1942-02-10

INTERNMENTS


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask if the petition laid on the table by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) has been examined and found in order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It has been laid on the table and found in order.


Angus MacInnis: Then I suggest, now that it is in order, that the petition be read, and I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(The Clerk Assistant read the petition as follows):
Petition to members of the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, at Ottawa Ontario.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the House of Commons:
We the undersigned Canadians in exercising the immemorial privilege of British subjects to petition the House of Commons in parliament assembled are confident that you will honour this ancient right and practice by hearing sympathetically our representations upon a matter affecting the welfare and safety of our nation, and the liberties of its citizens.
WTe humbly beg to draw to your attention the following facts and considerations:
1.	That the undersigned Canadian antifascists have been arbitrarily confined, many for as long as twenty months, first in internment camps, together with fascist prisoners of war and, since August 20, 1941, in a concentration camp in Hull jail, at Hull, Quebec, though we have been opposing fascism ever since its evil birth.
2.	That we have repeatedly sought to impress persons in authority with our loyalty to Canada and its democratic institutions, our unreserved support of Canada's war effort against the common enemy of our country, and of all free people, Hitlerite Germany and her allies; our abhorrence of and opposition to any and all subversive activities within our country, and our desire for release from detention in order that we may contribute our time and energies to the advancement of these purposes. To this end we have individually sworn affidavits and have dispatched petitions to the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe on June 27, July 1, July 14, July 31, August 7, August 9, August 15, August 22, September 3, and September 4, 1941; and to the Hon. Louis St. Laurent on December 18, 1941; and to the Prime Minister the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King on September 10, October 1, and November 28, 1941.
3.	That on November 28, 1941, we dispatched a letter to the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King offering our services in the armed forces, industry or other war work, wherever we may be deemed most useful, followed by individual letters to members of the government stating each person's qualifications and making suggestions regarding his future services.
4.	That at this hour of greatest strain and peril to our country it is absolutely imperative that all the Canadian people, irrespective of class, party, religion or race be banded together in unity for the supreme effort and sacrifice in the just war waged by Canada, Britain, the U.S.S.R., the United States of America and their allies for victory over fascist enemies; that in this struggle for victory lies the security of Canada, and the identity of interests of the whole nation; that united effort for maximum military operation and war production stands above all other considerations.'
5.	That the continued arrest, persecution and detention of anti-fascist Canadians in concentration camps is justified neither on the grounds of national security, nor of safety of the state, but appears to be a form of persecution based on class and political prejudice, and moreover tends to create doubt, controversy and disunity to the detriment of our country's war effort.
6.	That our release from detention and the restoration of our civil rights as Canadians to
Wheat
[Stage Direction]
participate in the armed forces and other war services will serve to strengthen public confidence that undemocratic practices are not being allowed to gain ground in our land, and that our government's war effort is truly directed toward the realization and implementation of the eight-point programme enunciated jointly by Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt, and which has become the foundation of the twenty-six united nations agreement, to which our own government has declared its adherence, thus spurring forward the enthusiasm and self-sacrifice of our people in the war effort for decisive victory over the enemy in the shortest period of time.
7.	That our release from detention will not only restore us to personal freedom and to our families, and enable us to contribute our abilities, labour and lives to the benefit of our country's war effort, but especially will it enable us, many of whom have considerable public influence, particularly among the workers, to assist in mobilizing the people for the greatest exertions, both in uninterrupted war production and in the armed forces, to assure and hasten the victorious conclusion of the war.
8.	That we repeat our solemn pledges contained in our sworn affidavits and our petitions that upon our release all our efforts will be directed loyally, unsparingly and unswervingly to achievement of the fullest national unity for the maximum contribution in all fields of the war effort.
We are resolutely and sincerely opposed to any actions which would be injurious to the unity of Canada, the security of the state and the maximum war effort.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Therefore we humbly pray of the House of Commons, as the elected representatives of the Canadian people, in whose hands rests the sovereignty of government and the direction of national policy, you institute such measures that will restore us our liberties in the interests of the welfare of our country and its war effort in this hour of supreme test and peril.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), as reported at page 128 of Hansard, quoted the following from a Winnipeg paper:
Canadian wheat is being purchased by United States buyers fo,r shipment south of the line after the opening of navigation; that warehouse receipts are being taken by the United States buyers, and that, according to reliable authorities, the wheat is being hedged in the Chicago market.
He then proceeded to ask three questions. At that time I promised to look into the matter and bring down a reply as soon as possible. I should like to reply to these questions now.
Question 1: From whom are these United States buyers securing these warehouse receipts, since it is cash wheat?

Answer: The warehouse receipts are supplied by the seller of the grain to the buyer and are the owner's title to the grain. When grain is unloaded at any terminal elevator a warehouse receipt must be issued to the owner, and only on presentation of this receipt is he entitled to gain possession of the grain that it represents.
Question 2: Why is it being hedged in Chicago?
Answer: If this grain is being hedged in Chicago, presumably it is because the owner wishes to have it hedged there. This is purely a matter for the personal judgment of the owner and it is a fairly common practice for Canadian grain to be hedged in Chicago.
Question 3: What part did the Canadian wheat board play in these trades, and is there any possibility of this wheat coming into competition with the export of other Canadian wheat to the United Kingdom?
Answer: The Canadian wheat board has no direct knowledge of these transactions as their wheat is sold to buyers on the Winnipeg grain exchange. Because the very restricted import quota for Canadian wheat allowed to enter the United States for domestic consumption is full, this wheat will presumably stay in bond in the United States, and therefore remains a part of the visible supply of Canadian wheat and can move into export channels in exactly the same way as other wheat stored by exporters in the United States or Canada.



REPORTED INITIAL PRICE OF NINETY CENTS PER BUSHEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to direct a question to either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has either of them any knowledge of the broadcast over United States news stations last night to the effect that following the Prime Minister's statement in this house yesterday the Canadian government had decided to set the initial price of wheat at ninety cents per bushel? Why was it announced there rather than in Canada?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have no information on the subject.



PACIFIC COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to a dispatch in to-day's paper from London, England, to the effect

Pacific Council
that the Pacific council meets to-day in London. It refers also to a statement by Mr. Curtin, the Prime Minister of Australia. The Exchange Telegraph reports Mr. Curtin as having said:
That exclusion of Canada is due to the feeling that Canada's position in the Pacific is less urgent than that of the others.
The countries now represented are Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands. I should like to ask the Prime Minister why Canada is not a member of this Pacific council? I am one of those who for several years past have contended that our people should know the facts about this Pacific question. They should not have to get them from dispatches from Australia and other places. As I say, Canada is as much interested in this matter as Australia, New Zealand and other dominions and allies, yet we gave nothing to the Singapore base, or to an empire shipping conference in 1937, or to the adoption of the Jellicoe report. The public of Canada want to know the real facts. If the Prime Minister cannot give the information to-day-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: Why is not Canada represented at this Pacific conference? Why did not Canada give a grant to the Singapore base? The country should know the real facts.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I know of no reason why this information should not be given. I am quite in order because the same question was asked in the British house. I should like to have the facts. I am entitled to the facts. If the Prime Minister cannot give the information to-day, perhaps he will give it to the house to-morrow.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say to my hon. friend that the question which he has just asked is one that relates to an arrangement that was reached at Washington between the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States at the time Mr. Churchill was visiting Washington. The arrangement is in part the outcome of further conferences that have taken place between them and between some of the countries mentioned. The question is an important one. It is one to which I would wish to give a very careful answer, as there are special reasons which govern the matter being in the position in which it is. I shall seek to give my hon. friend a reply at another sitting of the house.



BY-ELECTIONS DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY-ELECTED MEMBERS-LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question which is probably related to the one just asked by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church): Can the Prime Minister say when the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) will take their places in the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might be a matter of interest to the house to know just how long it takes to have ministers who are duly elected take their seats. As a matter of fact before coming into the house I had asked my secretary to find out from the chief electoral officer how soon returns to the house could be made and how soon the ministers could take their seats in the house. I received the following memorandum:
The chief electoral officer informs me that returning officers are allowed to fix a date for the final addition of the votes, and that the act provides for the holding of the ballots until six days after this final addition. In York South the final addition is on the eleventh; in Quebec East and St. Mary, the twelfth, and in Welland, because of the scattered nature of the riding, difficult road conditions, et cetera, the sixteenth. This means that the new members could not be presented in the house before February 18 for York South, February 19 for Quebec East and St. Mary, and February 23 for Welland.
My hon. friend will see that the act in some particulars is most fearfully and wonderfully made.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. I am sorry for the delay.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Now that the other party has gone with the wind out of York South, what is going to be the official designation of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson)? Will it be leader or acting leader? I want to know because I shall have a lot to say in the future about that.
Some hon. MEMBERS : Order.



AGRICULTURAL POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the agricultural policy and the grain marketing policy for 1942 will be announced.
Air Raid Precautions


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: It will be impossible to have a
discussion of the legislation which will have to be presented until we have completed this debate, and I do not know just when that will be.



INCOME TAX

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO WHEN 1941 FORMS WILL BE READY On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue a question. On February 3 I asked the Minister of Finance when the income tax forms for 1941 would be ready and whether they would have to wait until the tax agreements with the provinces were signed. The minister stated he would bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue.


Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: I had no knowledge that the question had been asked. There has been some delay in preparing income tax forms for some of the provinces, because we had to wait until consultations could be held with the provinces as to whether we would print on the forms the details necessary for the collection of the provincial income tax. Having obtained the consent of the provinces to leave these details off the forms, the forms are now being printed. If they have not been distributed already, I know that they will be available in a few days.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I
should like to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health a question which relates to - the defence of Canada regulations. In view of the changed war, does the minister propose to set up a new committee of this house to deal with these regulations? The regulations passed at the last session provided for federal enforcement, but I understand that these regulations have now been transferred to the provinces and provincial premiers. I appreciate the fact that the people in charge of air raid precautions are doing good work and are splendid citizens, but home defence should not be for them alone, and that work alone will not make our cities and towns secure. The black-outs should not be for more than twenty minutes 
and should be reasonable. I would ask if the minister could let us know to-morrow what is being done.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): Mr. Speaker, the question of the committee to deal with the defence of Canada regulations is a matter of government policy, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, not on mine. May I also inform my hon. friend that the only delegation of authority under the present regulations, so far as I am aware, is under section 35, in which there is a specific delegation of authority in regard to black-outs from the Minister of Pensions and National Health to the provincial attorneys-general of five Canadian provinces. I shall be very glad indeed to table at any time the instrument of delegation if my hon. friend requests it and to give any further information if he will place his question on the order paper.


Thomas Langton Church: Do not the regulations say that invasion must be imminent before central Canada is blacked out?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The regulations speak for themselves. I do not have them under my hand at the moment, but there has been a delegation of authority in regard to black-outs only, on the advice of the Department of Justice.


Thomas Langton Church: For home defence in cities we still have left the police, the boy scouts and girl guides to start with. No city in central Canada has any defence if attacked.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask the minister if the black-out regulations date from yesterday?



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Alphonse Fournier for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that what is uppermost in the minds of most if not all of the members of this house this afternoon is the results of the elections of yesterday. I want to say, because I am going to say something on the question of the plebiscite, that I regard the results as an approval by the people of at least three constituencies, and I think one can almost, say of four, and not in one province only but

The Address-Mr. Ralston
in the two largest provinces of this dominion, of the wisdom of the course of action which was announced in the speech from the throne and which was so effectively and so ably presented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his speech in this debate.
May I also be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that these results are a resounding rebuke, and probably the most resounding rebuke which can be given to intemperate and unbridled invective in political campaigns. It teaches us all that these are times when bitterness and personal animosity have no place in the discussion of public questions either in the press or on the platform. I do want to congratulate the Prime Minister. His principle of trusting the people and his faith in their good sense and their ability to distinguish between the sober and serious issues which face this country and the hysterical condemnation of those who have singled him out for virulent attack have been fully demonstrated.
To have just at this time two ministers, one from the province of Quebec and the other from the province of Ontario, both returned on the same day, in spite of the efforts of certain extremists in both provinces to divide this country, is a striking response to the appeal which has been made for unity and tolerance and understanding. The government in the return of these two men, each outstanding in his own field, has been immeasurably encouraged and strengthened, I know that the house generally will join in regret at the illness of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) and join most heartily in sincere good wishes for his early recovery.
May I take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, and I know my hon. friends will pardon me if I do not take longer, to join in all the congratulations which have been extended to the member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) who moved and seconded the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne. To say that their accomplishment had the degree of excellence which we expected of them is to say that both made presentations which both in manner and in matter were admirable and in every way worthy of the traditions of this house. I met them both with their colleagues when they were in England. They had two missions: one to take Canada to the United Kingdom, and the other to bring the United Kingdom to Canada. I know a little of how well they accomplished their task on the other side, and I am sure that the messages they have brought us here indicated that they were equally well qualified and competent for
the task of bringing to us the results of theiT
observations of the traditions and spirit of the people of Great Britain.
A good deal has been said in this debate with regard to my department. I shall leave these comments and criticisms to be dealt with at another time. I want to-day to discuss directly the matters mentioned in the speech from the throne. After all, these are the matters which are primarily the subject of this debate rather than matters of administration and operation.
Speaking generally my criticism is that in this debate the discussion seems to have centred not around what we shall do to help win the war but how we shall do it, a dis-oussion not of policy but of a particular method or form of procedure; and that is typical of what has been going on in the country for the past six months or more. There really seems to be in some quarters a deliberate attempt to obscure the real measure of Canada's war activity. The idea has been sold and rather subtly sold, to use the expression of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), that Canada is not doing much. And why? Because there is no conscription for overseas service. Nothing else seems to matter. The morale of the Canadian people is being undermined by this insistent and persistent deprecation.
Here is what has happened in this debate. The Prime Minister outlined comprehensively what Canada had done and what she proposes to do. But what course has the debate taken? I know there have -been exceptions but I think I am right when I say that, fairly generally, very little attention has been paid to the government's proposals for further activity in the navy, army and air force, the proposals regarding increasing the vast volume of munitions, the proposals for the mobilization of manpower, the proposal to provide one billion dollars' worth of munitions and supplies to Great Britain, the proposal to spend three billion dollars for war this year. I submit that when we are assessing the extent of what we are doing, measures like these are worth noticing. The measure of the contribution which Canada has made up to this date-I say Canada; I am not saying the government -such measures and the concrete measures which are proposed for the future are really tangible things by which we ought to be able to judge and to assess the extent of what we are doing.
The principle of total war has been laid down, and to that we all -agree, but the yardstick which has been used to measure the extent and the full-outness, to coin a word, of Canada's contribution has been conscription for overseas service. That causes confusion. That obscures the view that this country
The Address-Mr. Ralston

should get of the measure of our war effort. I want this afternoon, as a measure of what we are actually doing, to indicate one or two principles whereby our activities can be judged.
No person can doubt that Canada is committed to total war. We are committed to it not only for the survival of freedom generally but for our own survival and for the survival of this nation, and for the security of our oiwn homes and1 families. To wage total war is the stated policy of the government and I believe, indeed I am sure, that it is the determined purpose of the Canadian people.
But what do we mean by total war? I think it means the most effective use against the enemy of the country's total resources in materials and people. The different countries have different resources. Total war requires a country to plan its pattern for war according to its resources, and more than that, according to the needs and abilities of other countries with which it is allied. One country, for example, might have great resources in terms of people, and for that country total war would mean concentrating effort in raising men and relying upon allied countries for supplies of food and weapons. Another country might have excess resources of food and materials. Its pattern for total war might mean extra effort in production, and a proportionately less effort in raising armed forces. But I do not want you to think, Mr. Speaker, for a single moment that in my view such a country can sit back comfortably and feel it is doing its duty efficiently by tilling the soil and producing munitions and allowing the other fellow to do all the fighting.
Again, a country at war without allies would follow a different pattern from that which would be followed if it were one of a group.
Now, Canada is a member of a team of united nations, and our pattern for total war has to be shaped by the relation of the extent of her resources in materials and people compared to the needs of the whole team.
These things, Mr. Speaker, are very academic, but perhaps they need to be said, and they certainly need to be understood if we are to realize what total war means for Canada.
Here is the pattern of total war which this dominion, directed by its government and by parliament, is following. It has been shaped by the considerations I have mentioned: first, the nature and extent of Canada's resources in materials and people; second, Canada's needs and abilities in relation to the needs and abilities of other nations with whom we are bound in united purpose to wage this war to the end, or go under.

Canada's pattern of total war has three main parts. I do not pretend to name them in order of importance. I do not think they have any order of importance. Each one is essential. The three are complementary parts of the whole, and that is how they ought to be regarded.
One of the three parts is the production of food; another is the production of materials and weapons of war; and another is the raising of armed forces to combat on sea and on land and in the air. Supporting all these activities is the great civilian effort of the people of this dominion which expresses itself chiefly in the twin essentials of services and morale, and in which no Canadian is too old, too poor, or too humble to have a place and a duty.
So that, put in briefest form, our pattern of total war is a pattern consisting of food, weapons and armed forces. You cannot take one and leave the others in a country like Canada; and the duty of the government is to recognize that each of these three parts-food, weapons and armed forces-is essential to total war by Canada, and to try and determine the proportion which each part ought to bear.
Now let us look at the 1942 programme, which, as I have indicated, has not had too much discussion, to see the place which each one of these parts I have mentioned holds.
First, about food- The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his speech to the house on January 26, gave statistics on Canada's food production. I will not repeat them. But I want to remind the house of the great increases in essential items which his figures showed. Canada's programme in food production for 1942 is to provide to the limit of our production and to the limit of -our productive resources the foods essential to our own people and to Britain. But here, just as in other fields, we must try to utilize as far as possible workers ineligible for military service, in order to release as many as possible of those who are eligible. We still need and expect young men from the farms for our fighting forces. No better fighting men can be found. Many of them have gone into war industry as well, and I freely admit there may foe fault in that we have not yet taken full measures to replace those who have come from the farms, by making more certain that workers are provided to keep these farms in operation; and a very important part of the selective service plan which the Prime Minister announced will be to deal with -that particular situation, because the indications are that more rather than less workers will be needed in this tremendously vital activity.

