1942-06-22

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Is J. K. Smith an employee of the wartime prices and trade board? If so, what is his position?
2.	When was he appointed, and by whom?
3.	Is he bilingual?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes. He is regional director of highway transport control (goods).
2.	Mr. Smith commenced duties on May 1, 1942, and is on loan from the Montreal board of trade, and was appointed by order in council.
3.	No, but Mr. Theberge, the associate director, is bilingual.


GASOLINE RATIONING-MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. PURDY:: 1.	What representations have been made to the government or any of the ministers thereof to the effect that the reduction in the value of gasoline coupons in the maritime provinces has interfered with the existing methods of transportation?
2.	(a) What is the number of people in the maritime provinces affected as above; (b) the number of such who would be assisted in their occupations if the passenger services on railroads were reinstated?


Mr. HOWE:: My officers report that they cannot answer this question in its present form. It is suggested that if the competing routes were mentioned it might be possible to do something with regard to it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In the meantime, dropped.


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-MILL WORK COMMITTEE
Mr. CARDIFF:: _
1.	Have the Wartime Housing Limited established or arranged what is known as a millwork committee?
2.	What millworking establishments in Ontario are represented on this committee?
3.	Is it a stipulation that contractors whose tenders are accepted for the erection of houses must confine their purchases for doors, windows, interior and exterior trim to these particular firms at a set price?
4.	Does this action exclude the participation of others in supplying such material and eliminate competition?
5.	Could not lower prices be obtained by purchase in the open market?

Questions
6.	Has the Wartime Housing Limited authority to set prices for such material?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	There is no restriction which prevents any contractor working for Wartime Housing Limited to purchase in the open market provided that the price at which he wishes to purchase is lower than the price approved by the timber controller's office. No contractor has yet stated a desire to purchase above the price approved by the timber controller's office. Permission would not be withheld could he furnish an adequate reason for such an unusual procedure.
6.	In the interest of low cost, Wartime Housing Limited sets a ceiling price at which millwork can be purchased, this ceiling price being the price that Wartime Housing Limited itself, through the timber controller, can purchase the millwork and deliver it to the contractors. If a contractor can purchase the millwork at a lower figure than the ceiling price approved by the timber controller's office, then upon his application in writing to purchase at a lesser price, he is granted the privilege. No contractor yet has ever been refused the right to purchase his millwork at lower costs than the approved ceiling price. There have been only two or three cases that contractors have asked for permission and permission was not withheld.


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES AT WELLAND
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Was a contract recently awarded by the Wartime Housing Limited to the Russell Construction Company Limited of Toronto, for construction of houses at Welland, without tender?
2.	If so, why were not competitive tenders called?
3.	What are the prices being paid or to be paid to the Russell Construction Company Limited for each type of house and how many of each ?
4.	What building contractors have built or are building bouses at Welland for the Wartime Housing Limited to date, and what was the price paid or to be paid these contractors for each type of house and how many of each?
5.	Is it the practice of Wartime Housing Limited to invite tenders from a preferred list of contractors or to call public tenders?
6.	If invited from a preferred list, on whose instructions was such action taken?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Tenders were taken twice in the past year on Welland projects. The results of handling
these projects in that locality by this method' was unsuitable for the present project. Previous projects have been much too slow. The presence on the grounds of the present contractor makes calling tenders even more difficult at this time.
3. There are no fixed prices on these houses. The house types are as follows:
Type HI and H2....	. 62 houses-A	finish
	64 " -B	U
	62 " -C	it
	62 " -D	it
	250 houses ,	
Type Hll and H12..	, 12 houses-A	finish
	12 " -B	U
	14 " -C	it
	12 " -D	it
50 houses
4.	(a) Russell Construction Company, Toronto; R. Timms Construction Limited, Welland.
(b) Projects at Welland are as follows:
Project Scope	Unit Prices
No. 1	80 HI and H2.. $1843 00 A finish
1843 00 B	"
1843 00 C	"
20 H12	 $2468 00 A finish
2468 00 B	"
2468 00 C	"
No. 2	35 Hi and H2.. $1773 00 A finish
1773 00 B	"
1773 00 C	"
15 H12	 $2350 00 A "
2350 00 B	"
2350 00 C
No. 3	43 Hi and H2.. $1758 30 A finish
1758 30 B	"
1758 30 C	"
17 H12	 $2332 75 A finish
2332 75 B	"
2332 75 C	"
No. 4	75 Hi and H2.. $1806 24 A finish
1791 59 B	"
1791 59 C	"
1825 96 D
52 Hll and H12 $2326 63 A finish 2306 98 B	"
2306 98 C	"
2340 47 D	"
23 H21 and H22 $1983 07 A	finish
1973 19 B	"
1973 20 C	"
1992 83 D	"

Questions as Orders for Returns
5.	Wartime Housing Limited welcomes tenders from qualified bidders and solicits them. In a great many cases, tenders are advertised for.
6.	There is no such thing as a preferred bidder or a preferred list in Wartime Housing Limited. The difficulty is to get bona fide bids from qualified bidders and Wartime Housing Limited is constantly endeavouring to widen the competitive field rather than restrict it.


* &quot;O CANADA&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaCROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):
Will the discussion announced in the house by the Minister of National Defence for Air, and, according to the Minister of National Defence, still going on in the council for national defence, regarding a national anthem, be soon concluded?
Mr. RALSTON:: The matter is being
referred to the government for consideration.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	Is there a Mr. Carswell employed in the shipbuilding section of the Department of Munitions and Supply? If so, what does he receive for, (a) regular duties; (b) as chairman or secretary of any war board; (c) for work in an advisory capacity to any board or department; (d) from the United Kingdom government operations in Canada and the United States; (e) for any other work?
2.	Is Mr. Goldenberg of Montreal employed in the Department of Munitions and Supply? If so, what is his salary for, (a) regular duties;
(b)	as chairman or secretary of any war board;
(c)	for other work in an advisory capacity to any board or department; (d) from the United Kingdom government operations in Canada and the United States; (e) travelling and special expenses ?
3.	Has Mr. Goldenberg severed his connections with his legal firm in Montreal?
4.	How much legal business is that firm getting from the Canadian and United Kingdom governments?
5.	Is Mr. John Dobbie of Port Arthur employed in the Department of Munitions and Supply? If so, what was his initial salary? What is his present salary? How long has he worked in this department? What experience did he have in this line of work when appointed? What educational qualifications has he? Give reasons for increases in his salary, if any?
6.	Was a Mr. Max Speller of Winnipeg appointed by the civil service commission to work in the Department of Munitions and Supply? Did he have a college degree? How long was he employed? What was his initial salary ? Did he receive any increases in salary while employed in this department?
IMr. Howe.]
7.	Was a Mr. Nick Skhloev of Flin Flon and Winnipeg, Manitoba, appointed by the civil service commission to work in the Department of Munitions and Supply? Did he have a college degree? Was it with honours? Is it true that he was a student instructor for one year at the University of Manitoba while studying for his M.A. degree? What was his initial salary in the Department of Munitions and Supply? What salary was he getting when he resigned from that department? Why was no use made of this man's ability and specialized training?
8.	Give reasons for Mr. Dobbie's promotion and increases in salary in the light of Mr. Skhloev's record?


RATIONING OF FOOD, CLOTHING AND GASOLINE- COSTS
Mr. CHURCH:: What is the total number of persons employed by the government in connection with the rationing of food, clothing and petrol, respectively, and at what aggregate cost?


RATIONING SYSTEM
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has a system of national rationing been sanctioned by the government?
2.	If so, when, on what commodities and for what purpose?
3.	What minister of the crown authorized it and will any statement be made as to its cost, staff, plan and reasons for this policy?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. GREEN:: For a return showing by military districts or provinces, the enlistments in each of the months of January, February, March and April, 1942, (a) in the navy, (b) in the army, (c) in the air force.


James Layton Ralston: I asked niy hon. friend to allow this motion to stand. I assume it refers tq enlistments which have taken place in the different districts or provinces. There has been some difficulty in answering questions which relate to residence in the different districts, but I assume that this applies to enlistments taking place in the districts. The information can be furnished with the qualification that in the case of the air force and the navy it will be by commands and naval districts rather than by military districts.


Howard Charles Green: Now that it has taken so long to get a reply to the question, would it be possible to have the figures for the month of May included?


James Layton Ralston: I think so, yes.


Georges Parent: Carried, with the qualification stated, and with the addition that the figures for May will be included.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Vancouver Island

Mr. NICHOLSON:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, contracts and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department regarding the carrying of the mails over the rural mail route out of Spalding, Saskatchewan, during the years 1941 and 1942.


MIDDLE EAST FALL OF TOBRUK-PRESENT POSITION IN LIBYA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if in view of the distressing circumstances which have come to the notice of the whole world in the last forty-eight hours he has any additional information to give the house and the country as to the present position in Libya and elsewhere.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: In reply to my hon. friend I would say that the information which the government has received confirms the reports which have appeared in the press of this country. Nothing further has been received. It is as critical a situation in the middle east as has arisen since the war commenced. There have been as well evidences in the past forty-eight hours that in this world-encircling conflict Canada is coming more and more into the zone of immediate danger.
.SOVIET UNION


ANNIVERSARY OF GERMAN ATTACK UPON THE U.S.S.R.-TRIBUTE TO RUSSIAN RESISTANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This being the anniversary of the declaration of war upon Russia by the Germans, it would I think be appropriate for me to say on behalf of this House of Commons and on behalf of the people of Canada how great has been our admiration of the magnificent fight which the Russians have put up during the whole of the past year, and of the powerful resistance which they have sustained throughout; also how anxious we are to have Russia know how wholeheartedly we are with her people and her forces in this world conflict. Any means by which it is possible for our country to continue to lend assistance to the Russians for whatever period there yet may be will be adopted. Having regard to existing commitments, assistance will be given to the utmost of our ability.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: In view of what the Prime Minister has just said, may I ask what method he intends to
adopt to convey to the government of Russia the appreciation which he has just expressed and which I think will meet with the wholehearted approval of this house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the moment I am speaking offhand, but if my hon. friend feels that a formal communication should be sent, I shall have pleasure in seeing that it is sent through External Affairs to the foreign office in Russia.



VANCOUVER ISLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has some information to give the house with respect to the attack which was made by the enemy off the coast of Vancouver Island on Saturday last. It was the first attack upon Canadian soil that has been made since confederation. There have been attacks upon our ships off the coasts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and in the gulf and river St. Lawrence, but Saturday night's attack was the first time in this war that our country has been attacked on land. It only goes to bear out what has been said so often that no one can take too seriously both the immediacy and the extent of the danger with which all parts of the world are confronted, and at this time our own part in particular.


James Layton Ralston: A statement was issued yesterday afternoon to the following effect: The commander in chief, west coast defences, reported that the dominion government telegraph station at Estevan Point, Vancouver island, was shelled by a submarine at 10.35 p.m., Pacific time, on Saturday night. No damage resulted. Regarding this incident, a report has been received from the superintendent of the wireless station to the effect that the shelling continued for about forty minutes and that about thirty or more shells fell. From the rate at which the shells were fired it would appear that there were possibly two enemy craft involved. The information also is that Canadian naval and air units operating in that area were ordered to the vicinity at once.
With regard to this matter of the time of release of the information, inquiries were made of the press bureau and the matter was taken up with the intelligence branches of the services, I should like to indicate for the information of members of the house the
Labour Conditions

considerations which are kept in mind in connection with the time of release of information of this kind.
There are always questions with regard to the time of release of information like this, and I should like the house and the public to know that the inclination of all the defence services is to publish the information just as soon as possible after the event. There is, however, this consideration to be kept in mind: as was pointed out by my colleague the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) some little time ago, the publication of these reports by our own services means that we give the enemy news of the operations of their ships, which save those ships reporting direct and thereby risking the giving away of their position. It is, therefore, necessary to determine in each case what time should elapse between the event itself and the public announcement of it. This determination will have to rest to a large extent with the intelligence branches of the services involved. One of the important factors, of course, would be whether the enemy craft was near enough to land to enable its location to be ascertained by the interception of messages. No hard and fast rule can be laid down, as is apparent, and all I can say is that all the services will do everything consistent with security to publish information at the earliest moment practicable.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: On June 18, as appears at page 3434 of Hansard, I inquired whether the Minister of Labour was in a position to give the house any information as to the seriousness of the coal situation in Nova Scotia, and he promised a statement as soon as possible. I wonder if the minister could make that statement now.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I had intended to reply to my
hon. friend on Friday last, but the matter slipped my mind. An investigation was made through the director of shipping. As my hon. friend is aware, since I believe he has been so informed, the difficulty is purely one of shipping. Every effort is being made to see that ships are provided, and it is expected that within a short time the situation will be to some extent alleviated. That is as far as I can go at the moment.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I think I should inform the house that the budget will be presented to-morrow night at eight o'clock instead of to-morrow afternoon at three o'clock.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 19, 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. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, without any doubt or hesitation or reservation whatsoever, I support Bill No. 80. I believe that the repeal of section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act is a wise step in itself. I believe, further, that if the vote on the plebiscite question is to be given any meaning, if the efforts and the speeches of many members of this house and of thousands of other good and loyal Canadians during the plebiscite campaign are to be held as anything more than wasted time and meaningless words, section 3 should be repealed. We must remember that the people of Canada, by a majority of more than 1,300,000 votes, have said that, to use the-very words of the plebiscite question, they wished the government to be free "from any past commitments restricting the method of raising men for military service". The people having said that they wished the government to be free, the government now must take the necessary steps to free itself, and that is what the government is endeavouring to do in this bill.
If this bill is passed and the government is thereby freed, I believe that the government should then accept the responsibility for which it asked, by implication at least, in the plebiscite question, and for which it asked directly in the speech from the throne. The words in the speech from the throne which are now relevant are these, with some of the intervening words omitted in order to give perhaps a clearer sense of the meaning:
The government is of the opinion that . . . the administration, subject only to its responsibilities to parliament, should . . . possess com-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Macdonald (Kingston)
plete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise.
Those were the words of the speech from the throne; "the administration should possess complete freedom to act". I think that only one interpretation can be placed upon these words: the administration should have freedom, freedom to apply conscription for overseas service whenever the occasion should demand. But we must remember this, that true freedom, real freedom, involves the right of choice. Let me illustrate what I mean by a simple figure, to show the government's position. The highways of our country are free and open to all travellers. A wayfarer plans to journey along a road, and on his map he sees a point where that road branches or forks in two directions. Across one of these branches is an insurmountable barrier, and he says, "When I reach that fork I wish to have freedom to take either branch. Therefore remove the barrier, so that I may have freedom to travel as I think best. I cannot say at this moment which road I shall take. That decision will be made when I reach the junction, and will depend on several factors, some of which are largely beyond my control." Now the people of Canada, by their vote on the plebiscite question, have removed the barrier that lay across the road of government policy. They have removed the barrier of past commitments against conscription for overseas service. It must be taken that they wished the government to have power to follow the road of conscription if the government so wished. That much, at least, is implied in the plebiscite vote. And if the plebiscite result did not mean that the government should be free to take that road, then the plebiscite result meant nothing. It represented a waste of time and effort and money.
Mark you, Mr. Speaker, the plebiscite result may not have meant that the government must take that road. On this point there has been much discussion. It is a point which perhaps can never be settled, unless, indeed, by the taking of another vote on the question of conscription or no conscription.
But surely it must be agreed that those who voted "yes" in answer to the plebiscite question contemplated and accepted the possibility of conscription. An hon. member behind me says "that is not so." Then I ask him: "from what did they relieve the government?" They relieved it from past commitments against conscription. Therefore they must have said to the government, "If you wish at some future time to impose conscription, you shall have that right so far as it is within our power to grant it."
Richard Burpee Hanson: That was the very minimum.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Many of them may have said to themselves, and no doubt did say, "We do not order or direct you to apply conscription." I think many people said to themselves, "We cannot settle these great questions. Let the government settle them. Let the government be free to settle them according to its best judgment. Let it take the road of conscription or the road of no conscription, but let it be free." That is what I think was in the mind of the overwhelming majority of those people who voted "yes".
I must say that some of the statements made in this house and elsewhere on this question in the last few months and weeks are very difficult, for me at least, to understand. One who listened to the debates in this house last week and the week before or who read the reports of these debates might well gain the impression that the majority of hon. members were against conscription in any circumstances whatever. That impression might well, I say, have been gained by reading or listening to those speeches. Some speakers, indeed, have openly stated that that was their view. Others, while stating that they would support conscription if it became absolutely necessary, proceeded to damn conscription with the faintest possible sort of praise. Still others discussed the wisdom of applying conscription now, at this particular moment. They talked as if conscription were likely to be applied to-morrow. I should like to deal with some of these points and with a few others which have arisen from time to time in this connection.
I take, first, the argument as to the efficacy of conscription for overseas service. It has been said that conscription has no value or very little value, that it will not increase in any appreciable degree the number of men available for overseas service, that it has only a very limited, a very small place, in the totality of our war effort. Now, if these arguments are valid; if conscription is no good or of very minor good at any time, we have wasted much valuable time in discussing conscription. The reference in the speech from the throne to the government being free from past commitments was a wholly unnecessary reference. There is not much sense in asking to be free to do something which in the long run will amount to nothing. Similarly, the introduction of the plebiscite bill and the holding of the plebiscite were wholly unnecessary moves. If conscription is of no value and cannot be of any value, then the plebiscite was of no value.
3510	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Macdonald (Kingston)
It was worse than valueless. It had a definite minus value, because it cost money, required time, required energy, stirred up feelings, and created bitternesses that had much better never have been born. If conscription is of no value it was foolish to seek release from a pledge against it.
In the second place it is said that conscription will be useless so far as the navy and the air force are concerned, that you cannot force a man to be a sailor or an airman. Now in Great Britain, as I understand the situation there, every man between the ages of eighteen and a half and fifty-one years is subject to conscription. Once conscripted, he is asked which branch of the service he prefers-navy, army or air force-and so far as is possible his wishes are gratified. I should hope that the Royal Navy is not altogether forgotten by those men who are conscripted, nor the Royal Air Force; and I should further hope, and my hope has been justified- by events, that when these men get into the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force they are able to acquit themselves worthily. There is, of course, complete conscription in enemy countries, and their air forces and their armies and their navies have done, I regret to say, somewhat too well for my liking in many instances. Furthermore, I think my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) will agree that it is an unjust and- unwarranted reflection on the army to suggest that men may not be good enough for the navy and the air force but still good enough for his service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They were good enough for Nelson at Trafalgar.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: It
is pointed out in the third place that Northern Ireland, South Africa and Australia have not adopted the system of compulsory service overseas. I observe with considerable interest that our sister dominion of New Zealand is not on that roll: she is not there because for nearly two years that dominion has had conscription for overseas service, and I would remind my hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation-what they already know, of course-that New Zealand in those years has had a labour government. It is quite correct to say that Northern Ireland, South Africa and Australia still follow the voluntary system so far as overseas service is concerned. But what about our other allies? What about Great Britain? What about the United States? What about Russia? There is conscription in every one of those countries. What about our enemies- Germany, Italy, and Japan? They all have conscription. In fact, it can be" said truthfully 
that practically every European country when it became engaged in war adopted the compulsory system; and it seems to me that the example of Northern Ireland and of our sister dominions of South Africa and Australia is hardly an infallible guide against such a weight of contrary evidence from those other great countries.
In the fourth place, Mr. Speaker, it is said we should not have conscription for overseas service because it would interfere with our industrial production and our agricultural production. Somewhat similar was the argument advanced by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation at the beginning of the war. His party wished to see a sort of economic war by Canada with no men going overseas, either voluntarily or by conscription. The general argument as to industry and agriculture can be answered in many ways, but I shall refer to only two.
First, even if we were to adopt the principle of overseas service now and put it into practice later, we should not, we must not, strip our factories and our farms of workers. War industries of course must continue; agriculture must be maintained if the war is to go on, and I think it is merely raising a weak sort of bogey to say it would be otherwise.
The second answer is one that was presented on Friday last in this chamber by the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald). It was advanced two years ago in the debate on the National Resources Mobilization Act by my hon. friend the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), who said he thought it was a very low sort of patriotism, a very poor sort of patriotism, that said: "We will confine ourselves to the economic side, to agricultural and industrial production, while others do the fighting." My hon. friend from Brantford City says the same thing, and he made this point, that if every nation took that attitude there would be no one to fight. If Russia said: "We are a great agricultural country; we can produce wheat; we also have great industries here, and we can produce implements of war; let the United States and England do the fighting," and if the United States and Britain and the rest took the same attitude, nobody would be left to fight. Tanks are necessary, of course, in this sort of war; planes are necessary; ships are necessary. But tanks in a factory, planes in a hangar, ships on a shipway, gitns in a plant, never yet won a war, and they never will. You must have men to operate these before they become effective.
The real truth is that successful warfare involves the work of both civilians and members of the armed forces. Some men

