmen of ours will never die. As long as freedom exists in the world their achievements will never be forgotten.
In more recent days the forces of the British empire have been joined overseas by large numbers of troops from the United States of America, who came to play their part in the fight for freedom in the world.
Still farther to the east across the continent of Europe, in a battle line stretching from the Arctic ocean to the Black sea, thousands of miles in length, we have Russia, a nation of 190,000,000 people, locked in a life-and-death struggle in battles that may well become the greatest ever to take place upon the face of the earth. Russia, in spite of straining every nerve to produce the equipment she requires, must have help from the other united nations to aid her in equipping her armed services. We are all indeed glad that Great Britain, the United States and Canada are giving that assistance in increasing measure.
In north Africa we have suffered a disastrous defeat, toward the end of the third year of the war. That defeat has imperilled
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mulock

the whole position of the united nations in the east. Throughout Europe the nations which have been overrun but whose spirits remain unbroken and whose people are still unconquered are seething with unrest. Those freedom-loving peoples have fought and are fighting for us with every means at their disposal. They are fighting for the cause of liberty and for the very existence of this country.
To the west the present situation from the point of view of the united nations is no brighter. On December 7 last Japan entered the war, entered it in such a manner that she sacrificed her national honour for all time to come. She had pledged her word, and without warning she broke it. She aped the treachery of her axis partners. Deeply though that treachery is resented by the people of the world, ive must admit that in a period of less than seven months the Japanese have made substantial conquests. They have taken Guam and Wake islands, Hong Kong and the Philippines, Malaya and Singapore, the Dutch East Indies and part of Borneo, the Andaman islands and Burma. They have made heavy attacks on Hawaii and Australia. They have greatly increased the tempo and ferocity of their attacks on China, I believe with the idea of opening land communications with Burma, thus releasing a large quantity of their merchant shipping for other purposes. It appears to me that the Japanese problem at this time is one of transportation, not man-power. Japan is a nation of 70,000,000 people; she has a tremendous army; millions of men, experienced troops, well equipped; men who have been brought up from childhood to glorify war, who believe that the greatest honour they can receive is to be killed in action on the field of battle for their Mikado and for the Japanese empire, and that such a death gives them a passport to the heaven that they envisage. She has an army of soldiers who believe in conquest, into whose minds hatred and jealousy of the white nations have been inculcated for many years. Even when they were our allies in the last war they had no love for either the Canadian or the United States troops. I believe that Japan has been working according to a plan carefully prepared over a period of many, many years. It was at the end of the last war that they obtained their foothold in Manchuria. They made large investments of capital in the city of Harbin, and it now appears clear that they were only waiting for the most opportune occasion for Japanese troops to follow their investments, for the conquest of Manchuria.

As I have said, their plan of action has been very carefully prepared. Every eventuality has been considered, and alternative or supplementary plans have been prepared in detail, ready to go into effect as the exigencies of the situation demand. Within the last few weeks Japan has commenced the occupation of the Aleutian islands, the stepping stones from Asia to the north American continent. These attacks on the Aleutian islands may be a great deal more dangerous and a much greater menace to the people of the north American continent than many believe at the present time. It has been the opinion of many who are well informed and who have had much experience that attacks on our western coast are most likely to be in the nature of sporadic raids. They may be correct; I hope they are, but I believe they are wrong. The Japanese nation, which has been preparing for many years, whose forces are highly trained and well equipped, including hundreds of thousands of men with actual front-line experience in battle, is now at the peak of its military strength. Is it reasonable to expect that Japan will wait until Canada and the United States have attained their maximum power; that Japan will wait until the forces of this continent can dictate the time and place for the great battles of the future? I do not think it is. Japan realizes that the final reckoning, no matter what temporary conquests she may make in Asia, will be with the nations of the north American continent and the British empire. It is quite probable that she may try to invade this continent by way of the Aleutian islands and Alaska before we have mobilized our utmost strength. If the Japanese meet with success in the Aleutian islands, and if for the time being the balance of sea power in the Pacific should shift in their favour, I believe it quite possible that they may make an actual landing in force on the upper western coast, fortify their positions and try to hold that part of this continent until such time as they can bring up additional troops, munitions and supplies of all kinds, in the meantime fortifying their harbours and constructing airports to use in their drive southward along the Pacific coast, west of the Rocky mountains and protected by them.
Those attacks must be stopped before they reach Canadian territory; yet there are those who would oppose the repeal of section 3 of this act and would seek to prevent our troops, raised under this act, from fighting alongside United States troops for the very protection of this continent of north America.
No one can tell where Japan will strike next; she holds the initiative. With an improvement in her transportation problem the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mulock
attack might be on India, through Burma. It might be another attack on Australia, or on Midway and Hawaii, to gain control of the mid-Pacific and so lessen the advantages of the Panama canal to the united nations. It might take the form of an attack on the Russian area from Vladivostock to Khabarovsk, not only to force the Russians to move troops from the German front but also to obtain for Japan control over an area in which airports might be located for use against her vulnerable cities.
Until such time as the allied forces are able to go on the offensive, the axis powers will to a great extent have the choice as to the location of battles and the time when those battles will be fought. With the axis powers holding the initiative we must expect a variety of attacks to be made in an attempt to divert us from our main objective, the establishment of a second front and the destruction of the German war machine. It is possible that the present axis strategy is to attack in a number of widely separated areas, with the object of creating confusion and panic among the united nations. Their great purpose, we may be sure, would be to prevent, if possible, the united nations from assembling in Great Britain the forces, munitions and transport necessary successfully to invade the European continent.
It may be that the present occupation of the islands in the Aleutian group is for this purpose. On the other hand we can be very sure that if the Japanese achieve successes, they will follow them up very quickly. It is almost a foregone conclusion that in the development of the strategical scheme Canada, with its vast air training plan, has not been overlooked by the axis powers. The German high command undoubtedly does not view with equanimity the arrival in the skies over Germany of increasing numbers of Canadian airmen. It may be that by these threats they hope to have large numbers of these airmen retained in Canada. Perhaps they expect, by engendering a feeling of panic, to create a demand in Canada that our forces now in Britain be brought back here.
With conditions as they are; with perils and dangers coming closer to our shores, unfortunately already there are some who subscribe to this view, who say that our troops should not fight alongside the armies of Great Britain, [DOT] the United States or Russia, but should be kept in Canada. May I make it quite clear that I am not advocating the sending all of our troops overseas; that we would leave our coastlines undefended, or that we should not build up our coastal defences in every possible manner. But the fact remains
that we in Canada are going to be in a desperate position if the time ever comes when we must defend this country with the forces that can be raised from eleven and a half millions of people, without help from other members of the united nations.
There are still those who say that the United States will protect us, that the United States will not let any other nation take Canada.
I should like people having those ideas to consider this. If Canada relied on the United States to protect her and was not willing to assist the United States in the Aleutian islands, in Alaska or on their western coast, what right would Canada have to expect help from the United States if we should need it? If attacks were made on Prince Rupert, or Vancouver, or Victoria, it might be that our action in refusing to help the United States when our help was most needed would make it impossible for the United States to send us help, no matter how much she might desire to do so.
Others say that they do not want to fight for England. To them I would say this. Britain stands between Germany and world domination. In order to achieve world domination Germany must destroy Great Britain, 'but she does not particularly want the British isles. They have not the great mineral resources, the great ability to produce potential electrical energy, the vast spaces for colonization by surplus German population, the great farming areas that we have in the Dominion of Canada.
Do not for one moment believe that a defeat in this war will not directly and seriously affect us, and: those we represent-because it will. If we do not realize this, then we are indulging in wishful thinking. If Germany should win this war she would probably reward heroes in her army with properties and farms in this country. It is probable that she would take over the farms and allot them to whom she wished. We, and those whom we represent, may be on our farms; but in such event we would not be there as owners, but as virtual slaves until the day we are lucky enough to die. If Germany should win this war and should decide to make large transfers of her population to Canada, can we doubt, with the lessons of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Holland and France before us, that she would have a few purges to remove those who had been most troublesome?


Richard Burpee Hanson: There
would- be no Postmaster General.


William Pate Mulock: Or leader of the opposition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not badl

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mulock


William Pate Mulock: And she would send those of our people whom she did not want up to the north country, or to some other part of the world.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: New Brunswick.


William Pate Mulock: There are people who say that Hitler is wholly to blame. Of course Hitler has a lot to answer for. But getting rid of Hitler, and the rest of the gangsters associated with him, including those in charge of the nazi party, would not correct the situation. Let us not forget that millions of children growing up in Germany have been trained in nazi principles since they were four years old. They have had inculcated into their minds the rabid nazi propaganda that the nazi way of life is the only one worth living-that is worth fighting for and worth dying for. From the time they have been old enough to understand they have been told that they belong to a super race which should dominate the world, and that if they would follow their nazi leaders they would become the masters of the world, with a greatly improved standard of living. Such ideas have been so firmly planted in the minds of those young people that there have been instances where children have betrayed their own fathers and mothers to the gestapo.
Can we expect any mercy, any fair treatment, from brutes such as these? While it is true that we fight for freedom alongside Britain, and alongside the United States and Russia, it is equally true that we fight for ourselves, and our very existence as a nation.
When I asked the people in my constituency to vote "yes" on the plebiscite, these are the words I used:
At this time any government responsible to the Canadian people for the safety of tile state, for the defence of Canada, for the protection of the men, women and children of this country, must have an absolutely free hand, unfettered by any commitments of any kind, so that they in their judgment may do that which they consider best to defend this country.
By a very large majority the people of Canada voted "yes" on the plebiscite. As a result, we have an amendment before us; and unless the amendment is approved by the house, the government is prevented from sending troops raised under the National Resources Mobilization Act to the Aleutian islands, Alaska and the United States territory on the Pacific coast, because that would be service outside Canada and the territorial waters. If the amendment is defeated, the government could send those troops only after passing an order in council under the War Measures Act,