The Address-Mr. Ralston
Then there is the production of weapons, of ships, tanks, planes, guns, shells, and hundreds of items of equipment which are needed by the united nations. Here is a statement of the weapons programme, if my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) will permit me, for 1942, just in terms of men and women.
At the close of 1941 there were about
600.000	workers, of whom about 75,000 were women, engaged directly and indirectly in producing and distributing the weapons and supplies of war. Our production is vastly different from that of the last war. Then, it was principally shells and rifles. To-day Canada's munitions production is almost as diversified as the number of items in the arsenal of war. My colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply told us not long ago that Canadian weapons are already in use by the united nations in practically every field of war in the world. I am told that by the end of the year an additional 100,000 workers will have been employed, and that means a total of about
700.000	men and women engaged directly and indirectly in this essential part of total war, in Canada.
Here again, as in the case of the farms, the selective service plan must function to ensure that as far as possible the workers in these industries are those who are ineligible for the armed forces.
That programme for 1942, which means vastly increased quantities, with some 700,000 workers engaged directly and indirectly, will see Canada approaching its visible limit of material and management.
Those are the first two parts of Canada's war pattern-food and weapons. What that programme means may be emphasized when we remember that Canada is undertaking an outright contribution during the fiscal year of food and weapons amounting to one billion dollars for the use of the people and the forces of Great Britain, who are helping to fight what is Canada's war as well as their own.
Let me come now to the third part of our pattern of total war, and that is the armed forces. Canada has armed forces for combat on the sea, on the land, and in the air. Many people seem to forget that. They still think of military activities only in terms of the army. That was very true in the last war, when Canada had four divisions overseas in the Canadian corps; but to-day that idea is wholly erroneous. To-day Canada's effort in arms is represented by numbers and organizations in the navy, the army and the air force which would certainly impress our friends and, I think, ought to impress Canadians just
as certainly. In the navy, Canada's plan has been to raise a navy limited only by the number of ships we could obtain. To put it another way, the plan has been to man every ship which could be built or secured.
In the air, from the start we have concentrated on the air training plan and on air strength as probably the greatest immediate combative contribution this country could make. It has proved to be an activity by which Canada, in geography and resources, and by the character of its young men, has been able to make an incalculable contribution.
Now about the army. The objective has been and is to raise and equip, to reinforce and to maintain, highly motorized and mechanized forces, hard-hitting and complete. In this way we take advantage of our resources and materials, as well as of the qualities of initiative and fighting skill which Canadians in battle have always shown. We also have the obligations for defence in Canada, which are more prominently before us than ever before. Under the army programme for 1942, the Canadian army overseas will be, in proportion, probably the most highly mechanized and mobile army in the world. It is obvious, of course, that a country of eleven and a half million people could not raise mass armies comparable to the forces of other nations, and particularly it could not attempt to do so when the army is just one part of the general pattern of food and weapons, air strength and navy.
Those are the general principles which underlie the extent and strength of Canada's armed forces.
Let us look at the 1942 programme

and by that I mean the fiscal year ending in March 1943. I wish to summarize that programme now with particular reference to the manpower involved, but I will not go into details because I think the figures on man-power will be sufficient for our purposes.
In the navy to date over 27,000 men have enlisted and it has a strength of over 350 ships. This programme for 1942 requires a further 13,000 men.
In the army to date over 295,000 men have been enlisted and its actual strength is over
255,000	men.
While I am speaking of the Canadian army, I am sure that the house and the country will want to join in expressing the pleasure which we all feel at the arrival in Canada of Lieutenant-General McNaughton. He is a man in whom this country has unbounded confidence. He has given the best of his superb talents to the building up of a fighting formation in the United Kingdom of which

The Address-Mr. Ralston

we all ought to be proud. We are fortunate indeed to have him at the head of the Canadian army overseas. We do not realize fully how much he has achieved in maintaining the morale and the fighting spirit of Canadians who have been such a long time inactive but constantly alert. It is a hard test both for commanders and for troops, and Canadians under General McNaughton have stood that test magnificently. I know that the country will learn with immense satisfaction that he has made a complete recovery from his illness and will be ready in a short time to resume his high and responsible position.
When I speak of the Canadian corps which is overseas, hon. members will recall that it consists of three infantry divisions, one armoured division, one army tank brigade, a forestry corps and ancillary and specialized units with thousands of reinforcements in reinforcement units.
Perhaps I should refer to reinforcements for a moment. A statement was made in that regard and I should like to make this clear. The number of reinforcements dispatched to the United Kingdom is actually in excess of the schedule recommended by the corps commander, who has expressed himself as entirely satisfied with the reinforcements.
The 1942 programme is to organize, equip and maintain an army of two corps overseas. That programme requires the enlistment of a further 90,000 to 100,000 men during the present fiscal year. That figure is, in the opinion of general staff, the maximum number of new men who can be effectively trained during that period for service overseas. That will put an exceedingly heavy strain upon the instructional staffs and equipment, because, in addition to these new men for overseas, we must train the overseas units still in this country and also about forty to fifty thousand men for service in Canada; and already arrangements are being made to bring back a large number of instructors from the other side for that purpose.
Under the 1942 programme which the Prime Minister announced, we shall have overseas a Canadian army of two corps composed of three infantry divisions, two armoured divisions, two army tank brigades, and there will be additional ancillary corps and line of communication troops. There will be reinforcements and reserves for all these formations and units. As a result of that programme about one-half of the Canadian army overseas will be armoured; and as I have indicated that is a proportion of armoured strength probably greater than that of any other army in the world.
That 1942 programme is the recommendation of general staff. When I was in England in consultation with the Secretary of State for War, he told me that the most effective and useful additional contribution which Canada could make as far as the army was concerned was another armoured division, and this programme provides for that. In the words of General McNaughton, this Canadian army will be a well-balanced, highly effective fighting force, coordinated from the front line back to the rear echelons-a weapon forged and sharpened to play a great part when the time to strike comes.
The cost of the army programme in the fiscal year is estimated at practically one billion dollars. The 1942 all-out programme for the air force calls for between 70,000 and
80.000	men.


Mr. STIRLING:: Before the minister leaves the programme for the armed forces overseas, would he care to put a number to that? How many will be required to fill that?


James Layton Ralston: From 90,000 to 100,000 new men. That is up to March 31, 1943. I will sum that up now. The 1942 all-out programme for the air force calls, as I say, for between 70,000 and 80,000 men. And remember this: From the beginning of the war to the end of 1942 over 422,000 men enlisted voluntarily for general service. To sum up the 1942 programme for the three armed services, it involves as nearly as can be estimated the raising of between 173,000 and 193,000 men for general service, and to carry it out would bring the total Canadian enlistments in all three services up to between 595,000 and
615.000	men. I have here a table showing how this is made up, and I will put it on Hansard:
Air force	
Navy	
Army	
Totals
Enlistments to date
Programme for 1942
Prospective total enlistments up to March 31, 1943
100.000	70,000- 80,000
27,000	13,000- 13,000
295.000	90,000-100,000
170.000-	180,000 40,000- 40,000
385.000-	395,000
422,000	173,000-193,000
595,000-615,000
[Mr. Ralston.l

The Address-Mr. Ralston
I do not want the house to get a wrong idea. The total enlistments at the end of the 1942 programme do not mean that we shall have then armed forces of that size. There have been and will be unfortunately wastage and casualties, and our actual strength will be diminished accordingly. As a matter of fact, of the 90,000 to 100,000 men to be raised this year for the army, probably 25,000 will be for new units and the remainder for reinforcements and reserves. Then there is the defence on the home front here in Canada, a most important part of our effort for total war. I assure the house that these needs are having the closest and most unrelenting attention not only of members from the Pacific coast but also at'least on the part of some of us at National Defence headquarters.
Speaking generally, our Canadian defences, so far as the army is concerned, comprise coast defence garrisons at strategic points on both coasts, local reserves for those garrisons on each coast, and general reserves which are available for both coasts. At the present time there is in Canada the fourth division which in due course will be converted into an armoured division. There are also the brigade groups of the sixth division located at strategic points. A number of unbrigaded battalions are on coast defence duties on both coasts and there are coast defence artillery garrisons. Special dispositions have been made where that seemed to be required.
It should be remembered that apart from the 4th division and the brigade groups of the sixth division, we have in Canada over 90,000 active service personnel in training centres and elsewhere, and an emergency organization of a proportion of that personnel is being set up as well. We have also fully in mind the mobilizing of further units for Canadian defence, especially in view of the ultimate dispatch of the fourth division overseas. In addition to these mobilized formations and active service personnel we have reserve units, and we have worked out a special reorganization and regrouping of them across Canada, organizing them in brigade groups under fulltime staffs and with special provision for training.
We realize that the matter of anti-aircraft defence is of the utmost importance. Hon. members will understand that this is a joint concern of the three services, but it concerns particularly the air and the army-the army for anti-aircraft guns, and the air for aeroplanes. We realize that the matter of antiaircraft defence is of the utmost importance, but I am sure that this country realizes, I think the citizens of the Pacific coast do, that
no matter how complete our anti-aircraft defences are made we can never prevent the enemy from attempting sporadic raids. What we must do is to utilize the equipment we have and can get from time to time to make such an attempt as costly to the enemy as we can. We are trying to do that. To-day on the Pacific coast there is certain special equipment which does not exist to the same degree anywhere else in the dominion

not all we want, but more than might have been expected under the conditions, and there is more to follow. I can say generally that having regard to the anticipated forms of attack the provisions for Canadian defence have been made up to the limit of our equipment and resources, and we are increasing our defensive strength just as fast as equipment becomes available.


Mr. GREEN:: If I may ask a question, does the minister not think it would be well to have a secret session of the house at which the question of the defence of the Pacific coast, or both coasts, could be gone into much more fully than is possible at a regular session?


James Layton Ralston: The Prime Minister indicated the other day that consideration would be given to the matter of a secret session, and I would assume that the Pacific coast defences would be a subject quite proper for discussion at such session. I may say I should be glad to give to my hon. friend or any hon. members from the Pacific coast generally information in regard to the Pacific coast. I have an idea from reading the newspapers that quite a bit is known out there already.


Howard Charles Green: Of course we cannot get satisfaction in that way; I might personally, but it is a matter for the Canadian parliament to decide, and in order to decide properly they must know the facts. I suggest that it is of vital importance to this nation at this time that there should be a secret session at which this question should be discussed.


James Layton Ralston: In regard to a secret session, as I have indicated, I think the Prime Minister stated some time ago that he thought arrangements could be made to hold such a session, and I anticipate that the subject to which my hon. friend refers would be one of those discussed there.
I have mentioned the programme of food, weapons and armed forces. As part of the programme for total war there is much to be done in the way of directing the citizens of Canada towards the task where they can serve best. This is going on in a hundred different ways, but it is to be supplemented by much
The Address-Mr. Ralston

more comprehensive measures, as the Prime Minister indicated in his speech, from which I shall quote one paragraph:
The government now' proposes to apply the compulsory powers of national selective services to other aspects of the war effort as well as to military service. These powers will be applied selectively and progressively to those activities where it is considered by the government that their application will contribute to the goal of a total effort . . .
I shall not attempt to go into details regarding these proposals, as my colleague the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) will be doing that, I anticipate; but I want to emphasize that the further mobilization of man-power and woman-power is one of the biggest jobs we have in our activities for total war.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Before the minister leaves that-and I want to say that I am impressed and reassured by the nature of the statement which he is making-is it anticipated that the government intends to say to a man: "You shall work here and not there"? The Prime Minister has not made that clear. I do not think you can say to a man:, "You must work here and not there." You might not get results. That is what our labour friends will tell you about that.


James Layton Ralston: That is a matter which has had a great deal of examination and consideration in England as well, and I am sure it will be dealt with when the measures are brought down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not sure that you can make a man work.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not for less wages.


James Layton Ralston: There is the old saying that you cannot make an opera singer sing.
Lastly, in this pattern for total war there is that measure in dollars. Our direct expenditures for war this year will be three billion dollars.
I have given Canada's pattern for total war in its comprehensive scope of- food, weapons, armed forces, and mobilization of man-power and money. I think I can fairly ask the house and the country to measure that programme as it stands by the programme itself as a whole. Will anyone in this house say that programme is not worthy? Will anyone say that it will not tax our resources in this very year? Will anyone say that the commitment is not enough?
I have tried to portray very briefly and sketchily the development of Canada's programme for total war, not as enforced by the brutal methods of a Gestapo, but through

the wholehearted cooperation of a free people under the direction of a democratic government.
I want to deal now with the plebiscite. There are some who, as I intimated at the beginning, will insist on measuring our whole war activity by the one question, whether we are to have conscription for overseas service. But that is not the question. Here is the question, and mixing it up with conscription only adds to the disquiet and confusion. The government tells the people of this dominion that this is the time of greatest crisis in the world's history. The government says that it should be in a position to act in any emergency, and it considers that it ought not to be fettered by past commitments. What the government ask is simply that it be put in a position to be free to act as the circumstances may require in the uncertainties and perils of the days ahead.
There does not seem to be anything morally wrong with that. It seems to be a straightforward course of procedure. But the real trouble is, that it is proposed by the Prime Minister, and to some people that stamps it as sinister. This was the issue that was raised in some of the elections yesterday, and particularly in some of the speeches in York South. The insinuation has been repudiated by the people themselves with an emphasis which no one can mistake.
I do not think this house ever heard a more frank discussion than the Prime Minister's explanation of why the pledge had been given. Among other things he pointed out, with the utmost candour, that the unanimity and speed *with which parliament decided to go into the war and stand at the side of Britain could not have been achieved if that pledge had not been given. It was not a pledge on any minor matter. It was a pledge on a subject on which probably feelings are deeper and emotions run higher than on any other one subject in this country.
Members of the house know perfectly well that what the Prime Minister said was true. That was complete frankness, and the Prime Minister was equally frank when he outlined the reasons for considering that release from that assurance should be given in this time of peril. He described at length the critical position of our allies the world over and the new threats which had arisen. He concluded with these words:
In a world situation so involved, with enemies on every front, with no one able to say what the outcome of battle in other parts of the world may bring of immediate and increased danger to our own land, the government feels strongly that it should be perfectly free to

The Address-Mr. Ralston
recommend to parliament whatever course of action it deems essential to the security of our own country and to the preservation of freedom in our own and other lands. . . .
And he proposed to put this question to the people of Canada:
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?
There is nothing sinister about that. It is a straightforward laying bare of the situation. And it is in dead earnest.
I want to deal with just three points which have been made by those who criticize the government for proposing this plebiscite- although my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has dealt with them so effectively and so conclusively that I almost hesitate to take the time of the house to speak of them again.
First may I refer to the objection that the plebiscite is unnecessary because the government already has a mandate from the people to wage total war.
I admit at once that the government was returned to power with a mandate to prosecute the war in the most effective way possible. But there was a restriction attached to that mandate. That is what is overlooked. The limitation arose from the fact that the government, in asking for support, had pledged itself through the Prime Minister that compulsory service for overseas would not be adopted. The national government party, through its leader, Hon. Doctor Manion, gave exactly the same pledge. That simply means-and the government was elected on that pledge-that the government's mandate was not unlimited; and, note this Mr. Speaker, that the position would have been exactly the same if Doctor Manion and his party had been returned to power. The mandate was to prosecute the war as effectively as possible, but subject to this limitation, that the raising of men for overseas should be restricted to voluntary enlistment.
Somebody has said a bad pledge is better broken. But this was not a bad pledge. Surely the leader of the national government party, after consultation with his lieutenants, would not give a bad pledge. It was a pledge on a subject which had torn this country wide open in 1917. As I said a moment ago, it was a pledge on no minor matter. It was a pledge which had great effect, as the Prime Minister has said, in connection with this country's coming into the war with such unanimity.
So binding was the pledge regarded that when the government brought down the National Resources Mobilization Act, by which it was given the most complete power over
the person and property of every individual in this dominion, it recognized the limitation imposed by that pledge, and inserted right in the act the condition that this power over persons and property was not to extend to the sending of men compulsorily for military service outside of Canada. The present leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) was in the house at the time; he took no exception to that limitation. His only suggestion was that the act might be extended to service in Labrador. And he and his party supported that measure with that restriction in it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did I not say I was prepared to accept that as a halfway measure?


James Layton Ralston: I am quite satisfied my hon. friend used no such language.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am quite satisfied I did. And I take credit for forcing the government to bring in the act-absolutely.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend should not draw a red herring across the trail. He should look at the record, and he will find that his colleague, the hon. member for Royal (Air. Brooks), suggested that the act be extended to Labrador, Iceland and Newfoundland, and that he himself suggested that it be extended to Labrador. I do not think he will find anywhere in his speech any suggestion that that was a half-way measure, or any suggestion that he was in any way opposed to that restriction being inserted as it is in the act to-day-with that exception. He and his party supported that measure without division and without adverse comment, too.
So much for the point that the government has a complete mandate to carry on the war. It has that mandate on every point except one, and that was regarded as so important- and I repeat it-as to be the subject of specific pledges of both major parties.
Then it is said that the government, in holding a plebiscite, is shirking responsibility and is trying to pass on to the people the burden of making a decision which the government should make itself. That objection is, in my humble opinion, absolutely groundless. Whatever objections there may be to the plebiscite, it is clear that shirking of responsibility is not one of them. If the government had asked the people to decide for or against conscription, that might have been claimed to be shirking governmental responsibility and placing the responsibility of decision on the people. If the government had stated its future policy in advance of the plebiscite, then the people might have said that the government was putting on the people the
The Address-Mr. Ralston

burden of deciding on a policy regarding which the government must be in a better position to judge.
But the question in this plebiscite does not ask the people of Canada to decide for or against conscription-nothing of the kind. What it does do is to ask the people to put squarely on its shoulders-the shoulders of the government itself-the responsibility for deciding, subject to parliament, how men shall be raised for military service. That surely is not shirking responsibility or passing the buck or ducking the issue. The government is not asking the people to decide policy ; on the contrary it is asking the people to let it decide policy. That is the very opposite of evading responsibility. What the government does is to state straightforwardly to the people of Canada that in this, the gravest crisis in the history of the world, it must have a free hand, regardless of past commitments. The plebiscite will decide whether the government's forthright statement of the dangers and its request for authority are to be heeded.
The other point-


Georges Parent: The minister's time has expired. He can proceed only with unanimous consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


James Layton Ralston: I thank hon. members for the courtesy extended to me.
The other point is that the plebiscite means delay in carrying out the country's war effort, and this criticism is a prime example of the distortion which emanates from some quarters. It has been made to appear that Canada's *whole war programme depends on the plebiscite ; that in effect all effort will be suspended for two or three months until the plebiscite result is known, and that not until then can Britain and our other allies know whether Canada continues to stand with them. This. Mr. Speaker, in my humble judgment is absolutely fallacious. The plebiscite concerns only one part of our war programme. It does not concern the factories; it does not concern the navy or the air force. It concerns only the army, to the extent of overseas service.
I have stated that the 1942 army programme involves the raising of 90,000 to 100,000 men during the next fourteen months, for general service. That programme is already under way. It has not been hindered in any way. During the last four months over 32,000 men enlisted for the army, and I am advised and believe-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that the active army?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, the active army. I believe that if the intake of men for general service keeps within reasonable distance of that general level we shall be able to carry out the 1942 army programme for overseas, including the reserves regarded as adequate by both British and Canadian authorities in England.
In January we had the biggest enlistment we have had since the campaign in the summer. Some 11,700 men enlisted in the month. In addition to that, the calling up of men for training goes on, whether there is a plebiscite or not. No time is lost in that respect. Our training centres are full and' will be kept full. The time which the plebiscite would take will have no effect whatever on that training. As a matter of fact we are having to add to our training facilities to take care of the increased enlistment and of the additional men we are calling up under the National Resources Mobilization Act. So that if indications mean anything the programme will go forward, plebiscite or no plebiscite, and there is not the slightest evidence that the time taken for the plebiscite will hinder or hurt our army programme.
So much has been said, sir, about compulsory service that I want to say a word about voluntary enlistments. I want to see voluntary enlistments kept up. I believe it is better for our volunteer army if the men coming to reinforce it are also volunteers. I believe the public of Canada generally wants to see enlistments kept up. In the midst of all this confusion and argument and bitterness, I am bold enough to make an appeal again to the house and to the people of Canada to make it their business as well as mine to keep enlistments up. It is a national effort, just the same as the raising of war loans. There everybody pitches in and tells people of the need, and helps to persuade them to subscribe. Surely it is even more important to help convince the men of Canada of the needs of the army. Canada's army is a force to be reckoned with. It is an efficient fighting machine, well organized, well officered and well manned. Canada's army holds a key position to preserve the security of this dominion. What we are proposing will add very much to its striking power. And we ought, Mr. Speaker, to be very much more proud of it than we seem to be. I want to ask everyone to recognize the gentlemen in battle dress. Along with the men of the navy and the air force, they are our first citizens. We should all be proud indeed of the response which has already been made by the young men of the country. It has been helped, I know, by the citizens' committees all over the dominion. They are

The Address-Mr. Ralston
composed, just as this house is composed, of those who believe in conscription and of those who do not, but they have sunk their differences to help Canada. I am more than grateful to them for what they have done in connection with recruiting and for the support which they have given to the officers of the department, both at headquarters and in the districts.
Here is the record. I have said already that 422,000 young men of Canada have voluntarily enlisted in the armed forces since the war began up to the end of 1941. Enlistments for the year 1941 alone were:
Navy	 13,088
Army	 99,803
Air force	 69,475
That gives a total for 1941 of 182,366 men who enlisted voluntarily in our armed forces.


An hon. MEMBER:: In active service.


James Layton Ralston: In active service. In January the total enlistments were:
Navy	 800
Army	 11,713
Air force	  5,772
Total	 18,285
You can hardly say, Mr. Speaker, that the voluntary system has failed1. Let us not forget that these enlistments have come not under the patriotic fervour which casualties produces, but at a time when because of comparative inactivity it was naturally harder to convince our people that the army needed men. We at national defence headquarters are going right on, and I ask most sincerely for the active interest of the members of this house and of the citizens generally to back up our efforts.
I have faith in the success of the voluntary method if we all do our part. With the background and traditions which this country possesses, and which it would be folly to ignore, I prefer the voluntary method if it works, and I shall do all I can to make it work. At the same time, we cannot know what is ahead and I feel impelled to say- here I can speak only for myself-that if the voluntary system does not meet the needs of the fateful days before us, then I shall feel it my duty as part of my responsibility to advocate the adoption of the other method.
I want to ask: what is the alternative to the plebiscite which those who complain about it would suggest? What is the alternative to this plebiscite? I think it is suggested plainly that it is to put conscription into effect immediately, regardless of pledges and regardless of the way in which the
voluntary system is functioning. My conviction is that an attempt summarily to put compulsory service for overseas into force, especially when enlistments are good, would obviously, apart from any pledge, have caused a deep and almost irrevocable breach in a country which up to the present has stood almost unbelievably united. And to do it in the face of the fact that the government was expressly pledged not to do it without consultation would only have deepened and widened that breach. I have seen the necessity for freedom of action, and I have seen the difficulties too. I have hoped that by asking the country for a release of the pledge in this time of crisis we would avoid disruption which would be sure to follow the breaking of the pledged word. I agreed to this plebiscite in that spirit. I believed that it was worth the time and effort and money which the plebiscite involved, to hold this nation together, not only for the future, but also for the present when Canada needs the combined strength and will and purpose of all her citizens.
This reference to the people is neither shocking nor sinister; it is a part of democracy. This request by the government to be relieved of restrictions will impress on Canadians everywhere the fact that Canada must be prepared to face effectively whatever comes. It will bring home to them the fact that this war is not just the war of Britain and the United States, of Russia and China and the united nations. It is Canada's war and the war of every man and woman in the dominion. Wherever they may be, our troops will be fighting for the safety of Canadian homes and for the security of our free institutions. By this I mean, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, which we have enjoyed so long that we seem to have taken them for granted.
I hoped devoutly that this method of approaching the matter would result, in a united acceptance by Canadians of the possibilities which the war may involve; and in spite of the tumult and the shouting, I am not going to give up that hope yet. The winning of the war to avoid slavery must be the supreme consideration to all of us. The farther away from our shores we can keep the war, the less our peril will be. Our common danger requires us to work together for the safety of this dominion. We have too much to lose to pull apart now. Any honourable measure which will help to keep us together is worth trying if there is time, and I believe there is time for this. That is why I have agreed to it. That is why I support it.
The Address-Mr. Ralston

We boast of being a nation. I believe that an affirmative answer to the question which will be put is necessary, not only to give the government the freedom of action which any government of a country at war in times like these must have, but also to meet the test of nationhood which we Canadians will face in these coming weeks.
Nationhood requires unity, and unity in Canada requires tolerance and confidence between the different races of which we are composed. The government, whether all citizens like it or not, is the only medium through which unity at this time can be expressed. It can be expressed in an affirmative answer to this plebiscite.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What if
it is not?