Mobilization Act-Mr. Macdonald (Kingston)
must work on the farms, some men must work in the factories, and others must fight; and the two sorts of effort must be properly coordinated. What is needed in warfare is *what the Prime Minister has properly described as a balanced effort. You will not have a balanced effort in this country if you devote all the energies of your people to industrial and agricultural production, and certainly you will not have a balanced effort if you put all your men into uniform, whether for service within Canada or outside.
Then it has been argued that if conscription is to be enforced, its actual imposition should come about only by direct action of this parliament. As I understand the argument, it comes to this, that what we say or do now amounts to very little. Here and now in this debate we are merely deciding some sort of philosophic principle, the practical application of which cannot be made until this parliament meets again or until this parliament has had a second discussion and decided that the moment has come to apply conscription. That view has been set forth by the member for Rosetown-Biggar, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell), and by some of his followers. They argue that it is undemocratic to leave to the government the power to decide by order in council at what moment conscription should be imposed.
It must be remembered-and this has been pointed out before many times in this house, a few days ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself-that this government now has the power to conscript persons, their services and1 their property. It has complete power in the matter of conscription except in one respect, and that is that it cannot conscript persons for military service outside Canada and Canada's territorial waters. That is the only restriction upon the powers of this government, and that is the restriction which Bill No. SO seeks to remove.
Members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and some other members of this house profess to find in this bill a principle that is undemocratic. For some reason or other the theory has been spread abroad, or has grown up by itself, that there is some peculiar difficulty or some particular obstacle involved in troops crossing the water or at any rate over any considerable body of, water. There was an old superstition that if you were pursued by a witch the wise and cautious thing to do was to get a running stream between you and the witch. The witch could not cross the water. I hope
that many people read Bums in these times, because he was the prince of the poets of the people. He was one of the greatest of democrats. He has immortalized this superstition in his poem "Tam O'Shanter". It will be recalled by Burns' readers that Tam O'Shanter, after a drinking bout with his old soldier friend in the tavern, was returning home when he was pursued by witches, one of whom outsped the rest. Tam spurred his mare in order to reach the bridge which spanned the river Doon. The witch of course was equally anxious to catch Tam before he reached the bridge, and in one frantic leap she seized the grey mare's tail and carried it off, but the grey mare carried Tam safely across.
There seems to be general agreement here that it is all very well to send troops to Alaska or to any other point in the United States, but when it comes to sending troops across the water, across the Atlantic, you are going into an entirely new field. I would say to my hon. friend of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation that in 1940 they raised no objection to the National Resources Mobilization Act in so far as conscription of men was concerned. I will agree that they said that if you are to conscript men you must first conscript industry and finance.


Mr. MacINNIS:: That is still our position.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: Yes, that is your position.


Angus MacInnis: We have not changed it.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: In 1940, though, when the bill before the house provided for the conscription of men, my hon. friends in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation raised no objection to it on that point. Indeed, they wanted even greater conscription than the bill provided for. They did not then oppose the idea of giving the governor in council power to require every person in Canada to place himself at the service of the country, but they are not prepared now to give the governor in council power to conscript men for overseas service.


Angus MacInnis: We have had two years' experience.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: That is not all my hon. friends say. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have declared themselves ready to resort to other measures of conscription, certain other types of regi-mention, and these were outlined by the leader of the party not later than a few days ago in this house. He said his group believed in nationalizing all financial institutions. It
3512	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Macdonald (Kingston)
believed in compulsory loans, interest free; it believed in government ownership or government control of all essential war industries; it believed in a 100 per cent tax on all profits, and it sought to establish what is called a maximum-minimum income. All these proposals represent very considerable measures of compulsion or regimentation, and it seems to me that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, when it speaks now of the undemocratic spirit which is manifest in this bill, is merely straining at the gnat of compulsory service overseas while it swallows the camel of those other far-reaching measures of compulsion to which I have just referred.
It is said now that we should come back to parliament even after this debate is concluded and submit to parliament the direct question whether we should have conscription at that time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who has raised that question? We have not.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: 1 agree that my hon. friend has not raised it, but it has been said and he knows it has been said both in this house and elsewhere. I regard a second debate on this question as unnecessary. The question has been before the people in one form or another for nearly three years. It has been before the house directly since January 23 last, when the speech from the throne was read. We have had a plebiscite on it, and I must confess that I felt that if the vote on the plebiscite were in the affirmative, there would be very little further debate on the matter. The people would have registered their verdict and parliament would endeavour to give effect to that verdict. That was my view.
We talk a great deal about democracy in these days, and it is well that we should; but I wonder whether democracy is doing itself any service by spending the greater part of five months in the discussion of a question of this sort in times like the present. For my part, on this point of going back to the house a second time I take my stand on the words of the Prime Minister, spoken in this house on June 10. First he quoted from his speech ol February 25 in which he had used these words-Hansard, page 3234:
When we find that we cannot raise the required numbers of men for enlistment overseas by the voluntary method, and it is absolutely necessary to raise more men by other methods, then we will make our decision, present it to parliament and have it discussed on its merits.

After making that quotation from his February speech the Prime Minister went on to say:
Unless the question of conscription for overseas service is to be twice debated, that, as I see it, is the stage we have now reached. The government is making its policy with respect to the raising of men for service overseas fully known. We are presenting that policy to parliament.
That is the stand I take now. There should be no second debate on this question. Those who say that parliament should be consulted again put themselves in rather a curious position, it seems to me. Let us suppose there should be a second debate in this parliament, and that the debate should determine that the time had come when the application of the principle of conscription for overseas service should be made; is it to be expected that even at that stage every detail of the plan would be laid before parliament? Is it to be held that every time a unit is to be sent overseas the matter will be referred to parliament for decision as to whether or not it should go? It seems to me that the proper function of parliament in these as in other cases is to decide general principles, leaving such matters as the time of application of those principles, the numbers of men involved and other details of the kind, to be decided by the governor in council, the decisions of the governor in council, being of course later submitted to parliament, as is required by the National Resources Mobilization Act.
Again there are some who say-not so many now as there were at one time, but still there are some-that this war is an imperialistic war, that it is England's war, a war in which Canadians who are not of British birth or origin can be expected to show only little interest. How can it be truly said that this is an imperialistic war, whether you take the word "imperialism" in its territorial or its financial sense? What evidence is there that the government of the United Kingdom in September, 1939, had any territorial ambitions when it declared war? It did not wish to acquire any territory; indeed it has had a hard enough time during recent months in dealing with some of the territory it already has. No; the United Kingdom government went to war because it was bound by treaty to Poland, just as it was bound by treaty to Belgium in 1914; and the government of Britain made good its bond in 1939 as it had done twenty-five years earlier. Imperialism! Did France want territory, or Belgium, or Holland, or Norway, or any of the other countries that have been overrun by Germany? Did the United States hunger for more land? No; the United States took up the sword because it had been attacked treacherously and in the worst possible faith by the empire of Japan.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Macdonald (Kingston)
On that point as to whether this is an imperialistic war, let me quote three paragraphs from the Atlantic charter to show what is the real policy of Great Britain and the United States:
Their countries-
This is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States speaking.
4.	Their countries seek no aggrandisement, territorial or other.
5.	They desire to bring about the fullest
collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labour standards, economic adjustment, and social security.	[DOT]
6.	After the final destruction of the nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.
That is the Atlantic charter. I follow that with a passage from the agreement entered into by the twenty-six united nations as published at Washington on January 1 of this year. The united nations state that-
. .	. complete victory over their enemies is
essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands, and that they are now engaged in a common struggle against savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world.
Then eveiy one of the twenty-six governments pledged themselves to "employ its full resources, military or economic, against the members of the tripartite pact and its adherents with which such government is at war". Now, under that agreement-and Canada is a signatory to it-we must employ our whole resources, military or economic. We are to supply not merely munitions, not merely food, but men as well, to the common task.
No; this is not an imperialistic war. This is a Canadian war, a war which we entered as a free nation by the free vote of this parliament. It is a Canadian war just as truly as it . is an English or a United States or a Russian war.
If anybody has any doubts whatever as to whether this is a Canadian war, let him remember the news that has come to us within the last twenty-four hours. Our territory has been attacked by a hostile power. The Japanese evidently regard this as a Canadian war. So do the Germans. So do the German submarines that sank ships at the very entrance of the river St. Lawrence, and so do the German surface craft that have attacked Canadian ships, both merchant ships
and ships of war, on the high seas. Further, if the axis powers should be victorious in this struggle, the people of Canada would very soon discover whether this is a Canadian war or merely an English war.
No; the imperialism, the lust for .power- military, economic, territorial-abides in the hearts of the axis rulers and nowhere else. It is they who began this war; it is they who have pursued it with a savage ferocity and brutality unknown since the days of the barbarians. It is they who took up the sword. It is they who will perish by the sword. And it is their leaders and those other men responsible for the atrocities that have been committed who must be brought to book and who will be brought to book in God's good time.
On our part and on the part of our allies this is a war of defence, defence against unprovoked aggression. Where that defence can best be carried out, where the enemy can be best met and subdued, is a matter that should be decided by those skilled in the art of war. This is Canada's war, and I believe that all Canadians are coming to realize this fact.
War is never a pleasant business. War always involves hardship and sacrifice and difficulty. In these grave times every man should speak his mind frankly and contribute whatever he can to the solution of the great problem now before us. I believe, as I said in the beginning, that this parliament should give to the government the power which it seeks, the power to apply conscription for overseas service, whenever the government thinks that step is necessary. I do not say that the moment is now or to-morrow or next week, but I do say that the moment may come, and may come suddenly. The government, in coming to its decision on that important point, will of course give every consideration to the needs of agriculture, to the needs of industry, and to the needs of Canadian defence. Let it never be thought that if this power is given to the government the result will be that every man in Canada will be hauled away overseas. No; we must maintain our farms; we must maintain our factories; we must maintain the defence of our own shores and our own soil.
But these things having been done, and there being still available some men for overseas sendee, and the need for conscripting these men having arisen, I say frankly that in my judgment the government should have the power to apply conscription. I say further that if it is demonstrated to the Canadian people that the need does exist, then those people will desire to have that need met.
3514	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Macdonald (Kingston)
And when I say "the people of Canada" I mean all the people of Canada, and not the people of only certain parts of this country. I believe that when that need is seen and understood, Canada will meet it and still continue to be a united country. When our people realize that our existence as a nation is threatened, there is no Canadian who, seeing that condition, will not be willing to put forth every effort to meet it, and to meet it manfully.
I have only a moment more to speak, and in that time I wish to make one more reference. I remember that forty years ago Sir Wilfred Laurier some time after his return from a visit to England where he attended the Queen's Jubilee, made in the little Nova Scotia town of Arichat one of his most beautiful addresses. He said to those people-mostly French Acadians, sturdy loyal people as they were, have been and are- that when he was in Europe he had seen a beautiful cathedral. It was built of oak and marble and granite and glass, each of these elements retaining its own individuality and its own appearance, but each contributing its share to the beauty and symmetry of the whole. Then he went on to say, "That cathedral is the image of the nation I wish Canada to become. So long as I live," he said, "I shall repel the idea of changing the nature of any of the constituent elements of this country. I want the Englishman to remain the Englishman. I want the Irishman to remain the Irishman. I want the Scotsman to remain the Scotsman and the Frenchman to remain the Frenchman. But I want to take all these elements and weld them into a nation which will stand among the foremost nations of the world."
For myself, I adhere to Laurier's view; I hold to Laurier's vision. Let the races that people this country maintain their individuality; let them cling to their own traditions. But let there be running alongside of and in no way interfering with that loyalty to their own race, a loyalty to Canada, a willingness to defend Canada, a pride in the romantic and stirring story of her past, a hope for the bounty and beauty of her future.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, before I express my thoughts on the important bill now before the house may I congratulate the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) upon the splendid speech he has just made. There was very little in that speech with which a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition could not heartily agree. I only wish the minister were

in the position of having associated with him in the cabinet, and behind him among the private members of his party, those who would give him the same support as he has here to-day in the ranks of the opposition.
To-day, Monday, June 22, 1942, is one of the grim days of a very grim war, because during the week-end the fortress of Tobruk has fallen, with the loss of 25,000 prisoners, and vast stores of equipment, including no doubt much equipment made in Canada. One cannot help thinking that if there had been Canadian troops with that Canadian equipment, this tragedy might not have occurred to the British empire and to the united nations. Further, during the week-end a wedge has been driven into the defences of our gallant Russian ally at Sevastopol. It looks to-day as though that great fortress, too, will fall within a very short time. To the west, out in the Aleutian islands the Japanese have taken their second stride toward our Pacific coast by seiziilg Kyska, some 270 miles nearer Dutch harbour than Attu, which they seized less than three weeks ago, and as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said this afternoon, a Japanese submarine has shelled the Canadian coast at Estevan Point, halfway up the western coast of Vancouver island. This is the first time, I believe, in over a century that the shores of Canada have been under fire. I repeat: This is a grim day, and I hope the House of Commons will face the realities of the situation. I hope there will be less looking back, less reviewing things done decades or generations ago, less fanning the fires of old prejudices, and more facing of present day ugly facts, more looking fearlessly into the dark and yet challenging days ahead; less talk about national unity and more concern about national survival.
As hon. members are well aware, we are debating Bill No. 80, described as an act to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940. This is a bill to repeal section 3 of that act, which section restricts the very wide powers of mobilization given the cabinet by section 2. It provides-and I quote from the section to be repealed:
The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
The provisions of that restriction have been narrowed to some extent by the government in that they have been taken as not applying to territory adjacent to Canada. I approve heartily of this bill and I shall vote for it. I believe it is necessary, and I believe also that it is very late. It should have been introduced into and passed by this house a

Mobilization Act-Mr. Green
long time ago. But I deplore the policy announced by the Prime Minister in connection therewith, which is in effect that although the restrictive section is to be repealed, the government will carry on as if the section were still in the act. We have been told and told quite clearly that the government believes that no change in policy is necessary yet, that it is merely removing this restriction in case the cabinet should decide that a change in policy is necessary at a later date, which later date the ministers have shown by their speeches during the present debate, they fervently hope will never come. Obviously the very thought of it gives them the jitters.
Apparently the Canadian cabinet believe that nothing has happened in the last few months to warrant a change in position. It makes one wonder whether they see the realities of the war at all. In recent months Great Britain has lost an army in Malaya, I believe the largest British army ever captured. Britain has lost thousands of men in Burma, and she has been forced to create a large new army in India. She has been forced to occupy Madagascar, and now she is planning to open a second front on the continent of Europe which will involve hundreds of thousands of men. Our Australian brothers have lost a division in Malaya, and they have been forced to recall their first-class fighting troops from the Mediterranean in order to protect their homeland against the Japanese. The United States have lost an army in the Philippines, the largest United States army ever captured. The Netherlands have lost their forces in the East Indies, and Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of her troops. Yet our cabinet believes that there has been no change in the situation in the last few months to justify any change in policy.
In actual fact the position to-day is that everyone in this house knows and the Canadian people at large know that we are not winning the war. It is a question whether we are holding our own. Let me warn the government that this is the time to throw in every ounce of our national strength without reservation. Let the cabinet do what is set out in the preamble of the National Resources Mobilization Act which confers upon the governor in council special emergency powers to permit of the mobilization of all the effective resources of the nation, both human and material. I warn the government further that a large majority of the Canadian people believe that the hour has come for all-out action, and called for such action by their vote on the plebiscite. In fact from the very start of the war the majority of the people in this country have been far ahead of the government in wanting to wage a total war.
This debate has drifted steadily away from the real issues brought forward by this bill, and I propose to state four of those issues as I see them. The main issue is not whether we are to have conscription, although one might think that that was so from the speeches that have been made in this debate. That issue was decided on June 21, 1940, when the National Resources Mobilization Act became law. There has been compulsion for over two years. The main issue now is whether men conscripted are to be available for service wherever they are needed. I repeat those words-wherever they are needed. They are not so available now, and will not be so long as the government continues its present policy. These men will be used only in Canada or in adjacent territories. That is the policy of the government at this present time. Unless they are needed to fight in or near Canada, they will never do any fighting. Minister after minister has risen in his place in the house during the present debate to emphasize the importance of keeping the enemy away from our shores; yet these young men serving under the terms of the National Resources Mobilization Act will have no part in keeping the enemy away from our shores. It may mean the waste of thousands of the cream of our young men by not making full use of them because they are tied down here in Canada under the present government policy. There can be no doubt that the present policy means that there is and that there will be no equality of sacrifice among our young men, because a young man may choose whether he will serve where he is needed or at home in Canada. I submit to the house that that is the main issue brought up by this bill.
Then there is a second issue-whether or not Canada is building up or can build up an efficient army in this country under the present government policy. Several ministers have placed a very low value as soldiers upon these young men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act. I think that has been most unfair. Many of these men simply are not interested in the army because they consider it is the responsibility of the government to decide where they are to serve. In the meantime they are doing what they are ordered to do, in some cases with not a great deal of enthusiasm. Many of them have been under pressure from the time they were called up. Other young men who have seen fit to join the active forces receive extra leave, or considerations of one kind or another, such as being kept off fatigue duty. The men who will not join the active forces are not allowed to wear the badge "Canada" on their shoulders-
Mobilization Act-Mr. Green