a procedure which would be in direct disregard of the expressed will of the House of Commons.
Do hon. members who object to the removal of this restriction believe that we should ask our United States brothers to defend us at sea and on the land, ask them to protect us from attacks by the Japanese? Do they believe we should keep our troops raised under the act on our own side of the border until United States troops have been driven back, before coming to their assistance and before beginning to fight? Do they not believe that any request we might make in the future, whether for help along our eastern or western coasts, might be received with this very reasonable thought: "If Canada has to fight by herself for a while, she will be more sympathetic in giving help to us, the next time we need it".
Do hon. members who oppose the amendment believe that in the event of our overseas army being sent to the attack on the continent of Europe and to fight for them and for our country, the government should leave those men to their fate, without proper reinforcements? With such an attitude I could never agree.
My position is this: I believe the amendment is necessary for the protection of this country, and for the protection of our volunteers overseas. I do not believe we can protect Canada or win the war by staying within our own boundaries and waiting to be attacked, any more than any other of the united nations can help to win the war by keeping their troops indefinitely within the borders of their own countries.
I do not believe that conscription should be put into effect unless it is going to assist and strengthen the war effort of this country-and at this time I do not believe that it would do so. I agree with the statement of the Prime Minister: "Not necessarily conscription, but conscription if necessary."
In connection with the repeal of section 3, the result of which repeal would be to give the government a free hand in connection with the raising of troops for overseas service, it has been suggested that other commitments should replace the one now being removed. Some desire an understanding that in the event of the present amendment being approved by the house there should be immediate conscription. Others wish to tie the hands of the government by saying, "If the bill passes, will you promise not to put conscription into effect, under any circumstances?" To both I say this: We are one of the united nations fighting in a world war, a war in which conditions change from day to day. The government has a very real sense of its responsibili-

Mobilization Act-Mr. White
ties, and it wants to be free to deal with problems as they arise, and according to its judgment as to what is best in the light of prevailing circumstances. It must be realized that there are times when the government receives from other governments certain information which it cannot divulge. I make this appeal: Do not hamper the efforts of the government to defend this country. Our ideas may not be the same as to what constitutes defence; but upon this I hope we are unanimously agreed: We all want to serve Canada to the best of our ability. Having that determination, I ask the house to do what the Canadian people	have	done:	give	thegovernment a free hand to	get on	with	the
war.


Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to offer my congratulations to the minister who has just spoken (Mr. Mulock).	He	made a	very	finespeech-except toward	the	end of	it, when
he clearly indicated that he was not in favour of immediate conscription.
In rising to take part in the debate I fully realize the importance of the bill before the house, and the obligation imposed upon every hon. member when the vote is taken. When the plebiscite bill was before the house I was one of the members who opposed having a plebiscite because I held the view that it was the duty of the government to take whatever action might be necessary from time to time to meet the ever-changing conditions of the war from day to day. But when the members of this house decided that we should hold a plebiscite I supported it in every way and worked in my own riding to obtain a "yes" majority. That "yes" majority was obtained, and I wish to make it perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, that so far as the electors of my riding were concerned there was never any misapprehension as to what they were voting for. Despite all the red herrings that were dragged across the trail and all the speeches made hour after hour as to what plebiscite meant, people in my section of Ontario were of the opinion that when they voted "yes" on the plebiscite they were voting for conscription for overseas service, and when they voted "no", they were voting against conscription for overseas service. The electors in my part of Ontario have always been 100 per cent for a total war effort, and they are to-day.
Ever since September, 1939, I have felt that that was the time, when Canada declared war, to introduce conscription of our material resources and man-power for service anywhere in the world, But at that time we were
still living in the days of isolation and appeasement, and we were starting the practice of drifting and playing at war. If anyone will read the speeches recorded in Hansard in that short session of 1939 he will see that some of the members advocated a very limited participation in the war by Canada. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) will read the report of that debate he will not find one single word of coercion or direction by the United Kingdom or any other nation as to what action Canada should take in the war. Everyone realizes and appreciates that Canada entered this war of her own free will and accord, as a free, independent nation. The question was brought up in parliament and decided upon by the duly elected representatives of the people.
The Minister of Justice in his speech of last week is reported at page 3391 of Hansard as follows:
It is not a word they are opposed to; it is the thing which the word "conscription" has come to symbolize in their minds. In their minds, conscription is the theory that they can be forced to enrol, train, fight and die for some other cause than that of their own country.
Not only the Minister of Justice but many other members of the house spoke along similar lines, trying to indicate that the Canadian army is not fighting for Canada but that Canada is in this war because it is an imperialistic war being waged on behalf of Britain. Last week the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon) very capably and eloquently made clear that the only powers which have any imperialistic designs to-day are the axis powers. Does any hon. member of this house attempt to say or argue that Canada is fighting an imperialistic war for Britain? I say that the Canadian forces, no matter where they are fighting, are fighting to defend the shores of Canada. When the British navy sank the Gmj Spee off the coast of south America and the Bismarck in the north Atlantic, does anybody suggest that these two naval actions were not fought just as much in defence of Canada as in defence of Great Britain? Or when Japan struck at Pearl Harbour, was not that just as much an attack on the west coast of Canada as on the western defences of the United States? Does any hon. member of this house think that the soldiers of the great republic to the south of us are fighting an imperialistic war for Great Britain or any other country? Certainly not. They are fighting to defend their own country,'their own lives, their own porperty, and the rights of their citizens. Both Canada and the United States are waging war on behalf of their own

Mobilization Act-Mr. White

peoples. They want to preserve their own religions, their own race, their own freedoms and their privileges. It is quite true that in this war the United States and Canada are allies with Great Britain, but we are also allies with Russia and China and Mexico and Belgium and all the other members of the united nations.
The aims of the united nations are set out in part in the Atlantic charter and in the other agreements signed by the united nations on January 1, 1942. I wish to refer to only one sentence, clause 2, of the Atlantic charter, which reads:
They desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned.
Does that sound as though the United Kingdom or the United States were waging an imperialistic war to gain other lands? The united nations are welded together for a common purpose, to defeat a common foe. The aim of the united nations is the survival of democracy and of freedom and of all those decent things of life which free men cherish. I say again, let no one in this house be misled into thinking that Canada is waging an imperialistic war.
The Minister of Justice in the same speech also stated that there was no duty upon a Canadian citizen to give his life in the defence of any other country. I quite agree with him, but I would also point out that there is nothing in the laws of the United Kingdom or of the United States or of the other members of the united nations which imposes any such obligation upon their citizens. But when Japan struck at Pearl Harbour on December 7 last the attitude of the United States changed overnight. Gone forever were their days of isolation and appeasement. Within a few days the Congress of the United States passed in a matter of minutes, without a dissenting vote, a law which made compulsory service for American soldiers anywhere in the world the law of the United States. Will any member from the province of Quebec attempt to argue that that law was passed to aid Great Britain in an imperialistic war? Certainly not. That law was passed to protect the lives and property of the citizens of the United States, because the United States realized at once that the common enemy must be met and defeated far from American shores.
It has been stated many times in this house that our front line is overseas. Only yesterday the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) stated that our front line was in the English channel. I agree with him, and I say further that our front line also runs through Libya, on the Egyptian border, through Mid-
'Mr. White.]
way island and the Coral sea, through Australia-wherever, in fact, the enemy is operating. Why do hon. members attempt to argue that they only want to fight for Canada on Canadian soil? Does any member of this house or any citizen of Canada want to see the fight take place on Canadian soil? Are there any who want to see the front line run through Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, or Halifax? I wonder if some people realize what war in the front line is like. If hon. members want a picture of war in the front line at Hong Kong, there is running in the Saturday Evening Post a series of articles entitled "I escaped from Hong Kong," in which will be found a vivid eye-witness account of life in the front line, of the savage barbarism of the Japanese, of the unspeakable tortures that they wreaked upon helpless British soldiers and officers, of the indignities inflicted upon civilian prisoners, and of the raping of women. Is that the type of warfare that any Canadian citizen wants to have in Canada? I say frankly to you that if we do not defeat the enemy overseas that is exactly the type of warfare, and the nature of atrocities which will be committed on Canadian prisoners and Canadian women in Canada.
The United States realized that the war had to be won overseas and for that purpose they passed an act making service compulsory anywhere in the world. That is why to-day we find American soldiers stationed over the entire globe. Everyone realizes that in times of emergency, of national crisis, many of the liberties and the rights which individual citizens enjoy in peace time are taken away. This is only natural, because the state must be protected no matter what the cost may be. And in imposing conscription for anywhere in the world the United States did not hesitate: they did not seek to appease any one section of that great nation, neither did they sit on the fence. Will anyone in this house attempt to argue against the principle that in time of war every citizen owes a duty to the state, a duty which may even cost that citizen his life? For the state must be preserved at all costs. In all democratic countries there are people who in times of peace are only too ready and willing to accept all the rights and privileges and advantages of free citizenship, but when war comes they are the first to find, obstacles and excuses for staying at home. They are only too willing to stay at home and "cop off" the good jobs, the high wages, the cream of everything that is going, cashing in on the other man's patriotism while he is away fighting their battle. Mr. Nash summed it all up very clearly in his fine speech