James Layton Ralston: Here is where we all can meet on common ground to put on the government the full responsibility for effectively prosecuting the war.
In the uncertain days which lie ahead, in this time of the gravest crisis in the world's history, I earnestly hope that my fellow Canadians, whatever their mother tongue, will curb extreme views on any side; will place on the shoulders of the government the responsibility which it is ready to take; will see the need to unite to meet a common danger, and will meet this test of nationhood and strengthen the common cause of our survival together as a free people.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all congratulate the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) upon his discourse this afternoon. He is one of the able ministers for whom I have great respect. I do not agree with all the views expressed by him this afternoon concerning this plebiscite. Speaking in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had this to say, as reported on page 32 of Hansard:
Whether the government, all circumstances considered, has applied the principle of national selective service as rapidly and as extensively as it should have been applied, is also a fair subject for debate.
In my humble opinion a statement from a responsible minister on the policy of the government in connection with man-power for agriculture, industry and the armed forces in Canada is long overdue. I have received many letters, resolutions and petitions from my constituency, from people of different political affiliations, asking me to urge this government to take immediate action on the matter of national selective service and an all-out war effort. I have sat in this house and listened to some

seventy-six speeches in this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Some forty-six members of all groups have expressed themselves against the taking of this plebiscite, while some thirty have spoken for it. I realize that these numbers may not indicate the results of the votes which will be taken on the amendments, because many hon. members who will not speak will vote as the party whip dictates.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray) upon the stand that he took in this debate. He certainly had the courage of his convictions. I should also like to compliment the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). There were many other members who spoke as they did and, in my opinion, placed the welfare of the country ahead of party considerations.
To me the taking of the plebiscite seems a most unwarranted evasion of government responsibility. This is very well borne out by an editorial appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press of November 25, 1941, headed "Election? Referendum?" I need not point out to the members that the Free Press is consistently a supporter of the King government, and I think I might almost say that they worship the Prime Minister ahead of almost anything else in this country. The editorial states:
While few developments could be imagined which would compel an appeal to the Canadian people on issues arising from the war, there is nothing in present circumstances which make this either desirable or proper.
If the government, which must accept full responsibility for military policy, is agreed upon the course that ought to be followed and can command the support of parliament, there is no need either for an election or referendum.
This argument, we contend, holds good irrespective of the nature of the policy which the government may pursue. It rests upon the firm unchallengeable foundation that the parliament of Canada cannot be bound by anything which seeks to limit its power when the exercise of this power in a particular form is necessary for the effective protection of the country's highest interests and perhaps of its very existence.
It is said that the people gave the members a mandate not to apply conscription. The accuracy of this statement can be questioned. The question was not in issue at the election of 1940 and consequently there was no registering of opinion for or against. But if it had been an issue and if a definite majority had rendered a decision one way or another on the basis of conditions as they existed at the moment of the election, the soundness of our contention would not be affected a whit.
For this reason: Parliament is a sovereign body charged with the gravest responsibilities and vested with unlimited power to meet these

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
responsibilities. If parliament, to meet emergent responsibilities as the result of new conditions, changes its policies, its action falls within the ambit of its duties and is therefore justified.
The contrary view derives from the theory that parliament operates with delegated powers and must keep within the limits of instructions given its members or engagements voluntarily offered by these members. Under this theory a member may be nothing higher than a jumping-jack operated by springs in the control of a local committee. This conception, pushed to its logical conclusion, destroys both the dignity and the power of parliament. The classic statement of the doctrine of the unrestricted sovereignty of parliament is that made by Burke to the electors of Bristol upon his election to parliament, November 3, 1774. His colleague, elected at the same time, having avowed himself subordinate to "instructions" from the electors-a question which had been discussed during the election contest-Burke took occasion to express his dissent and to assert the contrary view. His position was that a member of parliament was bound neither by the mandate of an election contest or by instructions transmitted to him by his constituents if in his judgment different counsels should determine policy.
Further on the editorial states:
If, therefore, the government and parliament are in agreement that a particular policy is necessary to the safety of the state, not only is an election not necessary but a resort to it could not but be injurious to the public interest.
An election could only be justified if a deadlock should develop in parliament making definite action of any kind impossible. An election would then become a desperate but inescapable expedient. The probability that any such state of affairs will develop at Ottawa is so remote that it is hardly worth considering.
The editorial goes on to assert the authority of parliament.
The Prime Minister, with his long list of broken pledges, probably more than those of any other prime minister of Canada, was going to reform the senate; he was going to close up the Bennett camps and provide employment for all the young men of this countiy. We all know what the young men in those camps did when they were closed. They had to ride the rods all across the dominion looking for employment.
During the last election campaign I personally listened to several radio broadcasts by the Prime Minister, and at no time did I hear him distinguish between conscription for overseas service and conscription. Throughout the whole campaign he said that, if he were returned to power, men would not be conscripted during this war. But since then we have had conscription for service in Canada. When young men were drafted for the thirty-day training period it was stated that they must be taught a sense of national obligation. I submit that where there is a lack of recognition in this respect it is solely the result of 44561-30
the policies of the Prime Minister over the past twenty-five years. In this connection may I quote a speech which he delivered in this house on foreign policy on March 30, 1939, as reported at page 2426 of Hansard:
One strategic fact is clear: the days of great expeditionary forces of infantry crossing the oceans are not likely to recur. Two years ago, I expressed in this house the view that it was extremely doubtful if any of the British dominions would ever send another expeditionary force to Europe.
One political fact is equally clear: in a war to save the liberty of others, and thus our own, we should not sacrifice our own liberty or our own unity. Planning and coordination would be essential, but the necessary coordination could he made, and if this government were in power it would be made, without sacrificing those vital ends and conditions of our existence. Profits could and would be rigidly controlled, and profiteering suppressed. But men's lives and men's wills cannot be put on the same basis as goods and profits. The present government believes that conscription of men for overseas service would not be a necessary or an effective step. Let me say that so long as this government may be in power, no such measure will be enacted.
The Prime Minister and certain of his lieutenants have preached this doctrine especially to the province of Quebec. [DOT] Within the past few days we have had enunciations by Premier Godbout of Quebec, by the federal Minister of Justice, Mr. St. Laurent, who was elected yesterday, and by others, to the effect that the Prime Minister will never have conscription in this country. Again the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lizotte) stated in this house on February 5 last, as reported at page 367 of Hansard:
Personally, since the last war and consequently for the past twenty-five years, I have been opposed to any form of compulsory service for overseas. This way of thinking has been inculcated in me by the leaders of my party, who have persuaded me that Canada should be my first and foremost consideration. Laurier, King and Lapointe have always refused to entertain the idea of conscription for overseas service.
The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) is reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 20, 1941, as having spoken the night before in Winnipeg and opposed conscription. The report is headed "Crerar Opposes Conscription," and a subhead says "Does not believe it is" the best contribution Canada could make to win the war. The report goes on to say:
He expressed his disagreement with the request of the Canadian Legion for forty divisions in the army.
The Canadian Legion did not ask for this. The minister is reported to have been present with other members of the cabinet when the Canadian Legion presented their brief to the

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)

government last October. Therefore, why should he make that statement and misrepresent the Canadian Legion?
The Winnipeg Tribune, reporting the same speech, says:
Attempts have been made to show that proponents of an all-out war programme for Canada want to conscript vast numbers of soldiers at the expense of Canada's industrial effort. This is nonsense. Hon. T. A. Crerar was raising a straw man of his own making when he directed his arguments concerning conscription against this.
In particular, the Canadian Legion does not propose mobilization of Canadian man-power simply to increase the armed forces. It demands, rather, that mobilization of man-power should be undertaken immediately in order that our resources of man-power may be used for our needs, whether in the field of agriculture or industry or in the fighting services.
An editorial appeared in the Swan River Star, a paper which has supported on several occasions the election of Hon. T. A. Crerar in his riding of Churchill. It is rather lengthy, but it points out that if this government have not the conviction and resolution which are necessary, it is their plain duty to make way for men who have; that the responsibility is upon the government, and that a plebiscite at this time is ridiculous. In view of this statement, is the minister now going to campaign in Manitoba for conscription, or where does he stand on this issue?
The Hon. J. T. Thorson, who is Minister . of National War Services and, I think, might at times be termed minister of political propaganda for this government, is reported in the Montreal Gazette of December 2, 1941, as having spoken against conscription and stated that it might decrease our war effort. On February 3 last, as reported in Hansard, page 264, Mr. Thorson said that our enlistments were "quite satisfactory." But according to the Winnipeg Free Press of February 4, military district No. 10 reports a sharp decline in recruiting in the past week, and that the previous Monday registered the lowest figures of any Monday since August, 1941.
Will the Minister of National War Services now campaign for conscription in Manitoba, or where does he stand in this matter?
Hon. J. G. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, and one time Minister of National War Services, in a reconsecration week broadcast, on September 12, 1941, said:
We can muster a million men for our armed forces, and still have seven million people over sixteen years of age left in Canada. These seven million, properly organized and determined to stand behind the armed forces, can operate all our farms, our factories and places of business in a manner which will give us the production required.

May I add that on the basis of Canada's armed forces in the last great war we should have, according to population to-day, in the present war approximately one million men in the armed forces.
Hon. J. L. Ralston, Minister of National Defence, speaking in this chamber on November 5, 1941, as reported1 in Hansard on page 4415, stated that there was a definite falling off of enlistments:
... in the last four months ... we have asked for 37,000 odd, and something over 24,000 have actually enlisted.
On January 30, during this session, as reported at page 183 of Hansard, the minister again implies that there is now a great need of man-power in the country. His remarks occurred during a speech by the hon, member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Why, Mr. Speaker, are all these diverse views expressed by four different ministers of Canada's war cabinet at this particular time?
When Mr. Churchill recently introduced his man-power bill in the British House of Commons extending compulsion to men up to fifty-one years of age, and to women, for the auxiliary forces, he said:
The crisis of equipment is largely over and an ever-broadening flow is now assured. The crisis of man-power and woman-power is at hand and will dominate the year 1942. This crisis comes upon us for the following reasons:
The great supply plants have largely been constructed; they are finished: they must be staffed.
AVe must maintain the powerful mobile armies we have created with so much pains, both for home defence and foreign expeditions.
Mr. Roosevelt says that the United States needs men. This, in contrast to the argument to which we listened from the previous speaker. Speaking in Boston in October, 1940, he said:
And while I am talking to you, fathers and mothers, I give you one more assurance-I have said this before but I shall say it again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign war.
Let me now quote from the Winnipeg Free Press a statement by President Roosevelt in the course of his speech to congress of January 6:
"We shall carry the attack."
We cannot wage this war in a defensive spirit. As our power and our resources are fully mobilized, we shall carry the attack against the enemy-we shall hit him and hit him again wherever and whenever we can reach him.
We must keep him far from our shores, for we intend to bring this battle to him on his own home grounds.
American armed forces must be used at any place in the world where it seems advisable to engage the forces of the enemy. In some cases

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
these operations will be defensive, in order to protect key positions. In other eases, these operations will be offensive, in order to strike at the common enemy, with a view to his complete encirclement and eventual total defeat.
American armed forces will be on all the oceans-helping to guard the essential communications which are vital to the united nations.
American land and air and sea forces will take stations in the British isles-which constitute an essential fortress in this world struggle.
Those forces, Mr. Speaker, have now taken their place in the British isles. In this connection, imagine the enemy invading New York or Seattle with an eye to coming to Canada: in our present position we could not send our forces across the line to assist the United States. To me this, at the present period in the war, is a most ridiculous state of affairs.
On November 10 last I spoke in this chamber, as reported in Hansard, page 4210 requesting the government immediately to put into effect national selective service for agriculture, industry and the fighting forces. I asked for that, in view of the progress of the war up to that particular time. I also asked that such service should be applicable to any theatre of war. Yet members of parliament are still asked to shirk their duty on this great issue, and at the same time the uninformed public of this country are to be requested to vote on a meaningless plebiscite. In this connection I ran across a letter in the Ottawa Journal of January 30, which is a striking indication of what the government may expect from the people of this country if the plebiscite is taken. It reads as follows:
I saw a picture in your paper the other day of Hon. Mr. Dunning congratulating his son on getting his wings. His pride in his boy struck me, because I have sons too. I can share his pride-and his anxiety.
But I don't know whether, when the decisive moment comes, I shall have the heart to vote thousands of fine young Canadian boys into this war when I think of the slaughter in Russia-the end of everything in this life for millions.
Or whether I shall remember Dunning and Churchill and vote so that I shall not be afraid to look them in the eye.
The Journal comments:
The damnable thing about this plebiscite on compulsory service is that thousands of mothers and fathers will be asked to make a similarly pathetic choice, to make it without guidance from the men who have been elected as leaders of the people in a terrific world mess, to make it without clear knowledge of the appalling facts.
Evading the decision, many will doubtless refrain from voting at all-and by that very lack of action indirectly instruct Mr. Mackenzie King under no circumstances to put compulsory service into effect.
I admit, sir, that I am greatly concerned at what may happen at that time. It may be difficult to get out a large percentage of the voters. It must be remembered that at election time, in spite of the tremendous amount of money which is expended and the great efforts which are put forth by the various parties, little over fifty per cent of the voters can be got out. How in the world are we going to obtain an all-out intelligent expression of opinion, by people who are uninformed, at a time like that? I feel very keenly that we as members of parliament are shirking our duty in this respect. We have yet in this country a party government prosecuting the war, a government returned under what is, in my opinion, an antiquated electoral system whereby fifty-three per cent of the electors who voted returned over 180 members out of 245.
The Prime Minister himself was elected in his riding by a minority of the votes cast. Patronage is still rampant at this stage of the war, no matter what some members may say in that regard. Only yesterday, February 9, an appointment was made in my constituency by the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) on the recommendation of the defeated government candidate in that constituency. I am of the opinion that we should have a parliamentary investigation into the Department of Munitions and Supply. Very serious charges were made by the toon, member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) almost a year ago concerning the Winnipeg cordite plant, but an investigation has been refused. Just the other day it was announced by the Minister of Munitions and Supply that the policy in future would be that further contracts would not be announced to the public, and the manner in which huge sums of money will be spent will be unknown to the people'-a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The Truman report submitted to the congress of the United States on January 15 is a most interesting parallel to what might be brought to light in this country. Hundreds of millions of dollars of government money is given in the way of capital assistance to industry, ninety per cent of it in Ontario and Quebec, and this has greatly intensified economic difficulties throughout the rest of Canada. In my opinion, industry should be spread throughout Canada, especially when the taxpayers of the country are putting up the money to assist these industries.
Let me say a word about agriculture. As we are all aware, last week about 440 Saskatchewan farmers spent a couple of days in this capital city. They came here armed with great petitions asking for a parity price for wheat. I need not remind hon. members that,
44561-30*

The Address-Mr. Ross (Souris)
along with all other members on this side of the house, I have consistently, ever since the outbreak of the war, advocated a parity price for all agricultural products. Certainly with a profit guaranteed industry and with the present status of wages guaranteed organized .labour, on the basis of equity, agriculturists are entitled to a parity price. I am also satisfied that something must be done about agricultural help for farms in many sections of the country. There are many deplorable cases at the present time. The present haphazard Way of calling men for the draft is unsound and uneconomical from the nation's point of view, and in many instances it causes a real hardship for many older people on the farms at this time. There must also be developed a plan for agriculture in this country -something which to-day is lacking.
I trust that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will in the very near future announce a policy and a price for the 1942 wheat crop so that the fawners can begin planning their 1942 operations. The Minister of Agriculture stated this afternoon that there were certain difficulties in the way while the debate was going on on the speech from the throne. I would point out that a vast amount of business has been done in the last two or three years by order in council, and I am not so sure that, under this policy enunciated, a good deal of business will not be done by order in council while the house is sitting, as was done a year ago this spring. There is therefore nothing to prevent an announcement of the proposed policy for these people in order that they may begin planning for the coming year, and when we could debate it at a later stage.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have already announced, in view of the criticisms of last year, it is the intention this year to bring the whole policy down by way of legislation.


James Arthur Ross: I am pleased to have that answer from the minister. We have certainly made some headway.


Ernest Edward Perley: When?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was announced' a month ago.