The man who volunteers for the active army is allowed to wear this badge. I remember that in the last war nothing gave me more pride, nothing did more to raise my morale, than the fact that I had on my shoulder that badge "Canada." Yet under the present system these young men are not allowed to wear the badge of their country, and this will continue under the present government policy.
There are two types of troops in every unit except those that belong to the fourth division. The Prime Minister said in his speech the other day there were some 30,000 of these home defence troops and the number of these men who have not volunteered for service abroad will increase greatly from time to time.
That all means one thing, and one thing that is very serious; it means friction in the units in Canada. As a result it is difficult to have efficient units. As a result we are asking the commanders of these units to do the impossible. It is like asking a man to fight with one hand tied behind his back. I repeat that under this present policy we cannot build an efficient army in Canada.
The third real issue is whether or not *Canada is developing or can develop the spirit of the offensive, the will to wage war, without which there can be no victory. Under the present government policy we are developing a home defence complex. The talk, of which we had some this afternoon from the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), is all to the effect that the place to fight the enemy is where you can find him, that the place to fight is beyond Canada. But that is not the government's policy under the National Resources Mobilization Act; the policy under that act is to build an army for Canada only, and the result is to focus the attention of the Canadian people on home defence when it should be on attack. Canada should be building here an army with which to strike out. For example, we should be building an army for the purpose of eventually striking out in the Pacific, perhaps into Alaska, perhaps to Siberia or Australia and finally into *Japan. This war will never be won on the north American continent unless it is won by the Germans and the Japanese.
The fourth and final real issue is whether or not the present policy is lowering the prestige of Canada, whether or not it is wounding the pride of the Canadian people in their nation-and probably this is the most serious issue of all. You know, it gives certain people the opportunity to rave -I use the word "rave" advisedly-about imperialism and colonialism and all that sort

of thing. This foolish talk, to which very few people here pay much attention, is apt to be taken seriously beyond our boundaries, and unfortunately this debate has brought out talk of that sort. It comes largely from the same people who talked the most and the hardest against Canada preparing for this war, who are mainly responsible for the tragic state of unpreparedness in which we found ourselves when war -broke out. The fact is, and this cannot be overemphasized too much, that the vast majority of the Canadian people in every province are proud to be in the British empire and intend to stay in it.
Then consider our relationship with the people of the United States, the great and friendly nation to the south. The American boy, under American policy, is called up and can be sent wherever he is needed, anywhere in the world-Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia; there is no limit. He goes where he is needed, and goes willingly. Under our present policy it is not so with the Canadian boy. It is very difficult to justify this to an American. The result of these differences in policy is that the American feels that Canada is not waging total war, and his Canadian friends feel deeply hurt by that attitude. Yet that is the position, and I do not think any hon. member of this house can deny it. Therefore I say that this policy is bad for Canada's prestige and bad for the national pride of our people.
In conclusion let me say again that these four issues are real; each is of vital importance, yet judged in the light of any one of them, the present policy of the government is wrong. That policy must be changed and changed quickly. It can never, never, never hold the respect or arouse the spirit of the Canadian people, because they are an intelligent, forthright, courageous people, and they know instinctively that it is a policy of doing things by halves. They know that the government is holding back. I urge upon the ministry, with all the force I can put into it, that they change their policy at once. If they do not feel that they can do so as a party ministry, let them set up a non-party government in this country. I urge them to lead the Canadian people from the present so-called "balanced .war effort"- and oh, how they gloat over those words!- into the only thing that really matters, and that is an all-out war effort. For it may be that only by so doing can our nation of Canada survive.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Maybank


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the last two speeches, and I wish to make only one comment with regard to what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) just before he sat down. The hon. member said, "If you cannot do so and so as a party government, then set up a non-party government and do it that way."
I confess I am occasionally in disagreement with the government, as I am in disagreement to a certain extent to-day. But when I consider what might be done in the way of change-just supposing that were decided upon-and I look at the opposition benches,
I am bound to confess that the situation becomes completely hopeless. My view in that regard is the view that was expressed by Lord Wellington when he saw some of his army. He said, "I don't know what the enemy will think of them, but my God, they scare me!" When the hon. member was suggesting a non-party government I could not help thinking that it hardly lies in his mouth to make a proposal of that kind; for when anything like that comes from what might be called an interested party it is bound to carry less weight than it otherwise would.


Mr. HOMUTH:: That is not fair. That is cheap politics.


Ralph Maybank: I am just pointing out that it is always a factor.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is unbecoming to the hon. member; it is cheap politics.


Ralph Maybank: Well, after what I might term this impetuous interruption, I must say that it is my intention to be perfectly frank, and I invite the same frankness from others. In what I have to say to-day I intend to speak with the utmost candour. I do not make remarks for the purpose of wounding any person, but simply to express the situation as I see it, and as I might talk about it personally with the hon. gentleman himself.
A few days ago I was struck by a remark or two made by the hon. gentleman who until a short time ago was ably bearing the burden of the portfolios of public works and transport. He adjured us at that time to be frank in all our dealings. I agree with him. We had a further reference to it this afternoon. I think candour is what we most need in all our dealings with each other. All of us have been guilty of saying less than the truth. I repeat that I do not wish by any sharp word or acid expression to injure or wound anyone. I would not be making any reference to the former minister with such an idea in mind, particularly in view of the fact that he is not
here this afternoon. We all know why he is not here; he is not a well man, and no doubt that accounts for his absence. I speak in no spirit of recrimination or in order to cast blame when I say that he himself, it seems to me, has been guilty in the past of some lack of candour. At the time the plebiscite vote was decided upon, the hon. gentleman had before him the whole vista which he can see to-day. He must have'known-at any rate he could have known-of the change of law which is now proposed. It does not seem to me that he made his position as clear then as he should have. However, in that regard lack of frankness is not to be found solely in that quarter. It has been evident over the last couple of years, this political lack of frankness, on the part of the government and of the various oppositions, and supporters of the government, among whom I include myself, and of the opposition parties. I do say that we have to get down to talking cold truth to each other. We must, to use Tennyson's words, "Cut prejudice against the grain."' In doing so, we need not forget that, "Gentle words are always gain."
The domestic history of Canada since the beginning of this war has been a striving after unity, and I do not think the government can be denied a great deal of praise for the degree of unity which has obtained in Canada ever since the war started. To some it seems as though the unity we have had thus far is to be destroyed. Personally I am entirely unwilling to subscribe to any such idea, but we have to look facts in the face in order to avoid disunity. It would appear that in the com troversy that is agitating Canada to-day there are eight provinces ranged on one side of the argument, with one province-old Quebec- standing alone on the other. Many people in parts of those eight provinces are angry with the people of the other province. Most of our colleagues who come from Quebec are opposed to the change in this law which can, and I think probably will, introduce the principle of compulsory service overseas. Most of Englishspeaking Canada is in favour of the law change, and, I believe, also in favour of the adoption of the compulsory service principle.
My views respecting compulsory service are well known. I favour the adoption of that principle, and in that respect I find myself in disagreement with my colleagues from the lower province. Further, when I think of the course the debate has taken, I confess to an impatience with the government itself, particularly in view of some of the remarks which have been made by supporters of the government. While such are my views, I should be sad indeed if any person supposed I have any-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Maybank
animus or any other feeling than deep affection not merely for all my colleagues from Quebec but for the people they represent. Some of my closest and dearest friends are those representatives. I have been the recipient of many services, many acts of friendship from them. Although my views as to what should be done in this matter may differ from theirs, I have no emotions other than amity and respect for all my colleagues from that part of Canada and for all the people of Quebec.
There may be small and unimportant groups in various parts of Canada where criticism of Quebec from time to time is rife. For my own part there never has been a time when I looked askance at the people of that province. None of my friends ever did, nor is it the usual thing in my community. I believe I have always had some appreciation of the difficulties of the Quebec situation. I remember a description of the people of Quebec which was given in this house by a Conservative member who is not now here; I refer to Mr. Heon, of Argenteuil. His remarks were a guide to me because I always felt that they were a pretty good description of the people of his province. I should like to read them to the house, because they lead to certain comments later. Speaking in the short war session, the hon. member said, as reported in Hansard of September 9, 1939, page 80:
May I now be allowed, on behalf of my own people, to make this urgent plea to my Euglish-Canadian friends? Never have I striven to be more sincere or convincing in all my life than in the appeal I am about to make. An immense majority of my compatriots have never concerned themselves with foreign affairs. They have never kept track of the sinuous courses of European diplomacy, nor have they taken time out to look up the meaning of "putsch" and "anschluss" or seek on a map of Europe the strategical value of Memel and Pomorze, Warsaw' and Lodz, Lauterbourg or the Saar basin.
The French Canadian has been mostly concerned, as were his ancestors before him, with clearing the forest, tilling the soil and providing food and shelter for the children with whom providence has blessed him from year to year. The practice of the golden rule, the presentation to the nation of stalwart intelligent sons and daughters, the defence of their territory against aggression, have been to my compatriots their main expressions of patriotism. The church, the little village, the large family, the soil enriched with their sw'eat, the peace and restfulness of the Quebec countryside, have drawn and kept their attention for three hundred years. The sons of French Canada have not been brought up in an atmosphere of militarism, nor have they spent their young days in playing with toy cannon and soldiers. Most of them have never shouldered a gun except to provide game for the family table. Very few' have ever had even elementary military training. It cannot be expected then that in three days -every one of them will be clamouring for a

one-way passage to the western front, or that, like some of us, their hearts will skip a beat at the mention of peace in Europe and the independence of Poland. Yet their honesty of purpose, their love of freedom, their devotion to Christian institutions, their loyalty to their king cannot be challenged. It may well be that ' this passionate love for their own land has somew'hat obscured the wider, the more international outlook on the W'elfare of mankind which W'e are now being asked to uphold and defend; but let me assure hon. members, that when Baptiste discovers that his freedom, institutions, and essential rights which he prizes so dearly are really threatened there will be no one w'ho will fight more savagely than he to defend them.
I wish to make just two comments on that passage. First I would remind hon. members that such a passage helps greatly or ought to help the Anglo-Saxon in apprehending the character and personality of the man of Quebec. The second comment I would make is that those who could have done it have not been making clear to these people the danger to the freedom, insititutions and essential rights which are prized so dearly, as Heon says. I desire a little later to come back to that passage, but just at the moment I wish to move on to other matters for the purpose of indicating to the house the disquietude to which I referred a little while ago, and the reasons for it.
What is disquieting to me about this law and the debate upon it is the nature of the statements that are being made. One statement seems to suggest that the law is being amended for a purpose, that it is being amended for use, and another statement seems to suggest that it is not being amended for any purpose at all and will never be used, and that there is no occasion for using it. I feel that at this time the government could be much more simple and direct than it has been thus far. I know you cannot have the government name the date on which a certain act or policy will be put into force, but it does seem to me that we could do better than have speeches one day which indicate the utter improbability of the law ever being used, and another day the distinct probability that it will be used. I notice with considerable disquietude certain statements that have been made. Take this for instance. It is said that compulsory service for overseas is not necessary and that reinforcement needs are already well in hand. To my way of thinking, to base any policy upon a statement of that kind is not wise. That is a quite unimportant statement. Reinforcement needs are apparently about 1J per cent. When one says the situation is well in hand for the army, then by implication one is saying that there will be no change in the army's

position. It means that a second front is eyewash. It means there will not be any attempted invasion, or if there is, it will be in a place where Canadian soldiers are not. Or perhaps it means that if there is a second front they will not be there. It seems to me that to lay plans on any such assumptions as these is unwise. I think that such assumptions themselves are invalid.
Reference has already been made to the present situation of our army. At the present time no person can deny, I am sure the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) will not deny, that we have an illogical and unsystematic condition in the army. Volunteers and draftees are called in together. If reinforcements are demanded, the odds have to be separated from the evens, the V's from the D's, and if a large reinforcement draft is needed it cannot be got from one place. Reinforcement drafts have first of all to be picked out from here and there, and pieced together afterwards. If there is virtue in men working together, it is lost under that system. It does not seem to be good business. It may be necessary; it may be that we shall never get away from it. I should like to see a definite statement on the question as to probabilities.
I believe a change from that sort of thing is inevitable, and if it is inevitable we might as well face it, although perhaps it is not necessary to-morrow morning. I do not say it is. I believe that what should be done is to indicate the probability now in order that people may become accustomed to it.
Now, upon the general question of necessity for compulsory service, I believe that has not been the test in the past. No person, for example, would say that compulsory service was instituted for Canada upon the grounds of necessity. It is patently absurd to say that conscription for overseas service is not necessary, that volunteers will do, that there are plenty of volunteers, but that when it comes to defence of the hearth and the home on this very soil, resort must be had to compulsion. Obviously we never instituted compulsory service in this country with any such idea in mind. When men were called for thirty days training we did not call them with the idea of forming a defence-of-Canada army; that was patently absurd also. We called them up for other reasons, partly I think in order to get the principle of compulsory service accepted and to get the people accustomed to it. That was what I believed at the time, and I blame myself for not having said so. Likewise, when it was extended to four months, that was not done with the intention of forming an army for the defence of Canada, nor yet again when the men were continued for the duration of
Mobilization Act-Mr. Maybank
the war was it for the defence of Canada. We have never had compulsory service in Canada with that idea in mind.
If anyone has any doubt whatever about that proposition I ask him to consider three points. The first is that we never expected a military attack from the east. The second is that we did not expect a war with Japan, and consequently we did not expect an attack on the west coast. Since these propositions are true, obviously we were not creating an army for the defence of Canada. But if these reasons are not enough to convince one that the draft was not for the defence of Canada, there is a third reason which settles the point conclusively. This third reason is that we took no steps to equip the army for combat under modern warfare conditions, and I doubt very much whether we are doing so yet. No; we decided long ago in favour of compulsory service for overseas, but the manner of doing it was to institute compulsory service at home with the object of getting recruits in the overseas forces.
There cannot be any doubt about that.
I think we ought to be perfectly frank with each other. Now another statement is made, which to say the least, is disturbing. It has already been dealt with this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs (Mr. Macdonald), with whose views I agree. The statement is that men brought into the army as draftees do not make good soldiers. Why this should be said I do not know. I think sometimes people say it simply to make a point, to win an argument. There has not been any Canadian or world experience to support it. So far as the last war was concerned, the time was too short, and the circumstances under which the policy was instituted were such as pretty well to vitiate that experience as an example to use in coming to a conclusion. Most of the armies in the last war were composed of draftees. I remember reading Lloyd George's comment on the defence of Verdun-all by draftees. I think it is generally admitted that that was the greatest defence ever put up in the long history of warfare in the world up to that time. And again we have only to mention Dunkirk, Libya, Crete, Greece, in regard to British military service, and Moscow with reference to Russia; and Bataan might be added in order to show that there is no natural inferiority in men who are called up. Of course if you wait until you have a large percentage of thoroughly unwilling people, then you may have a bad soldier through the draft, but it is not native to the case itself.

Mobilization Act-Mr. May bank
I	mention Bataan. I think the fact is that at Bataan there were some United States volunteers and some draftees; but that they were all heroes no one would for a moment deny. There you had draftees mixed with volunteers, so that the difficulty referred to by some, I think by the Prime Minister himself, about mixing	one	kind	with	another,does not hold, at any rate does not always hold. I do not doubt that the people of Britain are resting a great deal easier by reason of the fact that they have there a fine volunteer army from Canada. I do not doubt, either,	that	they	rest	easy by
reason of the fact that, in addition, they now have a large United States draftee army.
I have no doubt that they feel just about as well pleased with the one as with the other.
Let me make one other comment on that subject. Some of	those	who	say	that thedraftee will not make a	good	soldier forget
that they are practically sending a cable to the axis to this effect: "If, as, and when Canada undertakes to raise soldiers in that way, do not worry; she will only be introducing second-rate men. Well, it strikes me rather like crying "stinking fish" on one's own doorstep.
I began by referring to the difficulty in this country by reason of the division of eight and one. I have a practical proposal to make to the government, and I make it in all sincerity and with emphasis. I said that I thought we had not been as frank as we might have been. I take my share of the blame in that regard. I do not think we have been always as frank with the people -of Canada as we might have been, nor have we looked to the people of Canada for help as we should have. I can quite understand the difficulty, almost insuperable at the moment, which faces the government, but that difficulty will have to be surmounted. The change will have to be made; the logic of events is forcing it. I would say that if the government feel they cannot follow the course which pure reason dictates, they should go direct to the common law provinces and say to them in simple and direct language, that, because of many historical facts, because of differences in education and environment, the lower province is not yet ready to go along with the rest of Canada in the plan which seems to be most reasonable and would appear to be most efficient. It would be right to say to the people of the common law provinces that the people of old Quebec have done much more than has ever been realized by Anglo-Saxon Canadians, and to show what those things have been.

The former minister of transport (Mr. Cardin) was quite right when he said that satisfactory figures on French-Canadian enlistment have never been given. I say, do not present the difficulty with a whole lot of statistics and involved arguments; you can prove almost anything with figures. It would not have been at all difficult at the beginning of this war to prove conclusively by statistics that we could not possibly accomplish half of what we have actually accomplished up to this time. At the beginning it could have been shown that if we sent 100,000 men overseas it was about all we could do if we were to make munitions in any large way. I say, do not go to the people in that way. Make them see that the French Canadians for three hundred years have been engaged in clearing the forests and tilling the soil and raising children and practising the golden rule with their neighbours rather than in acquiring an international outlook. Present these facts-to the people of the common law provinces and tell them you want more time because of these difficulties. I do not guarantee success with this plan, but I think the government would get somewhere with it. The recommendation should not be dismissed too lightly. The very novelty of it should make it attractive, because such frankness has never been tried in the world by any government. No harm can come from the Canadian people to any government as a consequence of their being simple, straightforward and honest.
But do not stop there. That is not the place to stop. Turn to Quebec; put the problem into the hands, of the people there. The method might have to be different; probably it would. We all know this is no imperialistic war, but it seems from what has been said here that there are some men in the lower province who are not fully convinced of that fact. We know that everything that is being done is being done for the defence of Canada, and it is necessary to bring that home to all our fellow Canadians, including those in that province as well. Make them appreciate that there is no imperialism about this war, but that it is solely a war for the defence of Canada. Let this be brought home to every village and farm. What would be necessary would be the carrying on of a campaign of truthful, virile, systematic and emphatic education throughout the province. The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) strikes me as being just about the man for the job. I am convinced that if the people of his province could have heard and seen him as he spoke, there would be no doubt of their being convinced as to the serious predicament in which we find ourselves.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mcllraith
In other words, what is necessary there is the achievement of that which I read this afternoon. Hon. members will recall this passage: Let me assure hon. members that y4ien Baptiste discovers that his freedom, institutions, and essential rights which he prizes so dearly are really threatened, there will be no one who *will fight more savagely than he to defend them.
This is the point that needs to be brought home. The difficulties of the situation with respect to Quebec have to be made known to the people of all the provinces, and there is a hope for a continuance of the unity of races in Canada if a policy of candour something along these lines be adopted.


Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) upon his speech of this afternoon. Both as to clarity of expression and *quality of content it seemed to me outstanding, and will, I believe, serve a useful purpose not only within but outside the house.
In adequately discussing the subject before the house to-day it seems to me some difficulty arises by reason of the fact that two of the major considerations entering into any decision lie peculiarly within the knowledge of the government. To arrive at a proper conclusion in the matter one would need to know more adequately, and, indeed, would desire to know more adequately the programme of the united nations as a whole. One would need to know the relative programmes of each of the united nations, and their requirements of men and munitions. In addition, one would need to know not only Canada's munitions programme, which is generally known throughout the country, but the programme with respect to and the nature of any projected military operations.
Those are matters which for obvious reasons cannot be made known to the public at large, or, indeed, to individual members of the house. For these reasons, in conducting a full or adequate discussion of the amendment to the National Resources Mobilization Act we are handicapped, and allowances must be made accordingly. The result of the present procedure in dealing with this measure is that we are now having a full discussion of the subject of conscription for overseas service. In addition, not only do we have that discussion now, but we have it only once- not repeated, as some would have it. In my opinion, the decision to have the debate only once is one which will commend itself to all hon. members and to Canadians
generally. It commends itself not only because the time at which a measure of conscription may become necessary is something peculiarly within the knowledge of the government, but also because of the bitterness and the opening of old sores which any argument on the subject engenders. I must confess frankly that at times I have found myself unable to understand the bitterness and prejudices which rear their heads when this subject is mentioned. I was too young to remember the time when those prejudices originated, but I have lived to regret that they were ever created or permitted to exist.
On the one hand, to-day we have those who oppose conscription for military service overseas saying that the hands of the government should be tied, that Bill No. 80 is a conscription measure and that because they feel conscription for overseas is mot now necessary, we should not free the hands of the government. It seems to me that this argument completely ignores the element of speed in the changing military situation. In ignoring that element and leaving the hands of the government tied, the persons who would follow this procedure place themselves in a most dangerous position.
It is well known that there can be some delay in taking action of this kind by legislative action. Surely, when time after time in the last two years, and particularly in the last week, it has been demonstrated that the whole military picture can change with a rapidity which is positively startling, the government should have a free hand. For that, among other reasons, I for one most wholeheartedly support the bill now before the house.
On the other hand, there is another group in the community who say not only that we should have conscription for military service overseas, but that we should have it now. And not only that; they reinforce their argument by saying that an affirmative vote on the plebiscite was a vote for conscription. It may be true that the majority of those persons who voted in the affirmative voted that way because they believed in conscription for overseas service. It is equally true, however, that a very large number voted in the affirmative, not because they believed that conscription for overseas service at the present time was a proper measure, but because they desired the government to be free. They felt that the question asked meant precisely what it says. Taking a serious view of the war, they felt that notwithstanding their anti-conscription feelings of the moment they should free the hands of the government and leave it in a position

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mcllraith
all parties in this house and did not encounter any opposition from any section of the community except with regard to military service overseas, it seemed to me that it should be used and used at once with respect to these reserve brigade groups. To my disappointment I find that this has not been done. I have not the exact figures to give the house at the moment with regard to the strength of these reserve brigade groups, but perhaps I can convey some idea of the situation when I say that the strength of these groups is equal to about four divisions. So it will be seen that it is a rather sizable and important item in our defence scheme. It will be seen as well that it would be of importance also in releasing some men, full-time soldiers, for service elsewhere when they might be needed. I, for one, hold the view that the place to defeat the enemy is as far from our shores as we can meet him.
I have some knowledge of the reserve brigade group in this military district, No. 3. The strength of the group should be approximately 6,400. The actual strength some two weeks ago was about 2,700. Some 3,700 recruits were required to bring it up to strength. In other words, this reserve brigade group is something less than one-half the strength it should be. If this force, which should equal about four divisions, should be called out in case of an attempted invasion, the necessity would arise very quickly. It would come like a whirlwind, and there would be no time to train men. Then, instead of having a force of some four divisions, are we to go out with an actual strength of some two divisions and say to the enemy attempting to invade our shores, "We have other men in Canada who have been kept at civilian work because they were doing necessary war work. We did not give them any military training. This force now meeting you should have the strength of four divisions, but it has only the strength of two divisions." That position, of course, would be absolutely absurd; yet in our treatment of this subject, while looking at the more important and more distant matter, having the old war mentality, we have completely overlooked a smaller, supplementary matter right at hand. The reserve brigade groups should be brought up to strength by the use of the National Resources Mobilization Act. The necessity for taking such action I think has been clearly shown in recent weeks by the visit of enemy submarines to the mouth of the St. Lawrence. Those submarines were not there on any friendly mission, nor were the Japanese on the west coast there for any nonsense. As far as I am concerned, we should have no illusions as to why they were there, or as to what we may expect in future.

The policy of the government with respect to the matter is clear. The principle of this act has been accepted and enforced. Not only that, but in his address on June 10 the Prime Minister had this to say, as reported at page 3241 of Hansard:
And make no mistake about it, the government is determined, as far as is humanly possible, to make sure that every able-bodied man undertakes some form of direct war service.
Here is a form of direct war service suitable to the able-bodied men who have been retained in civilian occupations. The administrative machinery to put it in force is in existence, but as yet our military authorities have not put it in force. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come to put it in force, and that the time is now. I do not believe our views on the matter should be obscured by any other views with respect to the major, more important part of our army, the active part, or any views that we may hold with regard to conscription for military service overseas.
In closing, in view of the fact that I have not been inclined to say a great deal in this house, I should like to point out that the constituency I have the honour to represent has more than nine units on active service for overseas. That is a record which, I believe, not only has not been equalled but has not been approached in any other part of Canada. This representation of the active forces from my constituency, of which I am very proud, typifies, I believe, better than anything I could say the views of the people I represent with respect to the war and matters pertaining to it.
Mrs. CORA T. CASSELMAN (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on Bill No. 80. I have listened with pleasure and profit to speeches made by hon. members in this house, and have agreed with a great deal and disagreed with some things that have been said. I was particularly interested in the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and members of his cabinet, setting out the case as they see it at the present time. Sometimes I think that the men who bear the burden and heat of the fray do not receive sufficient praise for what they do, for it must take tremendous courage, initiative, perseverance and patience to carry on at this time.
We see the war becoming more and more dangerous. It will be won finally by the young men and women of the belligerent countries fighting either on their own soil, within their own boundaries, or outside. I hope and pray that it will be won by the youth of our

Mobilization Act-Mrs. Casselman
own allied countries, fighting beyond our borders. I hope it will never come so close that we have to fight on Canadian soil.
There is an urgency now for Canada's sake. There is an urgency for the sake of our allies and for humanity's sake. How can we look at our young people here, so free and gay and fair, without thinking of the young people of the occupied countries of Europe and Asia sitting in darkness and the shadow of death? It is bad enough for us to see our people in uniform ready for the conflict. How much worse it must be for these others to see their fellow citizens, civilians, young and old, in danger from the ever-present and ever-vigilant enemy; how much harder still to witness the outrages, the massacres, the executions and the bombings, even to read of which makes our blood run cold. Therefore there is need for haste; we must set aside all differences which may impede the war effort.
Conditions have changed a great deal since the war began. At first the United States hoped to stay out, and Canada believed that no more than limited participation would be necessary. But world events have forced on us a greater and greater participation in this struggle. I think our yardstick should be, not what others are doing but what I myself am doing, in fighting or working or saving; not what somebody else is doing in another province or another community but what we ourselves are doing to contribute to the success of the war measures. If we put it on that ground; if we are driven by that urgency, we see that the inexorable pressure of world events have made it necessary to advance step by step along this line of participation which has been deplored by some hon. members who have spoken in this house. Not politics, not something else, but world events have forced this condition upon us. There has been a tremendous change. In the beginning it was thought that the war would be one of machines, with comparatively few men engaged. But more and more men have been called. The geographical area has extended vastly, and with savagery and brutality the enemy have made those of the occupied lands work for them on factories and on farms, freeing millions of their own men for the battle front.
These are the considerations which have forced us in the direction of greater participation in the war effort. Some there are who do not want to free the government, who would not give it power to increase its effort and to put more men in the field should this become necessary. I cannot see the justification for that attitude so long as we are a 44561-223
democracy. This is our own government. It is the decisions which our government will take which will involve greater participation if and when it becomes necessary. One of the reasons why Canada is at war is to preserve our right to make our own decisions, to maintain our democratic ways of life, and surely it is the democratic spirit which inspires the discussion we are now holding; for policy is hammered out by the meeting of many minds. Discussion precedes decision, which is followed by loyal support and then by action to carry out those decisions. We thus preserve our right to make decisions.
We all build Canada: those in the field; those here at home, in the factory, and on the farm and in the home. But it is not what we have contributed, valuable though that may be; it is not entirely what was done in past years; it is what we do now which builds Canada of the present and the future; for all our to-morrows are built on to-day. Each part of the country shares in the government; its constitutional rights are set out in the British North America Act. Individuals, too, have their rights, not necessarily set down in the constitution, but exercised by the ability they can display, through what they themselves can contribute. The men who are here in the house representing different parties are here partly because they kept Canada as Canada in the great war. The hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) has listed the names of some of the men who served in the great war and who, because of that service, are here now. He might have named many more. The men of 1942 are earning their right, now and for the future, to build Canada. For example, I have here an enumeration of honours in the king's birthday list, and I find the names of three Edmonton fliers who have won distinctions. Two of them are mentioned in dispatches-Flight-Sergeant R. J. Majeau and Flight-Sergeant P. A. Rogers. We can tell from their names something of their racial extraction. Also Sergeant E. Gowda has won the British Empire Medal. I should like to read briefly from the newspaper account:
Sergeant Gowda was awarded the Empire Medal for work contributing to the efficiency of his squadron and for "great gallantry" in extricating companions from a crashed, burning plane while with an eastcoast bomber squadron.
Sergeant Gowda is a Canadian of Ukrainian extraction, the second generation, I believe. I know his mother well. The best of every race, French, British and new Canadian stock, are taking their part in the present conflict and earning their right to build up Canada now and in the future. I hope, therefore, for unity; I hope that we shall set aside those



Mobilization Act-Mrs. Casselman
divisions which may exist among us and that we shall have the privilege of building Canada one in soul and strength and sword. Furthermore, I think those very principles that we carry out here in our national government, the principles of democracy, discussion, decision, support and action, are the principles that must underlie any international organization which may be built up at the end of this war if we are to save the world from a recurrence of wars such as this. It seems to me that therein lies our hope for a world free from the ever-recurring curse of war. We survived one war and we hope to survive this one; but can civilization survive a succession of wars that bleed it white? Canada must play her part in the war and in the peace that will follow, in whatever organization seems best fitted to carry out the policies that we ourselves put into force here in our own country; for it seems to me that these democratic principles are what will have to be carried out on a world scale if we are to avoid such a conflagration again.
Fifty per cent of my reading during the last thirty years has been along this line. It is something to which I have given a great deal of consideration, because I, too, lived and worked and thought through the last war. The problem has to be worked out together in some way, just as we ourselves in Canada must work out our lesser problems. It will need a combination of effort, and we see at the present time the allies getting together and outlining their policies for the post-war period. We see this in the treaties that have been signed between Russia and Great Britain and in the attitude of the united nations as indicated in the Atlantic charter and the agreement of the twenty-six nations signed early this year. The future is already taking shape, and our policies will have to be hammered out just as we hammer out our policies here where we hear the noise of the hammer and the din of conflict of opinion, the decisions that are taken, the support given and the action following. Canada then may show the way, by her policy here at home, whereby a world organization can live and survive with better success than the League of Nations did twenty years ago. Of course, it will depend on the individual members of any league.
I love Canada instinctively, as the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) said, but I love Canada with the head as well as the heart. I love Canada because here we have a country in which we work out the principles of decent equality between men, a country in which we have the four

freedoms, not 100 per cent, though the tendency is in that direction more and more as the years go by. I love Canada for its history. I believe I have taken as much pride and pleasure in the history of French Canada as any French Canadian, and I was taught in Ontario schools, where the history of Canada included not only British history but French Canadian history as well. I believe I have as much pride as anyone in Frhnch Canada. The history of Canada for me began when the first French explorer placed his foot on Canadian soil. Those explorers were to me heroes as they were to French Canadians-Madeleine de Vercheres, Father Breboeuf, Dollard, LaFontaine, Laurier and others coming down to our own times. So that Canada means a great deal to me even though perhaps we have not had the centuries on the soil that the French Canadians have had. Again, I love Canada because she has learned to live in peace with her neighbours. I love her because of her undefended boundary line, because on both sides of that line we have had the frame of mind that allows people to live in peace. We have approached the consideration of our problems without prejudice; we have hammered out our policies, and have stood by our decisions, and so we have avoided war along the boundary.
I love Canada also because it is the world in miniature. In Canada there is no single blood or race or religion, but a combination of all these; and therefore, as it works out its internal problems, it shows how the external problems of the world can be worked out. It would be a great pity if anything happened now to destroy that sense of unity, that sense of oneness which we have right across Canada. As the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe said, we have two languages and one soul. In fact, we have more than two languages. We have English and French and we have the new Canadians of different stock, but we have one soul throughout Canada. Therefore I vote for this measure, willingly giving to the government the power it needs, to use that power as it sees fit, when and if it is necessary; for a government without power is no government. It is anarchy. I hope that out of these troubled waters Canada will emerge stronger, one in soul and strength and sword.


Mr. GASPARD FAUTEUX (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, it is with apprehension that I rise to address the house on this very important bill, No. 80, first, because I am a new member, and second, because I have decided to speak in the language of the majority of this house. If I dare to speak in your language, Mr. Speaker,

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fauteux
in spite of the fact that my vocabulary is poor and my pronunciation inadequate, it is because I wish to pay a tribute of gratitude and of admiration to the English-speaking members who have been so kind and generous toward the province of Quebec in the speeches they have delivered.
It is not my intention to analyse all that has been said in the house for or against the bill, or to analyse the bill itself. My intention is simply to say how I shall vote and why, and to make a few suggestions.
The government has already said that if this bill has been introduced it is simply to comply with the wish expressed by the majority of the Canadian people through the plebiscite, namely, to release the government from the promises which they or any members of this house may have made to their electors, with regard to the mobilization of man-power, during the election of 1940, when the military situation was absolutely different from the one that exists to-day. If we had that plebiscite it was because the government felt that during this war, when we are fighting for a principle like the sanctity of treaties and contracts, we should at least hold to our own promises made to the people of Canada. The great majority of the people having voted "yes" on the plebiscite, the government feels obliged to abrogate section 3 of the mobilization act in order to have no restriction on the mobilization of man-power.
In a few hours or a few days we shall have to vote "yes" or "no" on the motion for the second reading of this bill. What am I going to do? How am I going to vote if I believe in the democratic form of government, in a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, and if, like the government I believe in the sanctity of treaties and contracts? I do not need to go back as far as 1940; I have only to refer to February last during the by-election, when I asked 50,000 electors of St. Mary to place a contract with me, a contract that has since been accepted and executed by the party of the first part representing the majority of the electors of Montreal-St. Mary, in electing me and the party of the second part, the one who is called to execute the condition sine qua non of the contract, with the mandate that has been given to him by the party of the first part.
What was the important clause for which I was responsible in that contract? Let me read just a few lines of an article written in the newspaper La Presse of Montreal under date of April 30 and signed by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot):
(Translation)
Their new member, who was supported by a majority of people who were surely against 44561-223^
conscription, has of course, stated his opposition to conscription for overseas service. But he has bound himself to vote against the plebiscite not in the House of Commons, as the member for Saint Mary, but only as a citizen, as an elector of the constituency of Westmount. The electors will no doubt be interested to know what he will do if a conscription measure is ever introduced in the house. We will make it a point to keep them informed.
In a few words, all that means is that the hon. member for St. Mary promised to his electors during the last election to vote for a plebiscite when it would be introduced in this house by the government, but that he would vote "no" as an individual whenever the plebiscite would be held. The hon. member for Temiscouata said, "I wonder what the new member will say when he will have to vote 'yes' or 'no' on conscription when conscription is introduced in the house." Let me tell this house that I will carry out my engagement and that I will vote against this bill. To my hon. friends who may be scandalized by that clause in my contract with my electors or inclined to call that demagogy, whether they be Liberals who will vote for the bill, to be logical with their attitude on the plebiscite, or whether they be Tories with imperialistic instincts, let me tell them immediately that I am not and never was a narrow-minded nationalist or separatist. Let me ask them if they would have preferred to have in this house, instead of a true democrat and a Liberal, who believes that this war is Canada's war, who is glad and proud to belong to a country privileged to have two civilizations, which I hope will remain united in one soul, and one who has three children, all of them in English schools in order to become perfectly bilingual and true Canadians, an extremist like the one who ran against me as a candidate for the party "a sens unique" of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe).
Let me ask the right hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members of this house not to blame the electors of my county, the same people who voted for Mr. Camillien Houde as mayor of Montreal, and elected him as their representative in the legislative assembly of Quebec, the same who is now in a concentration camp, whom they used to consider their "lucky boy", if they asked their candidate to be against conscription, but praise them because at the same time they refused to send to the parliament of Canada an extremist. I am really convinced that they believe in that latin phrase, in medio stat virtue. This does not mean that they want only a moderate effort in this war. No. They want, like all of us, to win the war, and they will do everything possible for the defence of Canada.
Mobilization Act-Mr. Fauteux

Let me read what Professor F. R. Scott of McGill university said about the province of Quebec, which would apply also to my constituency:
The French Canadians mean what they say when they say they will do everything necessary for the defence of Canada. They have already accepted conscription of man-power for this purpose, and they do not mind whether this means going to Alaska, Greenland or Panama. It is a good deal farther from Quebec city to Alaska than from Quebec city to London.
Further on he says:
The same people who voted "no" so overwhelmingly in Mr. St. Laurent's constituency, only a short time ago preferred Mr. St. Laurent to a nationalist candidate who posed as the de Valera of Canada.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Whom is the hon. gentleman quoting?


Gaspard Fauteux: F. R. Scott, professor at McGill university, who is, I believe, a good friend of the hon. member.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Gaspard Fauteux: Mr. Speaker, at six
o'clock I had just given some reasons why Quebec is against conscription for overseas service. I may point out that those were only some among many reasons why they are opposed. The main one is that, like most of us, they believe it is not necessary, and that total war effort does not necessarily mean conscription for overseas service. They think they are right, like most of us; and I may say that both of us are in good company with Australia, South Africa and Northern Ireland.
The people of Quebec believe in a total war effort to win the war. They have listened to Mr. Churchill and have applauded his courage and determination. They have listened to the fireside chats of Mr. Roosevelt, and they are not only ready to let their sons join the army voluntarily for overseas service, but to answer to the demand of Mr. Churchill, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job," and approve Mr. Roosevelt's statement that America-and that means Canada and the United States

is the arsenal of democracy. Yes; let us give tools to Mr. Churchill. Let us ask our people to work night and day to produce tools to avoid more defeats like Greece, Crete, Singapore, Hong Kong and Libya.
What we should do for a total war effort is to keep Canada as a real arsenal of democracy for the nations who fight with us, nations which

have large populations but have not the industrial strength of the United States and Canada. I said a real arsenal, because we need tools for that unfortunate China with her 420,000,000 inhabitants; tools for that gallant Russia with her 120,000,000 inhabitants; tools for that unhappy Poland with her 32,000,000 inhabitants, and tools for those millions of inhabitants of the northern part of Europe, as well as those in the centre, who are only waiting for the right moment to be armed and to start a revolution.
We need tools-tools and all kinds of armaments for land, air and sea, in order that those heroic British and Canadian commandos, and de Gaulle and his gallant free Frenchmen may land on the soil of France, to hand those tools to the people of France; tools with which they will be able to invade and conquer the European continent, tools to destroy the beasts, both the one which invaded her soil, killed her sons and destroyed her monuments, and the other which stabbed her in the back during her agony; and, finally, tools for our beloved Canada. Yes; tools for our shores on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, to protect and keep our beloved land colonized by France, so well developed by Britain, and transformed into a nation by our Canadian statesmen.
I believe that in order to do that we do not need to abrogate section 3. The government has only to exercise the power given it under the National Resources Mobilization Act to get more money by the following means:
1.	By nationalizing the war industries for the duration, with the understanding that a reasonable interest will be paid, and a reasonable power of amortization will be given.
2.	By mobilizing all the savings frozen since 1939, with the understanding that a reasonable interest will be paid.
3.	By establishing a reasonable ceiling for annual revenues of the individual, the remainder being remitted to the government.
In offering these suggestions, I humbly believe that if they were accepted Canada would make a total war effort in a spirit of total national unity. That, in my opinion, is the best way to win the war, to win the peace, and to assure the future of our country. In doing so, we shall confirm what has already been said by Mr. Graham Spry, former secretary of the Association of Canadian Clubs: "One nation, two cultures; one loyalty, two races; two glorious pasts but only one future."