Mobilization Act-Mr. White
before the rehabilitation committee on Friday, May 22, when, speaking of New Zealand, he said:
I emphasize three things, and they are very closely related: one is that no man who goes away from his country to fight ought to be worse off because he goes away to fight. The same applies to women-no woman who goes away to serve ought to be worse off because she goes away to serve; two, that nobody ought to be better off because he stayed at home, and three, no one in the present world situation should at any time expect to profit from the supply of the essential things associated with war.
The very same condition that existed in the last war exists to-day.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), in his recent speech in the House of Commons,
is reported in Hansard, page 3391, as follows:
The other conception seems to many of us in Quebec to be characterized by a blind, sentimental, proud and even arrogant attachment to England, not only as the mother country, hut as the real homeland toward which all loyal British hearts should ever turn.
I do not agree with what the minister said. Speaking for myself, I am a Canadian born in Canada. My parents also were born in Canada. Like the minister, I can say that the roots of my family go down fairly deep into Canadian soil. Both my parents were of Irish descent, and like all people with Irish ancestors I have a sentimental regard and affection for Ireland. But I do not think it can be regarded as blind or arrogant. I do not regard Ireland as my mother country. Canada is my mother country, and it is to Canada that I owe allegiance. My children regard Canada as their mother country, and it is to Canada that they owe allegiance. But at the same time I am proud to be a British citizen, and proud that Canada is a member of the British commonwealth of nations. Let me ask this one question; were would Canada be to-day if from the second of September, 1939, to the present day, the British navy had not stood between us and the German navy?
The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), as reported at page 3402 of Hansard of June 16, said:
The Canadian army is three times the size of that of the American or English army, in proportion to population and other considerations.
The hon. member is not here, but I would ask that during the course of this debate he give the house the figures on which he has based his calculation. On the same page he is further reported as follows:
British troops are not yet in action on the continent, and Canada's contribution so far is relatively greater than that of England herself.
44561-232J
The hon. member must have forgotten that the British army was in action in May and June, 1940, in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, where they suffered many casualties and lost many prisoners. The British army was also in action in Norway; has he forgotten that? It was in action in Greece, Crete, Libya, India, Singapore, Burma, and many other places throughout the world.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And Hong Kong.


George Stanley White: And Hong Kong too. The hon. member objects to sending reinforcements to soldiers overseas, but in the very next line he apparently realizes that our front line
is overseas, because he says, at page 3402:
If the axis powers should succeed in their effort to crush that first line of defence,-
Referring to Britain. If that is our first line of defence, there is an obligation on Canada to provide all necessary reinforcements for our men overseas and everything else that may be needed for modern warfare.
But as Canadians it matters little whether we are of Irish, French, English or Scottish descent; we are Canadians first, and I for one have never looked upon Canada as a conquered colony, as mentioned by the Minister of Justice. I regard Canada as a free, independent, sovereign state, absolute mistress in her own house. But as Canadians we all have a duty to the state in time of war. You may call it patriotism, or duty, or whatever other name you wish. I cannot define patriotism or duty, but there is something inside everyone of us that in time of war tells us what is our duty and what is our obligation to the state. Ask any soldier who served in the last war what were the impulses and the real causes that made him enlist, and you will find it is very difficult for him to explain. I cannot explain in words why I enlisted in the last war. Neither can I explain in words why my son enlisted in this war. Perhaps it is something that is born and bred in every one of us, something handed down of the glories and traditions of the race from which we as individuals spring. I can only say that it is something that is very precious to every one of us, and it raises a question that everyone must answer for himself.
In regard to military district No. 3, in which I reside, the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) has advised the house that nearly all the men available under the National Resources Mobilization Act have been called up. The reason for this is the very large enlistment of young men in the active forces. They are young men who are
Mobilization Act-Mr. White

willing to give up their future, their education, their careers, their homes, and all they hold dear, in the defence of Canada. I would like the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to say why one section of this country should pour out its best bloodi to defend another section which is unwilling to make an equal contribution. Or let the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) answer the question-the hon, member who stated in his speech that the minority, in his province, had made one concession after another to the majority. I for one would be much interested if the hon. member would place on Hansard during the course of this debate a record of those concessions.
The Minister of Justice stated further in the course of his speech, as reported in
Hansard, page 3394:
-nor have we any wish for domination over anyone. But we do wish to he recognized as full partners and full citizens anywhere and everywhere in Canada.
I for one would like to have the minister explain what rights the English-speaking Canadian has which are denied to the Frenchspeaking Canadian. I would be much interested in hearing of one single instance wherein it can be shown that the French-speaking citizens of Quebec are discriminated against. The minister stated in the same speech that his province does not wish to dominate anyone. Will the minister deny that members from his province have had their fair share in the government and the direction of the affairs of this country? The minister himself holds the most important portfolio after that of the Prime Minister. The tolerance and understanding for which the Minister of Justice pleads with English-speaking Canadians might well begin with his own race in attempting to make some effort to understand the attitude of English-speaking Canadians. I say to hon, members from Quebec that you as a minority group in this country have always had your rights respected; your religion, your language, your culture, all the things which you hold most dear, have been preserved; but I ask you, how long do you think they would last under the German gestapo? If we go down to defeat you will lose everything that you hold dear. Only a few days ago the press of the civilized world reported that the gestapo had wiped out an entire village in Czechoslovakia. The inhabitants were butchered and the village itself reduced to a heap of ruins. With such atrocities staring you in the face, and knowing that such things might happen in Canada, even in your own province, how can you say that you are not going to join in total war because this is an "imperialistic" war?

From the speeches made by many hon. members from Quebec it is indicated that they are going to oppose this amendment. I say to them, if you persist in that course you are going to leave in the Dominion of Canada such a legacy of hate, distrust and suspicion that no one sitting in this house will ever again during his lifetime see even a semblance of unity in this country. We have heard much in this debate about national unity, but apparently the view of national unity held by hon. members from Quebec is that the other eight provinces must bow to their will.
For years the province of Quebec have held the balance of power in this dominion and they have used that position for their own benefit. I for one say that the end of this has come. No longer are the eight other provinces of Canada going to be dominated by the province of Quebec. If this matter is to come to a showdown, the sooner the better. Does any hon. member believe that when the war is over and the boys overseas return they are going to be dominated by a province which refused during the war to make an equal contribution in the common cause? I say to you hon. members that you are to-day sowing the seeds of bloodshed and revolution in this country.


Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: That is what you are trying to do.


Mr. BRADETTE:: The most shameful
speech I have heard in this house.


George Stanley White: The hon. member will hear many more like it. The Prime Minister said that conscription would be enforced when it became necessary. Other hon. members kept repeating the same phrase. I would point out that we have had conscription for over two years in this country. To-day we are raising men for overseas service by conscription and by methods that do no credit to a democratic country, a country which has not the backbone to enforce conscription for overseas service. As was well pointed out by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray) in his speech last week, who can say what number of men are needed? We had one example, in the expedition to Hong Kong, of lack of trained men and equipment, and now we have a report which asks us simply to brush the matter aside.
I would ask the Prime Minister to make full disclosure in this house before the debate ends as to the real man-power situation, because a careful reading of the remarks of the Minister of National Defence yesterday shows he clearly points out that there are still very large reserves of man-power untapped in this country.

Mobilization Act-Mr. White
I for one have always felt that conscription on a selective basis is the only fair and proper method of raising an army. I am not one who has recently changed his mind on this subject, because, speaking in this house over fifteen months ago, on March 11, 1941, I spoke as follows, as reported in Hansard at page 1548:
Recently the government had a series of radio talks which they called, "Let's Face the Facts". Why not face the facts right here in this house? Let us as members of parliament show, for once, a little backbone, and face the facts and admit that conscription of all man-power for service anywhere in the world is the only answer to the present situation. Any young Canadian who will not fight for his country is not fit to receive the benefits tbit this country gives to him.
The Minister of National Defence, replying to me, stated that I was only trying to hinder the war effort and to create disunity. But it is clear from a careful reading of the remarks made by the minister yesterday that he has changed his mind very much since March 11,
1941.
I well remember when this act which we are now seeking to amend was introduced in the house, and the Prime Minister appealed to hon. members for speed, in his very best Hollywood manner. With tears trickling down his throat, he pleaded to have the act passed so that he could have the necessary power to take further action in connection with the war. I wondered at the time what marvellous new scheme we were going to have. After weeks of delay we were advised that we were to have the farce of the thirty-day training scheme, a scheme which was approved by the chief of the general staff. Someone in this house coined the phrase that the young men of Canada had to be made "military conscious." To-day at twelve o'clock it was announced on the radio that Cuba was to have conscription immediately. It was also announced that New Zealand was forming a national government. I say to the members of our war cabinet and the other members of the government, who must have confidential information as to the exact truth of the war situation to-day, "How can you still quibble about politics and the survival of a party, at a time when the very existence of our country is at stake? Can you not realize that there is no such thing as a second prize in this war, that the united nations either gain the victory or we go back to a status that is not even equal to slavery?"
The Prime Minister has stated several times that he will put conscription in force when the proper time comes. Does he expect the Japanese to tell him what are their plans about our west coast? We have had evidence in the Hong Kong report of the slight
knowledge or appreciation which the government had of the true situation before the boys were sent to Hong Kong. What we need in this country is decisive, courageous and intelligent leadership-not leadership of a party, not leadership of a caucus, not leadership of one section of the country, but leadership of the whole nation, intelligent and foresighted and courageous enough to tell the people what is needed and how to get it, and ruthless enough to see that they do get it. The Canadian people do not need to be spoon fed. They can take bad news; but when bad news comes it is glossed over and made to appear unimportant or insignificant. Let us be frank and tell the people the real truth. The real truth is that we have lost the war ever since it started; we have not even held our own. Does anyone deny that anything less than a total war effort by every citizen of the united nations will be sufficient to defeat the axis powers? We have only to look around the world and see what happened to the other nations that refused to put their house in order before the zero hour. Are we in Canada to suffer the same fate because we think we are safe behind a rotten Maginot line of isolation and appeasement?
Hon. members who served in the last war know better than anyone else the need of reinforcements and proper equipment at the right time. It is well recognized that if a new front is opened the Canadian army will be the spearhead of that attack. It will then be too late to send reinforcements overseas. Are we to have another Hong Kong through lack of properly trained men and proper equipment? I say that when this government decided to send an expeditionary force overseas there was an implied obligation that those men would be provided with all needed reinforcements and with implements of war in unlimited quantities. That obligation must be fulfilled to the limit.
I intend to support this bill, but I hope that on third reading the government will introduce all the necessary rules and regulations to make conscription for overseas service anywhere in the world enforcible at once. We must not be faced with another example of too little and too late.


Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: I was not privileged to hear all the speech of the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. White); I have surely missed many pearls and gems. But I heard enough to know the meaning that he tried to impress upon us. He said a moment ago that Quebec had been trying to run the country during the last few years. If he means by that that for a
Mobilization Act-Mr,. Picard

long time Quebec knew how to vote and so helped to bring to power the Liberal government that gave ten years of prosperity under Mackenzie King, he is right, and that when Quebec failed the good cause, we got Bennett and depression, he is right.
The hon. gentleman said that Quebec had tried to run the country. What did Quebec get from the running of the country in the way he means? I did not intend to touch on that matter, yet I am prepared to do so. There is a point I should like to bring to the attention of the house; it concerns French Canada's participation in the war and the extensive criticism thereof in the English language press. Many of my colleagues have refuted those insinuations, but I should like to touch briefly on one aspect of the matter, and that is the apparent success at times of some extremists and demagogues in Quebec who appeal to prejudice in the same way as my hon. friend did a moment ago. These people do not represent Quebec any more than the hon. gentleman represents English-speaking Canada, I hope. They represent a group of extremists who are a small minority, just the same as the hon. member represents a group or caste or school that, happily for Canada, is still a minority in English-speaking Canada.
One of the strongest arguments of those in Quebec who oppose our efforts for unity and harmony is that the majority still refuse to deal on equal terms with us and that we are denied our share of privileges.
The hon. gentleman says that we are running the country. It seems to me we are getting very poor results if we do run it. That would be a good answer to give to some of the extremists in Quebec. I should like to see some evidence of it.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Explain the attitude on the plebiscite.


Louis-Philippe Picard: The hon. gentleman will get his answer all in due course. I say to my English speaking colleagues: if you want us to carry on the fight for unity and understanding, rather than such appeals to prejudice as have been made this afternoon and are sometimes made in Quebec; if we are to struggle for unity and understanding between all citizens of good will in this country, whether English, French, Scotch, Irish, or central European, I say, give us a chance; give us the means by which we can curb the speeches of those who try to do in Quebec what the hon. gentleman did here this afternoon. Above all, show your good will more than merely in words and appeals to loyalty; give us our share of the public appointments. Do not over-
look our people simply because you have not met them. Do not let the appointments to public control boards and supply boards be the fruit of personal association. Mr. X bringing in Mr. A. because they were on the same board of directors or because A was a good customer of his firm, as has been done so often. Look around and recognize that there are people whom you may not have met in business but who have as good training and education as yourselves. Give us our share, and we shall be in a position to silence the nationalists and extremists in Quebec. Do not expect us to be satisfied to have in Quebec federal public servants who cannot speak French, any more than people in Toronto would be content with men who could not speak English.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Why not speak English?


Louis-Philippe Picard: The matter has been settled when confederation was made and you will not change it to-day. Our majority partners m the confederation are surprised and horrified by the statements of some of our demagogues but a moment of serious thought would reveal they are themselves building these demagogues. Quebec is misrepresented by the statements of some of our extremists, but it is evident that the appeals of these extremists are strengthened not only by appeals like the one we heard a moment ago but by the poor handling of the practical end of the relations between the different races in Canada, by the sad neglect and oftentimes the disgusting prejudice shown against French Canadians by a certain caste of narrow-minded people in other parts of Canada as evidenced by the words of the hon. member who preceded me. They are supplying the material for our extremists to use in arousing bitterness and resentment against English Canada just the same as the hon. gentleman is trying to arouse bitterness among those of his own language against my people. Have you seen hatred and suspicion breeding from satisfaction and content? Try for a change to treat French Canadians on equal terms, not only in your speeches but in your daily acts. Do not discriminate against them in your industries, even in Quebec, or against their entry into the civil service; or, they being there, do not spend your time trying to justify overlooking their due promotion, as I have seen so often in the twelve years during which I stood with Ernest Lapointe in Ottawa. Give us a square deal; let us start a new deal for French Canada, and the preachings of the extremists will fall flat.
If one analyses carefully the speeches made during the plebiscite campaign, of which there

Mobilization Act-Mr. Picard
is a record, he will find that three-quarters of them were based on these grievances, and on the treatment which the French Canadians consider they deserved but did not get.
Would it not be a clever move to try another method with us? Translate your good intentions into practice, and you will take most of the wind away from these demagogues. They thrive on grievances, just as other gentlemen like the one who spoke before me thrive on prejudices just for the pleasure of it and they will fall flat if you remove those grievances. I would not say to my hon .friend that there is a feeling of love for Britain on the part of 100 per cent of the French Canadians, but I will say that all fair-minded French Canadians, which would include more than 90 per cent of them, have respect for Britain, and admiration for the behaviour of the people of Britain in this war. They have a deep attachment to British institutions, and above all they have great devotion for their homeland, Quebec, and their country, Canada. The best use could be made of that feeling by making them proud partners in confederation and in the national business. If they have an equal share in the profits they will be more than ready to accept an equal share of the liabilities. If you ask from them a full realization of their duties, it is up to you to give them full enj oyment of the same privileges you enjoy.
Once more, sir, this house is in the throes of a discussion as to the most efficient method of mustering Canada's man-power for a total effort for victory. We are going through the same procedure, voicing the pros and cons of conscription for overseas service. Is it truly for the good of the country that we should be again airing our advocacy or our opposition in regard to conscription? Does anything justify the continuation of such a discussion as to the proper method to supply the army with men? Has the present system of recruiting failed? Are our camps empty? Are training facilities not being made use of? Are there not in other branches of the service, such as the navy, the air force and other specialized units, definite waiting lists? I can answer in regard to the navy, because I know of a young man who tried to enlist the other day and was told that he might have to wait a month before he could do so. In short, are there any strategic or definite reasons why we should be again arguing this matter? There are none of which I know. We are at it again as the result of political manoeuvres which succeeded in creating a psychic condition among a certain element of the population. If conscription had not been made a political football from
the very start of the war, conditions in the country to-day would be more conducive to a successful war effort than they are tending to be at present, with the campaign that was started and is still going on, stirring up prejudice and resentment between classes and races in this country. Disinterested observers of the future who study the question without bias will, I am sure, cast all responsibility on the shoulders of those who, for purely political reasons, have agitated public opinion throughout Canada in order to impress upon the population the necessity of a conscription measure. The result of their behaviour has been to cause the country tremendous harm: first, by raising doubts in the minds of Canadians as to the scope and extent of their accomplishments; second, by causing such views to be broadcast in the United States, thereby impairing our publicity over there and creating a false impression concerning our war effort; third, by disrupting national unity by arousing suspicion and anger in the minds of Canadians with regard to the attitude of other Canadians of different racial origin. Those who engineered this campaign may feel proud, politically, to have succeeded-temporarily only-in dividing the Liberals on this question of the best means to supply the army with men. If they could survey their actions purely from the point of view of patriotism, they could not but feel ashamed of the result of what they have done.
As for myself, sir, I am against conscription, not as a matter of principle but as a matter of expediency, in the interests of the efficient prosecution of the war and the best results to be obtained in the struggle we are waging against Hitlerism. Since there is nothing just and fair in war, there never has been devised a means perfectly fair and just of summoning men to the defence of their country. Conscription is no exception to that statement. There is nothing just in the fact that the young and the sane and the strong, should sacrifice their liberty, their leisure, their comfort, sometimes their health and, unfortunately, their lives so that others may prosper or at least may not be enslaved. There is nothing fair in that; but even though no system can be perfectly fair, we must have recourse to one of two systems in order to provide the army with the men it needs. One is the voluntary system, under which mem are invited to join the colours to fight the battles of their country. Up to now in most countries this has been found the only possible means of supplying the air force, the navy and highly specialized units such as the parachute troops, the tank corps and more recently the commandos. The other method is the compulsory system,
Mobilization Act-Mr. Picard