James Arthur Ross: There is one other item I wish to refer to. I was impressed by the speech delivered last evening by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Cassel-man). I was interested' in her argument with regard to the plight of old age pensioners in Canada. I was greatly disappointed when last fall the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) laid out his plans for the cost of living bonus for

certain other people in the country, that something was not done for these pensioners. It is unfair to expect these old people to live decently on $20 a month at this time. They are entitled to a dollar a day. I think they should be given better consideration. Many of these people were pioneers and have done a great deal to help to develop the country. In old age they find themselves bereft of the savings which they may have laid by for the evening of life, and in my opinion the state should give them some consideration. I hope the government will see their way to do more for these people during this session.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) : Every member who has risen in his place to take part in this debate has done so, I am sure, with a great sense of responsibility; for the course of events which will shape the destiny of the whole world may come within the next few months. The future of the people of Canada depends to so large a degree upon the realization which Canadians have of the danger to Canada itself, and it depends upon the way we go as Canadians to meet the danger.
War at the present time is world war. It started with the flickering lights of a small beer parlour putsch, but the conflagration which is now spreading the whole world over has assumed gigantic proportions, greater than those of any war at any other time in the world's history. To-day it is not a war of nation against nation; it is a war of the peoples of the world against a new imperialism, an imperialism whose heart, or core, or nucleus, so to speak, is centred in Germany. In German imperialism, then, within this heart, this nucleus, lies the plan for world domination over all peoples and all races.
Democracy, that overworked word, which apparently means many things to many people, is threatened from every point of view. However you look at it, whatever it means to you, it is threatened by this new imperialism. In times of great danger the thoughts of people instinctively turn to methods of escape. In a forest fire the animals do not stop to fight among themselves; you will find the panther and the deer running side by side, the coyote and the rabbit doing the same. To-day, in this world fire which threatens the nations, there is no time for any groups, or people with different ideas, to stop and quarrel among themselves about what should be done. We are different from animals; we do not flee from this world conflagration; we turn to fight it. But to-day it means that people holding different ideals must, for the time being, forget their own particular aims and interests, and turn and unitedly fight the fire

The Address-Mrs. Nielsen
which threatens them. There is a realization by all groups and classes, all religions and all creeds in Canada to-day, that our existence as a nation is threatened. I believe also that there is a growing unity in this nation, becoming stronger as the weeks and months pass, and a determination to make this a national effort in a measure that it has never yet been.
There is no time now for recriminations over the past. There is no time for us to quarrel or discuss among ourselves who is responsible for the present, state of affairs. There is no time for us to argue as to whose fault it is that German imperialism to-day has the strength and power which it has. The job of every man or woman is to get into his or her place to fight it. Mr. Churchill himself has expressed that idea very neatly-he is perhaps the world's greatest phrase-maker. He said not very long ago:
There is no time for the present to quarrel with the past, lest there may be no future.
I have said that I believe unity to-day is growing in Canada, and the results we heard last night of the by-elections tend to prove that to-day there is realization by the Canadian people of need for greater unity in this country. Our differences of racial origin or creed or politics are small compared with the national danger. To-day we must think as a nation and not as members of any one small group to which in the past we may particularly have adhered.
It is true that on the issue of conscription there are differences of long standing; deep-seated differences. But there is such need for understanding now that Canada's position is different from what it has ever been in past wars. If I had my way I should like to banish that word "conscription" from our vocabulary, because of its past associations. It is a word which has been used for petty political purposes, and thereby a stigma is attached to it in the eyes of some of our people. Instead of using that word, why not speak of democratic mobilization? Conscription, after all, is a democratic means whereby men can be rallied and put together in a fighting cause.
Might I use a very homely illustration? Some years ago a farmer asked me if I knew anything about hogs. I did not know a great deal, but I said, "Well, maybe a little." He said, "Could you tell me why it is that in winter time when the little hogs are let loose to run around the fields they go and burrow into the sides of the straw stack?" as they do sometimes in western Canada. I thought that was quite simple, and I answered glibly enough, "To keep themselves warm." The old farmer smiled a little and said, "I am afraid
you do not know much about little hogs. Each little hog burrows into the side of the straw stack to keep himself warm. One little hog going in alone would not keep himself warm, but if fifteen little hogs get into the straw stack each burrowing into it for the purpose of keeping himself warm, the heat which is generated from them all keeps them warm."
It is a long way from little hogs to nations, but I would say to-day, Why is America fichting? She is fighting to defend herself. Why is China fighting? To defend herself. Australia? To defend herself. The people of the U.S.S.R.? To defend themselves. The people of the British isles? To defend themselves. The people of Canada? To defend themselves. And the twenty-six United Nations, who to-day have joined in this pact, are all motivated by the same desire, to protect themselves as nations from the menace which threatens the world. Alone any one nation to-day would be powerless before the onslaught of German imperialism. We have seen the small nations of the world tiy to stand alone. But if we, along with the other twenty-five nations of the world, put everything we have into the fight, the power which is generated by all of us will be sufficient to rid the world forever from the menace of imperialism.
Optimism is a good thing, but false optimism does not help a nation to get on its feet and make its best effort. Not long ago Mr. Churchill, when he spoke in the chamber of the house of representatives in the United States, .warned them. He said that the power of the enemy is immense, that Hitler still has control of the greatest accumulation of weapons, equipment and supplies that has ever been gathered under one command. The German production of aluminum and magnesium, two metals essential for both aircraft construction and incendiary bombs, was greater than the combined production of Britain, the United States and Canada right up to the end of 1941. It might be interesting to quote the figures which have recently been presented by the United States bureau of mines, giving an estimate of the amounts of various minerals which are controlled by Germany through her control of Europe at the end of 1941. Germany controls 47 per cent of the world's total coal output, 44 per cent of pig-iron, 46 per cent of iron ore, 27-5 per cent of manganese ore, 10 per cent of chromite, 11 per cent of tungsten, 2-5 per cent of nickel, 7 per cent of copper, 33 per cent of zinc, 25 per cent of lead, 19 per cent of antimony, 50 per cent of bauxite, 47-5 per cent of aluminum, 66 per cent of magnesium, 42 per cent of mercury and 7 per cent of
The Address-Mrs. Nielsen

molybdenite. These are the figures for Europe only, besides which Japan has big ore industries and huge stocks of strategic materials. She has recently seized territory rich in oil, tin, tungsten and other materials.
When I think of this question which at the present time is so paramount in the minds of Canadians as to whether or not we shall have democratic mobilization or, in other words, conscription, I feel that the French-speaking people of our nation, because of past associations, would have a right to question it, if they have not realized the difference in the world situation to-day. I would have agreed with them during the last war and other wars that it would be better not to have conscription, But to-day the French-speaking people of Canada must realize that they are not being asked to go and defend Australia, they are not being asked to give their sons to die for China, they are not being asked to have their sons conscripted to go to foreign soil to die for the sake of communism; or-something which perhaps to them is just as abhorrent-British imperialism. The French-speaking people of Canada are to-day asked to realize the grave necessity which may arise. Although to-day the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) filled us with hope that perhaps the present voluntary system will carry us some time further, yet the French-Canadian people must realize that there may come a. time when their sons may have to agree to a form of conscription, democratic enlistment, for the defence of Canada, even if they have to go outside the shores of this country to defend Canada. The loyalty of the French-Canadian people is second to none in Canada. They have a history of which we are all proud, whether we speak their tongue or not. In the years which have passed, their contribution to Canada has been marvellous and magnificent. They would be betraying their splendid past if they did not realize to-day that the necessity may come for their sons to go beyond our shores to defend the soil of the Canada they love so much.
I believe some French-speaking members in the house, including the hon. members who sit to my left, have agreed that they, and others of their nationality, would be pleased to have their sons defend the shores of Canada. But are we going to wait until the shipyards, factories and railways of British Columbia are smashed and completely gone? Are we going to wait until the ancient and beautiful city of Quebec is a smouldering mass of ruins? What then could a little nation of eleven million people hope to do to defend the soil of Canada? It may be necessary for these French-Canadian sons, the same as Anglo-Saxon,

Ukrainian and all other sons of Canada to go outside our shores. We may have to conscript them. But let them realize that, if this becomes necessary, it is done to protect the soil of Canada which contains their past and which alone holds the key to their future.
I believe that if the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), recently elected, during his election campaign had spoken a little more definitely to the people of French Canada, and had told them that in future it may be necessary to go outside our shores, he would have done a greater service to Canada. Following his election campaign, I noted that he made very little mention of the fact that we may have to adopt that kind of conscription. Had he been just a little more truthful with the French-speaking people I believe they would have appreciated the changed situation, and would have gained a greater knowledge of the necessity for their uniting with other Canadians.
Hon. members know perfectly well that I am no defender of government policy. I never have been-not since I have been a member of the house. As I have seen it, government policy has been disastrous for many of those whom I represent. Yet I realize that the plebiscite represents an attempt on the part of the government to preserve the unity of Canada and to give the French-speaking people an opportunity to realize the difference between conditions to-day and those of the past. It has tried through the plebiscite to bring about a recognition of this changed situation. Because of that, I support the idea of the plebiscite. 1 support it because I feel it is in the greatest interest of all Canadians that we should have the government free, should necessity arise, democratically to take the young men of Canada and, if necessary, place them outside the shores of our country for the defence of our homeland.
The sooner the plebiscite can be taken, the greater safety we shall be able to attain. I would certainly hope that during the Easter recess members of the house would go out among French-Canadian people and try to make the issue clear to them. I would urge them to do that, so that we may have a one hundred per cent affirmative reply to the question of the plebiscite, a reply united from one side of Canada to the other.
Reference was made to-day by the Minister of National Defence to General McNaughton's visit to Canada. I cannot imagine anything which could be of greater value to General McNaughton than to be able to return to England and say to the Canadian boys over there, "Canada is solidly, one hundred per cent behind you and has expressed by its reply to the plebiscite its readiness to relieve

The Address-Mrs. Nielsen
the government of past commitments and to go along with the government, if needs be, in what must be done in the future. Canada is ready to stand beside you." If General McNaughton were able to take back that message, he would certainly have something that Canadian boys in England would be glad to hear.
Perhaps because I am a woman I look at things from a practical viewpoint, but I have some thoughts I should like to place before hon. members. These days we hear a great deal about unity. Hon. members rise in their places and talk about unity. Many appeals are being made to our people for unity. Any father or mother must know that example is better than precept. There is no use in telling your son not to smoke cigarettes if you are smoking a pipe; it is no use for a mother to tell her daughter that she must not drink and smoke if the mother drinks and smokes herself. I say that we, as representatives, should set an example for the people of Canada. Here we have an opportunity greater than we have ever had to show our people that their representatives in the House of Commons are united.
Last night hon. members sitting on the benches of the official opposition received a definite understanding as to whether or not the people were agreeable to the acceptance of their proposals. Would it not be a worthy gesture on the part of the official opposition to take a leaf out of Wendell Willkie's book, a man who was an American first and a Republican second. Could you not be Canadians first and Conservatives second? In deference to the ideal of unity and for the sake of setting an example to the people of Canada, could you not at this time withdraw your amendment? Could you not do that? It would be a great thing not only for you but for the whole of Canada, were you able to do it.
There is also a subamendment, with which I consider that ninety per cent of the people in the country are in agreement. I agree with it, and I believe many hon. members on the government benches, at least to some extent, agree with the proposals contained therein. We know that to carry on this vast war effort we must enlist the material wealth of the nation. We have to take it, if it is necessary to do so. I am going to make another proposal, and I trust it may not be misunderstood by those of my friends in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group. The people of Canada know that the subamendment has been moved; they know its contents. If hon. members in the C.C.F. group would make a similar gesture and
drop their sub-amendment, not with the idea of giving up for one second the principles embodied therein but for the sake of unity, they would be acting for the benefit of the whole nation. I would say to my hon. friends in that group and to those in the Social Credit group, that we who sit in this block will continue to fight to see that wealth is used as it should be used, for the benefit of all. We can do that specifically every time a bill involving the wealth of the nation is brought before the house. Would it not be a worthwhile gesture, so that this first motion of the session might be passed unanimously on all sides, if both the amendment and the subamendment for the time being might be withdrawn? It would be an example.
The most important point in the speech from the throne was the need for increased production, so that the people of Britain and the Soviet Union may have all the material required when the spring offensive is made, as we all expect it will be made, as soon as the weather is sufficiently mild.
To-day there is a realization that in connection with production it is the brains of the ordinary men and women who work in our factories, our mines and our mills; it is their initiative and their cooperation which alone can speed up production and bring it to the peak of one hundred per cent perfection. No one knows better than the men who are on the job what should be done. I have been receiving communications and resolutions from various trade union bodies. It is apparent that in their own particular factories they are undertaking to devise ways and means whereby a greater output can be accomplished. If only the labour forces of this country could be granted a little more of the partnership idea with industry in production, I feel convinced that production would go up by leaps and bounds.
To-day labour is asking for partnership with industry in production, not because labour is demanding merely on its own behalf a share of what the pickings might be, far from it, but because the men and women who form our labour forces realized long ago the danger of fascism. They started to fight it long before this government ever took up the case of democracy against fascism. These men and women who work are anxious to have partnership with industry in production. They are asking that they be given this because it is by that means alone that production can really be brought to its maximum.
I know that in many instances industry is afraid to give certain rights and privileges to labour because it might interfere with its profits, with its way of looking after industry.
The Address-Mrs. Nielsen

But surely the time has come when the leaders of industry in Canada must realize that in war time nothing is run as usual. Life does not go on as usual; business does not go on as usual. They must make adjustments the same as the working people.
In Kirkland Lake a decision was recently arrived at by the miners that they would go back to the mines. For weeks these miners have been obeying to the very letter the laws of this country, but they have been demanding that they have union recognition. The government has taken the stand of being neither for one side nor for the other; in reality that is nothing but a policy of appeasement to the gold-mine owners. Other workers in steel and other industries realized the importance of the fight going on in Kirkland Lake, and they threatened further strikes in sympathy with the miners there. Rather than see industry throughout Canada dislocated, the miners of Kirkland Lake decided to go back to the mines. They have set an example; they have created a precedent; they have negated their own particular wishes and desires and rights because they valued first our national war effort. That is an example, not only to labour itself but to industry. It should be realized that our national needs come before the needs of any one particular group.
If labour could be given a greater share in planning production and in helping to make it efficient, things would go better. Instead, we have these dollar-a-year men who are able to direct the production of this country. The senate defence committee at Washington, after an investigation lasting one year, reported that the dollar-a-year men in that country were still working in the interests of their employers. Evidence from the trade unions in Canada would indicate that the same thing is happening here. Instead of having these dollar-a-year men in key positions with the interests of their employers constantly before their minds rather than the interests of the nation at large, if we could set up a new ministry of production to coordinate production in all the various branches of industry we might have production which was really in the best interests of Canada's war effort instead of a production controlled by any one group. So much for the labour forces.
What of the farmer? It does not seem that the delegation which came to Ottawa has received a great deal of attention. I know, however, that all lion, members were aware that it came here. I noticed in the Ottawa Citizen of January 31 a small item in Mr. Bishop's column. I know Mr. Bishop usually writes a good resume of what goes on in the house, but I could not help taking exception
[Mrs. Nielsen.)
to one sentence which he had at the end of a small paragraph dealing with this delegation. He said:
The wheat farmer has the idea that other farmers, not to mention war industry, are' doing well and they want to get in on it.
There never was a greater lie spoken about the western wheat farmer than that. As a group they have canned on magnificently in the face of the greatest hardships. They have never counted the cost or the loss to themselves but have gone on contributing in such ways as they could because they believed it was their duty to do so. In coming here to ask for parity prices, they did so, not because of any desire to get in on the pickings but because they realized that unless they could get parity prices for their products, they would not be in position to give as much to this war effort as they wanted to.
The production of food is coming more to the fore. Quite often I receive a little leaflet from the United States entitled, "Facts for Farmers", and published monthly by the Farm Research in New York. In this particular copy there is an article which outlines the tremendous increase in food production which is planned by the United States. I quote:
The administrator of the surplus marketing administration, Roy F. Hendrickson, recently declared in Georgia:
"The reasons for this increased production- of nearly everything outside cotton, wheat and tobacco-are growing. British needs are increasing; Russian needs are coming significantly into the picture. Domestic requirements are expanding. On top of all this, the place of reserves, of stockpiles ready for areas now conquered, when they can cast off Hitler's stranglehold, are being seen more clearly-a staggering total."
The SMA administrator cautioned against complacency and added:
"Many persons have come to assume that, these goals will be attained. Instead, a very real possibility exists that we will fall short of many of them-even though food production and marketings next crop year will be the largest in our history.
As the need for farmstuffs increases, the shift from the former policy of reduction to the policy of all-out production will become more marked. In England bonus plans have been adopted to encourage greater farm production. Though the President recommended such a policy six months ago and congress appropriated one and a quarter billion dollars for this purpose, only a few programmes of this sort have yet been formulated."
When this government begins to realize the contribution which the farmers of our country can make toward victory, then we shall be taking another step forward in this great effort of ours.
It is said, and I suppose it is true, that the allies are making broadcasts to the people of

The
Address-Mrs. Nielsen
the conquered nations of Europe. Suppose you were one of these people, maybe a person living in France, Belgium or one of the Scandinavian countries, or in the city of Vienna, and that you loathed the hated axis forces and their domination over your country. Maybe you were a factory worker and had work within your hands day by day which you knew was important. Suppose over the short-wave you heard the voice of the allies speaking to you, and that voice said, "People of the conquered countries, do what you can to sabotage the war effort of Germany. If you are a factory worker, see what you can do to impede and restrict the factory production. If you will do this, if you will help to overthrow the axis powers, the allies will help you afterwards to establish freedom and democracy." Oh, I know that would be a fine thing. I remember the days when I was pretty hungry, yet all the time I never lost my idealism for freedom and democracy. No. But suppose you were hungry and one of the conquered peoples of Europe, and that over the short-wave you heard the voice of the allies calling to you and saying, "People of the conquered countries, do what you can to impede and restrict and hal^ the war effort of the nazis. Do what you can to sabotage their plans. Help the allies to win, and as soon as the allies have won, before we even take our armies away from your country, we will load our boats down to the water line with food for you. We will send you good wheat to make white bread, and we will send' you red meat and eggs and bacon and sugar and all the other foods that you need," You know, Mr. Speaker, the instinct of selfpreservation is the strongest instinct that lives in man or woman, and they will do much to eat and to give food to their starving children. If we can build up surpluses of food within this nation and have them ready to give to these people when they are ready to help overthrow the regime which now occupies their country, we would have a weapon in our hands and, think of it, the most marvellous weapon any country could have or any people could have, a weapon which would bring life instead of death.
We need the planned production of food. I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has a good head on him. I would not deny it; he must have, to be able to fool the farmers all these years and get away with it. But, on the basis that two heads are better than one, I would say to him that the time has come when we should have a gathering of all the farm bodies in Canada. Let them plan. Let them know what the requirements of Britain are going to be. Let us correlate our
plans for food production with the plans of the United States. Let us see that in this western hemisphere we build up huge stocks of food which will be a weapon for victory in our hands and help us to bring the peace we so much desire.
But, we are told, there is no money for that.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that there must be money for these things. They are essential, just as essential as are the munitions which the armed forces need. Not only are they necessary for the people of the conquered countries, but we need increased food production for our own people. If we are to keep healthy and strong our industrial army, we must see that we have no rationing but plenty of everything that is needed for them.
Not only in the production of food should something be done. Plans should also be made to see if the farmers of this country could perhaps go into some Other branches of farming which might be necessary at this time. ( I do not know to what degree the United States has gone ahead with the production of synthetic rubber, but I believe that already some of the states are going ahead with it. To what degree could our Canadian farmers grow dandelions or sow-thistles? Many of them have plenty of these weeds already, and, if synthetic rubber can be made from these weeds, would it not be well to give our farmers a chance to develop that production?
Then there are the soya bean and various other crops to which our farmers could turn in a time of crisis like this, besides going ahead with their ordinary routine. Every day it becomes more evident that Australia may be cut off from us. I know that silk stockings are very nice to wear and to look at, but we can do without them. In this country, however, we cannot do without woollen clothes. There, again, is something our farmers could turn to-increase their flocks of sheep. These are only a few things because, in a speech of a general nature such as this, I have not the time to go into details. But were we to have a conference of all the farm , bodies in Canada, I believe that a comprehensive plan could be worked out which would give our farmers the feeling of really belonging to the war effort, and which would place in our hands a weapon for victory.
There is the question of labour. That question comes up whenever one thinks of agriculture. Perhaps there is a solution of that problem. I know already that high school and university students are again going to help in the fruit-picking areas. I would suggest that in certain areas the boys in the army might also go out and help. After all is said and done, I have heard that in many areas
The Address-Mrs. Nielsen

the boys are fed up with being restricted to their routine bit of drill and so on, and at certain times of the year they certainly could and would enjoy helping in some farm operations.
There is the question of women. I have been reading recently quite a little about the women's land army in Britain during the last war and in this war. I am convinced that women could help to fill the demand for farm labour. I have been veiy much disappointed myself to find that my services cannot be accepted with the armed forces. It is too bad, but I happen to have three children, and because I have three children I cannot go into one of the women's services. Personally, I think that is one of the most idiotic regulations ever made by men. There are numbers of women whose children could be cared for very well and whose services could be used in our war effort. But I would suggest that, since that avenue is closed to me, it might be possible for me to devote some of my time and energy to organizing and mobilizing a women's general service corps. There are a thousand and one things that women could be doing right here and now to release young men for the armed forces and for other work. Take the staffs of the various large hotels in the cities, for instance; streetcar conductors, drivers of delivery vans, milk trucks, grocery and vegetable vans. The women are doing this work in Britain, and they could do it here just as well. Women could also be sent to various farm areas to help milk the cows, make cheese, drive tractors and combines, and help with other farm work. Mobilize these women. Give them a strong, sensible, useful sort of uniform and let them do the job that they are anxious and willing to do.
I called up a little while ago and found out that applications to enter the Canadian Women's Army Corps number around 19,000, and yet we have only about 3,200 in uniform. There are hundreds and hundreds of other women who could be mobilized into a general service corps and who would be ready to work so that men could be released for other services. Many a young married woman could, shall we say, drive a delivery van in the morning in the city and go out for a certain number of hours. Maybe she has children, but they could be taken care of. Some of the older women, perhaps some of the wives of the pensionless ex-service men, could be given a job and the children could be kept in a pleasant place for a few hours and minded while their mothers went out to work. If we are going to have total war, let us have it. 
Do not dally with it any longer. The women of the nation are ready. Let us give them something to work at, and if my services can be used in the mobilization of such a women's service corps I shall be only too pleased.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. member's time is up. She can proceed only with the unanimous consent of the house. I take it that unanimous consent is given.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is one other thing which is of great importance and cannot be neglected, and that is the health of our people. I have spoken of this before, but again it is necessary and must be mentioned. I have no idea as to what standing committees are to be set up, but I shall feel that this government has seriously neglected one particular branch of war service if it does not appoint a standing committee on health. There never was a time when such a committee was more necessary. We learn from the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) himself that on any one day in Canada alone fifty thousand industrial workers are not in their places in the machine shops, the factories and elsewhere, because of sickness; and, according to him, the number of man working days lost through industrial accidents and sickness in 1941 came to the startling total of over seventeen million. We could set up factory clinics, we could have more health services, but only if a committee is formed and we have a government ready to get this thing started. It is such a waste of time, of man-power, of energy, to have our people lying sick at home when, but for the lack of a little medical care, or maybe a little better food, they could be at their benches or their desks, in the mines or at the shops, contributing what they have to give.
There were several figures I wished to quote with regard to national health, but as time is passing I shall have to reserve them until another occasion. One point which, however, I cannot omit is the necessity of the government not only setting up clinics but seeing that a health committee of this house is started to definitely find ways and means of giving our people medical attention and suitable food, for food is a very necessary part of maintaining health. I think we should see to it also, before this session closes, that minimum wage laws are passed applicable to the whole length and breadth of this country. Such legislation would particularly benefit the underpaid workers in the province of Quebec, lifting them to the general level of the rest of Canada,