Mr. P. E. COTE (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, in the time at my disposal to-night I assume the very serious responsibility of expressing myself in a language which is not my mother tongue, one which I must confess I am far from mastering. I wish to pay tribute in their own

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cote
language to the spirit of good-will and understanding of the English-speaking citizens in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I shall also speak in this language with a certain amount of pride and pleasure, because it will enable me to address myself in a direct, if not a perfect way to my colleagues of British descent in the house, and to tell them most sincerely how much I have appreciated the friendships with which they have honoured me during the two years I have sat in this chamber.
In passing, I wish to point, with great pride as a Canadian and with no less hope for the future of Canada, to their sincere attempts to approach and to discuss in a comprehensive and courteous manner the internal difficulties our country has not been spared in this critical day. The better I have come to know my colleagues, the more I have appreciated them. I realize that there is one main condition which must be met before complete and lasting unity is achieved in this country. There must be a better knowledge of each other's history, traditions and ideals in order to justify our claim to true citizenship in this country. True Canadians must love not only the soil of their country but also the inhabitants of that soil, irrespective of their racial beliefs; they must respect the institutions which regulate each other's social, religious and political life.
Such a result cannot be achieved in a short period of time. Canada has a population of only 11,500,000 people, but its area is equal to the whole of Europe or to the United States with its territorial possessions. As with a human being, the impulse of life of a nation must come from the heart. Ottawa, the capital city, where meet the representatives from all the provinces, is the heart of Canada. Therefore we as members have a definite responsibility to discharge in furthering national unity. We must take back to our constituents a better picture of the other parts of Canada which most of them have never visited, and of the people living in those different districts. In my province there are villages and even municipalities peopled with those of French descent which seldom see visitors of any other extraction. Is it any wonder that my compatriots have such a vague knowledge of their fellow citizens in other parts of Canada and that campaigns of prejudice led by extremists of all sorts result in discontent and mistrust.
I am told by my colleagues from other provinces that the same situation exists in their constituencies. A great number of citizens there have never met a French Canadian, and the only knowledge they have of French Canadians is from the newspapers. If the
one they happen to read is of the type whose supreme ambition is to disunite the country, one should not be astonished at the bad feeling that arises from time to time between the different races whose destiny it is to build a strong and prosperous nation. The main and vital link between the two racial groups in our dominion must be forged here in Ottawa by the members of this house. If they discharge that duty as they should, the cornerstone of national unity will be laid and will last forever.
On April 27 the dominion government asked the population of this country to release it from past pledges. The question was in the following form:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
This was a special occasion indeed. The public was invited to take a direct share of the responsibility of administering the affairs of this country. It was with that thought in mind that I approved the principle of the plebiscite, as will be seen from my remarks made in the house on February 12. Nevertheless, the question was ambiguous, and the members of this government have been the first to admit that. Perhaps that fact has accounted for the great number of those who developed that particular theme during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as well as those who repeatedly addressed the public over the radio and through the newspapers during the few weeks which preceded the vote when an effort was made to explain the true meaning of the question and predict the results of an affirmative or a negative vote.
On February 12, when I addressed the house for the first time, I supported the policy of the government in connection with this plebiscite. I considered that policy to be a most democratic procedure and I did not hesitate to endorse its principles. Following the magnificent speech delivered by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) over the radio on April 7, I went to my constituency and opened a campaign in favour of an affirmative vote. I appealed to my fellow citizens to release me from the pledge which I had given during the last election campaign and which I had repeated on several occasions afterwards. Following the worthy speeches which had been made across the country by outstanding members of this house, I promised my constituents that conscription was not directly related to the issue of the plebiscite. I asserted that an affirmative vote would not be a vote in
Mobilization Act-Mr. Cote

favour of conscription. I gave them to understand that the circumstances of this war were such that it had become necessary and imperative in order to maintain the unity of the country that members of parliament be released from any past commitments made with regard to the method of raising men for overseas service.
I told my constituents that parliament should be allowed to consider any appropriate measure without any restriction, should be completely free to act if circumstances developed which made it necessary to bring in such a measure for the furtherance of our war effort. I was greatly honoured on the evening of April 27 to learn that my constituents had listened to my plea and had responded to the call of the Prime Minister. They had given a majority of over 8,600 affirmative votes. That meant that two-thirds of the total vote of my constituency was affirmative. During my first speech in this house I said that the constituency of Verdun seemed to me to be a miniature Canada because of the various racial and religious groups to be found there. The result of the plebiscite would seem to confirm that statement because the final returns for the whole country showed the same two-thirds majority in the affirmative.
The plebiscite was held with a view to learning the will of the people concerning the pledges which had been made and which prevented the government and the members of this house from having a free hand in carrying out our war effort. It is most important that a correct interpretation should be given to the results of the plebiscite. As far as I am concerned as the representative of Verdun, I consider myself released from the obligations I had assumed in the past when I promised my constituents that I would never favour conscription, that I would oppose any bill which would bring in conscription for overseas service. Moreover, in view of the appeal I made for an affirmative vote in the plebiscite campaign and the interpretation which was generally given to the statements made over the radio and through the press by outstanding members of this house who took a very active part in the campaign, I am bound to consider that the will of the majority in Verdun has given me a special mandate to withhold from debating conscription until such circumstances have arisen as would render it necessary for the furtherance of our total war effort. If such events should present themselves, I would feel authorized to endorse such legislation after having carefully studied 
the alleged necessity for it and on the condition that I as a member of this house be permitted to debate the principle as well as the regulations for the enforcement of this new form of compulsory service.
However, contrary to what happened in the other provinces, in the constituency of Verdun as in most of the other Quebec constituencies the campaign for an affirmative vote had a counterpart in the strong opposition which was organized and led ever since the plebiscite was announced in the speech from the throne. Radio broadcasts and mass meetings, supported by several of the daily newspapers and by most of the weeklies, appealed for a negative vote on the ground that the question put to the people of Canada, meant conscription, that this was the one and only opportunity the electors had to express an opinion on this veiy important question, and finally, that the Prime Minister left the people entirely free to express their personal and sincere view about it, because he had declared that no vote of confidence was involved in voting on the plebiscite, and he particularly insisted on that in his reply to the telegram which had been sent to him by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) two days before the voting on the plebiscite.
The plebiscite has made known the will of the people of the province of Quebec, but not that of the people in the other provinces, on the very question of conscription for overseas service. It is most unjust and unfair to compare the results of the plebiscite in the province of Quebec with those in the other provinces, because in Quebec there was an organized opposition to the "yes" vote, while in the other eight provinces there was not the slightest organized attempt to show that the vote on the plebiscite was or might be construed as a vote for or against conscription. All the members for the other provinces spoke in the same way to their constituents; and all the newspapers, political clubs, veterans' organizations, trade unions and various social bodies were unanimous in appealing for an affirmative vote on the ground that it did not mean a vote in favour of or against conscription.
The 27th of April was a voting day throughout Canada. It was a real election day. In the eight English-speaking provinces the official candidate of that election was a "yes" vote. Its candidature before the electors was unanimously supported by all organized and public bodies. The candidate did not have any opponent, and so got elected by acclamation.
The victory of April 27th in the other provinces was a victory for the demand of members of parliament and the government for a free

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cote
hand to deal with conscription should the necessity arise, while in Quebec it was a free expression of opinion on the very question of conscription.
If the plebiscite issue had been contested with as much vehemence in the other provinces as in Quebec-and it could have been to judge by the number of negative votes which were cast-the question submitted to the people might have had a different meaning for those electors, and they might have had in mind to vote for or against conscription, as the great majority of the people did in the province of Quebec. In that event the results then might have been very different.
I therefore conclude that if the campaign led in the province of Quebec by the supporters of the negative vote brought the result that we know in most of our constituencies, and if this result is construed as strong opposition in that province to any measure of conscription for overseas service at this time, it does not follow that the results in the other provinces are to be interpreted as a vote on behalf of conscription. I still believe that at this very moment the proportion of our population that would favour this measure even in principle would represent but a minority in the country. I am sure that that is the opinion in my own constituency.
The bill now submitted to the house for second reading is brought down for the purpose of amending the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940. Section 2 of that act is suggested to be amended to read as follows:
The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty in the right of Canada, as may be deemed necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of Canada, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community.
I now quote the last few lines of section 5 of the act, because they relate to the publication of orders in council:
. . . provided that any of the steps specified in this section may be omitted or deferred if the governor in council considers such omission or deferment necessary in the national interest having regard to the special circumstances.
We all admit, Mr. Speaker, that this is enabling legislation. It empowers the governor in, council to deal from now on, and without any consultation of parliament, with this very question of conscription for overseas service. It will enable the governor in council to decide whether coming events in this war are such that the people of this country will subscribe to a measure of conscription for
overseas service. This amendment gives the governor in council full power to make such decision. The governor in council will also be the only authority to enact compulsory service and to determine the principles and regulations under which this compulsion shall be enforced. Above all, he will not even be bound to make these orders and regulations known to parliament and to the people of the country if he considers that such an attitude on his part is necessary in the national interest under the circumstances.
All hon. members will agree that this bill has been intended by the government and is an attempt to put into effect the affirmative result of the plebiscite. The will of the majority must prevail in this country. I myself will admit that. Knowing the will of the majority of this country, I would be the first to make mine the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1917 and abide by such will. But is it certain that this piece of legislation does not go beyond the will which was expressed by the people on April 27?
Of course the repeal of section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act does free the hands of the government. But if this amendment is approved, the mobilization act will have a new bearing which, I submit, will exceed the powers granted by the electors of this country.
Who in this house can say, from the affirmative vote given in the country, it is the will of the people to insert in our statutes at this very moment the principle of conscription without waiting to see whether new circumstances will arise to render it necessary?
Who can say that the affirmative vote was a demand upon members of parliament to yield to the governor in council their privileges as regards the most vital problem that has ever existed in the country in relation to our national unity, and this, before any new circumstances in the nature of those mentioned to the people of Canada during the campaign preceding the plebiscite, have arisen to justify any such surrender to the governor in council?
If the question asked on the plebiscite had been in the following terms, for example, "Do you favour the repeal by parliament of section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940?" and if it had been explained to the electors that an affirmative vote would grant to the governor in council full power to put conscription for overseas service into force without any consultation with parliament, at any time that he found the measure to be absolutely necessary, and to enact any regulations to govern the enforcement of that measure of conscription without resort to the advice of or any consultation with members of
Mobilization Act-Mr. Cote

parliament, I wonder what the result would have been in the country. I am sure, knowing my constituency as I do know it, that the affirmative vote on the evening of April 27 would not have given a majority of over 8,600.
In order to get from the country a full expression of its will on this bill, supposed to be the necessary conclusion of the plebiscite, I submit that we should have used the question I have just quoted instead of the one which was indicated on the ballots on April 27. This bill would not then have exceeded the meaning of the plebiscite. As I have just suggested, it would have been a direct sequence of an affirmative vote on the plebiscite.
As a result of the plebiscite we have witnessed a campaign of prejudice and race cries against the province of Quebec, coming from groups of citizens of this country who know the least about Canadians of French descent. They may have come into the province on business purposes, but never have they gone through the experience of a close contact with our French population. Yet these extremists of all sorts have not ceased since April 27 to accuse Quebec of all possible evils in connection with our war effort. I will not insist on the records which Quebec has already set of her will to cooperate in this total war of oura and to contribute to the final victory.
I wish to state that in my opinion this bill before the house has another major aspect. It will help to satisfy and might eventually encourage the feelings which have been developed since April 27 against Quebec by a group of unpatriotic Canadians. This bill in view of its particular implications appears to me to be supported by sentiment rather than by the result and meaning of the plebiscite. Our war effort up to this time, on, both the industrial and military fronts, has been a total and well-balanced war effort, since it would not have been possible to do any better had conscription for overseas service been put into effect a year or two years ago. What is the reason for this change of policy? Our voluntary system is meeting the requirements of the active army in a satisfactory way. Logically, there is no need and no reason for the adoption of this principle at this time. Yet it is proposed to this house to answer the threats of those who want conscription because it is conscription and for no other reason-because in their eyes conscription is the symbol of a total war effort. If we let sentiment overcome common sense and reason in the settlement of such an important problem as that of conscription, we shall render unity impossible in this country. As long as there is not a sincere and deep Canadianism in this dominion, it is not the particular feeling of 
a minority part of a racial group that will serve to unite the country in such a tremendous effort as she is making in this war.
Since the outbreak of war about 25,000 orders in council have been passed by this government to regulate our economic life, war production and military services.
The representatives of the people in parliament have not been consulted about these orders in council, although about three hundred of them were in conflict with some existing statutes. No serious reaction was caused in the country by their enactment, because these regulations were based on logic and not on emotions, and thus the Canadian people have welcomed them in their strong desire to contribute in a total war effort.
I believe, on the other hand, that in my constituency, if not in the whole dominion, my fellow citizens expect that conscription, which has been the vulnerable point of Canadian unity for the past twenty-five years, will remain the exclusive privilege of this parliament to debate and to decide upon whenever circumstances shall arise to render necessary its introduction in this house.
Being a citizen of a free country, I have spoken my mind very freely on this matter of Bill No. 80. In spite of the attitude which I sincerely feel I shall have to take when the bill is put to the vote, let me assure the house that our country is actually making a total war effort and if possible, as circumstances develop, it will be increasing that effort without any objection in my province and in the constituency of Verdun. Moreover, our people in Quebec realize that this is now a Canadian war; that we are fighting for Canada; that we are fighting for our own traditions and creed; that we are fighting for our own salvation. We believe, I for one certainly believe, that the future of Canada being at stake in this war, we cannot ask anything better than that the true Canadian at the head of this country should continue to lead our war effort, with the same success that we have achieved in the past. In spite of the attitude that I shall take on this bill,
I wish to convey to our Prime Minister my sincere admiration and to assure him of my everlasting support notwithstanding that, being a free citizen, I shall again speak my free mind in order to express the opinion of the majority of our population in the constituency of Verdun.


Clarence Gillis: It is with some hesitation that I rise to take part in this debate, and were it not for the fact that some of our hon. friends opposite utilized the time at their disposal to make an analysis of the Coopera-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gillis
tive Commonwealth Federation, its programme and its policy rather than the measure before the house, I might not have decided to take up the time of the house now to discuss this question. But certain things have been said with respect to this group which, in my opinion, require an answer.
The measure before the house is somewhat beclouded. In the discussion to date-and I have listened quite attentively to it-some of our hon. friends have talked exclusively about the plebiscite. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) definitely told the house that this was a conscription bill; he did so without any equivocation. The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) this afternoon agreed with him to some extent. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) went to considerable length, with some convincing arguments, to show that the measure was not a conscription measure. Anyone with average intelligence, listening to members of the cabinet, listening to the arguments pro and con, must have had some doubt at times as to what the measure really is. Personally I draw my own conclusions, and regardless of what the programme and policy of this particular group may have been in the past, I am independent and free to exercise my own judgment in this matter or in any other matter that comes before the house.
As one of the members coming from the east coast I wish to point out certain things to the house, instead of discussing simply one phase of the conscription issue as we are doing now. The plebiscite was merely a convenient political trick to offset propaganda coming from political opponents. It was purely and simply a matter of government responsibility. I went out and advocated an affirmative vote, and I did so because I believed in total conscription of everything in Canada necessary to fight the war. An affirmative vote on the plebiscite meant that the road was still open, as far as we were concerned, to push forward in that direction, and I made it absolutely clear to our people that that was our stand then and' would be our stand in the future.
As I see it to-day, what we should be driving home to the Canadian people is the fact that our situation is not merely a matter of conscripting men for military service or of taking over industries to be utilized in an all-out war effort. We should be thinking in Canada to-day in terms of the question whether every man and woman should be seeking some means of learning how to defend themselves. It is not a matter of having 44561-224
to go to the people and requisition them for that service. If they were alive to their own interests and to the seriousness of the international situation, they would be coming, as they should, to the responsible authorities in the country for the formation and organization of means of defence in every section of Canada. Anyone with average intelligence, reading the press to-day, must realize the significance of the statement made by the Prime Minister of Australia on Saturday. He must realize the significance of what is happening on the west coast, where the Japs have a foothold in the Aleutian islands. We have but meagre information on this matter. We do not know where they are. Anyone with average intelligence, I say, must realize the significance of the shelling of Vancouver island, or a section of it, and the shelling of a section of the California coast. This little Jesse James street paper, the Trend, definitely points out-I do not know what its authority is-that within the next ninety days we may expect raids on the east coast. It definitely establishes the fact that German planes a year ago made photographs and a blueprint of everything in that section of the country. That may or may not be true, but as one of the elected representatives of the people I realize-much more I think than they do in central Canada-the seriousness of the situation on both coasts and the necessity for a complete understanding on the part of the people. They will not have that understanding unless they get a lead from their elected representatives. Unfortunately at the present time the complete control of our war effort is in central Canada. While the danger is on both coasts, the control of the machinery necessary to fight the war is in central Canada.
With that background I want to make it clear that as far as the members of this group' are concerned, they are not seizing on the war situation as an opportunity of bringing about in this country a socialist state, as some of our hon. friends opposite accuse us of doing. The programme and policy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in the light of the war situation is not a political programme; it is a recognition of the fact that if we are to have an all-out war effort to meet those who are waging an all-out war, the complete organization of all the resources of this country is necessary. That is a programme of organization of these resources on the same basis as man-power is expected to be organized under the bill before the house at this time.
On June 11 the leader of our group presented and described in detail a six-point programme

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gillis

of total war effort. Hon. members opposite, instead of discussing the programme on its merits, started calling it names, seeking in that way to frighten the people. They declared that what we" are proposing is state socialism, and that this means regimentation. The habit of referring to our programme as state socialism comes either from ignorance or from deliberate distortion. I want to tell my hon. friends opposite that, after an association of two and a half years with this group, there is no one in this house or outside who is more opposed to state socialism than the members of this group. It ill behooves those on that side of the house to characterize the programme and policy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation as state socialism, when in reality the government as constituted at the present time is the nearest approach to state socialism of anything we shall ever have in Canada without actually having it.
I am not going to attempt to make an analysis of socialism; there are vague and distorted ideas; but I want to make this clear, particularly to the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) and the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Graham) that what we are fighting against to-day, that totalitarian system, is state socialism. If they succeed in winning this war, the first people that will go to the axeman's block are the members of this group.


An hon. MEMBER:: That would be good.