under which men are called up by age groups, given a physical check-up and then either discharged or put in the army.
In a country where there exists a strong national sentiment and close national unity, where there is no doubt that the army is fighting not only ultimately but directly for the protection of the country, either by way of defence or of attack, it would appear that a compulsory method, applied without favour and through selective service, might be the least unfair, if there is anything at all fair ini such a thing as the mobilization of men when we do not have mobilization of labour, of resources or of wealth. Unfortunately, sir, Canada is not in such a position. It is forever trying to build up national unity, which has never been completely achieved; and, unfortunately, it has no true Canadian national sentiment, nor will it have as long as French Canadians-and I admit it for my own part -consider their province to be their country, and as long as English Canadians think more of the empire and of Britain than of Canada. Moreover, no wars in which Canada has participated during the past century have been Canada's wars. They have been imperial wars in which we participated because of our imperial ties. National sentiment cannot be created in a country where at least fifty per cent of the people are not of pure British origin, in connection with the fighting of an imperial war or participation in an imperial adventure.
I have already stated in this house and elsewhere that I consider the present war, in the stage it has now reached, as vastly different from any preceding wars, and I have readily admitted the urgency of an unmitigated war effort. But national sentiment, even though it may be stirred when war exists, cannot be especially created when war is on. Therefore a system which might be defended under given circumstances would be inadvisable when all the elements necessary to its success did not exist; and it should be resorted to for service other than hemispheric defence only if the ultimate security of the country demanded it.
A day or so ago the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) mentioned the examples of Russia, France and so on in regard to compulsory service. As a matter of fact, compulsory service more or less originated following the French revolution, in an attempt to bring about a sort of equality of sacrifice of life, if not equality of sacrifice in other directions such as comfort and wealth and so on. As I have said, it can be applied in. a country where national 
unity exists, and it is the only method that could be devised in Russia and elsewhere which would take account of conditions existing there. It never existed in Italy until the war of 1914. We shall see in a short time what pains of childbirth there were when it was brought out in England in 1916, seventeen months after the start of the last war.
What are the circumstances which concern us to-day as to our participation in the war? We have started out with a voluntary system, and it has up to now met with success. In fact we have barely been able at times to equip the men who enlisted. As it goes, the first policy of the government met with the approval of all the citizens, and it was stated to be, first, the adequate protection of the country; second, larger industrial output of materials not only for our own needs, but also to be supplied to Great Britain and our other allies; third, larger agriculture output not only to feed Canadians but mainly to feed Britain, which was in need of food and, fourth, a well-equipped and trained expeditionary force to share in the united nations' effort to curb the enemy abroad.
Canada has up to now splendidly worked toward that end. It has obtained 470,000 men who enlisted voluntarily for service anywhere, and it has an army of 150,000 mobilized under the National Resources Mobilization Act. My only reproach of the Department of National Defence would be that it has not availed itself sufficiently of the National Resources Mobilization Act to create an adequate territorial army. All the time and energy of the department has been spent on the so-called active force, whose very name implies that the territorial or defence army is to be inactive.
There can be no more inappropriate name for the defence army than the term "reserve army". It is a reserve for what?-a reserve that supplies the active, or the so-called active army-as if our army would become active only when they are on the soil of Great Britain, and only when associated with the imperial army? This spirit is evident at every step in the military set-up. A man mobilized for service in Canada was interesting as long as hope had not been abandoned to make him enlist for service overseas. The trouble is that the government's policy was entrusted to men who never believed in it, and who from the very start had other ideas in mind, and who tried to bring them about either through compulsion or through the moulding of public opinion by the Tory press.
I still maintain that there is nothing absurd or ridiculous in the idea I previously expressed in the house that there should be two different types of army in a country like ours, so long

Mobilization Act-Mr. Picard
as it is made up in the way it is, and so long as we have no closer unity than exists among ourselves. There would be a territorial army for Canada, with conscription for Canada under a process of selective service, forcing all men who could serve or who could be spared from industry or agriculture for the defence of Canada. Then there would be a Canadian expeditionary force to take part in the war elsewhere for the defence of civilization, recruited under the voluntary system by the voluntary passage into it of men already in the territorial army, or by the voluntary enlistment of men not yet called in that army under the mobilization act. Both armies to receive the same proper training to make them fit for modern warfare.
That would give us a balanced war effort, without disturbing national unity. There is nothing absurd in it. What is absurd is the present system of putting a man, who is a conscript, in a regiment of volunteers. I will admit that procedure has no sense. On the other hand, if we are mobilizing units for the defence of Canada and recruiting units for an expeditionary force, both trained in the same way, and if we keep in Canada a little more of the machinery and equipment that we send abroad at present you will ensure a better defence of the country while contributing to the fight against the enemy on other shores.
There is a further point I should like to touch upon. I am getting more and more annoyed with the unfair and unjust campaign against Quebec and against French Canadians on the pretext of their opposition to conscription for service overseas. They are trying, like the hon. member who preceded me, to make the people of Canada believe that French Canadians are unworthy citizens, because they do not like conscription. They are trying to make us believe that they are less patriotic Canadians. To read some of the articles published in the Tory press, one would believe that French Canadians are the only ones in the empire who have opposed conscription for service outside Canada. Many of my colleagues have refuted that by citing the examples of Australia, South Africa and Northern Ireland.
Let me go further than that. Let us examine the whole question of the opposition to compulsory service. The objection to conscription is not a French-Canadian invention, nor is it a monopoly of my fellow compatriots. Allow me to quote an opinion on conscription:
My objection to the employment of compulsion for the purpose of recruiting the army under existing conditions has not been based at all upon abstract attachment to a principle. It is based upon an entirely different ground, namely, that the employment of compulsion
under existing conditions would forfeit what I regard to be of supreme and capital importance, that is, the maintenance of the national unity. That again is an abstract objection, but when translated into concrete terms it means this; if you were to apply, I do not speak of any particular method, but any method of coercion or compulsion, without something in the nature, I will not say of universal, but of general consent, you would defeat your own purpose.
Mark those words:
It would not be a practicable or workable method of making good and filling up the gaps left by the defects of the voluntary system. I am speaking my own view-entirely my own view. My proposition, if I were to formulate one, would be this: Not that I rule out compulsion as an impossible expedient, but that compulsion, if resorted to, ought only to be resorted to, and can only from a practical point of view be resorted to-or, in other words, be made a workable expedient for filling up the gap which you have to supply-with something in the nature of general consent.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: What is the hon. member reading?


Louis-Philippe Picard: Who said this? I shall answer the hon. member for St. Paul's. Was it a French-Canadian member of parliament? Was it a nationalist speaker from Quebec? Was it one of our cabinet ministers? No; the words were uttered by no other than the Prime Minister of Great Britain on November 2, 1915, fifteen months after the start of the great war. Mr. Asquith had said just previously to that-and there is nothing like old books to get new thoughts-


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Did he have a change of mind on that?


Louis-Philippe Picard: If he did, the hon. member will see in a moment.
Here is a further statement by that British Prime Minister:
I will let the house into a cabinet secret- I hope without breaking any obligations of secrecy or any confidence-and that is that there have been differences of opinion amongst the members of the cabinet as to whether what we need, whether, in other words, wThat I call the full exploitation and employment of the recruitable reservoir can or cannot be obtained without resort to some form of compulsion. I will state my own view. In the first place, I have no abstract objection of any sort or kind to compulsion-in time of war. It is a pure question of practical expediency-how are we going to bring the war to a successful conclusion?
I have many more of these quotations, but I shall have to shorten them, because there are some further points I wish to make before resuming my seat.
An hon. member asked1 me if Mr. Asquith changed his mind. It was on January 5, 1916, that the compulsory service bill was introduced into the British House of Commons. Let us
Mobilization Act-Mr, Picard

see what kind of compulsion it was. Let us remember that it was brought into effect only after seventeen months of war. Let us see what reaction its introduction produced on some hon. members in the house at the time. We will see if Mr. Asquith had changed his mind with respect to the compulsory method, when he spoke on January 5, 1916. This is what he said:
There was considerable controversy in the early autumn of last year as to whether we could best do our duty in the war by persevering with our voluntary system, with such improvements as experience had shown to be necessary, or by the introduction, in some form, of general compulsion. There were great divergences of opinion on that subject, even among those who are ordinarily accustomed to think alike, and they penetrated, as I think I have disclosed before, into the cabinet. I believe that these divergences of view on the general question still exist. My own view is well known, and has been publicly expressed. Speaking for myself for the moment, for myself alone-as I have said I do not propose on this larger issue to speak for all my colleagues-I am of opinion that no case has been made out for general compulsion. I, at any rate, would be no party to a measure which had that for its object.
The bill that I am about to ask leave to introduce is one, I think, which can be sincerely supported by those who, either on principle or, as in my c vvn case, on grounds of expediency, are opposed to what is commonly described as conscription.
The right hon. gentleman then went on to give a full explanation of the bill. Note, Mr. Speaker, to what stratagems they had to resort to bring in a conscription bill. It was in effect a conscription bill, but in principle it was not one. Mr. Asquith a little later on said:
The course we are going to ask parliament to adopt is to provide that, if, after due opportunity of inquiry, it is found that there are single men of military age who have no ground whatever for exemption or excuse, they shall be deemed to have done what everyone agrees it is their duty to the state in times like these to do, and be treated as though they had attested or enlisted. . . . The bill applies to all male British subjects who, on the 15th August, 1915, had attained eighteen years and not attained forty-one years of age, and who, at that date were unmarried or widowers without children dependent upon them.
This method of introducing the bill was not followed by a French Canadian, it was not done in the province of Quebec, but in Great Britain, by Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister, who tried to sugar-coat the bill so that it would be more easily swallowed. It was not conscription, and yet it was conscription. So that in England in 1915 and 1916 there were men like Mr. Asquith who declared themselves opposed to conscription on grounds of expediency, and there were also men like Sir John Simon who regarded conscription as opposed

to the democratic way of life. He resigned his post of home secretary rather than support the bill. He said:
I confess to have regarded the voluntary system as a vital principle of national life.
He said further:
If the bill passes, what are the real chances of general consent? Are the omens favourable? I ask myself with the full sense of the responsibility it involves what is the position to be if and when this bill reaches the statute book. ... I do beg the government and the House of Commons to consider whether the . . . difficulties, some of them existing already in relation to the administration of other acts of parliament, are not likely to be multiplied?
May I remind the house that the gentleman who uttered these words was no less than the Right Hon. Sir John Simon, who had just resigned as home secretary rather than support the bill. And he was not the only one. I could cite many others, but unfortunately I have not the time at my disposal. I shall quote only one more, Right Hon. J. H. Thomas, who said:
I resent to the full the suggestion that has already been made, that those who are likely to oppose this bill are not in favour of winning the war. Not only are they in favour of winning the war, but they genuinely and sincerely believe that the course they adopt is the best course in the interests of winning the war. Therefore, I do not think it will help matters to hurl charges of that kind.
And that applies to the hon. member who spoke ahead of me. Mr. Thomas went on:
I do beg the house to realize, whatever ministers may say, that there is a deep-rooted suspicion in the minds of the workers of this country, that this position has been forced on the government to-day, not with a view of winning the war, and not because of any military value, but because of a certain section of the press.