The Address-Mrs.
Nielsen
improving their health and their morale, and perhaps helping to cement that feeling of unity which to-day is just a little strained.
Just one further remark on the subject of unity. We still have discrimination against some of the minority peoples. There is much I should like to say on this matter, but time will not permit. We have in this country a group of Ukrainians who are sympathetic to their Ukrainian brethren who to-day are fighting one of the finest battles the world has ever known. Yet this group within our country has had eighty-six of its halls confiscated and some of them have been sold to another group of Ukrainians who have been misled for years by leaders sympathetic to Hitler and German imperialism. It does not seem logical or even possible that such things can still be. If the Ukrainian Labour Farm Temple association had back its eighty-six halls, it could carry on great activity in support of the whole war effort. Already these people have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to war charities. Give them their halls and the opportunity to carry on entertainments and other activities and they will render a contribution which we shall be very glad to receive. It is ghastly to think that these people are denied the ordinary privileges and rights of citizens when they are sympathetic to an ally whom we recognize to-day, that they are still under the ban in this country and are called disloyal and unpatriotic, and are not allowed even to have their own property. It is almost unbelievable.
I wish to refer to another matter related to rallying and keeping people in this country united in the national effort. This morning I visited the spokesman of the men who are interned in the Hull gaol. I read the other day a reference to a very interesting item in the New York Times. It is short, and I should like hon. members to listen attentively while I read this report:
The New York Times correspondent in Singapore reports that communist party leaders, "just released from prison," attended a public mobilization meeting there, and that the party will have ten of the sixty members on the mobilization council. N ewsweek reveals that up to the outbreak of war in the far east, the party was illegal, "and every week members were caught and sentenced to six months* hard labour." Now, Newsweek says, "without any legal rectification, the communists are welcomed as loyal supporters of the British cause," and manifestos for an all-out war are published by them in the ilocal papers.
It can be suggested that the readiness of the Singapore authorities to welcome the cooperation of the communists is a measure of the
gravity of the Malayan situation. If this is so, it may also be suggested that the Canadian government's refusal to welcome the communists' assistance indicates the Ottawa authorities* unwillingness to do everything that can be done to mobilize this country for victory.
The Canadian Seamen's union is trying to enlist six thousand young seamen to go into the merchant marine-a dangerous and difficult job, for which a young man needs to be well versed in the ways of the sea. The union is not having all the success it would like in obtaining these six thousand men, and I will tell you why-because the president of the union is interned in the Hull gaol. If he were free, I should like to guarantee to hon. members that this man Sullivan could recruit six thousand men for the merchant marine. If this is an all-out war effort, you cannot afford to neglect the help of any single man or woman who is ready to do something to enlist the sympathies of the people.
In the camp at Hull there are some young French-speaking Canadians who would be willing to go out and rally their own people; but there they are, making trinkets, doing little odd jobs to keep themselves amused, while this country has to keep them in idleness and support their wives and children. It is almost unbelievable that to-day the government persists in a policy of that kind.
I have overstepped my time considerably, but I cannot help stressing, in conclusion, that if the government wants to keep up the morale of the. Canadian people it must enlist all the people and give them their chance to work in this war effort. It must satisfy the men in the armed forces that their fathers and mothers, their wives and children are being taken care of. I should like at this time to support the plea which was made the other evening by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman) on behalf of old age pensioners. It is the government's duty to satisfy our Canadian soldiers that the cause for which they fight means that their wives and children will live in a better world. So much can be done to improve morale if the help and sympathy of all kinds of Canadian people, irrespective of creed or politics, is secured. This government can unite Canada, as no government has ever been able to do, for the greatest effort which she can make. I say to them, if you will let the people have an opportunity to fight this war and win it, not only will the people of Canada fight and win the war, but they will build a land wherein every man shall live in security, with freedom, and in perpetual peace.
The Address-Mr. Fleming


Mr. H. R. FLEMING (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, there is little need for me to take up the time of this house in. congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. That has already been done very capably. This house has been treated to oratory, both English and French, in almost the grand manner, and it is something in this modern world when so many people are articulate. I can only record my appreciation of the way in which the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) conducted themselves.
Before, however, I turn to the serious matters confronting this house, perhaps I might be permitted to spend a moment in paying tribute to a great Canadian. It has already been the melancholy task of certain hon. members to recall the memoiy of the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. I take liberty of associating myself with their sentiments, and to them I would add the thought that when the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe was in this house, members were in the presence of greatness. It was a greatness based upon courage and faith; for, as Cicero says, a man of courage is also full of faith. Our late colleague was such a man. His courage was ever equal to the problem before him. Let us emulate that courage. Let us each possess such a brave heart; for victories are won, not by shining armour, but by brave hearts.
Turning to the business that has been occupying this house now for many days, the discussion of the speech from the throne, I would throw out this observation with regard to a fact that seems 10 have escaped perhaps some hon. members. We have been regaled by many, many speeches, the contents of which, if hon. members will recall, have been mostly about conscription. I am wondering whether many of these speeches had not been prepared some time in advance, with the notion of springing them on the house and stirring up a hurricane round that word conscription; then when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) brought down his plan for a plebiscite, these hon. gentlemen had been caught slightly short, and rather than prepare new speeches they decided to continue on their predetermined way. That they are not without selfish motives is beside the issue; that they are obscuring the trend of this debate is hardly to be denied. But, then, clarity of our public issues does not mean the same to all men. I suggest to the house that the reiterated arguments about compulsion for overseas service cover, as

the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said .this afternoon, only a small part, and a very small part of the problem of our maximum national support of our war effort. Indeed, it is not too much to say that such arguments cover but a relatively unimportant part of the whole problem.
The object of the hon. members who have been so vociferously eloquent in their arguments is quite clear. They want to thrust their way through, and in the confusion that might arise some of them might gain places on the treasury benches. It is a time-worn argument and a time-worn device, but by grace of the wise leadership of the Prime Minister and the government of Canada, it has been frustrated in such a thoroughgoing manner that the hon. gentlemen, I am sure, must to-day be quite furious, because yesterday the people of Quebec and Ontario spoke. They have spoken in no uncertain manner.
It is a just punishment to those who would put obstacles in the way of our total war effort; for that is exactly what this hullabaloo about conscription for overseas service is doing. By pushing such arguments into the forefront of discussion in this house, and thus into the forefront of newspaper columns and the forefront of discussion in the humble homes all across this great Dominion of Canada, the entire thinking of the country is being shunted on to a side-track and away from the main issue; and that is exactly what hon. gentlemen wish to have done. They want to gain by the discord-the Meighens, the Hepburns, the Drews, and that long list that one could put upon the pages of Hansard.
But, Mr. Speaker, let us put this matter in its proper perspective, and that -will be done by calling the attention of hon. members to various documents. In the first place, may I refer to a speech made before the Canadian club in London, Ontario, recently by the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Claxton), one of the new members of this house. He drew attention to that benighted word "conscription." He said:
The word conscription has come to be identified with compulsory overseas service, and the discussion of conscription in this sense tends to concentrate attention on that feature of our war effort to the exclusion of everything else.
I suggest that the word should not even be used. It has become a symbol, or rather two symbols; and symbols are potent emotional forces. Among some Canadians conscription has become the symbol of total war effort; for other Canadians with just as deep a love of their country the word has long been the symbol of racial domination. These symbols get in the way and prevent the matter from being treated on the facts and not on the emotions. The

The Address-Mr. Fleming
word should be avoided because it is emotionally charged and focuses attention on only one aspect of the war effort and puts it out of proportion to everything else.
I suggest that this is a most accurate understanding of the problem. Selective service is a modern expression for conscription, and an hon. member who spoke here gave another expression this afternoon. I think that it is the duty of every public speaker to use this expression. It is more than a duty, because it would be more accurate to speak of selective service. It selects. It puts those most fit for specific jobs into those jobs, and according to Canada's National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940 that selection is designed to apply to more than military service. Conscription instead of selective service! What a bedevilment on the part of those whom we credit with enough intelligence to think more clearly, to speak more lucidly, and to act more wisely. Have we been too charitable to those people who would go out through the country, and to those newspapers throughout the country? Have the Prime Minister and the government been too charitable to those people, the Hepburns, the Meighens and the Drews? Conscription! Where is the word in the three paragraphs of the speech from the throne referring to the plebiscite? Since that is the pivot around which everything in this discussion in the house is revolving, it would not be out of the way first to recall to this house what these paragraphs are:
My advisers believe that the magnitude and balanced nature of Canada's war effort is being obscured and impaired by controversy concerning commitments with respect to the methods of raising men for military service which were made prior to the spread of the war to all parts of the world.
The government is of the opinion that, at this time of gravest crisis in the world's history, the administration, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, should in this connection and irrespective of any previous commitments, possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise.
My ministers accordingly will seek, from the people, by means of a plebiscite, release from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service.
The issue is just as simple and straightforward as the wording in these paragraphs indicates. Could anything be more clear? The Prime Minister and the government and many members of this house have publicly declared that it would be a mistaken policy, unjust and short-sighted, to impose compulsory military service for overseas. A given set of circumstances obtained then. They were circumstances, when these commitments that the
Prime Minister-and not only the Prime Minister but other political parties-made, that rendered such commitments not only advisable in the national interest at that particular time, but as the Minister of National Defence said this afternoon, advisable in the interest of national unity. They were also advisable due to the nature of the war and the situation as it existed at that time. But these circumstances have now altered; and the government, as is honourable and proper and natural, wishes to know whether the electorate which put it in power is willing to release it from those pledges made at that time. There is nothing more in the plebiscite than that, no matter what sort of murk some hon. members may try to throw over the issue.
If there be any argument about this plebiscite, it is certainly not an argument about "conscription"-I put the word in quotation marks. Rather, it is an argument as to the wisdom, justice and probity of holding the plebiscite, and I suggest that there can be no doubt in- the mind of any reasonable man of such wisdom, justice and probity. It is wise, it is just, it is honourable. If the government and hon. members who have associated themselves with these commitments are to be released from them because the circumstances have changed, then the only thing and the only people that can release them is the electorate of this dominion. That is the best, quickest, simplest and most effective way of finding out the wishes of the people. We should not be befuddled by- newspapers which sometimes we think represent public opinion, such as the Toronto Globe and Mail, or the little Ottawa journals which change their minds from day to day and have no stated policy in their editorial columns.
May I draw attention to certain editorial comments on this plebiscite from various Canadian newspapers, both Liberal and Conservative, from all across this country. Their editors should be congratulated upon their fairness and insight.
The Hamilton Spectator says:
Mr. King's course should appeal to all even-tempered persons as a reasonable one. .	.	.
After all there is no safer tribunal in a .democracy than the people themselves.
The London Free Press says:
Under all the circumstances . . . the decision which has been reached is both understandable and dependable. If wre are to have a plebiscite this is the best form it could take.
The Lethbridge Herald says:
The government appears to have taken the democratic course.
The Address-Mr. Fleming

The Toronto Star says:
In proposing a plebiscite Mr. King is no doubt taking the course which he thinks will result in maintaining national unity to the greatest possible degree.
The Regina Leader-Post says:
It cannot be denied that broad political considerations are involved which many may be inclined to overlook. Sound government is a science with Mr. King as well as a shield. His remarkable sagacity has stood the nation in good stead before. His action in this instance may very well turn out to have been the wisest course.
The Winnipeg Free Press says:
We are confident the plebiscite can command the measure of support for the proposition of giving unlimited power to the government- power so decisive it will settle this question finally without an aftermath of bitterness, provided those who favour the result consolidate their efforts and activities to bring it about.
Note the qualifications of the Winnipeg Free Press editorial:
.	. . provided those who favour the result
consolidate their efforts and activities to bring it about.
There is also another qualification. That qualification may be found in the editorials of other Canadian newspapers. The Saint John Telegraph-Journal says:
Let us hope the plebiscite will be carried out with a complete lack of bitter argument and debate .	.	. The gravity of the situation
demands extraordinary measures.
The Peterborough Examiner says:
Let the plebiscite come, if it has to, and let us get over with troubled weather and press on with our titanic job.	Too much time and
energy spent in wrangling over the issue will be be an unpardonable waste.
The Halifax Chronicle says:
The Canadian people will give a clear, decisive, unequivocal answer. Let us get the plebiscite out of the way, behind us, and forgotten, at the earliest possible moment.
I commend the admonitions of these editors to hon. members and also to sundry gentlemen who have already lost or are in process of losing their perspective on this important matter, and who use such terms as "un-British", "autocratic", "cowardly", and all the rest of the epithets that have been hurled against it.
I think this sums up what is most apropos concerning the forthcoming plebiscite. It is clear that many agree that the step is wise, just, honourable; it is also courageous. As the Toronto Star said editorially the other day:
The curious charge is made against Mr. King that he shows a "lack of courage" in holding a plebiscite. Courage to what? To break his pledged word, evidently: to break it without securing a release from the electorate to whom his pledge was given! That would be a poor kind of courage which any man might be proud to lack.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
(Mr. Fleming.]
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVILEGE-HON. MR. HANSON



LIMITATION UNDER MOBILIZATION ACT WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE OVERSEAS

Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. This afternoon when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) was making his speech relative to the limitation imposed by the National Resources Mobilization Act with respect to service overseas, he made this statement:
The present leader of the opposition was in the house at the time; he took no exception to that limitation. His only suggestion was that the act might be extended to service in Labrador. And he and his party supported that measure with that restriction in it.
I interrupted to say:
Did I not say I was prepared to accept that as a halfway measure?
I am reading from the transcript of this afternoon's proceedings. It continues:
Mr. Ralston:	I am quite satisfied my hon.
friend used no such language.
I interrupted him again. Then farther on the minister said:
He should look at the record-
Referring to myself.
-and he will find that his colleague, the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) suggested that the act be extended to Labrador, Iceland and Newfoundland, and that he himself suggested that it be extended to Labrador. I do not think he will find anywhere in his speech any suggestion that that was a half-way measure, or any suggestion that he was in any way opposed to that restriction being inserted as it is in the act to-day-with that exception. He and his party supported that measure without division and without adverse comment, too.
I now desire to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of the house to the first column on page 857 of Hansard for June 18, 1940. On that occasion I was speaking after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had spoken announcing the introduction of the National Resources Mobilization Act. I was referring to what had occurred on the Monday previous, when my colleague and I had called on him. This is what I said on that occasion:
Specifically I recommended three things. . . .
And then I went on:
Second, that this government propose now to take authority to mobilize all the man-power and all the material resources of this nation for the aid of the mother country and for the defence of Canada.

Privilege-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
Afterwards, when the bill was in committee, I stated, as reported at pages 913 and 914 of Hansard for June 19, 1940-and I am giving only brief excerpts:
I should like to emphasize the fact that the bill is purely and simply enabling legislation, and while it falls short of what many people in this dominion think is necessary and have been demanding, yet on balance and on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread at all, we on this side of the house are prepared to accept the principle of the bill and to accept the measure for w'hat it is worth.
And again, on the second column of page 917:
I tell the Prime Minister it has not been easy to support the principle of this bill, having regard to the volume of representations I had received beforehand in favour of something more far-reaching, and the protests I have been receiving this morning that we should still have something greater. But as I said before, for the defence of Canada if for nothing else I am willing to support the principle of this bill; because half a loaf is better than no bread.
The reference to Labrador is contained! at page 917 of Hansard, after the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) had been speaking. I backed up his suggestion to include the provision of the bill for service in Labrador. I might say that the minister's research department has let him down.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to inform the Minister of National Defence of the observations of my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have already told him about it.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Alphonse Fournier for an address to his Excellency the Governor General in reply to His speech at the opening of the session, and the amendement thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury), and the amendent to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Harry Raymond Fleming: Before the house rose at six o'clock I had quoted editorial opinion across Canada in connection with the plebiscite to be held in the near future. It is obvious that the hon. gentlemen who object to the plebiscite have been slightly out of touch with the affairs of the nation. Results of the little general election held yesterday I am sure prove that fact conclusively. That is a regrettable fact, and also an ironic one. It is our privilege, as a free people, to elect a free parliament and a free government. It is also our privilege to criticize those whom we have chosen to govern us. To make
criticism orderly, we have his majesty's loyal opposition. But opposition is something entirely different from obstruction and the use of intemperate language. According to the true Canadian ideal, opposition means help to the government by way of constructive criticism.
I would call to the attention of hon. members passages from a little book recently published, "So You Want a War Job," by Charles Clay, which came to my attention the other day. From pages 81 and 82 I read the following:
Loose, perverted, malicious criticism of Canada's war effort can be just as subversive in its effects as statements intended to cause disaffection or statements intended to prejudice recruiting, both of which carry stiff penalties. Such criticism attacks public confidence, undermines morale, produces friction.
The point is to avoid the stupidity of destructive criticism; it invariably degenerates into fault-finding or cynicism, the first productive of general furore and the second productive of individual dismay. It is folly to seek relief from war-economy injuries by wild comment that lacks basis in fact.
Uninformed disparagement is as bad as deliberately destructive criticism; it usually takes the blossoms from the tree along with the caterpillars. As Disraeli once said, "It is much easier to be critical than to be correct."
Those paragraphs will bear the attention of the hon. members in question. Instead of informing themselves of Canada's war effort, they are criticizing, I believe from inadequate information. Not only that, they are allowing their lack of understanding to eclipse the main issues. A recent issue of a weekly newspaper, The Prairie Messenger, published at Muenster, Saskatchewan, in my constituency, carried the following editorial in its issue of January 29:
It is extremely important in expressing opinions on the plebiscite to keep to the point.
The editorial concluded:
Throughout all discussions on the plebiscite we must, of course, be on the alert against antiplebiscite campaigners who hint that Canada has not been doing its part in the war effort with the other parts of the empire. The best answer to any such hint is Prime Minister Churchill's comment on our war effort. He used the word "magnificent". Under the leadership of Mr. King Canada has proved her loyalty to the empire, standing second to none. The coming plebiscite is in the mind of the present government the wisest way not only to a continuation but also an intensification of that war effort.
This is a very important question to be kept in mind at this critical time. Just at this point may I bring to the attention of hon. members another phase of criticism, namely, that against certain people in our country who are not of Anglo-Saxon racial origin. I recall that upon returning to my
The Address-Mr. Fleming

constituency after the close of the session last summer, I found that nothing had been done by way of organization in connection with recruiting. There were many loud-mouthed super-patriots who are found all over the countryside, and who were howling for conscription. I discussed the matter with some of these gentlemen, and they said, "None of these people would enlist around here; none of those who are of German racial origin would enlist." Finally I took the matter up with General Foster, the officer commanding that military district, and discussed the problem with him. He sent us a group of five or six military men, and we set up a recruiting centre in charge of Sergeant H. K. Warren, a member of the legislative assembly for Saskatchewan, and one who has differed from me on political issues for a long time. We worked together all summer to organize the district. I must offer the greatest praise to Sergeant Warren and this band of men for the assistance they gave. They did not go around saying, "oh, the voluntary system is no good; what we should have is conscription." Instead of that, they went out and discussed the matter with the people throughout the district. The last report I have is that seventy-eight per cent of those who enlisted voluntarily in the army-I am not speaking of the air force or the navy-were of German racial origin. The voluntary system will work, but it will not work if you go out and tell the people it will not. I hold in my hand a letter which I received from a young Canadian of German racial origin. On December 20 he wrote as follows:
Dear Dr. Fleming:
Kindly dropping a few words which I wanted to see you sometimes. I was in December past twenty years on twenty-first, of age. I would please you to write to the national of registration to Regina they should give me a call for the 8th of January. If I would get my call then I sure would go on active service. I wanted to go to Humboldt and join up but my old folks wouldn't let me go. They say if I get my call to Regina than I could join up. I am six feet high, 170 pounds, pretty good in my health. Please help me to get my call for the other month. I surely would like to be in the uniform.
That letter is typical of the youth from that particular district. It shows how this particular group of people are thinking at the present moment. They have absolute confidence in the administration. I should like to read another short passage from page 93 of Mr. Clay's book:
As a matter of cold fact, European-Canadians constitute over twenty per cent of our population. The overwhelming majority are Canadian in consciousness and sentiment. They have enlisted in the C.A.S.F. in goodly numbers,
fMr. Fleming.]
they support our national war effort in many other ways. And most of us do not deserve much credit for their fine performance. As Mr. N. S. Campbell pointed out:
We Anglo-Saxons have failed deplorably in our duty to our newcomers. Aside from opening our schools to their children we have left them severely alone. They have had to acquire for themselves, by the system of trial and error, a knowledge of democratic institutions and of the machinery by which democracy is made to work. The surprising thing is that democracy has won their loyalty in spite of our indifference.
As I stated before, these people have complete and implicit faith in the pledge that was given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). What would they think if that pledge were broken before the electorate of this country had a chance to say whether he should be released from his pledges? I think it is only fitting that I should make a few references to the man who has led us so far in our total war effort against nazism and whose energy and vision have contributed so much to our ultimate victory. Fortunate it is for the British empire that we have a Churchill to lead us in our dark hour of peril. Fortunate it is for the United States that they have a Roosevelt. Fortunate it is for us in Canada that we have a William Lyon Mackenzie King. History has produced great leaders in the past, but none greater than these three. It is upon the shoulders of Churchill, Roosevelt and King that the gigantic task rests of once more making this world constructive and progressive.
Canada's Prime Minister is not only one of the greatest friends that Canada has ever known, but also one of the greatest friends of true peace. He is one of the greatest friends the empire has ever known. It was largely because of him that the friendly relationship which now exists between Canada and the United States was brought into being. I remember as a boy when I grew up here in old Ontario there was considerable enmity between Canada and the United States. You heard it in the schools and on the street. The cry weis, "No truck or trade with the Yankees." That was heard on the highways and by-ways of those days of long ago. What position would we be in at the present time if that same cry was being heard, or if we followed what this Toronto clique is always preaching?
The leader of our nation in this time of war has been wise unto sobriety. He has undertaken and already partly executed a gigantic task. As a result, Canada is going forward, not only toward a military victory over all her enemies but also to a new and better social order after the war. A grateful Canada to-day salutes a great government headed by