Clarence Gillis: Hitler or Mussolini would not be fooled as far as state socialism is concerned. My hon. friends over here who say, "that would be good", could very well fit into the councils of state socialism, whether they realize it or not. There is at the present time in the government a complete and bewildered bureaucracy. There are controls of all kinds. These controls are selected from one class of society only, which makes it state socialism. The government have taken in the heads of every big industry in Canada, have made them the lumber controller, the steel controller, the oil controller, the bacon controller; they control the complete economic set-up of Canada at the present time. The only thing they have not done yet is to stand up one man. As I see it, they are planning to-day Canada's war effort mostly for their own ends. I will prove that in a little while. Hon. members opposite do not watch the situation as closely as we do. The only degree of success that we have had in our war effort so far has been because of the fact that the government, or some members of the government, recognizing the necessity for planning and control, have seen fit to institute as far

as they can some methods of organization of the resources of the country. The only section of industry in Canada to-day that I have seen that is making a real contribution to the war effort is composed of the industries that have been set up under government control and supervision. I have seen some of these plants; they are doing a real good job, and they are a credit. What would we have got under private enterprise? What did the Minister of Munitions and Supply get with his 5 per cent profit limitation on the outbreak of the war, or when the British army was on the beaches of Dunkirk and not one private contractor in Canada would accept a war contract unless the 5 per cent limitation was removed? They staged one of the biggest sit-down strikes in the history of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that right? The hon. member should prove that statement.


Clarence Gillis: That is correct; the Minister of Munitions and Supply made that statement in the house, that he could not let a contract with the 5 per cent profit limitation in it, and it was removed by order in council.


Mr. McLARTY:: If I might ask the hon. member a question, does he know that contracts are being let every day by the Department of Munitions and Supply on the 5 per cent basis?


Major James William Coldwell: You are letting them now, yes.


Norman Alexander McLarty: And have been right along since the outbreak of the war. I will give the hon. member a specific example: the Ford Motor Company of Canada at Windsor is receiving 5 per cent and 5 per cent only; it is turning out, I think, the largest amount of mechanical equipment of any city in this empire and is still doing so.


Clarence Gillis: That is not the point; I am not arguing that point with the minister. I made the definite statement that at the outbreak of the war the government of Canada endeavoured to let contracts to the industrialists ' of Canada with the 5 per cent profit limitation in those contracts. That was legislation, and it had to be removed before the government could let contracts. I have the word of the Minister of Munitions and Supply for that. Ford may be taking contracts now on that basis-*


Norman Alexander McLarty: And has been ever since the war commenced.


Clarence Gillis: I do not think there is any ceiling on it to-day. The ceiling was removed.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gillis


Richard Burpee Hanson: I can tell the hon. member of a contract that has been let to the Consolidated Mining and Smelting company on which there is absolutely no profit, and they are not asking for any profit, and are doing one of the best jobs in Canada without any profit.


Major James William Coldwell: But their aggregate
profit this year was much greater than it was last year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not out of the war.


Major James William Coldwell: Out of something. They are not doing much but war contracting just now.


Clarence Gillis: From the beginning of the war members of this group have asked that workers, farmers and consumers be given proper representation on all boards. Such representation makes the difference between statism and democracy. But the government refuses to adopt the democratic way. That is the difference as I see it. I have no objection to the government of this country setting up boards that they are setting up, organizing and planning the industries of this country to the best advantage, but I do insist that the great body of the working people, farmers, workers and consumers generally, who in the final analysis will fight this war and will produce the sinews of war-


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think the hon. member should single out a special class. Is not everyone fighting the war?


Clarence Gillis: Not in the way in which
the soldiers fight it. I do not say I am fighting it as they will have to fight it.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us be fair about the matter.


Clarence Gillis: I am fair about it.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Which class is doing the
fighting?


Major James William Coldwell: These people are the
majority of the people.


Clarence Gillis: They have the right, but
they have no representation on these boards. That is the difference between the kind of organization or society visualized and described by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the kind set up by the government. I say these people are entitled to representation on the controls, and they have not such representation at the present time-with perhaps one or two very anaemic exceptions under the Department of Labour.
44561-224J


Humphrey Mitchell: If that is anaemic, then those "anaemic exceptions" number over 400.


Clarence Gillis: I would be very glad if the
minister would put them on record.


Humphrey Mitchell: If that is anaemic, then God bless anaemia!


Clarence Gillis: I would ask the minister
to put them on record. If that is true, then it is news to me, and it is news to the great majority of the people of Canada.


Mr. DUPUIS:: That is why you are still
in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.


Clarence Gillis: The minister would help
his own department to a great extent if he put that on record.
The war policy presented to the house by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is a people's war policy. It is a policy by which the material and human resources of the country would be placed at the service of the nation. Naturally this means central planning, central control and direction. But the people, as industrial workers, farmers and consumers would be represented with power in that central control. I am going to assure the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) that before he comes through this war, and comes through it successfully, he will come to that kind of organization.
Let me draw to his attention the words of a man for whom I think he has great respect, a man whom I have heard held up in the house many times as being the saviour of the British people in the crisis they face at the present time. This is what he says:


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is he?


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Churchill. These are
his words:
The spontaneous and sustained good-will of the labouring masses of this country is the sole foundation upon which we can escape from our present difficulties.
He recognized that in England when he brought Bevin and those other men into his cabinet. He recognized it still further when he brought in Cripps as house leader. I am very sceptical-and I do not care with what group the person sits-when I hear slighting remarks about the contribution that those people can make. I said a moment ago that they will fight this war. Go to your air force, your army and your navy; find the boys who man your ships on the sea and in the air, and the boys who one day-before long I hope- will cross that English channel on barges and face Hitler's hordes over there, and you will find that the greatest majority of those men will be men who have very little to fight for.
Mobilization Act-Mr. Gillis

You will find men who had little to fight for in the past, but who recognize that the framework of democracy in which there was freedom to work forward to a better order of society, is worth fighting for. But they expect, while they are making that contribution toward the future, that we in Canada who are their representatives and who have the power in this parliament are building an order of society which they are fighting for over there, against the time they may come back.
I believe if I were over there to-day I would be looking back at Canada, and I would be very closely scrutinizing the controls being set up. I would watch the representations on those controls, and see if they were of the class of people from which I came. Upon that would depend my morale. The fact that I was being directed, guided and dictated to by people who planned an order of society in which I was unemployed for fifty per cent of my time, or where I was a slave when I had a job, with no future and no security, would not be much incentive for me to lay down my life or to chase the Hun back to Berlin.
When we speak about the building of morale, those are the terms in which we must think. It is not enough to wave a flag in a worker's or soldier's face. Do not forget that to-day we are dealing with a generation of people who went through one war, and whose memories are not short. They remember what they did go through. Let us not lose sight of that fact. We are not fooling anyone but ourselves when we think in terms of waving the flag, and saying that everything is all right. We are in a situation different from any ever before faced by the British empire. Words are not going to bring us through it; action is what we need. We have to demonstrate to the people, if we expect to come through this war successfully.
At the outset I stated that the programme put forward by this group is not offered with the idea of seizing upon the present situation to bring into effect the policies designed to make effective the aims and objects of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. If we look around sensibly we shall find that same programme and policy being followed in practically every country making any kind of fight to-day. I would point out, too, that we of this small group are in very good company.
For instance, I believe it is generally recognized that Mr. Donald Gordon is a bright fellow, so bright in fact that the Department of Finance called him in to make him czar

of the price-ceiling programme. What does Donald Gordon say about the mobilization of the resources of this country, under the competitive system? I quote the following:
Mr. Donald Gordon, Chairman of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board, in his speeches has said:
"Selfish and private interests must be ruled out completely and the competitive system must be replaced with one which is based entirely upon the criterion of maximum production. . . .
Anyone who regulates his effort by reference to a profit motive is a menace to the safety of the state. It is not the profit motive which sends men into battle against odds so overwhelming as to mean almost sure death and it is not the profit motive which brings men to the public service to work sixteen hours a day and forget that Sunday used to be a day of rest. . . .
Regimentation is the system of total war and we must be regimented before we can produce the machinery of total war. I would like to think however that we can develop a democratic version of regimentation."
Hon. members in this group agree with that statement. Others in the house term our programme as defective, and state socialism. If that is true, then I point out that one of your brightest men in Canada is making exactly the same statement we make.
For the benefit of my hon. friends to the right, may I say this. Your leader not so long ago-


An hon. MEMBER:: What leader?


Clarence Gillis: The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen-had this to say:
Mr. Meighen said: "Mr. Coldwell (M. J. Coldwell, C.C.F. leader in the House of Commons) has said his party will accept conscription of men if conscription of ivealth and industry is imposed on an equal basis. I accept his offer. I speak for myself and the Conservative party."
The Conservative leader said he always had favoured the type of conscription of wealth now advocated by the C.C.F., and would accept any measure of conscription that would assist in winning the war.


Vincent Dupuis: He was feverish that day.


An hon. MEMBER:: When was that?


Major James William Coldwell: Just before the York South by-election.


Clarence Gillis: That was February 4. Then, let us turn to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie).


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: And when was that?


Clarence Gillis: May 17.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And with his tongue in his cheek.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1925.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gillis


Clarence Gillis: This is what he said:
A constitutional reform of democracy itself is to be necessary. Its imperfections must be abolished, its lack of organization must be ended and all these new reforms must be founded upon the spirit' of a new religion of brotherhood. "There would be a need of comprehensive economic reform," he said, "not tolerating either monopolistic capitalism or materialistic communism."
If he had his way, the first conscript in Canada would be money. I believe the Minister of Pensions and National Health means that. In my dealings with him for the past two and a half years I have found him to be a pretty reliable person, and he states definitely what he would do if he had his way. That is a clear indication that the Minister of Pensions and National Health is not free. Perhaps he is afraid of the hon. member for Cochrane, or he may be afraid of the hon. member for Swift Current, both of whom rise in their places in this house and defend a reverse policy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He ought to resign.


Clarence Gillis: No; perhaps he will be of more help to us over there when the proper time comes. I do not think any apology is needed for the programme and policy advocated by this group when we find ourselves in that company. Wallace R. Campbell is another. Is government intervention effective at any time?
I have another letter here before me. We reach our hands into a basket and just pick out the evidence; the country is flooded with it. A few days ago a letter was received from the International Association of Machinists in Montreal, which states:
Irrespective of what the Hon. C. D. Howe may have said in the house to the effect that no layoff was to take place, some 182 men had already received their notices to become effective June 13.
Private enterprise was laying off 182 men in an essential war industry. The Minister of Munitions and Supply exercised his authority as a member of the government and told them that they must not do that. The result is that 182 men are still making a contribution to Canada's war effort who would otherwise be on the streets. Just last month a brief was presented to the city council of Oshawa which contained the following statement:
At Oshawa in the past three months, more than a thousand workers have been laid off. The questions uppermost in their minds are, "when can we expect to get back to work?"


Humphrey Mitchell: There is a reason for that.


Clarence Gillis: The point I am trying to make is that if Canada's industries were so organized and we were making an all-out war effort, there would be no necessity for our advocating the policy we are.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not think a statement like that should go out to the country without being answered. That condition in General Motors was caused by something over which neither my hon. friend nor the government had any control. It was due to the fall of Singapore which made necessary a shift from the production of peace-time cars to war-time cars, with the necessary tooling up.


Clarence Gillis: I say that if the government had been exercising the authority they should have been for the past two and a half years, such a situation would not have existed.


Humphrey Mitchell: The fall of Singapore?


Clarence Gillis: No; the change-over in that industry. I have no desire to start a controversy with respect to this matter, and I do not want to go to the trouble of putting this brief on the record. I have quoted merely the pertinent part of it which shows that in that community there were a thousand workers whose services were not being utilized. The brief sets the condition out in detail, but I have no desire to hold up the house by reading it.
However, there is something over which the government has control-the coal industry, an essential war industry. After two and a half years of war it is completely paralyzed, working one or two days a week. I saw a statement in one of Friday's papers quoting a statement that had been made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), I presume in the house, with reference to the Nova Scotia mining industry. I am speaking from memory but, as I recall, he said that steps were being taken to remedy the situation by arranging for rail and water transportation to some point in New Brunswick.


Humphrey Mitchell: And the United States. My hon. friend knows the story as well as I do. It is one of those things that, in the public interest, cannot be divulged. It is clearly one of a loss of shipping, and I cannot go any further than that.


Clarence Gillis: I realize that, but I realize also that two and a half years ago warnings were given to the government. Eighteen months ago I spoke in the house and recommended the elimination of the bottle-neck at the strait of Canso. The minister has commented on that himself. Since then I have dug up engineering reports which were made
Mobilization Act-Mr. Gillis

in 1906 and 1908, as well as copies of surveys. Plans were made to bridge that strait at that time at a cost of about $5,000,000, whereas it will cost $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 to bridge it to-day. That job could be done in a year. Had we started a year ago and spent some money, we could have removed that bottleneck and we would not have this industry in that end of the country paralyzed as it is at the present time. The point I am making is that there is ample justification in the disorganized state of industry across the country for the programme and the policy enunciated by this group. We are not doing this merely for political purposes; we realized that these things were necessary if our war effort were to be an all-out effort. The quicker we get them done, the better for ourselves. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar directs my attention to a statement by the Minister of Munitions and Supply, as reported on page 179 of Hansard of September 12, 1939. He said:
The provision of 5 per cent was put in the last act after a good deal of consideration as a minimum return for the service rendered, but it was one which men of considerable experience believed to be unworkable. 1 can say to my hon. friend that from that day to this the defence purchasing board has done its very best to place contracts on that basis and has used every pressure that could be brought to bear in the form of patriotism and so on, but to date it has not succeeded in placing a single contract on that basis.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I gave a specific instance of the Ford Motor company which was then, has been since and is now accepting contracts on a 5 per cent basis.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to examine their capital structure and see upon what basis they are working.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is on a cost-plus basis. Their capital structure would not enter into it at all; it would be purely a cost-plus 5 per cent basis.


Major James William Coldwell: That would depend upon how the cost was made up.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Do not let us get into an unworthy argument.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has the floor.


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is subject to a specific audit.


Angus MacInnis: The minister can speak to-morrow.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not want to give a speech; I just want to correct an impression which might go out. This is subject to a 
definite audit by auditors appointed by the government of Canada. If we are going to get anywhere, we must assume that it will be an honest audit.


Clarence Gillis: I have no desire to delay the house any longer. I am merely trying to make clear my position and the position of this group in connection with the question now before the house. I shall be compelled to vote against the measure because, in my opinion and in the opinion of this group, it falls far short of what is necessary at the present time. The government has had the power to organize the resources of this country under the National Resources Mobilization Act for the past two years, and it certainly has done very little in that direction. It merely asks us by repealing section 3 of the act to give it authority to conscript men for overseas service if and when it deems that to be necessary. We feel that unless that is accompanied by legislation guaranteeing to the people of this country that the government is prepared also to mobilize and utilize wealth, industry, and finance on the same basis, at the same time, and to the same end as manpower is mobilized and utilized, we are not in a position to support what would be but a partial measure of conscription. We feel that in the present international situation nothing short of everything in this country should be conscripted that can be utilized to the end of defeating totalitarianism.


Mr. J. E. MATTHEWS (Brandon):: Mr Speaker, I desire to make a few observations on the bill now before the house, even though I am following some of the ablest speeches in the present debate that I have ever heard in this chamber. I include in that remark representatives of all the different parties. I trust that hon. members will bear with me if for a few minutes I treat of matters more or less local.
Owing to a serious attack of flu I was not able to leave Ottawa during the plebiscite campaign, but I was very much gratified to find that in my absence the constituency of Brandon which I have the honour to represent polled a larger than normal vote and had also the distinction of polling one of the highest percentages of affirmative votes in all the constituencies west of the great lakes, Brandon's percentage being around 92 per cent. I should like here and now to thank a number of the good workers in that constituency who without regard to party or other affiliations got busy and did such a splendid job in the plebiscite campaign. Fifteen thousand or more voters in that constituency

Mobilization Act-Mr. Matthews
marked their ballots in the affirmative and, by so doing, said to the government and to the country that they were at least willing to have conscription introduced into this country. I would not say that they all desire conscription. No; but their ballots indicated their willingness to have conscription if conscription were necessary. That was the message, Mr. Speaker, that came to us from eight of the nine provinces of Canada, and came with overwhelming force. From the other province there came a message with equally overwhelming force, and with equal emphasis, expressing their unwillingness to have conscription. I think that is a fair interpretation to be placed upon both votes.
We are living as is often said, in a democracy. We are living in Canada, not in Germany, and it was the privilege of those millions of voters all across Canada, as free-born citizens beneath the British flag, to mark their ballots in any way they pleased. I cannot, however, close my eyes to the fact that had Hitler been in control in Canada as he is in Germany, the number of ballots marked in opposition to his wishes would have been veiy few.
The passage of this bill will place before the cabinet the whole responsibility for conscription. In that cabinet I have every confidence. It seems to me that a great many people in this country are not aware that eight of the members of the cabinet are returned men, men who saw service in the last war, men some of whom are paying a heavy price for the freedom which wt enjoy to-day. I see in that cabinet as returned	men, the Minister	of NationalDefence	(Mr. Ralston),	the	Minister	ofNational	Defence for Air	(Mr.	Power),	theMinister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald),	the	Minister	ofNational War Services (Mr. Thorson), the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), the Minister of National Revenue	(Mr. Gibson),	the	Minister	of
Labour (Mr. Mitchell), and the Postmaster General (Mr. Muloek). I am told that some of these men bear upon their bodies to-day the scars of conflict waged in our behalf. Some of them have sons overseas in the present war and are extremely anxious these days as to the safety of those sons. Others in the cabinet who were not overseas in the last war have ever since carried sad hearts because of loved ones who went and never returned. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot trust the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and those eight men of military experience, yes, of battlefield experience, and their associates, I would ask, who is there in Canada that we can trust?
Viewed from a local angle, it matters little whether this amendment carries, or whether conscription for overseas service is adopted or not. Let me make my meaning clear. In the Brandon constituency, the town and country are practically stripped of their young men of military age and physical fitness. There are cases where farmers seventy years of age and over are left to operate their farms, having one son, two sons, and, in some instances, three sons in the king's uniform on overseas service. Let me remind my hon. friends that these men are operating, not small farms, but farms of three hundred, five hundred or six hundred acres. Too much credit cannot be given to the farmers of this country for the way in which they are tackling the situation. It is a war situation; they realize that, and they realize also the position in which they would find themselves and in which we would all find ourselves if we were slaves of Hitler.
I have before me a copy of the Souris Plaindealer, published in Souris, a town of about 1,500, in the southern part of my constituency. In this paper is a list of over three hundred men from that town and district who have enlisted for service overseas, their names, addresses, and units are all given. Many of these men have been overseas for a good while. They are waging grim warfare on every battle -front. They are represented in the prison camps of Germany, and in the tragedy of Hong Kong, of which it has been said that it represents one of the most gallant episodes in the history of Canadian arms. What is true of that community is, I believe, equally true of a great many communities all over this country. But of course I have not the figures for the others.
I want to pay a word of tribute to the valiant war services of many thousands of young Canadians whose parents came to this country not so long ago from continental Europe. Those parents are aware of the treachery and the perfidy perpetrated upon their own flesh and blood in their homeland. Along the north side of Brandon there is a strip of city populated almost entirely by those of European ancestry. They own their own homes, neat, clean, well-built; they have their vegetable and flower gardens, looked after with a care and a thrift that would put some of the rest of us to shame. They are Canadians, these people, and good Canadians, ready to take their share and play their part in the life and citizenship of our country. Some hon. members may ask, "What are their sons doing in this war? Are they playing