James Arthur Ross: Now quote Mr. Churchill.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I think the house has had enough for the moment. I can quote Mr. Churchill some other day; I have not the time at my disposal now.
From general considerations of the question of conscription and of French Canada's reaction to it I come now to the bill before us and the attitude I intend to take upon it.
My mind and my heart have been torn asunder on the vote to be given on the measure before us, and I am not ashamed to admit it. I have abstained from following any group in a joint consideration of a concerted attitude to be taken. I have worked and studied and listened and consulted', and I shall be alone responsible for my decision.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Picard
My opposition to conscription, as I stated previously, is not so much one of principle as of expediency and what is best for the efficient conduct of the war. I admit that I would have no repulsion to extending conscription to service overseas if I were conscientiously convinced that it was needed in the interests of our own country. As conditions are at the moment I cannot come to that conclusion; I have no such conviction. On the contrary, I think it would hamper our war effort and make it less efficient and it might bring-I hope not-as Sir John Simon said in England, internal disturbances that would cause more harm to the prosecution of a well balanced war effort than the good that might ensue from a more regular flow of men to the army.
But no matter how much opposed I may be to conscription on the ground of expediency, I cannot ignore the fact that the political plots of the Tories in this house and in the press have forced the conscription issue on the Canadian people and have succeeded in making many people in Canada believe that it is now vital to the winning of the war. As a result of this we are faced to-day with a measure which until a few days ago I thought represented a sincere attempt to conciliate opposing views, much in the same spirit as evidenced1 by Mr. Asquith in introducing military bill No. 2 at Westminster in 1916. Bill No. 80 will give the government all the necessary authority to send the men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act anywhere it thinks fit, and should satisfy those who wish the government to have a free hand1. On the other hand, those who oppose conscription for overseas service had reason to be pleased with the assurances of the Prime Minister that such powers would be used only if absolutely necessary, and he thought they were not necessary at the present time.
However, the speeches of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) and of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who seemed to be competing with each other, have shown a lack of unity in the cabinet which justifies a greater need of caution from those who have to pass on this measure. As long as it could be viewed as a compromise and a conciliatory effort, the measure was no doubt worthy of most benevolent consideration, because it must be recognized that good government in a country ethnically and geographically composed as ours is must of necessity be the fruit of conciliation and understanding rather than of one-sided decisions.
Against the arguments which prompted me to vote for the measure I had to weigh the
most important factor of the expressed will of the people whom I represent on the issue at stake. I need not go over their reasons again, but it is abundantly evident that not only were my constituents against conscription for overseas but they had unmistakably come to the conclusion and made clear by their vote that they were against releasing the Prime Minister from his pledges despite the personal appeals and pleadings I made to change their views.
Is it not a principle of democracy that a representative of the people should as much as possible express the views of those who have elected him as their representative and vote accordingly unless by doing so he endangers their own interests and impairs their own security or that of the country?
The government appeals to-day to the province of Quebec to change an opinion it has nursed since the South African war-nonparticipation in imperial wars of Britain- and it has not prepared public opinion to understand that our share in the present conflict in its fields of battle abroad and especially in Britain is not to support the empire, that it is a contribution to a war for the survival of our own liberties and our own institutions. Public opinion in Quebec has not been prepared by the government's agencies. Let us admit that the propaganda and information services have been most inadequate, to say the least, as far as French Canada is concerned, and that our people have not been enlightened by members of the government themselves. If they had talked of Canadian interests in the war, they might have been able to convince the French Canadians to accept a compulsory measure at this time; but not having contributed to bring that about, I do not think the government can except its supporters from the province of Quebec to go back to our people now and attempt to convince them overnight that conscription for overseas service had become a matter of life or death for Canada. I would be willing to risk myself in such an effort if I had received any help before. But I cannot do it in a week. You cannot all of a sudden, overnight as it were, change the lifelong sentiments of a people.
I could not be convinced, sir, that I would have acted wrongly if I voted against the measure and as my constituents desired; yet I had a feeling that I would best serve the interests of understanding, of unity, and of the bonne entente if I voted for the amendment. At that point of my hesitations I came across a sentence-which perhaps I had better not quote; however, I will go ahead- when perusing Lord Durham's report on the
Mobilization Act*-Mr, Picard

affairs of British North America which set me to thinking anew as to the course I should follow.
Reviewing the constant flare-ups in Lower Canada between the new English settlers and the French Canadians and analysing the source and reasons of their quarrels, Lord Durham referred to the men of good-will who tried to compromise and to reach a livable understanding, and he concluded with these words:
A few of the French, distinguished by moderate and enlarged views, still condemn the narrow national prejudices and ruinous violence of their countrymen, while they equally resist what they consider the violent and unjust pretensions of a "minority"-
And mind you, sir, at the time the minority was not French, but was English, and ruled with the force of arms Canada at that time.
-and endeavour to form a middle party between the two extremes.
Those who affect to form a middle party exercise no influence on the contending extremes and those who side with the English are regarded by their countrymen with aggravated hatred, as renegades from their race; while they obtain but little of the real affection, confidence, or esteem of those whom they have joined.
These grave words, the fruit of a keen observation in 1839, a close survey of our political history will unfortunately show to have been true very often. Unjust as this reaction may be, it has proved to exist in each crisis which we have gone through in this country.
Willing as I am to work to change the viewpoint and to broaden the horizons of my compatriots on some issues where I am not always in agreement with them, is it wise to separate myself at this moment from them? If I had any hesitations left, the statements of the Minister of National Defence would have wiped them out.
I must say, however, that if I expected by my vote to overthrow the Prime Minister, I would not hesitate to vote for the bill, even if I were next day to be blamed by many people, because I would consider it of the utmost importance to ensure his continuance in office in these days, when more than ever is needed at the helm his wise, guiding hand. Under present conditions, although my own inclination is to vote confidence in the Prime Minister in appreciation of this further conciliatory measure, which, I am sure, he has introduced in the hope of maintaining unity and harmony as well as in the hope of keeping the full strength of the country behind the war effort, I cannot but view with alarm the divergence of views in the cabinet on the effect of the present measure, and I will consider it a duty to heed the expressed wishes of my compatriots and vote against the repeal

of section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act. But I wish to assure you, sir, using the words of a British statesman, that:
. . . the choice that faces a member who finds himself divided from his chief is a difficult and painful one.


Mr. ELPHEGE MARIER (Jacques Cartier) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I take
pleasure in congratulating the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) for the magnificent speech he has just delivered, and for the many substantiated arguments he set forth to justify the stand of those who oppose the measure recently introduced by the government.
At the general election of March 1940, the Conservative party leader, as well as the head of the Liberal party, all the Quebec representatives and most of the other members of this house, assured the Canadian people that there would be no conscription for service overseas.
Why give this pledge when we had been at war for seven months and certain developments were already indicating that the conflict would become universal? Simply because our politicians remembered the lessons of the past. Conscription in 1917 had been an absolute failure from the practical point of view. It increased by very little the strength of our armed forces and produced on the other hand the most disastrous results. Its enforcement left in the province of Quebec the distinct impression of an attempt at racial domination, and also the conviction that for some, perhaps for a great many of our fellow citizens, empire interests came before those of Canada, the only homeland the French Canadians have. Moreover, it was very costly in bloodshed and useless hardship, and the wounds it caused are not yet completely healed; above all, it sharply divided the Canadian nation.
The anti-conscription policy preached by the Liberal party for the last twenty-five years and endorsed by all parties prior to the 1940 election, was neither new nor unknown in the different Canadian provinces.
No need to delve far back into the past to recall the statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe in this very house in March 1939, as well as the statements uttered by these same leaders in September 1939, when war was declared, and those of the hon. Dr. Manion, then Conservative leader.
At the Quebec provincial election in October 1939, the National Union party, then in power, advocated a non-intervention policy. We saw the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe and

Mobilization Act-Mr. Marier
the former Minister of Public Works and Transport (Mr. Cardin) enter the fight to secure Quebec's approval of the federal government's war policy. They promised that Canada's participation in this war would be voluntary and that there would be no conscription for overseas service. On these terms, the province of Quebec pledged her full support to the war effort and promised to contribute her share generously and loyally, side by side with the other provinces in this dominion.
I recall the flattering remarks she then received on every side. There was no newspaper in Canada that did not extol the broadmindedness of our people, their far-seeing patriotism and will to cooperate. And these qualities, may I add, this broadmindedness, this patriotism and will to cooperate for victory, still exist there.
That election of March, 1940, gave the Liberal party the greatest majority ever returned to this house since Confederation, which proves that the policy of voluntary participation commanded the approval of the whole country and, so far, nothing shows that the Canadian people have changed their minds. Of course, there have been various interpretations of the plebiscite vote. Some claim that it expressed, on the part of the majority, the desire to see conscription for overseas service implemented without delay; others considered it as a simple expression of opinion, authorizing the government and parliament to discuss the matter on its merits and take any step that circumstances might require.
When the plebiscite was submitted to the house in February, I supported the measure. Many forecasts on the duration of the war and its limitation to certain European countries, had not become realities. Conditions had often changed since September, 1939. Above all else, the entry of the United States into the struggle could and did considerably alter the situation; it could even have forced us, for example, to direct our war effort into new channels. I believed, as I still do, that in a democracy the people had the right to release us from any promises made to them. For this reason, on the day of the plebiscite, April 27 last, I requested the electors of Jacques Cartier, whom I have the honour of representing in this house, to answer "yes' to the plebiscite question. I took this stand on the strength of statements made by the right hon. Prime Minister in this house and elsewhere. Here is an excerpt from a speech I delivered over the radio on April 21 last:
Mr. King stated in the house, on February 24 last, that conscription for overseas service is not and may never become necessary; the people, he said, over the radio, on April 7, are not called upon to take a stand on conscription by their vote on the plebiscite question; this matter, if it ever becomes the subject of a debate, will be discussed by parliament who will settle it on its merits.
In stating that the question, if it were ever discussed, would be debated on its merits by parliament, I was merely repeating the words of the Prime Minister, in his radio speech of April 7. I quote;
The question of conscription, properly viewed, is a military question. The place to discuss it is in parliament. What the government now seeks for itself and for parliament is freedom to consider and debate and decide this question, like all other questions concerned vvith the war, unrestricted by any pledge and in the light only of the needs of national security.
Further on he added:
The only place it can satisfactorily be decided whether a particular step is necessary or a particular measure needed, is in parliament. In parliament, the government can state its case and provide the information on which a wise decision can alone be made.
Had the vote in my constituency been negative, I would be bound by the will of my electors and I would have little to add to the clear, complete and eloquent statement of the reasons against repeal of section 3 made by the former Minister of Public Works and Transport, and by the other hon. members who are so strongly opposed to the principle of conscription for overseas service as exemplified by Bill No. 80. But in view of the fact that a large majority of my constituents have, on the contrary, given me an affirmative vote and that, in certain quarters, this vote is construed as a vote in favour of conscription, I feel justified in furnishing additional reasons for my stand.
It seems to me that in order to decide whether parliament should agree to the proposed amendment or not, we need only ask ourselves the following questions and answer them logically and sensibly: does the plebiscite vote mean a vote for conscription? Is conscription for overseas service necessary and, if so, should the reasons for that necessity be submitted to the members of this house, so that they may judge them on their merits? Finally, if the measure is not necessary, is it expedient? Or is it liable to produce disastrous consequences?
Mobilization Act-Mr. Marier