The Address-Mr. Fleming
a great Canadian-William Lyon Mackenzie King. He is the leader of this House of Commons, but he is far more than that. He is a devoted patriot, devoted to his country's cause.
I should like to say a few words about Canada's total war effort, and about the lack of truth there is in the charge that Canada is not sufficiently engaged in a total war. Those who say that are inadequately informed. Many steps have been taken to place Canada on a total war basis, and other steps are being taken every day to see that our economic and social machinery is geared up. That is a most important point. It would be folly to race our organization at the start and then have it break down at. the crucial moment. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) went into the total war effort in considerable detail this afternoon. His remarks are on the record, so I shall not go further into that at the present time.
There has been considerable criticism of the government's plan for the post-victory period. The amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and his followers reveals a woeful lack of information about what is going on right under their noses. Here is something they have not seen yet. What do these hon. gentlemen think the restrictions placed upon consumer goods of all kinds mean? They certainly mean more than a present diversion of materials, equipment and man-hours from non-essential, home-front manufacturing to essential, fighting-front manufacturing. They mean that an artificial shortage is being created in literally scores of important consumer goods so that after the victory the men who have been working in war factories will not be out of employment. From the making of machine guns they will turn to the making of typewriters, from the making of bomb-sights to the making of radios, from the making of flares to the making of frigidaires. I could go on down a long list of articles.
All along the line this government has taken steps to create war machinery that has peacetime uses. It is post-victory preparation of the most practical kind. Hon. members who are so much concerned over the post-victory economic life of this dominion could make better use of their energies by supporting some of the measures brought in by this government, rather than by shouting so loudly against them.
Since time is rapidly passing, I would recall to the house that in speaking on the budget the first time I had the honour to speak in this
historic chamber, not many years ago, I stated in reference to my distinguished leader, as reported at 2682 of Hansard of 1936:
The Prime Minister's is a leadership that is indigenous to the soil from which have sprung the cardinal principles of Liberalism. It is a leadership provocative of initiative in thought and action among his followers, a leadership which welcomes independent views on the many problems which are pressing for practical solution. It is a leadership which recognizes the political principle enunciated by Edmund Burke over a century ago, a leadership which would call out, from the more circumscribed affairs of constituency interest, the best in both thought and judgment that the representative is capable of giving in the broader field of national affairs. It is a leadership that goes further in encouraging us to study not only national problems, but international issues. It is a leadership that expects us to bring to our discussions and our deliberations the most advanced views on every question pertaining to the nation's welfare.
Those words, Mr. Speaker, are as true to-day as they were when they were uttered a good many years ago before the present world crisis. His leadership stands to-day before the bar of public opinion. Five times he has been elected Prime Minister by the people of Canada. He is not afraid to face an issue, and that is the reason why he is appealing to the people on this plebiscite to release him from the pledges that he made at the last general election.
What could be fairer; what could be more-democratic? And yet we have heard such violent language as "cowardly," "dastardly," "un-British" and unpatriotic" which have been hurled even across the floor of this house and throughout the country. It might be well for those who are attacking the right hon. leader of the government to remember the words of our imperial leader when he spoke a very short while ago of those who would wish to destroy the Prime Minister. Mr. Churchill commends Canada's leadership as he said, "in every field of our common endeavour." Our right hon. leader has not played the wretched game of party politics, and we might well use the language that Mr. Churchill used in addressing our Prime Minister, after dealing in the British parliament with a group of obstructionists who were out to destroy him. He said on that occasion:
At this time, when the utmost efforts of every nation are required for victory you have again made plain to the world that all the resources and energies of Canada are to be counted upon in support of the fight for freedom.
We should indeed be proud that we have such leadership. He has kept this country united from one end to the other. He has not broken faith with any of our people; and, being proud of his leadership, we should not
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

place upon him the terrific task of having to fight political battles in this house, in newspaper columns, and throughout the country, at the same time that he is giving his all to Canada's great war effort.
In conclusion, I should like to use the words which the Prime Minister himself used many years ago when referring to the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier at a time when the political vultures of that day were out to destroy him. He said:
His strength may be lessening with the touch of time but his honour stands as unshaken as an oak amid a winter's blast. He is a man Who never sold the truth to serve the hour, Nor palter'd with Eternal God for power; Who let the turbid stream of rumour flow Thro' either babbling world of high and low: Whose life was work, whose language rife With rugged maxims hewn from life.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I desire to congratulate the mover (Mr. Fournier, Hull) and the seconder (Mr. Macdonald, Brantford City) upon the excellent manner in which they ushered into this session the time-honoured motion that an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General. On previous occasions since the war began it has been the custom at this time to review the activities of some of the departments which have been involved in war work, and among those was usually included the Department of Agriculture, which has to do with the activities of farmers in different parts of the Dominion of Canada in their efforts to produce food which is required in connection with the war. On this occasion it is not my intention to review the efforts of farmers throughout Canada to perform the task which has been assigned to them, and which is theirs because of the industry in which they are engaged, because the remarks that I have to make to-night I hope to conclude within the forty minutes which are allotted to me, and on some future occasion, when the opportunity presents itself to speak at greater length, I hope to review agricultural activities.
I have listened1 carefully when in my place and have reviewed the Hansard report of the periods when I have been out of the house during the session, and I have been pleased to note that less time has been taken in criticizing the administration of agriculture in the debate on the address this session than in any previous session, and more particularly the sessions since the war began. I suppose that if I were to attempt to outline to the house the reasons for that lack of criticism on this occasion, my remarks would not be

accepted as the real reason for the lack of criticism. But I have in my hand a copy of an editorial which was printed in the Ottawa Farm Journal, which has been in most issues since the war began, more or less critical of the policies of the Department of Agriculture. In their editorial of February 6, 1942, the first three paragraphs read as follows:
In contrast to the picture of gloom and dissatisfaction pictured by the prairie wheat growers who invaded Ottawa in numbers early this week was the general air of optimism and well-being which pervaded the meetings of purebred men at Toronto-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Must be York South.


James Garfield Gardiner: The phrase is not mine but appears in the editorial. It goes on:
-many of which are reported at some length in this issue. There was no gloom around the Toronto meeting, rather an air of comparative prosperity and satisfaction.
Even the western men who attended the Toronto live stock meetings were cheerful and gave glowing reports. The cattle and hog men from the very prairie areas where wheat men are depressed, had little of a critical nature to offer.
At all the meetings it was most noticeable that prices were hardly mentioned. There was considerable talk of labour shortages, but apparently the general view was that little could be done about this matter except to urge that at least key men on the farms not be conscripted or called up for army service.
The only comment that I wish to make on that editorial is that it outlines more concisely than I could do, and more acceptably perhaps to hon. members opposite than if I were to present them myself, the reasons for the lack of criticism at the present time in relation to agriculture. Prices of farm commodities, more particularly of those other than grain, are on a level to-day which is apparently accepted by the greater number of the farmers throughout the length and breadth of Canada as being more or less reasonable. In view of the fact that there appears to be general satisfaction with prices of live stock and live stock products, I am going to content myself at this time with thanking the farmers of Canada for having more than provided for every war programme placed before them since the war began. I do not believe there is another single industry in the Dominion of Canada that has, on every occasion that a request has been made of them to produce the commodities required, more than measured up to the request made; and every year since

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
the war began, the request made of the farmers of Canada has been a request which has been passed on to this government by the government of Britain, based on the necessities of food in Great Britain.
I should, however, like to say a word on behalf of the wheat growers of western Canada. There is reason, of course, for the different point of view of the farmers who met in Ottawa last' week, and the group of live stock men who met in Toronto. No one in this government, no one in this house, will dispute that those reasons exist. I find, however, that there is a growing feeling in western Canada that the Ontario and Quebec industrial and financial interests are against the farmers of western Canada obtaining more for their wheat; and it is only fair .to say that at no time have I heard any eastern industrialist or representative of eastern financial houses oppose western wheat growers receiving more for their wheat. I think it is necessary to state that in order that we may not at this time develop antagonisms as between different parts of Canada that would not assist us in our war effort. The fact is that eastern industrialists and financial interests know that the only way in which they can be paid what may be due to them from the west is, if farmers receive higher returns from the crops which they harvest.
There is, in the policy announced in the speech from the throne, every reason for western wheat farmers to expect to have their position improved, and from the same source as the position of every other branch of industry and agriculture has already been improved since the war began. Legislation having that objective in mind, as I said this afternoon, will be introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) and myself as soon as it is possible in this session to do so, and it is the intention that that particular legislation in so far as agriculture is concerned, and, I believe also, in so far as the Department of Trade and Commerce is concerned, shall be referred to a committee on agriculture in order that it may be discussed fully by the members of this house.
I wanted to say that with regard to agriculture before proceeding to discuss some other matters in which this house has been interesting itself during recent weeks. We have before us at the present time, not only the motion to which I referred a few moments ago, but an amendment and a sub-amendment -the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), and the subamendment moved by the house leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group
(Mr. Coldwell). The amendment as moved by the leader of the opposition appears at page 30 of Hansard of January 26, 1942, and is in these terms:
That the following words be added to the address:
"This house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers, instead of giving to the country the leadership so essential at a time properly described in the speech from the throne as the greatest crisis in the world's history, on the contrary, have sought to evade their responsibility by bolding a plebiscite, which, in the view of this house, is the negation of responsible government.
And this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have not seen fit to recommend to parliament without delay additional measures designed to
(a)	completely mobilize the wealth and material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man and woman power of the nation, to the end that the nation may wage total war in any theatre of war;
(b)	supply the imperative needs of agriculture, industry, and the fighting forces of the nation; and
(c)	prepare for the post-war period."
On page 55 of Hansard of the same date is the subamendment moved by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group:
That all the words after the words "this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers" he struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"have used the sweeping powers conferred by the National Resources Mobilization Act mainly for the conscription of men for home defence and in the opinion of this house no total effort adequate to meet the present needs of the war, domestic problems and the preparation for postwar conditions is possible without total mobilization of wealth, industry and finance, as well as human resources.
"Therefore this house respectfully requests that the forthcoming plebiscite should seek the support of the people of Canada for the complete and effective conscription of war industries, accumulated wealth and financial institutions, at the same time and on the same basis of sacrifice as the suggested extension of the conscription of man-power."
Along with the second or subamendment should be read, I think, the policy of the group whose leader placed that sub-amendment on Hansard a few days ago-the policy as laid down by the same leader in 1939 and reported in Hansard of September 9 of that year. With regard to the matter which is referred to here, this statement is made:
Canada should be prepared to defend her own shores, hut her assistance overseas should be limited to economic aid and must not include conscription of man-power or the sending of any expeditionary force.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

Then, section 3 of the platform as laid down, and placed upon Hansard, states:
No military participation overseas:	Any
attempt to send a force abroad would rob us of the man-power necessary for the defence of our shores and for home production, would gravely endanger national unity, would threaten our civil liberties and democratic institutions, and would ultimately lead to conscription.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in order fully to understand what the subamendment which was placed upon Hansard the other day means, one must have this alongside of it, read it along with it, and probably ask oneself the question, is it the intention of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, through their leader, in moving this particular subamendment, to ask the government to submit to the people of Canada a different question from that which is being submitted under the plebiscite, that they should be relieved, by the submission of that different question, from an obligation they placed themselves under in 1939? Or is it their intention to have us still leave this as the policy of the party as enunciated by the party itself and placed upon Hansard as the policy which was to guide the party throughout the war in which we are now engaged?
In proceeding, I think we should call attention to two or three of the phrases which have been used by those who have placed these two motions on Hansard.
The leader of the opposition, in replying, made the spearhead of his attacks upon the government an amendment in which he condemned the government for having attempted to evade its responsibility by holding a plebiscite which, he claimed, is the negation of responsible government. The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, while not directly condemning the plebiscite, proposed that in that plebiscite advice should be secured on the question- of total conscription. We thus have the two leaders, one stating that to secure the opinion of the people is the negation of responsible government, the other stating that the government should consult the people in a plebiscite upon a matter which might conceivably become a question to be considered and decided by the government at a later date.
Now that four by-elections have been held and decided since the address was moved, and the elected and defeated candidates have made their post-election statements, I think it will be obvious that the real reason for moving the amendment and the sub-amendment was to place before the people of two constituencies appeals which those placing them before the constituents thought would have the effect of
[Mr. Gardiner. 1
returning their candidates to this house. I think that will be agreed to even by those who moved them.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, we shall go on and see what the effect is. I do not think one would be justified in contending that either policy was favoured in any one of the four by-elections. It might appear at first glance that the policy enunciated in the subamendment of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was endorsed in York South.


Mr. MacNICOL:: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says "no," and I am inclined to agree with him. But it could be just as strongly argued that it was condemned in Welland where their candidate ran at the bottom of the poll, the same appeal being made in both constituencies.
Mr. Meighen attributes his defeat to the cooperation of the Ottawa Liberals and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I think it would be more correct to state that the Conservative leader and the leader of the government of Ontario, unintentionally it is true, conspired to elect Mr. Noseworthy. I have never heard that it is good political strategy for a candidate who is handed the support of a political party in a constituency to base his whole campaign on belittling the efforts of that party and its leader; nor has it ever been considered good political strategy to take into his bosom one who has no other reason for opposing the government of the day than that of personal enmity towards its leader. If Mr. Meighen had adopted the attitude, as was said this afternoon, of Willkie towards the government of the day, he would be at the present time the proud leader of a great political party in the House of Commons.
What has been the obvious campaign of those who chose Mr. Meighen to lead the onslaught? It began immediately following the last federal election and has been kept up ever since by a group centred in Toronto who are bent upon gaining control of the government in this war, as they did in the last, and by similar methods. Their first objective was to convince the people of Canada that conscription of man-power immediately for overseas is a necessity. While stating that publicly, it will be noted that in the amendment moved in this house the other day the word "conscription" is not used. The house leader has not even used the words "compulsory selective service." He uses the much milder term "selective basis" as applied to man- and woman-power. In the open, however, the

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
attempt was made to convince the public that conscription of man-power for overseas service is necessary immediately.
The next effort was to convince the public -and this is why, Mr. Speaker, I find it necessary to speak on behalf of myself and on behalf of those who sent me to this house

 the additional position, I say, was taken, in making representations, that two-thirds of the members of the government are in favour of immediate conscription, but are only held back by the leader of the party, supported by the French-speaking members of the cabinet and a few other personal friends.
For some considerable time I thought that the propagandist of the opposition to this government, who writes articles in that great periodical which is printed in the city of Toronto, known as Maclean's magazine, and who at the same time writes editorials in some newspapers in the dominion, would do me the honour of not mentioning me at all. But in the second last issue of that periodical he included my name among those who, he presumes, were ready to take certain action if the leader of the Liberal party and Prime Minister of this dominion did not do certain things.
If they had established these two facts, it was hoped that it could be made to appear that the only obstacle in the way of immediate conscription was the promise made by the Prime Minister personally, under the influence of members of the government, as was stated, from Quebec, in the election of 1939 in that province and in the general election of 1940, that there 'would be no conscription of manpower for overseas. It was stated in season and out of season that the only way in which we could get immediate conscription in this country, which it was maintained had been proved as a necessity in order to win the war, was that we should get rid of the Prime Minister of Canada and set up another government under some other leadership.
If this plan could have succeeded, it was hoped that the present Prime Minister of Canada could have been forced from his_ position and a so-called national government, with no past commitments, and therefore no obligations to anyone, established in its place. The Prime Minister, as he has done on previous occasions, accepted the challenge of those who are his opponents. He said: "All right; we will ask the people of Canada whether they are prepared to free this government from any pledges given and permit it to act as a totally free, responsible government in dealing with war matters."
The cry immediately went up from outside and from the other side of this house: "Wasting time; procrastination". Members of the government with sons overseas, it was said in editorials written in the newspapers, should rise up in their might and smite those who would delay at a time when the whole future of humanity rests upon the question of conscription in Canada of man-power for overseas.
Well, some of the ministers have given answer to that statement. My colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), speaking this afternoon and on previous occasions, has said that there is no immediate need for conscription of man-power for overseas. He has said that our voluntary enlistment of men up to date has provided us with the number of men that are required for all the services up to the present time, and that there are reserves ready to take the place of any who, for any reason, may be put out of that service. He stated to us that there is no immediate cause for bringing in conscription in the dominion in -order to get manpower. My colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), speaking the other day in the Welland by-election, and thus placing the issue squarely before the people before the vote was taken, said that there is no immediate need for conscripting man-power for supply as far as giving service to our people overseas is concerned. In other words, man-power was being obtained for the plants that are manufacturing the necessities of war, including the machines and munitions of war; and in so far as he knew, there was, as well, no reason for conscripting man-power to serve in the fighting forces overseas. I, as Minister of Agriculture, have stated that the only real difficulty having to do with help upon the farm is one which could not be improved by conscription but which, as a matter of fact, has been accentuated by the degree of conscription we already have.
I have been astounded in this house during this debate, listening to man after man, particularly in the official opposition, proclaiming that immediate conscription of men for the armies overseas is necessary; and then before they have taken their seats, stating that men on the farms should not be taken off the farms under the conditions of conscription that we already have. I am inclined to agree with the statement that the difficulty we are having in connection with labour on the farms of Canada to-day is threefold. There is the difficulty that exists about the industrial cities of eastern Canada, where men, because of better wages, have gone off the farms into the cities. There is the problem related- to the fact that on
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

70,000 farms old men and women over sixty years of age are on their farms alone, most of them alone because their sons went over in the last war and did not come back. These old people are without help.
This war in turn, under the conscription which we already have, is taking the young man who is as much a key man for agriculture as any key man in industry, namely the young man who is the natural inheritor of the farm, who does not think in terms of wages, whom wages will not draw to a factory. When such men are taken away, there is a real difficulty involved in connection with labour upon the farms of this country.
I am prepared to state that if the only thing desired is more men for overseas, more men can be secured now or at any time in the immediate future under the voluntary system properly applied than could be secured under the policies advocated in either the amendment or the sub-amendment.
We have had four by-elections, in which these views were presented before the four constituencies, and the vote was taken yesterday. In my opinion a number of things were settled in those elections in so far as the voters in these constituencies are concerned. When one considers the past history of the four constituencies, I think it is correct to state that on the same issues every other constituency in Canada would vote in much the same way.
The constituency of Quebec East is located at the historic gateway to central Canada. It has been represented in this house by two of Canada's outstanding statesmen, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. As a result of the poll yesterday it is now represented by another outstanding French-Canadian who is destined to write his name beside these other outstanding Canadians in the history of our country.
The constituency of St. Mary has been traditionally Liberal since 1896. It is located in the great commercial and financial metropolis of Canada. The constituency of Welland has a varied political history, sharing its allegiance between the two main parties since confederation. The constituency of York South has been consistently Conservative since confederation. It is located on the outskirts of the most imperialistic and Conservative-minded city in the whole Dominion of Canada.
. Two of these constituencies are almost entirely French-Canadian; the other two have few French-Canadians in them. One of them is among the most cosmopolitan constituencies of Canada, and in that regard is typical of

many of the constituencies in western Canada. Yet all four of these constituencies made decisions on a number of questions which were presented to them, not only by this government but by opposition candidates and others, including no less a person than the premier of Ontario who spoke on the side of Mr. Meighen and Mr. Drew.
The first thing they agreed upon is that conscription is not immediately necessary to a total war effort in Canada. I cannot conceive of any constituency in Canada at the present time casting a vote which the voters believed not to be in the interest of a total war effort by Canada. These constituencies, all four of them, with their varied interests and varied history, voted first that they agreed that conscription was not immediately necessary to a total war effort by Canada.
The second thing they agreed on is that a so-called national government is not necessary to the successful prosecution of the war. If any of my hon. friends are not prepared to accept that statement, then the alternative is that the present government is the nearest approach to a national government which Canada can have at the present time.
The third thing they agreed upon is that the pledged word of any public man, or for that matter any great political party, should be sacred and be withdrawn only when consent is given by those to whom it was pledged.
Two of the constituencies, namely York South and Welland, declared themselves on another question, which was not submitted to the two constituencies in Quebec. They declared in unmistakable terms that the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier was right when he said: "It does not do to cherish resentment in public life." I do not think anything could have been more clearly declared to the people of Canada than the truth of that statement.
I wish to discuss at somewhat greater length the second and third of these expressions of opinion. When Mr. Meighen was chosen leader of the Conservative party he stated that he was prepared to lead a crusade for conscription, which could be consummated only by a national government, in which he was prepared to serve. Mr. Hepburn and Mr. Drew declared their willingness to accept both his policy and his methods. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, federally, and provincially in British Columbia, and, I think, elsewhere throughout Canada, have declared in season and out that they would have no part in a so-called national or union government. The people of the strongest Conservative constituency in Canada, by an unprecedentedly heavy vote, have declared that they would rather do without