Mobilization Act-Mr. Matthews
their part?" I say, Mr. Speaker, that they are, because I have here another list containing the names of one hundred and forty enlisted men from that little corner of the city. Scan that list of names and addresses, and you will find that nineteen names out of every twenty are those of stalwart young Canadians whose parents came to us from continental Europe.
Having a fairly intimate knowledge of enlistments in a good many constituencies, I am reminded of an incident quoted in this house a few weeks ago by my good friend the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean). He told of a conversation which he had when overseas in the last war with an old Highland shepherd. The talk turned upon conscription. The old Highlander, trying once again to square his shoulders and stand erect, said to the hon. member for Simcoe East, "Over in yon village, laddie, and a' up the glen we are not subject to the draft." So in a great many constituencies in this country the young men are not subject to the draft because they are already in the fight.
I am one of those who like to give credit where credit is due. I care not to what race, creed or party it may apply. Listening, however, to some of the speeches in this chamber, one senses some reluctance to recognize and honour the hundreds of thousands of young men who have already responded to the call of duty-young Canadians still held in England who are straining at the leash to get into action, the type of action their fathers knew when they were overseas. Our Canadian boys in the navy are sailing the seven seas in proud defiance of enemy warships. Young men from Canadian air schools-"the aerodrome of democracy," as President Roosevelt called Canada-are night after night raining destruction on targets in Germany and in the middle east. I say that these young men are deserving of every recognition. I say that their parents and friends are deserving of recognition. And I say that there are young men in this country who have had technical training and are specialists in certain lines who are being urged to stay here, against their will, because of the importance of the work which they are doing here, and they also should receive the recognition which is their due.
On the other hand, I cannot quite understand the position of those Canadians in Quebec or elsewhere who, for reasons best known to themselves, profess to see no wisdom in Canada entering the war until the war reaches our shores. Well, the war has reached our shores, both east and west. Enemy shells have fallen in Canada for the first time, and enemy torpedoes have done their deadly work

in ithe St. 'Lawrence. These (two treacherous attacks are indisputable proof that the government should have absolute control as regards sending our troops elsewhere or holding them in Canada, and should lead us to expect that the vote which is soon to come would be practically unanimous in favour of the bill.	*
I do not think the present is any time for hair-splitting as to where help should be given and where it should be withheld. Let the responsible ministers of the crown who know the facts make those decisions. Our isolationist friends say they are ready to fight in defence of Canada, which means, let the other allies take care of themselves. That may sound very well, but just how does it work out? Supposing the German army were sailing up the St. Lawrence, shelling the towns and villages as they came, and killing the inhabitants, our friends would certainly then be ready to fight; but I am afraid-and I say this with no thought of sarcasm-that at that time their fighting would be "too little and too late." Then, suppose for argument's sake that the other provinces took the same attitude. Suppose Ontario remained indifferent, saying, "we don't like this war, we will let Quebec do the fighting, and we will have nothing to do with it unless the Germans invade Ontario". Then I can hear another voice, saying, "We are not interested in Ontario as a province; but let that German army"-I will not repeat the adjective I was going to use-"ever dare to invade Huron and Bruce and we will annihilate them". That is where the argument with regard to isolation leads, to an absolute absurdity.
Some of the countries of continental Europe had the same idea. What happened to them? One by one they were subjugated by Hitler. One by one many people of those countries were ground to death beneath the iron heel of German despotism. What happened in Europe could happen in Canada. Surely it must be increasingly obvious to all our people in every province that in this titanic struggle Canada is expected to stand side by side, shoulder to shoulder with the other allies, just as Canadian provinces would be expected to stand shoulder to shoulder with each other if Canada were attacked. In this war the allies are all members of one body, and no one of them can afford to let the others down.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I do not often speak in this house, but I say to-night with all the earnestness and sincerity at my command that the time has arrived and is overdue when some of our people should forsake the realm of fantasy and get over into the realm of reality. In saying this, I share in no infer-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Matthews
iority complex as regards Canada's part in the war. The rifle, the bayonet, and the machine gun are not sufficient in this war. It is a war of mechanized equipment of most intricate design and enormous quantity, and highly trained young men are necessary to operate and maintain that equipment. I understand that in this war ten men in the air force, and eighteen men in the army, are necessary to provide for the requirements of one man in the line of battle. I am not sure that that is correct, but I think it is approximately so.
We have at present almost half a million men in our fighting forces for service overseas. We have a Canadian navy of more than 400 ships, practically all built since the outbreak of war, a navy that has convoyed across the ocean 9,000 ships carrying 52 million tons of cargo. We have a delivery of more than 250,000 armoured vehicles to the united nations. We have produced nine types of gun carriers and mountings going from our shores in one unbroken stream to every theatre of war. Munitions are pouring across the sea, with Bren guns and guns of different makes. Food supplies, not in millions of pounds but in hundreds of millions of pounds, are going steadily to the old land; we have made an outright gift of one billion dollars' worth of supplies to the United Kingdom, not a loan but a gift, together with an interest-free loan of $750,000,000. With all this and with other enormous contributions I feel that Canada has no reason to be ashamed of what we are doing in this war.
I would hope that we might never be compelled to adopt conscription in Canada, even as Australia has never been compelled to adopt it there. I would hope that for the honour of our country it should never be said that we had to force our young men to fight in freedom's cause. But no matter what our personal views or preferences may be, we must make up our minds that this war has to be won, and every man or woman enjoying civil and religious liberty in this country should be expected to do his or her part. If conscription would accelerate our war effort, then conscription it should be.
The majority, a great majority, 1,300,000 people in Canada, have spoken, and in due course the bill now before the house will be voted upon. What an accomplishment it would be, what a milestone in Canada's history, what a cementing factor in the future progress of Canada if that vote could be made so unanimous that word of its unanimity would ring around the world!
I realize the difficulties in the way of some; I realize those difficulties with an open and
sympathetic mind. There are members from the province of Quebec whose ancestors planted the tree of civilization in this far-flung country; members whose love of Canada is deep-rooted and sincere; members who would shed their last drop of blood in behalf of the land they love so well; members whom to know is to like; and with whom to associate is to respect. May I suggest to them in all kindness and sincerity that in my judgment, humble though it may be, this is the day of their opportunity, the day when a public man may make a lasting contribution to the future of our country and to its good feeling and unity, an opportunity to my mind without parallel since the days of confederation.
I have heard some wonderfully fine addresses in this debate by our French-Canadian friends. In fact, they seem to have a gift of eloquence and a spirit of animation that are peculiarly their own; but no speech gave me a greater thrill than the one I heard about a week ago delivered by my good friend the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene), himself a French Canadian. I shall not soon forget his impassioned appeal for national unity, his appeal to forget the past and to think of the present and the future, and I join with him in saying, in the poet's words:
Let the dead Past bury its dead!
Act, act in the living Present!
Heart within, and God o'erhead!
I can visualize in years to come the children and the grandchildren of the hon. member for Athabaska turning back the pages of Hansard to June 15, 1942, and saying to their assembled friends that in a dark hour of our nation's history, when the fate of Canada was at stake, when the fate of the empire was at stake, when the fate of democracy and the fate of our Christian civilization were at stake, that was the speech their father made in that crucial hour on the floor of this dominion parliament.
After all, there are very few members here who were here -twenty-five years ago. "A new generation hath arisen" in- the public life of Canada. Therefore let us bury the mistakes and the bitterness of the past. If there be any members in this house who have never made a mistake themselves, let them be the only ones to refuse to attend the funeral. Let those of us who 'have made mistakes and admit it stand together at the open grave and, gathering up from all parties the shreds of bitterness and the mistakes of previous years, let us bury them so deep in oblivion that only the plummet of history will ever find them.
I have been thrilled with pride on more than one occasion to hear the loved and late

Mobilization Act-Mr. Matthews
lamented minister of justice, to hear his successor, the present brilliant Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), to hear the exminister of transport (Mr. Cardin) and other gifted sons of the province of Quebec dilate with eloquence and spirit upon the proud traditions of our beloved Canada. Following a somewhat similar reference made by a previous speaker may I say that now, with the voice of a great majority still ringing in our ears, I sincerely trust that in this parliament, rich in traditions and lustrous with the glory of the past, there may descend upon us the spirit of that great statesman, the greatest in all Canada, who in 1917, when urging a referendum on the then proposed military service act, said that, whatever the result might be, the minority would abide by the will of the majority.
I have hopes that the brilliance of that honoured statesman of the past may serve as a guiding star on this occasion and that the tolerant and glorious mantle of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, worn with such regal dignity, twenty-five years ago, may adorn his successors in this parliament of 1942.
In no part of the world was there ever a greater demonstration of love and loyalty than in the province of Quebec when their majesties visited us three years ago. The depth and spontaneity of that demonstration will remain a standard in all history in the hearts of the Canadian people and the people of the empire. I am sure that Quebec's prayers and Quebec's blessings in this time of national peril are expressed in these lines of a Manitoba poet, a good friend of mine, which were published at the time in the Montreal Star:
God bless the King of Canada,
And bless our Queen so dear.
Long may he live to rule our land;
Lord, now Thy people hear.
God bless the King of Canada,
Through all the years to be.
Grant him Thy strength that he may keep Our land forever free.
Mr. T. ADELARD FONTAINE (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot) (Translation); Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks to-night, I wish to state that I feel myself in duty bound to oppose the bill that is now before the house.
Before discussing the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act which it is desired to amend through this Bill No. 80, may I, Mr. Speaker, state briefly a few of the reasons why, in my humble opinion,
I must vote against a bill whose object is and whose result will be the enforcement of conscription of men for service overseas.
In my humble opinion, those reasons may be summarized as follows:

First, it is now recognized, as was clearly shown by the Right Honourable Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and as was also stated by all the honourable ministers who have spoken in this debate, that not only is conscription unnecessary at this time, but it may never become necessary.
Such a measure would destroy peace, unity and harmony in this country at a time when they are greatly needed. It was indeed for that reason that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one of the greatest Liberal leaders in this country, always opposed conscription. It was for that very reason that he stated in the House of Commons, on January 17, 1916, that there should be no conscription in Canada.
Conscription would hamper our war effort, as was rightfully stated by the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) in the splendid speech he delivered and for which I congratulate him.
The province of Quebec is now opposed to conscription for overseas service as much as she was in 1917; and it is for that reason'- as has often been said and cannot be said too often-that the Right. Hon. Ernest Lapointe, on September 9, 1939, speaking here in his own name as well as on behalf of his colleagues from our province, declared that the province of Quebec would never accept conscription for overseas service, that he was himself firmly opposed to conscription and that he would never be a member of a government that would attempt to enforce it.
The government of the province of Quebec, during the session that closed a few weeks ago, adopted a motion which concluded as follows: This house reiterates the unswerving will of all its members to support the best possible war effort, but expresses the wish that the dominion government abide by its policy of voluntary enlistment and do not enforce conscription for overseas service.
The premier of Quebec, in whom we have the utmost confidence, gave expression to the same views in a telegram addressed, on May 21 last to one of our colleagues, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), in which he said:
You are no doubt aware that in a resolution presented before the Legislative Assembly, the very large majority of our members, having reiterated their firm determination to support a total war effort to final victory, have voted against conscription for overseas service, thus adopting the attitude which is that of the majority of our people and corresponds to the opinions which we have always expressed on the subject.
During the plebiscite, our people were not consulted on the merits or the principle of conscription; if such had been the case, possibly the results would have been different.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fontaine
The people of the St. Hyacinthe-Bagot constituency whom I have the honour to represent in this house, are opposed for the most part to conscription for overseas service; I have always opposed such a measure myself and my views remain unchanged.
The passage of a conscription bill for service overseas would be, in my humble opinion, an absolute denial of this profound truth stated in 1937 by possibly the most Canadian of our governors general, Lord Tweedsmuir, when he said:
She (Canada) is a sovereign nation and cannot take her attitude to the world docilely from Britain, or from the United States, or from anybody else. A Canadian's first loyalty is not to the British Commonwealth of Nations, but to Canada, and those who deny this are doing, to my mind, a great disservice to the commonwealth.
Moreover, we must not forget that we have absolutely no proof that it would be to Canada's true advantage to forego the voluntary system and resort to conscription for service overseas.
Finally, since the enemy is drawing closer to us and since the situation is becoming more and more threatening on the Atlantic as well as on the Pacific coasts, we should, as much as possible, look to the defence of our shores and our own territory.
No better proof of this statement can be found than the following news item which appeared in the evening papers to-day, after being a broadcast from Tokyo.
The radio broadcast from the Japanese capital announces to-day that a Japanese submarine shelled Vancouver Island, British Columbia, on Saturday night. It said: "This is the first attack against the Canadian mainland. Canada has thereby been shown that she is being attacked by axis naval forces both from the east and the west at one and the same time." The Tokyo station called attention to the fact that the attack against Vancouver Island followed within less than twenty days upon the raids made against Dutch Harbour and Midway. It recalled the shelling of the California coast on February 23, "which caused such consternation among the American people".
The Japanese station also added that, despite all statements to the contrary, the shelling of Vancouver Island has clearly shown that the United States and Canada are directly exposed to the danger of attack from the axis powers, both east and west, since German U-boats had attacked the Atlantic coast and even penetrated within the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
The National Resources Mobilization Act, passed by parliament on June 18, 1940, restricts to Canadian territory and to the territorial waters of Canada compulsory military service in the army, navy or air forces.
Under the terms of that measure, the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, requiring persons
to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty in the right of Canada, as may be deemed necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of Canada, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community.
But under section 3 of the act, it is definitely stated that the powers thus conferred upon the governor in council may be exercised, as far as compulsory military service is concerned, only, to conscript young Canadians for service within Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
When this measure was enacted two years ago we were told that the invasion of France and many other European countries placed our country in immediate danger, that the following weeks were to be a crucial period, that the time had come to mobilize to the utmost the resources of the nation, that it had become strictly necessary for the government to seek special powers from parliament and that the greatest possible dispatch was essential.
In such a case, the government could have proceeded by order in council, under the War Measures Act, because it gives them very wide powers. On the other hand, they could have turned to the sections of the Miilitia Act, authorizing them to put conscription into force, under the first paragraph of section 8, which says:
All the male inhabitants of Canada, of the age of eighteen years and upwards, and under sixty, not exempt or disqualified by law, and being British subjects, shall be liable to service in the militia:	provided that the governor
general may require all the male inhabitants of Canada, capable of bearing arms, to serve in the case of a levee en masse.
Respecting the principles of our democratic system, the government did not want to resort to either of these two methods, but preferred to submit to parliament a very clear and explicit measure which would be in force for the duration of the war.
The government has shown us, and properly so, that this Mobilization Act of 1940, precisely because of section 3, constituted, not an extension but a restriction of powers with regard to conscription in our country.
Therefore, the government, while declaring once again that they would not impose conscription as long as they remained in office, did not go any further, under the Mobilization Act of 1940, than they were authorized to do so by means of a measure which has been in our statute book since confederation.
Such were the circumstances and the conditions under which the Mobilization Act was adopted in 1940. Such were the reasons and