I must thank the right hon. Prime Minister for having answered "no" to the first question. He has emphatically stated that the plebiscite vote did not mean conscription. The excerpts from the radio speeches of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) which he quoted in his speech of June 10 agree with what he has stated on various occasions in this house and elsewhere.
An affirmative answer only involved freedom for the government and parliament to discuss the matter of conscription for service overseas, and to judge it on its merits; it did not imply the obligation to enforce it, whether necessary or not.
Moreover, that is the way the voters in my constituency understood it. They had enough confidence in me to leave me free to state whether I was for or against any measure involving conscription for overseas service. But in so doing they laid upon me a new responsibility. And it is because I deeply feel that responsibility that I have a right to know the reasons for the introduction of this measure. Is it really necessary? I followed closely the speech delivered by the Prime Minister on June 10. I have read it many times; in my opinion, it is a very strong plea by the leader of the government against conscription.
I would like to quote the following words which appear at pages 3238 and 3239 of Hansard:
On February 4, the Minister of Finance gave the reasons for believing that the government's war programme for 1942-43 would constitute the utmost effort of which the country is capable. The minister said:
"I believe that the programme which we plan should for the immediate future, the coming year, be a programme which will strain the human and material resources of this country to the limit. I have, therefore, agreed as Minister of Finance, to a war programme for the coming fiscal year which, in my opinion, and in the opinion of my advisers, is the extreme limit of what this country can do, having in mind its human and' material resources."
The new features in the budget speech we heard yesterday will tax more heavily, if possible, the human and material resources of the nation.
The Prime Minister said, as reported at page 3239:
On February 10, the Minister of National Defence stated that the estimated man-power requirements of the army, for service anvwhere, from January 1, 1942, to March 31, 1943. a period of fifteen months, were 90,000 to 100,000 men Of that number over 50,000 had enlisted by the end of May. That is in a period of IMr. Marier. 1
only five months. These figures show clearly that, at the present time, the voluntary system of recruitment is functioning adequately.
And at page 3241:
How could resort to conscription for overseas service add to our war effort? The one way, in which so far as I can see, it might add to our war effort, would be by securing more men for service in the army overseas than can be secured by voluntary means.
If the size of the overseas army was unlimited; if we did not require men urgently for other purposes as well as for the army; there might be a possibility of increasing the total war effort by conscripting men for the overseas army.
And further on the same page:
Clearly there are no grounds for asserting that compulsion is needed at the present time to secure the men required for service in the army overseas. There is nothing to indicate that its application now would add anything to Canada's total contribution to the winning of the war.
Since that date, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) have enlarged, if possible, upon the Prime Minister's words in that connection. The Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) went farther; he asserted that conscription would hamper our war effort.
If conscription for overseas service is not necessary, why is the amendment to the Mobilization Act introduced at this time? What are the facts by which we may judge this measure on its merits? I cannot find them in the Prime Minister's speech. The voluntary system is supplying more men than required and, the taxing of our resources in men and material to the extreme limit will suffice to meet the requirements of the government's programme up to March 31, 1943. Moreover, the Mobilization Act as it stands empowers the government to conscript all able-bodied men in the country for service in Canada and to train them in exactly the same way as they train volunteers.
In the hour of supreme effort and ultimate sacrifice, what is there to prevent the government from seeking the approval of parliament to the amendment they have now introduced and to launch overseas all the armed forces of Canada, should such a sacrifice or such an effort become necessary? Should conscription become necessary to save the country and to win the war, despite the fact that I, in common with my French-Canadian fellow-citizens, loathe conscription, I would vote for such a measure. But, without necessity or reason and1 despite enemy attacks on both our coasts, despite the more urgent peril requiring stronger forces for our own defence and for the protection of those sources of

Mobilization Act-Mr. Marier
supply on which the very life of Great Britain depends, it is being urged that we put on the statute books a measure admittedly unnecessary at the present time, but which may be made use of by some other government tomorrow or by some other leader who might hold an entirely different view of the situation.
The present Prime Minister has more than any other and throughout his entire career, advocated the supremacy of parliament. I understand the government should hold greater powers in time of war, but when the very lives of our youth, the cream of the nation, are at stake, the members of this house would indeed make a serious mistake and fail in their duty should they renounce the right to decide when and how, in what circumstances and in the face of what danger, the government may take upon themselves the right of disposing of the lives of others. In support of his attitude, the Prime Minister tells us that parliament, by virtue of the Mobilization Act, has already conferred upon the government the power of conscripting men and that the present amendment is but an extension of this power. He overlooks the fact that when they brought down this measure in 1940, the government gave excellent reasons to justify its adoption and that, besides, it was accompanied by another solemn pledge given by the Prime Minister, which can be found on page 854 of Hansard for June 18, 1940:
Once again, I wish to repeat my undertaking, frequently given, that no measure for the conscription of men for overseas service will be introduced by the present administration.
It was on the same day that the Prime Minister announced the armistice parleys between France on the one hand and Italy and Germany on the other. It was in those dark hours when England, together with her dominions and colonies, faced the dark future alone, at an infinitely graver hour than the present one.
Russia was then bound to Germany by a non-aggression pact; we were even anxiously wondering whether she would join our enemies. Japan was as threatening as ever and no one doubted that she would enter the conflict sooner or later.
The United States were still out of the war, and while supplying the allies with credit, arms and munitions, were not extending to them the tremendous support given at the moment.
If the Prime Minister, notwithstanding all this and in spite of the anticipation of an increasing danger, repeated the assurance that
there would be no conscription for overseas service, he undoubtedly did so to maintain in this country the sacred unity which must remain the basis of our war effort.
Is it more expedient to-day than at that time to break our pledges, to stir up popular feeling, to plant the seeds of hatred which extremists have endeavoured to sow throughout the country?
Already an important section of the Canadian people is looked upon with distrust because it voted "no" in the plebiscite. Already, the small group of politicians and financiers who have sworn to overthrow the government and to form a so-called national union government are jeering at Quebec through their hired press and their paid advertisements published on a lavish scale all over Canada and even in the United States.
They play upon the inborn feeling of attachment for Great Britain existing among our English-speaking fellow citizens, just as they make able use of the undeserved reproach that Quebec is not bearing her share of sacrifice for the purpose of winning the war. If Canadian unity is destroyed, if good: understanding between the two main racial groups in the country exists no longer, whose fault is it? The French-Canadian minority has made concession after concession in order to maintain it, as the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres so ably explained.
Is it that unity and good understanding can only be maintained through repeated and constant sacrifices on the part of the minority, in the absence of any reciprocity? Does unity demand that the French Canadians should give up one of the most sacred rights for which we are now fighting, namely, that of freely expressing their opinions? The overwhelming majority of French Canadians have refused to release the government from its commitments or pledges. Had they not a right to do so, since the question of the plebiscite was an open one? The government was released from its past commitments by a large majority. Well and good, we submit to this verdict. But when the government ask that section 3 be repealed, that the principle of conscription be written into the statute books, have we not the right to know the reasons for this attitude and the circumstances which justify it? Is this incompatible with our position as loyal Canadian subjects. The isolation of the province of Quebec has been mentioned. The vote given in the 1940 election is still too recent for us to believe that the overwhelming majority of the people in this country ardently wish for conscription for overseas service and I share the opinion of the Minister of Agriculture when he states that no
Mobilization Act-Mr. Marier

party with a background and a hope for the future could well enforce such a measure. Which shows that, in his opinion, a majority of the electorate is still opposed to conscription for overseas service.
The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) has made an eloquent appeal in favour of trusting the present government. His speech is remarkable by the elevation of thought and by the expression of certain truths good to hear now and again, in this house and through the country as a whole. But the hon. Minister of Justice, who is also a great lawyer, endeavoured to justify the blind vote of confidence the government is asking from the hon. members by quoting the fact that in his profession he always insists that his clients do not interfere in the conduct of a case. I practised that same profession for nearly thirty years and always I demanded the same degree of trust from my clients. But the latter know nothing about the law and they come to us for advice, not to guide us. Thus the minister's argument implies, to my mind, that we have nothing to say in the conduct of the war and that we must invest the government with dictatorial powers. I am sorry to say that the conception I have of a member's responsibility is quite different.
The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, in the course of the remarkable speech he delivered in this house on June 11, stated that one of the reasons of the disunity we deplore to-day lies in the fact that never during the last twenty-five years did Canada have a policy of her own, as becomes a sovereign nation.
This is partly true. We have lived for a long time within the orbit of a great power and we have suffered the repercussions of a policy over which we had little or no control. However, during the last few years and under the guidance of the Prime Minister, who is to be congratulated on this account, our political, financial and economic life has followed pretty closely the pattern set by our country's geographical position. Canada is an American country and if this is taken into account and our policies hence given a purely Canadian trend, many difficulties will be overcome, many causes of disunity will disappear for the greater good of the country. We shall hear less of the two principal nationalities that share our territory and more of the Canadian nation.
I have the highest esteem and regard for the leader of the government, our leader, but I cannot support the proposed amendment to

the Mobilization Act, which implies a change of policy and incorporates in our statute books the principle of conscription for overseas service. Neither can I admit that the government, by a simple order in council, be empowered, under section 5 of the Mobilization Act, to apply conscription without consulting parliament and send overseas thousands of young men drafted hereto for the defence of Canada, and of Canada only.
Moreover, the statements of the Prime Minister and the principal members of his cabinet imply that conscription for overseas service is not necessary, that it might even hamper our war effort. For these various reasons, I feel compelled to vote against this measure.