The Address-Mr. Gardiner '
Mr. Meighen, Mr. Hepburn and Mr. Drew than submit to either their policies or their
methods.
This government is the nearest approach to a national government which is possible in Canada to-day. It is led by the one man who can unite behind him and has united behind him the greatest number of people from coast to coast. The election of 1940 proved that; the Gallup poll of last week proved it; the elections of yesterday proved it, and the vote in this house on these amendments and on the main motion will prove that he can muster the strongest vote in this house of any man either inside or outside it.
That being the case, it is hard to understand what our friends in the opposition mean when they speak of responsible government. Responsible government is a government headed by the man who can command the majority in the House of Commons. And he is at the head of that group because that group can command the largest vote in the country. I would ask this question: If my friend's in the opposition either inside or outside this house are in favour of an all-out war effort, why do not these sniping politicians and "gold-diggers," as my hon. friend called them the other day, and their sabotaging propagandists, as my hon. friend over here called some others, listen to the voice of Canada and adopt the Willkie attitude, "he is my Prime Minister", until the constitution gives them an opportunity to show that a change is necessary?
If our friends opposite had been adopting that attitude throughout this war, in the two and a half years that have elapsed, their leader would not have been defeated by a majority of upwards of five thousand. The Prime Minister has stated that the by-elections have shown that the Canadian people do not propose to allow bad faith and the broken pledge to be erected into a principle of action in this country. It is because the Prime Minister and his government will not break their pledged word that the plebiscite is necessary. It is because the people of Canada know that the Prime Minister and his government will not lightly discard1 the pledged word of their party given under its two greatest leaders, Laurier and the present Prime Minister, that they will vote "yes" on the plebiscite when it is placed before them. They will place the responsibility squarely upon the government of Canada, led by the present Prime Minister, to prosecute this war to a successful conclusion, in so far as twelve million people can contribute toward that solution.
This government has only one desire, and that is to lead Canada forward in a united, balanced, three-fold effort, as was described to the house this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), to assist in driving nazism. and fascism from the world forever. If that desire is to be consummated, it can be done only by keeping as many as should be employed producing munitions and machines of war, by keeping as many as should be employed in producing food, but by refusing to allow either one or both under a selective or any other system to interfere with the placing of an effective fighting force in the air, on the sea and on the land, wherever required.
Mr. Speaker, to enlarge upon that slightly, may I say this: the Dominion of Canada, with its unlimited lands, could put every available young man in Canada to work producing food, and every bit of that food would be required some place before the end of this war. Just suppose that every last young man of military age taken from the twelve million population of this country with its unlimited natural resources in the form of minerals, in the form of timber, in the form of oil, in the form of power, could be put to work producing machines and munitions of war. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the policy of the C.C.F., as enunciated in September, 1939. We did not need to declare war to do that. Great Britain would have taken all the munitions that could be produced in this country; she would have had to. Great Britain could take all the arms we could make. Great Britain would have taken all the tanks, all the planes and all the food we could produce, if we had not declared war at all. When we declared war we only declared our intention to do one thing, and that one thing was to fight shoulder to shoulder with Britain and her allies until this war is won. And, Mr. Speaker, numbers in the army, numbers in the air force and numbers in the navy should compare favourably with the numbers from other countries, in proportion to the population.
I should like for a moment to deal with the British attitude and action in connection with conscription. British action in the last war in relation to Ireland, and their action again in this war in relation to northern Ireland, and south African action in the last and in this war, as well as Canadian experience in the last war and since, are indications that it is dangerous to come to a general academic conclusion about a matter such as conscription, and attempt to apply it to any country, without considering all the facts.
4S0
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

What are we trying to do in Canada? Are we trying to get as many men as possible to the front, or are we trying to satisfy our views on a theory? When we ask for leadership are we asking someone to try to stem the tide of unreasoned propaganda, or are we asking someone to climb on horseback, as King Richard did at the time of the peasants' revolt, and shout, "I am your leader; follow me,"- and then lead them somewhere they did not intend to go?
I shall never say that under no circumstance will I support conscription, but I will say that until such time as I am convinced that we can get in Canada a more effective force under conscription than under voluntary enlistment for overseas service I am against conscription. So far as I am concerned a vote of "yes" on the plebiscite will leave me free to make my decision, as a member of this government, with all the facts before me, when the time comes to make that decision.
I am not called upon at this moment, neither is anyone else in the house, nor anybody else in Canada, to make a decision on conscription at a time when the best authority in Canada states that at the moment it is not necessary.
Mr. Meighen need not check the events of the last few months, or the last few weeks, or the last few days, to find the cause of his many defeats in Canadian politics, including this last, held in one of the most imperialistic constituencies in Canada.
The British race is a proud one, and many of the people of that race live in that constituency. Their greatest pride is in their pledged word. If anyone does not understand that, then he should negotiate an agreement respecting farm produce with the British government. If he did so, what would he find? He would find that even if the agreement is to their disadvantage, they will carry it out to the letter, to the bitter end, and try to make a better one the next time.
Two great nations were born in America out of the struggles of the seven years' war. One was Canada and the other the United States. The constitution of the United States was written in an effort to prevent any central government, even their own, from ever again imposing its will upon an unwilling state. Bryce, when writing his history of the American commonwealth, stated that toward the end of the last century a great church body in that country was searching for a short sentence in which to call down God's blessing on every person in the country. They chose, "God bless this nation". The next day the matter was reconsidered by the same men, and rewritten in the words "God bless these

United States." In those two sentences there is all the difference between what is known in Europe as a united nation governed, if you like, by a democratic, central government, and a federated state such as the United States and Canada. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that no country so great in extent as Canada or the United States can be governed in a democratic way for any considerable period of time under any system other than a federated form of government. That has been the history of that kind of thing in the world, and it is the condition existing to-day.
If we did not have a federated form of government we would never have had less than four or five dominions, instead of one, in what is Canada. Some of those who are questioning our right to impose things upon them to-day would have been serving, not under a central government here, but under a central British government which has established the principle that they will not coerce the people of any land which has come under the union jack, without first persuading those people to accept the condition, themselves.


Georges Parent: The hon. member's time has expired.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a few more words to say.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carry on.


James Garfield Gardiner: The same idea has been written by the British parliament into every change in our constitution in Canada. It runs through the decision of the privy council.
According to the census of 1931, forty-eight per cent of the population of Canada is not of British descent. The figures of the new census are not out. Practically all of them are Canadians by either birth or naturalization. Those who are Canadians by birth know no other allegiance; those who are Canadians by naturalization have taken the oath of allegiance to our king and -country, and their king and country have signed on the naturalization papers a solemn pledge. The individual pledges himself to be loyal, to stand by this country, to serve in our armies if necessary; the king and country -pledge to him the right of the ballot, the right of citizenship, and the right to all the freedom to which any British-born subject is entitled.
I am not going back into old history, but the remark I am -going to -make will -bring up old -history. When it becomes necessary to release the individual from that pledge or break our own toward him in order to enforce any law, that law should not be passed in a
4S1

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
British country. The British government has followed the practice since the days of Pitt and Burke through the time of Peel, Gladstone, Disraeli, Asquith and Churchill, of winning support through persuasion, not by coercion. Any system which has to substitute coercion for persuasion in Canada is doomed to failure. Conscription will get results in a democracy only when it is a regulation of the will of the people. Quebec, under our federated democratic system, is a democracy which can never, in conformity with British custom, practise and the pledged word of Britain's statesmen, be coerced in connection with matters of this kind.
Our whole constitution is the proof of this. We have developed it from the days of the most totalitarian form of government the world has ever known, royal government as practised under Louis XIV. Step by step, with the consent of the people of Quebec, from the old days when the British government had absolute control, this constitution has been developed until now we have representative, responsible government. That is the course which any British house that is guided by British principles will follow in connection with this or any other great public matter.
The great performance of Quebec under the leadership of the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, through registration, through production of food, through production of munitions, supplies, equipment and ships, through providing men for the defence of Canada and sending them to Britain-as General McNaugh-ton said the other day, some of the finest units in the Canadian army have come from Quebec -has placed her in a position where her representatives in this house do not need to plead her cause. I remember when the registration was first mentioned, people said that we could not take a registration in Canada. We did take a registration, and the only province in the dominion where we had to place policemen at the booths in order to regulate traffic made up of people who wanted to get in their signatures *was in the province of Quebec. In some districts in which the propriety was most questioned they signed to the last man. As I say, the members from Quebec do not need to plead her cause. Welland has so stated. York South has so stated.
Every English Liberal member in this house pledges himself to the British Liberal principle of persuasion, even to persuading the people to accept conscription. The effort of every man who believes in conscription should not be one of coercion, it should be an effort to persuade. I am sure that if this country is ever face to face with a condition where its interests or institutions are threatened to a
point where greater man-power from Canada can save them by fighting any place in the world, and conscription is the only method by which they can be secured, it will be possible to convince the people of this country that it is necessary.
Right across Canada are scattered those of nationalities other than British. In my own province of Saskatchewan only 45-8 per cent are of British descent and only 5-4 per cent are of French-Canadian descent. This leaves 48-8 per cent of the population of non-English and non-French descent. These people have a record in food production, in both this and the last war, in the production of munitions and arms and in the providing of men for the fighting services, of which they have reason to be proud. You cannot make unwilling conscripts fly planes. You cannot make unwilling conscripts fight tanks. You cannot put a whole band of conscripts on corvettes. This is a job for soldiers inspired by a conviction which compels them to fight.
After the Franco-Prussian war the Germans compelled the French to abandon their practices of conscription established by Napoleon. After that decision they then built up an army stronger than the conscript army of Germany. After the last great war the allies compelled the Prussians to abandon the conscription they had practised from the time of Napoleon. The nazis substituted for conscription an idea for which to fight. They developed it into a fanatical desire on the part of the whole youth of their country to inflict their views upon the world. They took the United States plane, truck and submarine and the British tank and manned them with fighting fanatics for a cause. They were inspired as were the Mohammedans of old. The Japanese were not permitted in the last war to display their will to fight. The greatest glory in the existence of a Jap is to be killed in battle and join his fathers in the great beyond.
There is nothing in the theory of government based upon coercion and force which would inspire a British subject to willing battle. But his religious beliefs and his love of freedom know no bounds as a means of inspiration. \Ve must fill our planes, our tanks, our ships, with men inspired with a love of freedom. We must send them forth to war, not with a grudge in their hearts but with a song upon their lips. The task of creating that attitude is the task of this parliament, our churches, our schools and our press. God help Canada if the future prosecution of this war is to be interfered with by the back-room scribblings of paid writers, rather than by the

4S2
The Address-Mr. Gauthier

freely expressed opinions of the representatives of the people in church and state and press. We, the members of this house, have a duty to perform. Every hon. member can perform this duty by selling the idea that our men are fighting for a cause that is worthy of the supreme sacrifice.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, almost two years have elapsed since March 26, 1940, when the people of this country, in giving a mandate of five years to this parliament, clearly expressed their opposition to conscription for overseas service. At the very beginning of the new parliament, however, the obstinate advocates of this troublesome measure opened fire in this house. As to-day, they were supported by a gathering of so-called patriots whose purpose is to divide this country and perpetrate their unavowable purposes and release themselves and their friends from a part of the duties imposed upon them by the state of war. They need a smoke-screen to hide their movements, their manoeuvres, their intrigues, and to accomplish their work. As in 1917, their work is conscription. They know that a good part of the population, the larger part of-the Canadian people, is against this measure; but knowing the almighty power of gold, backed by a strong press organization, they carry on with a sardonic smile, anxious to attain to that national disunity on which they live. We had conscription in 1917. It was voted on at the election, and all the men who had been called for service under that coercive and hateful law were exempted because the election was coming, but a few months after the election had been held the draftees were called back. The Union government was in power, and behind the smoke-screen of conscription scandals had a wonderful time. But to gain that conscription law they had to divide the country, and they had to have a scapegoat.
In Australia they tried to impose conscription, but in that country they could not find a scapegoat, and twice the people of English descent gave a negative answer to the conscription referendum. They are trying it again this time, and they are so blinded by their appetite for gold profits that they have not even bothered to face the question of their country being directly attacked by Japan. There, too, they have their helpers, their tools, with which they hope to succeed. But Australian patriots in eveiy class of society protest and have no intention of sending their soldiers elsewhere when they are so much needed at home. If they had a right to protest there, we, too, have a right to protest here and to ask that our soldiers be kept

at home. The defence of this country comes first. To those who place our first line of defence in Europe we are motivated to say that if the unprotected countries of the commonwealth fall one after another, England will not be provided with the food and munitions she needs.
Because Quebec is against conscription, some of these birds of passage, some of them after a lifetime of political and financial success, go back home to England or to evade taxes live in sunny isles; because the people of Quebec have lived in this land since the first trip of Jacques Cartier and have had patience to overcome all obstacles and have kept this country united to Britain in 1775 and 1813, because French-Canadians believe in Canada before and above everything else, because they ask for their share in the economic and social life of the country which they have opened and helped to build up, because Quebec raised her voice and played her part in the last war, and much more in this one, and wants to do it voluntarily, some of these narrow-minded colonials-imperialists, if it serves their purpose-Americans if it meets their contentions- Canadians if the patriotic bell has to sound louder, although they never think as real Canadians, admitting that gold has no colour, no odour, no race, no nationality, direct their insinuating speeches or press articles, on the scapegoat whom they had chosen in 1917 and whom they are still trying to immolate on the altar of their fanaticism.
The "two hundred" as they have been called, ask for total war and unity of sacrifice. Why do they not ask for equality of sacrifice? Why do they not ask themselves for the real conscription of money? That at least would show a little sincerity. But no, they ask for the conscription of men for overseas service, to send men abroad, far away. It will fatten the big contracts for armament and equipment. There will always be a way to replace the men. By immigration probably. But have they enough money to pay for the life of one Canadian soldier? Have they enough guts, those who are of military age, to leave their pleasures, their money and their pretentious homes and enlist for overseas service? I believe they are well protected by age, and I would not be surprised if among them one could find a few conscientious objectors whose faith forbids them- to fight against human beings but permits them to send others to war. They are safer behind the counters and better situated to grab the savings of their clients.
France had her "two hundreds". In 1935 they were lending money to Hitler, and giving as a pretext that it was the best way to kill

The Address-Mr. Gauthier
communism. Their political friends were receiving German and Italian funds for political propaganda. Anything was good that helped them accomplish their unpatriotic schemes. There it was not Quebec; it was communism. These "two hundreds" in France had complete control of the Bank of France.
In our country our "two hundred" had their friends too. They control banks, insurance companies, mining corporations, steel works, construction companies, large departmental stores, naval construction, office specialties, et cetera. They have connections in every circle of our economic life. They have friends in the provincial and federal administrations. For a disguise they patronize charitable organizations. They are everywhere. They are the octopus with numerous and strong tentacles, sucking the very lifeblood of the country-at least what is left of it.
Have they frightened the government-this government with the largest majority ever given by the people since confederation? Have they succeeded in making this parliament believe that the people of this country have changed their minds on the conscription issue? I do not recall any special occasion on which the people have expressed a change of opinion on this question. Of course, a strongly organized press campaign has been going on for months, and even a member of the British parliament has been touring Canada to try to convince our people that conscription was the really crowning glory of the total national war effort. But the Prime Minister of England, when he was called upon to express his opinion, said, "I usually mind my own business."
Prominent members of this parliament keep saying, especially during by-election time, that they do not need men over there, that conscription will not be necessary here for overseas service. Personally I think that it would not be necessary if everyone gave a really helping hand to voluntary enlistment. I am not the only one witnessing all kinds of impediments arising from the fact that some people in Canada want this system to fail in order to draw this parliament into a conscription policy against the very will and opinion of this country. I shall have further opportunity to explain more clearly what I have in mind. If we do not need conscription, why ask the people to release the government and, I will say, parliament from its commitments concerning conscription? To have liberty of action?
We have witnessed since 1937 a series of events gradually progressing year by year. Some Liberal members rose in opposition to the increased subsidies for national defence;
not because they did not care for home defence, but because they were anticipating that this new move of the government was the start of an empire defence plan; they were told then that this was not the case. I, myself, quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier speaking on the Guthrie amendment to bill No. 21 introduced during the 1912-1913 session by Sir Robert Borden, the then prime minister. At page 7232 of Hansard, Sir Wilfrid Laurier is reported as having said:
I now come to a consideration of the fact, made manifest by one of the last speeches of Mr. Churchill, that the admiralty favours contribution and not autonomous organization. This is not a new thing: the British admiralty has always preferred a system of imperial contribution to the idea of autonomous organization. At the imperial conference in 1902, Lord Selborne, the predecessor of Mr. Churchill, made a proposal that we should have imperial contributions.
The Canadian press of February 5, 1937, has reported the words of Sir Samuel Hoare speaking at a lunch given by the chamber of commerce of Bradford. He, too, was stating that any programme of defence should be an empire-wide one. It is clear that the lords of the admiralty have not changed their mind.
This group of members asked for the exact location of Canada's boundaries. A bill sponsored by Mr. MacNeill suggested an amendment to the Militia Act: the bill had a first-class funeral.	*
I heard in this house some members of the s^me group saying that our geographical situation placed us in a safe position, should the axis powers direct an attack on Canada; we were told that it was cowardice to count on others to defend our country.
During by-elections in 1937 and 1938, the people were told that there would not be any participation in external wars. I remember very well that one participant had learned his lesson over there; the other would advise his compatriots not to enlist for overseas. When the participation came, it was to be a moderate one, very moderate; it was accepted by the people and by the dissident members in a provincial election because of the assurance given that there would not be any conscription for overseas. Part of the verdict of that provincial election was in favour of providing England and her allies with men and munitions; the larger part of this verdict was an expression of disapproval of the Union National government.
Then the barometer of our war effort made a jump. The "two hundred" had not- yet gathered around their loaded tables for their "ever notorious dinner" having as a result a dangerous elevation of colonial blood pressure, but they 'were already on the job.
The Address-Mr. Gauthier


Mr. W. F. RICKARD (Durham):: It is rather a coincidence that two farmers, particularly from the government side, should speak in this house on the one evening. Farmers, of course, are not gifted as speech-makers like men of some other callings.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) gave us a short survey of the agricultural situation in Canada, and I hope for a few minutes to speak of conditions, as I know them in Ontario and more especially perhaps in the riding which I have the honour to represent. Before doing that, however, I wish to discuss two or three other matters in regard to our war effort.
Living as I do some fifty miles from the city of Toronto where this committee for total war had its birth, and where the Globe and Mail has quite a large circulation-although I must say not nearly as large as it once was, which condition I believe is characteristic not only of our part of the country but of all the province of Ontario-in speaking of the
The Address-Mr. Rickard