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fontaine
the considerations which led us to consent to the adoption of that measure, subject to the formal restrictions of clause 3, that is for the defence of Canada, but in Canada only. The right hon. Prime Minister declared, in 1940, that the introduction of a bill conscripting men for overseas would divide public opinion in this country as it had not been, fortunately, for a great number of years.
The situation in this respect is still unchanged, and public opinion is still strongly divided on whether this is the proper time to impose conscription for overseas service.
The purpose of Bill No. 80 which is being considered by the house, is to abrogate the positive restrictions which are to be found in section 3 of the Mobilization Act and which I have just mentioned, and such will be its result.
It should be added and made clear at once that, without this section 3 restricting compulsory military service to Canada, the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, might not have been endorsed by a majority of this house or, at least, by the very great majority of members from the province of Quebec; nor again, probably, by some hon. members from other provinces.
For the first time since the outbreak of this war, we are now facing a measure which, in my humble opinion, entails the acceptance of the principle of compulsory service overseas.
In the speech which he delivered in this house on November 12, 1941, the right hon. Prime Minister again stated the following in no uncertain terms:
I wish to make it clear that I am in favour of national selective and compulsory service for Canada, in Canada. I never took any other position. I have always held this opinion.
Mr. Speaker, sharing as I do the views of my leader, I cannot support the present measure nor could I subscribe to the principle of conscription for overseas service.
To my mind, in a country such as ours, the adoption of a measure directly or indirectly implying endorsation of the principle of compulsory service for overseas constitutes the main obstacle to the preservation of that unity and good understanding which are essential to victory and the maintenance of peace within our own country.
It was through disregard of this basic truth that, during the last war, the enactment of conscription for overseas service led to misunderstanding and resentment between the various provinces of this country. Yet I feel that the sad experience of 1917 and the wretched times that followed should serve as a salutary lesson. But this unity, Canada's essential requirement, especially in war time, 
cannot exist unless the majority is prepared to respect the views of the minority and to reckon with its opinion. Such respect, regard, sacrifices and concessions must be mutual. Every citizen must contribute to this understanding by a fair share of good-will and sacrifice, out of regard for the common good and the rights of his neighbours, of whatever race, language or creed. Such is the treatment that the French-Canadian and Catholic majority of the province of Quebec generously and whole-heartedly grants the Englishspeaking and Protestant minority of that province. There is no other way of coming to an understanding and remaining united in case of danger, and it is the way to do our duty as patriots and good Canadians. The government, by way of compromise, and through a plebiscite, attempted to maintain unity in Canada, and this legislation was passed with the sole object of attaining that end. However, we must ask ourselves if the new bill now before the house is liable to restore peace, confidence and order in Canada.
Let us note, in passing, the observation made on the 18th instant by the right hon. Prime Minister in this house, concerning the result of the plebiscite in the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon) was criticizing an article published in the Ottawa Journal and had just quoted the following paragraph:
We would like to ask this question: If Quebec had voted "yes", would we not have had conscription immediately?
"We certainly would not," interjected the right hon. Prime Minister. In my humble opinion, it was in anticipation of what is happening to-day that the former minister of public works (Mr. Cardin) made this most important remark to the people of our province during the plebiscite campaign:
It may well be that the negative reply urged on you will bring you the opposite of what you are seeking.
That interjection by the Prime Minister, which I have just alluded to, seems to imply that the former minister of public works was right.
Every one knows that the province of Quebec has always been against conscription. She opposed it in 1917, and has done so to this day.
It would be useless to seek out and analyse in detail the strong reasons for this stand. As for myself and all my French-Canadian colleagues, we have always stood against conscription for overseas service.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fontaine
However, it would be wroug to assume that the French Canadians are the only ones who oppose this legislation. I say without hesitation that a very large section of the English-speaking population of this country fully shares the views and feelings of the people of Quebec in the matter. I claim that the results of the plebiscite-this has already been stated in the house-would have been entirely different had the question borne directly on the merits of conscription. In any event, in accepting this plebiscite legislation we have made a concession for the purpose of maintaining harmony and national unity in the country.
However, all this happened after promises were made and guarantees given that conscription for overseas service was out of the question. No one, at that time, stated that, immediately after the plebiscite results would be known, the National Resources Mobilization Act would be amended in such a way as to put on the statutes the principle of compulsory service for overseas. No one, at that time, warned us that, immediately after the holding of the plebiscite, we would be called upon to make the distinction between the adoption in a legislative measure, of the principle of conscription, and the ultimate enforcement of this legislation through orders in council which might or might not be submitted to parliament. We have been told that this plebiscite was held to release the government from moral obligations, from verbal commitments, but no one has ever warned us that it was intended to repeal parts of an act and thereby do away with statutory guarantees. If, in 1940, we consented to pass the mobilization act, it was because it contained this formal, explicit and clear guarantee of section 3, which states that the measure may apply only to Canada and not outside of its boundaries. The text of section 3, which the bill now under discussion proposes to strike out, is very clear. It reads as follows:
The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
It is now argued that the new measure submitted to parliament through this bill is only the logical consequence of the plebiscite. I cannot support that point of view. The object of this bill is indeed to have the principle of compulsory military service outside Canada recognized, accepted and approved through an act of parliament.
It is obvious and clear to me that such is the purpose of this bill. The issue is accordingly the acceptance of the principle of conscription, if not its immediate enforcement.
Consequently this measure has no connection with the plebiscite and is no consequence therefrom: first, because it was represented to us that conscription was not the issue, and second, because the question asked in the plebiscite did not imply the acceptance or rejection of the principle of conscription for overseas.
Mr. Speaker, by whom is the immediate enforcement of conscription for overseas service actually demanded in this country? In the first place, by the Conservative party, which has ever advocated conscription, a party whose main leaders are recruited among imperialists and which, in this house, has no longer any representative from the province of Quebec.
Conscription is also demanded by the high finance group, which includes the Toronto "Two Hundred," but I assert that neither those groups, nor the Orange order, reflect the feelings of the majority in this country.
But, even if we consider those people only, we may well inquire into the reasons on which they base such a demand, and try to ascertain why they advocate so strongly the immediate enforcement of conscription for overseas service. In my humble opinion, they have so far adduced no reason which might be considered as acceptable, good or valid.
The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has said that a total war effort cannot mean anything but total and unlimited conscription, and he has stated that we entered the war because Canada was a British country.
The hon. Minister of National War Services has rightly answered that argument in stating that we entered the conflict for a principle and on our own account.
At all events, I cannot see how a measure like the one that is now submitted to us could help the cause of our allies and also help our country's war aims, because we know that our present system of voluntary enlistment is more efficient than the form of conscription adopted in the United States and also because England herself is more than satisfied with our war effort which, after all, compares favourably with that of any other dominion.
The highest authorities in the old country, the British prime minister himself-, Mr. Churchill, as well as Lord Beaverbrook and other eminent men in public life who have honoured us with a visit, all said that Canada was doing her duty and contributing her full share in this war, and that her war effort- that was the term	used-was simply
magnificent.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fontaine
Why then, I repeat, should there be in our country a group clamouring for immediate adoption of total conscription for overseas service? . This overzealous and highly vocal group is clamouring to-day as they did in 1917, and presumably for the same deep-seated motives. They crave power, they want to profit by the war and accumulate profits and wealth, and a few of them are resentful and bitter toward the Freneh-Cana-dian and Catholic minority.
I know of nothing more stupid and ridiculous than those periodical appeals coming from a small group of extremists against a so-called danger of domination by the French and Catholic population of this country. In time of peace, such appeals may be nothing but stupidity but, in time of war, they become persecution and provocation and constitute a very grave threat to national unity.
We had several examples of that state of mind only recently. Since other members have already mentioned the matter, I shall quote as briefly as possible.
In a speech delivered in Toronto, Mr. J. W. Carson, grand master of the Grand Lodge of Western Ontario had this to say:
It is almost unbelievable that many leaders in the province of Quebec are still opposing a total war effort. How can loyal citizens, aware of the acts of cruelty of the enemy, persist in closing their eyes and try to prevent others from doing their duty and helping in the defeat of so barbarous an enemy?
According to a Canadian Press dispatch sent from Winnipeg on the 11th instant, Mr. T. T. Shields, of Toronto, who is president of the Canadian Protestant League, is reported to have stated in a speech he delivered in that city, that "the Catholic church is the most dangerous fifth column in any country in the present war", and to have added:
The Roman Catholic Church is the greatest and most profitable "racket" in the world; it is responsible for the opposition shown bv the French Canadians of the province of Quebec to conscription, and it enjoys in Canada a privileged position.
According to another dispatch from the Canadian Press, the same reverend gentleman is reported to have made here in Ottawa, very recently, a speech in which he repeated substantially the same charges he had uttered against the Roman Catholic church a few days previously in Winnipeg, adding further, according to_ the report, that, to his mind, the Catholic faith is the most powerful force of evil in the whole world, and that . . .
The real prime minister of Canada is Cardinal yilleneuve. the archbishop of Quebec, and that is why we have no conscription but only a partial war effort.

Finally, he is reported to have added that, "Roman Catholicism is not a form of Christianity but the negation of all Christianity."
According to another Canadian Press dispatch, dated June 17, from Toronto, Colonel A. T. Kidd of Kingston, supreme chief of the Grand Lodge of Orangemen in America, is reported to have said at the 112th annual convention of this lodge, held in this city, that the policy of the order of Orangemen was based on total conscription of wealth, industry and men. He is quoted as having said:
We have always taken the stand that Canada's future is linked with that of the British empire, and to-day we demand total participation in this war of the British empire. Canada's war effort is not sufficiently imperialistic and I regret to say that this war effort does not go beyond certain limits dictated to the government by the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it necessary to answer in detail those assertions and statements made by sectarians, by men who are evidently, in the majority of cases, suffering from a disease which Le Canada recently termed cases of religious mania. But it may be advisable, since one of those assertions mentioned Cardinal Villeneuve and since we are to celebrate in our province, day after to-morrow, our national holiday of "la Saint-Jean-Baptiste",-and I hope you will allow me to do so, Mr. Speaker, for the enlightenment of that pastor who spoke such words about a person highly respected and venerated in the province of Quebec-it may be advisable to call the attention of this house to the fine definition of patriotism given a few years ago by Cardinal Villeneuve, when he wrote in the official bulletin of the Saint-Jean-Baptiste society:
Patriotism is such a many-shaded virtue that its practice is difficult. Some fail to recognize it, others misconstrue it. It should be understood to consist in an enlightened and generous, unrestricted yet well ordained love for each and every one of the many and varied constituent elements of a country. In times such as ours, when wild nationalistic doctrines have followed upon a pernicious internationalism, a patriotism born of faith should be fostered. It stands midway between those two extremes, not through a combination of excesses on the one hand and cowardice on the other, but by establishing the lofty dominance of justice and love over egotism both racial and individual.
It might be well to quote, incidentally, another authorized representative of the Catholic church, not from the province of Quebec this time, but from England. Cardinal Hinsley, primate of the Roman Catholic church in Great Britain, commenting upon the interests at stake in the present conflict, stated not long ago:

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fontaine
Totalitarianism, whether in its Italian or in its nazi or its communistic form, is diametrically opposed to the Catholic doctrine of the individual value of the human soul. There can be no peace between those who believe that the individual is a child of God and those who teach that he is but a slave of the state.
And on September 29, 1941, the feast of St. Michael, the same Cardinal Hinsley sent a message to the French Canadians:
To my Canadian friends and brothers.
I greet the spirit of Canada! That spirit is made of loyalty to the cause of freedom, for in faith lies the true freedom of true democracy. There lies the bond that unites us in this world conflict. I had the pleasure of seeing your soldiers, strong and faithful men, true sons of a great nation. I had the privilege of speaking to them.	.
We are fighting for the defence of the faith against the powers of paganism, that is to say against the beast condemned by St. John- against the spirit of the sovereignty of hatred. Victory will be achieved through love, through the gospel of Christ. Canada claims her heroic share in this victory-the victory of love-inspiring faith.	_
Long live Canada-long live the Canadian people! May God bless you all and reward you for the generosity 9f your nation in her steadfast practice of Christian duties.
A. Cardinal Hinsley.
After such statements, Mr. Speaker, I feel it unnecessary for me to answer, as regards both the French-speaking Canadians and the Roman Catholic church, those stupid and ridiculous outcries heard recently in a rather disconcerting chorus, from people apparently imbued with a narrow and sectarian disposition, who spread insults and abuse directed at the French-Canadian and Catholic minority in this country.
So far, the voluntary system of enlistment has given, in this country, very satisfactory results. Our population is a mere eleven and a half million inhabitants. At the end of 1941, according to figures given in this house, our army was 500,000 strong, and the volunteers numbered 430,000. The government estimates, and it has consistently repeated this statement, that it will be possible during the current year to enlist about 100,000 men; this would bring our army, at the beginning of 1943, to a strength of 600,000 men, or 6 per cent of the total population of the country. Assuming that, in accordance with official estimates, an average of 20 civilians is required to maintain a soldier in the ranks and if, besides, we take into account the men who are physically unfit for military or various otheT services, it is amply proved, by these figures, that Canada is doing as much if not more in proportion to her population, than the other allied countries. Furthermore, what practical results would follow conscription? Needless to say that such a measure would be
absolutely useless unless it were implemented; but supposing it were enforced, how many men would it yield for our army? How many men would be drawn from agriculture, munitions factories and essential war industries? It is always imperative, to revert to the view that, in the present circumstances, conscription, far from being necessary, would be harmful. It would have practically no effect on the strength of our army. It would only serve to raise great obstacles and difficulties in the way of its enforcement. It would destroy national unity and seriously hamper our war effort.
These are the reasons why, Mr. Speaker, although remaining true to my party, its best traditions, its programme and principles, I feel compelled to vote against the bill now-before the house.
A few days ago, the hon. Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) stated here:
I would ask those who are not partisan-blind to take account of the efforts of the government . . . and to recognize that the one factor of the conscription of men for overseas is not the most important thing necessary to enable Canada to prosecute an effective war effort. That must fall in its proper perspective, together with everything else; and if it does not, then we are weakening rather than strengthening our effort.
I think that the hon. Minister of Mines and Resources was indeed right when he made that statement in the house. What is most important and most necessary to-day, what is essential to our war effort, is not the conscription of men for military service overseas; it is production in all the spheres which are in any way related to this war effort; farm production, foodstuff production, aircraft plant production, shipbuilding yard production, gun and munition production for war purposes, forest production, mine production. All this can be summed up in the appeal made last year by the hon. Prime Minister of England, Mr. Churchill, when he exclaimed: "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job."
Nobody in the province of Quebec is willing to give up the freedom and the democratic system under which we live in this country.
Whilst she remains strongly opposed to conscription for overseas service, Quebec, since the beginning of this war, has made and will continue to make her share of sacrifices, and she will continue to fulfil her duty in order to defend Christian civilization, maintain democracy, smash the aggressor and attain the final victory which will guarantee us peace, happiness and liberty.
We have been told during this debate-I think it was the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) who said so-that French Canada had no leaders at the present

Mobilization Act-Mr.. Fontaine
time. I deem it my duty to protest against such an erroneous statement. We French Canadians are proud to have as leaders and representatives such prominent statesmen, such sincere patriots as Cardin, Godbout and St. Laurent; men of courage, of talent and of devotion, who are in no way inferior to their predecessors and whose names also will rank among the greatest in our Canadian history. They have, in their respective fields, the ambition, the energy and the will to properly represent their fellow citizens in this war, to lead them wisely and honestly, and they have the firm determination conscientiously to fulfil all their obligations as faithful patriots and true Canadians.
Canada entered this war because she was forced to take up arms to safeguard her rights and privileges unjustly violated and to guard against unprovoked aggression.
Our young Canadians without distinction of race, language or creed, are ready to do their duty loyally, courageously and generously by their country threatened with invasion.
Since the outbreak of war, we have offered up to the Almighty our humble prayers for those who, on land, on sea and in the air, have given their lives for this cause which we hold dear, for the triumph of peace and justice. We pray and will continue to pray that divine Providence may grant us an early peace, a favourable and lasting peace, based on understanding not hatred, on mutual respect not contempt. Let us hope that this gospel of harmony, peace and charity will be put into practice in our country by all the elements of our population. Only on these terms and through this means will it be possible to make Canada a greater, more united, more prosperous and more beautiful country.


Mr. MAURICE BOURGET (Levis) (Translation):: While I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the debate on this bill is drawing to a close, I feel it would be very difficult for a member from the province of Quebec to keep silent at this time especially in regard to legislation of such great moment. Besides, I gather from the statements of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), that this is the last opportunity we shall have of dealing with this unpleasant question of conscription. I don't fail to realize that my remarks will not meet with the approval of all the hon. members of this house. However, a member who expounds his deep convictions always deserves the respect of his colleagues. On the strength of this,
I propose to make a few comments on the bill before the house.

During the debate on the address in reply, in February of this year, I said with regard to the plebiscite:
May we not believe, under the circumstances, that we are treading on dangerous ground in proposing such a measure? Are we not going to play into the hands of our opponents? I am inclined to believe it, for if we give way on one point of our programme, we may later have to give way on another.
Let it be acknowledged that those remarks of mine were justified. I was against the plebiscite because I could foresee that in the event of the government being released-and that is really what happened-of its promises regarding compulsory military service for overseas, we would quite logically be called upon to discuss, sooner or later, the problem of conscription.
I was among those who campaigned in the province of Quebec for a negative vote. I submitted frankly and sincerely to the people of my constituency the reasons which, in my estimation, justified our refusing to release the government from its promises. And I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I made it a point to always speak with moderation and justice. I did not have to resort to other methods, because I had too much respect for those who had done me the honour of choosing me as their representative and knew them to be patriotic and intelligent enough to grasp the merits of my arguments.
I might add that my electors were left absolutely free to vote according to their conscience and what they believed to be in the best interests of our country. The result was clear cut: 91 per cent of the voters refused to release the government from its pledges. I wish to emphasize that such a vote does not mean that my fellow citizens are opposed to our war effort nor that they do not desire an allied victory as all other Canadians do. Knowing as I do the excellence of their patriotism, I cannot suspect for a moment that they were inspired by any other motive than their definite and formal opposition to conscription for overseas service.
I wonder if, in certain quarters, people understand perfectly what the adoption of such a measure would mean to French-Canadian members. Do they know what these members are being asked to abandon in voting for this measure? Do they know that, when these members are requested to give the government a free hand, they are being asked to surrender the rights for which their forefathers fought during more than two centuries?
They are being asked to acknowledge once more that this country is a colony which must, now as always, obey the orders and

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bourget
bow down to the requirements of an outside nation, whatever our interests and our legitimate ambitions may be.
We have long been told in glowing terms about British fair play. It seems to me that if that fair play truly exists, as I am still willing to believe, there is now a splendid opportunity of putting it into practice by recognizing the rights which have been bestowed to an important minority in this country and confirmed in an agreement which was termed a "sacred contract" by the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. It seems to me that our English-speaking fellow citizens now have a splendid opportunity to honour that claim and recognize that suppression of the rights enjoyed by a minority, in whatever way and through the use of whatever force it may be done, is a glaring injustice.
It seems to me that if we consider the important part played by the citizens of Quebec' and the excellent results obtained since the opening of the conflict, it must be admitted in all fairness that Quebec has displayed a great deal of generosity and has willingly agreed to equality of sacrifice in every possible field.
In certain sections of the country, there are people who entertain false ideas concerning equality of sacrifice; French Canadians are accused of not participating as much as they should in our war effort. But do they not understand that equality of sacrifice implies equality of rights? I do not think it necessary at this moment to cite, in support of this idea, examples proving beyond all doubt that in certain fields we have not always obtained and are not yet receiving our just due. Certain newspapers have brought out this point on several occasions. As far as I can ascertain, I do not think that a single one of those newspapers which have launched important publicity campaigns based on equality of sacrifice, has ever requested, whenever it had the occasion to do so, the granting of our just share.
Even if the number of voluntary enlistments is not as large as amongst our Englishspeaking fellow citizens this can be explained by reasons as important as the ones I have mentioned and that were so brilliantly stated by the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) and by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent).
I listened very carefully to the speeches made by the right hon. Prime Minister and the majority of the cabinet and I have even read them over. As I understand it, they realize as well as we do that conscription is not necessary. But what strikes me is that after
having pronounced eloquent speeches against conscription, they want us to agree to its principle.
We have been taxed by many with having failed to understand the interests of our country in opposing the passage of this bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, in the course of conversations with some of my colleagues from other provinces I learned that during the last election campaign, the late Minister of Justice, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, had been warmly applauded wherever he made a speech. He said very frankly, however, that he was irrevocably opposed to conscription for service overseas, a statement that would bring frenzied applause from his English-speaking listeners.
No one, to my knowledge, whether in this house or outside, has yet accused the former Minister of Justice of lacking in patriotism. He knew, as indeed the right hon. Prime Minister himself knows, the reactions and problems they would have to face when they accepted to govern a country in time of war. Both had witnessed the events' which took place in 1917. Both nevertheless gave pledges even as we did ourselves, and we are asking to-day that those very pledges be kept.
We Canadians from Quebec have no reason to be ashamed of our sacrifices; we have made them generously; we have made them mainly for the purpose of preserving national unity. It is with that same purpose in view that we now ask our English-speaking fellow citizens to recognize our right to vote against conscription.
I contend there is no lack of patriotism in thinking first and foremost of protecting this country. Are the events which occurred over the week-end not sufficiently convincing?
Our coasts are under attack and it is thus our duty to organize our defence. From information received to date, it is evident that our country is not adequately protected against the attacks to which it is exposed. I believe the urgent and basic duty of the government is to shoulder at once that responsibility and do its best to avoid being accused, some day, of having been taken by surprise or of having helped other countries at the expense of ours.
It should be evident that if we continue to send our men overseas and do not keep a sufficient number of them here for the defence of Canada, we are deliberately inviting disaster and defeat? Once our men are overseas, it is almost certain that in case of an attack against Canada, it will be impossible to recall them to this country. Sir Ronald Cross himself said early in April:
Mobilization Act-Mr. Bourget

I cannot foresee, during this war, the day when ships carrying troops will be in a position to travel from Great Britain to Australia.
These words of the British high commissioner in Australia must therefore warn us of what to expect if the government is authorized to give way before the pressure that is applied in favour of conscription for overseas service.
On the other hand, did we stop to consider that this conscription measure will do more harm than good? We must admit that it would bring grave dissensions and no doubt paralyse our war effort.
I understand well enough that those who, for the last two years, have clamoured most for conscription are moved by other reasons than the ones they would have us believe. I realize very well that this question of conscription is after all a purely political one, because everyone admits it would be illogical to claim that the adoption of such a measure will bring a complete change in the present conflict as well as in its final result.
Let us try to-day, in this critical hour of our national life, when every citizen must bend himself to the carrying on of our war effort, let us try to think as Canadians and in every way to strengthen national unity.
Let us bring into play the principles of liberty and equality set out in the Atlantic charter by respecting the rights and privileges of minorities.
It is shameful and revolting to proclaim that "might is right". Rather should we respect solemn commitments. The best thing to do for the moment is to defeat every attempt to enforce conscription for overseas service.
I have uttered these remarks, believing it to be my duty, in the interests of my fellow citizens and of Canada.
Paraphrasing Tennyson's poem "You ask me why" and applying it to Canada, I may say in conclusion: It is the land of free men, the land of freedom, calm and moderate, where a man may say what he pleases whether he be with friends or enemies. A land with steady government, a land of just and ancient renown, where liberty flows slowly from precedent to precedent, where factions seldom raise their head, where the might of all fertile thought, maturing by degrees, has time and space for its development.
On motion of Mr. Taylor the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, June 23, 1942