Mr. J. ALPHEE POIRIER (Bonaventure) (Translation):: The question which arises to-day in the House of Commons is whether we should give the present government or its successors the power to impose by order in council a measure of conscription for overseas service. Therefore the principle of conscription for military service overseas is at stake in this bill, and it is the Liberal government that presents the bill and asks Liberal members from the province of Quebec to vote to give the government a free hand to put conscription into effect by and by if needed. Speaking for my constituency and for myself, I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that I will not support the government on this question, that I will vote against it. I am breaking a fifty-three year old tradition when I set myself against the Liberal party in this chamber, and words could not express my regret. As a matter of fact it was in 1889 that Sir Franqois Lemieux was elected Liberal member for the county of Bonaventure, which constituency he wrested from such famous Conservatives as Tarte, Robitaille and Riopel, by whom it had been held since confederation. Since that time, fifty-three years ago, my county has been Liberal, without a single defeat; and I do not think any member from that constituency, including Sir Franqois Lemieux, Hon. Charles Marcil or Hon. Pierre Emile Cote, has ever had to vote against the government and the head of the Liberal party. In a recent radio talk I said about the Hon. Mr. King:
No other prime minister of Canada has so loved the province of Quebec and has treated it with such a measure of justice. I know of no other man who, because of his dignity and honesty, of his exemplary life devoted entirely to his country's service, deserves so much esteem as the Prime Minister.
I cannot understand, however, how it is that the Liberal government, which has always been supported by the province of Quebec, which

Mobilization Act-Mr. Poirier
has represented during many years the true Canadian sentiment not only in Quebec but in a great majority of the constituencies of this country, should now allow itself to be advised by the worst enemies of the Liberal party and of Freneh-Canadian sentiment, and should go from one concession to another even to the point of bringing into parliament a bill containing the principle of conscription for overseas service. It is easy to see that it is high finance that is influencing the will of the government and forcing it to present such a bill. It is high time we offered some resistance to the will of high finance. I say that immediately after the war the people will revolt, peacefully or with violence, against the rapacity of high finance. In my countv of Bonaventure, as in almost every part of the country, people suffered much during the depression of 1930-35. They were told that there was no money to buy bread, and large families were expected to live on relief allowances of S10 to $20 a month. But just as soon as war was declared billions of dollars were found with which to organize it. It is time to realize the financial tyranny which crushes the people of Canada. We are 100 per cent behind the war effort, but on the sole condition that the rapacious financiers be brought to reason, that after the war the riches of the country be put to the service of the people and not the people to the service of the riches.
I wish all my colleagues to understand me, Mr. Speaker. I am a Canadian, and no one loves his country more than I do. My maternal ancestor, a public notary, Alexandre Bourque, came to this country, to Port Royal in Acadia, in 1635; my paternal ancestor came to live in Prince Edward Island shortly after that. Therefore it is more than three hundred years since my forefathers settled in Canada. I represent a county which is representative of the whole of Canada through its components of Acadians, French Canadians and English Canadians. The latter, Scotch, English and Irish, form about 18 per cent of the population. We walk hand in hand, and there are no racial problems in my county. Bonaventure county can be proud of its war effort up to the present. It has furnished to the three Canadian services more than two thousand volunteers, out of a population of 42,000. The families of my county were among the first to be stricken, and more than two hundred of them weep over their sons who have fallen or who are prisoners of war at Hong Kong. The airmen of my county perished gloriously, one after the other, in the near east, in Great Britain, or in the neighbouring zones. Let me
in passing offer to these stricken families the grateful salute of their proud country, which will never die.
We are ready to suffer all sacrifice in order to win this war. We have nobly consented to the general mobilization and to conscription for the defence of Canadian territory. We have consented to the gift of a billion dollars to England. We even would have consented to conscription which would have allowed men to be sent to any part of the American continent, in order to liberate all Canadian volunteers now on Canadian soil. Nevertheless we are not ready to go as far as conscription for overseas, first because we fear that conscription for overseas will disorganize completely the defence of our own country. In my county, Mr. Speaker, there are 120 miles of coastal territory without any military defence whatsoever. We, who have given more volunteers than almost any other part of Canada in proportion to our population, are left exposed to danger at the very door of the gulf of St. Lawrence, without defence of any kind. We have sacrificed the flower of our youth in this present war, with joy, with enthusiasm, with patriotism; but do you think we have been given any credit for it? Not a cent has been spent in my county, and we are supposed to accept this principle of sending the rest of our young men overseas by order in council. The Prime Minister and all the members of his cabinet are in accord that conscription is not necessary, that it perhaps never will be necessary; nevertheless we are asked to vote the principle of conscription. Such an attitude is contradictory.
Why have conscription, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) declares in this house that there are no more bachelors or widowers without children in two districts, Quebec and Vancouver? Why have conscription when the director of selective service, Mr. Little, officially declares that we are threatened with a very serious shortage of labour, when we are in need of four thousand men in the Arvida war industry in the province of Quebec, and when Ontario war industries could employ twelve thousand more men? Why have conscription when Canadian agriculture lacks farmers and when the fishermen of Gaspe, as well as those of the east, are not numerous enough to fill their contracts with England and furnish the quantity of fish required by the armies of the allies? I would suggest rather that a reasonable and intelligently managed campaign of voluntary enlistment be carried on in those districts where there are still able-bodied men. For example, eveiyone knows that the Gaspe peninsula with a population of eighty thousand

Mobilization Act-Mr. Poirier
has furnished more than four thousand volunteers. We also know that the population of the Gaspe peninsula is spread over a coastal territory of three hundred miles along the St. Lawrence. We know that this population is one of able seamanship, and that its sons would have cut a worthy figure in the Canadian navy. It is hardly believable, but no enlistment office for the navy has ever been opened in that region, and our boys have been forced, under those circumstances, to enlist in the land forces.
I do not want to be unjust toward anyone, and I am glad to admit that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has greatly improved the situation of French Canadians in the Canadian army. He has created new French Canadian regiments. Lately he did all he could to increase the number of French Canadian officers in the army. He has even opened special schools to allow educated French Canadians to follow training courses for officers at St. Jerome, Quebec, and at Brockville, Ontario. I congratulate him. We appreciate his efforts, and we are grateful for all he has done in this direction.
Following the same trend of ideas, I am pleased to recognize publicly in the parliament of my country the tolerance and moderation of the great majority of my English-speaking colleagues. A son of Acadia, I myself belong to a race whose wisdom, calm and moderation have been its strength in the past. Submitted to the greatest trials a people can endure, we have survived, I am glad and proud to say, thanks to the indomitable courage, unending patience and unexampled strength of will of our race. Thanks to these qualities we have succeeded at last in obtaining recognition of a part of our rights. We are ready to walk hand in hand with Canadians of other nationalities. It is with these dispositions that I came here two years ago, and I am happy to say that I have found here English-speaking colleagues who have an open mind and a tolerant soul. They are all filled, as we are, with love for our country. They are ready, I believe with all my heart, to understand the mentality and the aspirations of French Canadians and Acadians. I therefore beg them to make an effort to understand our point of view.
It is clear that in 1940 the honour and the given word of the Canadian people in its entirety were at stake in this promise that there would be no conscription for overseas. The province of Quebec, to whom the repre-

sentatives of the Liberal party had long since promised that we would never participate in the wars of the empire, nevertheless consented to everything, provided there would be no conscription for overseas. Consequently this pledge of honour cannot be broken without the consent of Quebec. Let us therefore continue our voluntary war effort. Let the Minister of National Defence continue to grant his favours and place his confidence in the province of Quebec, and he will see that the volunteers will continue to come into the Canadian forces in ever-growing numbers.
It was Reverend George A. Little of Toronto who said lately before a religious meeting held in Winnipeg that Quebec would surprise the rest of the country by the number of its enlistments, if we went about the matter in the right way. I thank this distinguished clergyman of the Protestant faith for his wide understanding of the French-Canadian point of view. He is right. In spite of the mistakes that have been made in Quebec; in spite of the fact that a free field has been left to anti-British propaganda for two years and a half, the bulk of the French-Canadian population is ready to suffer voluntarily all the sacrifices expected of it.
A great many English-speaking members have expressed the same opinions in the house, and I thank them with all my heart. Many are making an effort to-day to keep intact the bridges which connect the two races. They are right, Mr. Speaker.
Within the last few days the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) and the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) have tried to create a little harmony between the two races and many others are working in this direction.
The whole of the country will be grateful to them. Let us admit, with the French journal L'Action Catholique, that there are a great many points on which we fully agree; and let us leave aside the only point on which we cannot think alike.
I express the hope, in concluding this speech, that the present crisis will pass, that we will win the war with volunteers without the application of conscription, and that the two great races of Canada will continue together in friendship toward their glorious destiny.
On motion of Mr. Mitchell the debate was adjourned.


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

Questions
Thursday, June 25, 1942