Globe and Mail I endorse everything the hon. member for Simooe East (Mr. McLean) said the other evening. To my mind the Globe and Mail not only has tried to discredit the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government of Canada, but has, to say the least, done no good to Canada's war effort.
We have in the constituency of Durham four weekly newspapers and one daily, all of which carry full-page or half-page advertisements advocating a total war effort, and urging the voters to write their member asking for total war. I have received thirty-six clippings from newspapers, representing about fifty names, and ten letters from individuals and organizations, some in support of an all-out war effort, some absolutely opposed to conscription, others telling me to use my own judgment and do what I think right. I was glad to get these communications because I always like to hear from the people of my constituency on any subject in which they are interested. I believe the people who wrote me were sincere, and I am always glad to get their opinions.
Before I came to Ottawa I was asked by the press to state my position. I declined to do so until I had had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the facts as far as it was possible to get them, and thinking, of course, that parliament is the proper place in which to express my opinions on such an important subject.
Before continuing what I have to say, I want to add my word of congratulation to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both hon. members did admirably; I only wish I had at my command the eloquence to do as well. I also want to congratulate the Prime Minister upon his wonderfully clear explanation of Canada's war effort. That speech will go down in history as one of the greatest he ever made. More than that, when his career is written the Prime Minister will be classed as one of the greatest statesmen in the world. I only wish every Canadian might have an opportunity pf reading that speech. Canada is indeed fortunate that we have a man like our Prime Minister at the head of its government to-day. Notwithstanding all the criticisms that have been hurled at him from all sides, not only inside the house but from outside, by men who want to vent their personal feelings even in war time, notwithstanding all these things, the Prime Minister believes that his word is as good as his bond. I am glad to follow a man of that kind.
The Conservative party, as has been said many times, under the leadership of Doctor Manion definitely opposed conscription in the
I Mr. Rickard.]
last election. Hon. members can read the speeches he made in this house, in Brockville, in Quebec, in many western cities and in every part of Canada. He opposed conscription throughout, because of the effect it had in 1917. I was going to say also that the present leader of the Conservative party, Mr. Meighen-but I must now leave out the word "present"-opposed conscription for overseas service without the consent of the people or without the people being consulted. He did this in his Hamilton speech, in his Winnipeg speech, but now, of course, we hear nothing but. conscription for overseas service.
Conscription has been made a political football, as if it were the only issue in connection with our war effort. The Prime Minister made certain pledges and promises to the people, and he intends to keep them. Personally I made no promises for or against conscription, but I feel, as every hon. member must, no matter to what party he belongs, that having accepted the policy of his leader, we are practically all in the same boat, we cannot take a different course to-day. The fact that men in high positions and entrusted with the government of certain countries broke their word, regarded their promises as mere scraps of paper is one of the reasons why we are at war to-day. Someone may say, we are at war, we have no time to take a plebiscite. But our war effort will go on just the same.
Then it is said that the Prime Minister is evading responsibility. To my mind, as has been said before, he is asking for responsibility, not evading it. If the time ever comes that in my opinion we need conscription of men for overseas service, then I shall be for it. But I want conscription of everything else as well, man-power, woman-power, industry, labour, wealth and all natural resources, to wTin this war. I am not interested in politics; I am not interested in any personal gain that may come to me; my sole ambition is, as is that of every hon. member and every one in Canada for that matter, to win this war. That is the paramount concern in our minds to-day.
It is my intention to do everything I can to put this plebiscite across. I am going to ask the people of my riding to vote for the plebiscite, and I am sure they will. I hope hon. members to my left will do likewise. I w'as very glad to hear the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) the other night say that if this plebiscite is put to the people, he is going to vote for it. That is the true spirit. Here I might remark that the hon. member for Danforth may be the next leader of the Conservative party.

The Address-Mr. Rickard
I saw an editorial in the Toronto Daifry Star of January 30, 1942, headed "Ignore the Plebiscite." It reads:
Certain conscriptionists hostile to Mr. King and the government-they include an evening contemporary-are advising those of similar views to ignore the plebiscite instead of helping to secure a favourable verdict on it. They must surely not have realized what a favourable verdict will involve.
A favourable verdict will release Mr. King from his pledge not to impose conscription for overseas service. But what does that mean, if not this-that a favourable verdict will remove one of the arguments against the imposition of conscription, namely that conscription is prevented by a government pledge. The issue will then have to be debated in parliament on its merits only. Surely that is what conscriptionists wish. Yet our contemporary advises people to ignore the plebiscite which would, if carried, bring this about.
If the plebiscite carries, Mr. King will have to debate conscription on its merits alone. Our contemporary thinks its merits are overwhelming. How then could it better achieve its well known ambition to put Mr. King on the spot than to put him on this spot, where he will be on what it considers the very weak side of an argument, without any pledge to obscure the issue?
In justice to other newspapers which are opposed to Mr. King on the conscription issue, it must be said that while most of them criticize the holding of a plebiscite, the great majority say that the patriotic thing to do is to carry the plebiscite now that it is to be held. That, of course, is true. Canada should free the government's hands, and thus free the discussion from everything not pertaining to the merits or demerits of conscription as a Canadian policy.
I't is not my intention to discuss the war effort at great length. This has been done by many hon. members much better than I could possibly expect to do it. But as I see it, Canada's war effort is divided: three ways-the army, munitions of war, and food. Men are required for the army, the navy and the air force-and the army is only one part of the whole war programme. The question seems to be: How shall we raise a part of that part of the war effort? Munitions to-day are reaching a point where it will tax the capacity of this country in money, men for industry and food from the farms. In the air force; of course, the sky is the limit as far as enlistments are concerned. The same is true of the navy. In both these forces we have at present several thousand men on the waiting list. But in the army, as far as overseas service is concerned, there must be a limit, if we are going to provide munitions of war in industry, and production from the farms.
This war is different from the last one, in that we have an air force. We had no such thing in the last war. We had no tanks or
tank trailers, or any of dozens of other forms of the mechanized equipment we have in this war.
A survey of man-power under the voluntary system to December 31, 1941, shows that we have enlisted in all branches nearly 425,000 men. In 1941 alone we had over 180,000 in all branches. And from October to January, a period of four months, 32,000 enlisted in the army. In January alone 11,000 enlisted in that branch of the service, and it is expected that this month 15,000 men will enlist. In addition to this, we have 550,000 men and about 75,000 women in industry and munitions.
As was said this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), we shall soon reach 700,000. While the population of Canada is somewhat larger than it was in the last war, yet the number of men of military age who are physically fit is not so much greater. In the last war we had four divisions of armed forces overseas, and in this war we have 425,000 men in the forces, and three or four times as many men in munitions, as at the time of the last war. At the present time we have overseas about 130,000 men, and enlistments for overseas are about 120,000 to 125,000. The Minister of National Defence has definitely stated that he is opposed to calling up men faster than they can be trained. With this I entirely agree. There is no use in taking men if we have no munitions to fight with. It does not matter how brave a man may be, if he has not the proper equipment he is not of much use. Our capacity for training is about 11,000 a month, and we shall have this month about 15,000. These figures are for the army alone. Besides this, we have many battalions on the Pacific and elsewhere in Canada for our own defence.
At this point I want to pay tribute to the armed forces-the boys in the army, the navy and the air force, both officers and men. I pay tribute to industry and to labour, and not the least, to farmers, and to all others who are in any way making this splendid war effort possible; for without the cooperation of everyone of these it would not have been possible.
For a few minutes I should like to discuss agriculture. Given an average crop, and provided they get help, the farmers of Canada should be in a fairly satisfactory position this year. There will be good markets for nearly all they produce, and most likely very fair prices will be offered. The price ceiling which has been enforced has been placed on almost all the farmer has to buy, but it has not been enforced to so great an extent with respect to all he has to sell. Of course in the west, if crops are poor the farmers will have at least a guaranteed minimum return, or some form
The Address-Mr. Rickard

of government assistance. Wheat and wheat farming constitute, of course, the biggest and the most contentious problem. Despite that, we shall have less wheat to carrjf over than we have had in previous years.
No farmer can expect to compete with industry and its high wages, when no surplus of labour is offered. Men have left the farm at an alarming rate, and the farmer cannot pay the wages to entice them back. We cannot blame the men for this, because naturally a man or a woman will go where he or She can get the best return for his or her labour. With Great Britain calling for increased supplies of food, as the Prime Minister told us in his speech, the farm labour situation is serious, and is going to be more serious. Something will have to be done about it if we are to produce the maximum of food' to feed our allies and ourselves.
I happen to live in an area close to General Motors and the Pickering explosives plant where hundreds of farmers' sons and hired men have gone to work at wages far above those the farmers can afford to pay. I am told there are about 6,000 people working at that plant, and half of them are women. This has crippled agriculture in our district. I believe the same condition is true in many other parts of Ontario.
We are told, of course, that agriculture is the basic industry of Canada and, as I said before, Great Britain needs all we can produce of bacon, cheese, milk, eggs and many other commodities. If we are to produce those things there will have to be some sort of selective service for the farmers. If this is not possible, then I would suggest that the farmer be given some kind of bonus. I do not like the word "bonus" and I do not like bonuses, because I do not agree with that principle. But the farmers must be given some sort of financial assistance so as to compete with wages paid in industry. This must be done at once so that the farmer can plan his production, because that cannot possibly be done at a moment's notice.
Recently a survey was made in my county, and I believe a similar survey has been made generally throughout Ontario. While nothing definite has as yet been published with respect to it, I believe it has been done with the sole purpose of finding out the position of the farmers in that province, and particularly, perhaps, with regard to farm labour. I venture to say that in my county from one-quarter to one-third of the farmers will be asking for an increase by way of help.
I would suggest one other thing with respect to agriculture, and that is that the committee on agriculture be allowed to meet. We are

told that there must be something specific or definite to be considered before the committee can be called together. Surely in these times there are enough problems confronting our farmers to warrant this committee functioning. I think there are enough hon. members interested in agriculture to work up some programme that will be of assistance to the government in formulating a policy. I hope the chairman of the agriculture committee will bear these suggestions in mind.
I should like to refer briefly to the four months' training as it affects farmers' sons. Many of these boys have taken their four months' training expecting to be released in order to be able to help on the farm. But this has been found to be almost impossible.
I must say that the local board in our district, No. 3 in Kingston, has been most considerate. A great many young men have been given a postponement of a few months, but that is most unsatisfactory. I should like to see some system worked out whereby these boys could be given total exemption as long as they stay on the farm. I believe they can do just as much for Canada's war effort by producing food as they can by serving in any other branch. Instead of setting up boards in districts like Kingston and Toronto, I think it would be much better if smaller boards were set up in the counties or townships. The members of these boards would have a better chance of becoming acquainted with the situation existing in their particular section of the country.
I believe in selective service if it can be worked out, but it presents a great problem. It is no use putting a man who knows nothing about farming on a farm. I have had some experience in that connection, particularly with apple pickers. Men have been sent out from the cities who knew nothing about this wrork, and we would have been better off without them. There must be something done in this regard. I leave these few thoughts with the government in the hope that they will receive consideration.
In closing let me say: Let us forget our petty differences; let us forget our party politics and all work together to help win this war. In the words of Churchill:
Come then-let us to the task to the battle and the toil.	.
Each to our part, each to our station, fill the armies, rule the air, pour out the munitions, strangle the U-boats, sweep the mines, plough the land, build the ships, guard the streets, succour the wounded, uplift the downcast and honour the brave.
Let us go forward together ... in all parts of the empire, in all parts of this island. There is not a week, nor a day, nor an hour to be lost.

The Address-Mr. McDonald (Pontiac)


Mr. W. R. McDONALD (Pontiac) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, as representative of a constituency the population of which is in majority French-Canadian and knowing how interested they are in the present debate, I feel bound to briefly state in French my position in connection with the plebiscite mentioned in the speech from the throne.
Like many other members of the House of Commons, during the electoral campaign, not only have I supported the platform of my leader, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), on conscription, but I have also formally pledged myself to vote against any form of compulsion for overseas service.
The Prime Minister, in the speech delivered in this house and published in the press, has stated the reasons for which his government would submit the following question to the Canadian population by means of a plebiscite:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligations arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
By this democratic measure, the Prime Minister keeps his promises to the Canadian people, setting aside, at the same time, the advice proffered by the opposition and the group of so-called patriots at a recent meeting held in Toronto. Resting my faith in him and in the ministers from my province, I intend to support this proposition. I refuse to betray the confidence of my electors by voting for the amendment of the opposition, which would eventually lead to conscription. I remember with sorrow this evil measure and the methods of its enforcement in our province during the last war. I shall state my special reasons in the English portion of my speech.
(Text) Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can be accused of being a frequent offender in taking up the time of this house. My reason for doing so to-night is the fact that the questions at issue in this debate, particularly those relating to the plebiscite, are of the greatest importance to the people of Canada and are none the less interesting to my constituents.
Before proceeding to make known my attitude regarding the plebiscite, I should like to refer to the National Resources Mobilization Act, which, in my humble opinion, should be amended. I refer particularly to that section under which farmers and farmers' sons may have their call to service postponed by making application to the registrar of the district from which they receive their notice.
Several hon. members who have preceded me in this debate, particularly the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), have revealed the hardships imposed upon those who are entitled to postponement, of their services when they are making application because of the fact that the committee charged with the duty of studying their case and rendering judgment is located at too great a distance from the applicant's home to give him an opportunity of appearing in person or of being represented by someone in order that his case may be submitted in the proper light. I am in complete accord with the hon. member when he submits that a change in this procedure is necessary. I believe there should be set up in each county a tribunal or committee of some kind to deal with this.
I would go so far as to suggest an amendment to the act whereby those persons who fall into the category of those entitled to postponement of service would be granted an exemption. No great amount of argument is necessary to prove that the presence of a farmer or a farmer's son is necessary upon the farm, not only for three or six months, but for the entire year, if the farm is to be worked to its full productive capacity and the farming community throughout Canada enabled to answer the call of the government for an all-out production during this war period.
As is the case no doubt with many other members of this house, I have received numerous letters from farmers in my constituency asking me to use my influence to have their sons exempted. Of course, mine was the stereotyped reply:
[DOT] u	inform you that I can exercise no
influence on your behalf, much as I appreciate your position and am desirous to assist you to attain that to which you or your son should be entitled not postponement only-but exemption from service.
I have before me several letters along this line from which I shall quote briefly. One is from a farmer who relates to me that his eldest son enlisted voluntarily in the service last fall, and to that he takes no objection. In fact the father says, "I am proud of him." But now his other son, the only help he has on the farm, is being called for service under the mobilization act, and the father says, "I am of the opinion in all justice that he should be exempted from service." Another letter is from a young farmer up in the northern part of my county, a young married man who is established on a farm of one hundred acres. He mentions that he has horses, cattle and

490	'	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. McDonald (Pontiac)
sheep, and that twenty-five acres of his hundred acres is ready for sowing next spring, but a call for service will mean that his farm will remain uncultivated next year.
I also received to-day a largely signed petition to the same effect from a group of farmers in my county. I shall present the petition to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to-morrow because it is addressed to him. I respectfully suggest to the government that serious consideration be given to this proposed amendment. I am well aware that there might be abuses in regard to these exemptions, but I am strongly of opinion that there can be found throughout the country men sufficiently imbued with a sense of responsibility and patriotic enough to act upon these tribunals, if established, in each county, who will perform their duties in a conscientious manner.
Let me return to the question of the plebiscite mentioned in the speech from the throne and already discussed at some length in this chamber. Like many other members of this house, during the election campaign of 1940 I accepted the candidature of the Liberal party under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and in that capacity I accepted in its entirety the programme submitted by him to the people of Canada. Included therein was a clause providing for the enlistment of Canada's army under a voluntary system and a direct promise that conscription would not be introduced. My election is a direct consequence of my acceptance of the candidature of the party and its programme during the campaign and I consider myself in honour bound to give my loyal support to my leader and my party, even if I were not further bound by a personal pledge to my constituents who voted against conscription. That pledge, conscientiously given at the time and with a full knowledge and experience of the baneful effects of conscription in the last war, I intend to honour, notwithstanding certain intimations here and in the press of the country that one should consider himself automatically absolved from these commitments, having in mind the serious war situation prevailing to-day. But, Mr. Speaker, it has been my honour and privilege to represent the provincial county of Pontiac in the legislature of Quebec for sixteen years and the greater county of Pontiac in the federal house for seven years, making in all a total representation of twenty-three years. I am bound to say, sir, knowing positively that I have retained the confidence of my electorate over that period of time chiefly by respecting the mandates which they gave me, never violating my pledged word to them and never

fearing to face squarely any issue which confronted me, that it is now too late for me to change my attitude and adopt a course which I would condemn in another and which in myself I could not conscientiously condone. Therefore on this occasion I shall stand or fall by my leader and my party, and in doing so I am not only following the dictates of my conscience but retaining my self-respect.
Conscription recalls memories to me, memories of the introduction of the Military Service Act and of the manner in which it was adopted in this chamber by use of the closure, memories of the War-time Elections Act, characterized by Sir Wilfrid Laurier as a blot upon every instinct of justice, and memories in particular of the shameful election campaign of 1917, in which it was the main issue.
Certain members on the other side of the house criticize the members from the province of Quebec for having made use of this issue and continuing to do so during our election campaigns even to the present day. To that accusation I plead guilty. I, as a humble member from the province of Quebec, shall continue this course without any apology to anyone for my conduct so long as there remain in the ranks of the Conservative party both inside and outside this house the men who planned and carried out that slanderous campaign against my native province. The memories of that campaign linger; in fact, they are seared in my mind. I can quite appreciate the attitude of certain Conservatives who honestly seek an end to this kind of controversy, but let me suggest to them in all sincerity, if they are sincere in this attitude, to use their influence in their own party to see that these political, racial and religious bigots of 1917 and their imitators of to-day are ostracized once and for all.
Might I also suggest to them to use their influence to quash the movement started during the last session, and daily gaining momentum again to make the province of Quebec the butt of an unjust and unfair criticism, trying once again to inflame public sentiment against our people. Let them not delude themselves with the idea that we are not aware of this movement, sometimes openly carried on in the press in Ontario and at other times by ingratiating speeches in this house-sometimes often whispered from mouth to mouth that these blankety-blank Frenchmen in the province of Quebec must be made to enlist and do their duty. They have no evidence to support their statement that the French-Canadians in the province of Quebec are not enlisting in as large numbers as those of any other nationality ; but they must use this insinuation against them. I might state here-and I am pleased to state it-that I know a messenger of this

The Address-Mr. McDonald (Pontiac)
house, whom I am proud to name-his name is Guertin-the father of eight sons, five of them of military age, and all five overseas.
Such an ingratiating speech as I referred to a while ago was made by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) on June 13, 1941, and reported in Hansard, at pages 3947 and 3948, from which I quote:
I received a clipping the other day from the Winnipeg Tribune of May 28 containing a letter in favour of conscription. I shall not read the letter, but I should like to refer to the editor's footnote which is as follows:
"Recruiting figures show that the number of active service force volunteers, per thousand of population, is higher for Freneh-Canadians than for English-speaking Canadians."
The Winnipeg Tribune was paying that tribute to the Freneh-Canadians. But the hon. member for Parkdale goes on to say in his ingratiating manner:
No one would be more pleased than I if that were true-
The doubt is sown there.
-but so far as I am aware no reply has been given by the minister to the questions which have been asked in connection with recruiting in the various provinces, unless it was in his speech of May 12 last. . . .
He would be pleased, Mr. Speaker, if that were true! He wants evidence of it, and he will await the reply of the minister before he will make up his mind. In Hansard of the same date, as reported at page 3948, he stated:
I should now like to quote from a French-Canadian newspaper to show the changed attitude in that province-
Speaking of Quebec.
-in respect of Canada's participation in war outside of Canada.
In respect to that, I have this to say. Quebec entered fully and completely into the war in 1939. She has made no change, and she is as completely into the war to-day as any other province of Canada. That is my answer to the hon. member for Parkdale in this ingratiating and insinuating speech of his.
Quite in contrast to that speech-and I commend the hon. member upon it-is the speech the same day of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I am sorry that the hon. member is not at the moment in the chamber; I wish to compliment him upon it. He said, as reported at page 3954 of Hansard:
I have no French blood in my veins, but I believe that those who do come from that part of Canada are as anxious and as willing to serve as those from any other part of this dominion and to assert the contrary is to do a great disservice to Canada and its unity of purpose.
I thank the hon. member for Lake Centre for that expression of opinion.
44561-32J
The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) also devoted a considerable part of his speech to the province of Quebec, taking issue with the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), the mover of the address. I fully concur in the views of the hon. member for Hull, and I congratulate him most heartily upon the subject matter of his address in both languages, also upon the manner of its delivery.
This propaganda campaign, because it is nothing else, prompted Mrs. Black, wife of the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Black), who herself graced this chamber with her presence in the last parliament, to publish a letter of protest in the Ottawa Journal, from which I quote:
With extreme regret, as well as great annoyance. I have noted a growing habit of accusing Quebec of lack of loyalty to Canada and the empire, because of an aversion to compulsory military service.
Probably no member of parliament, with his wife, does of necessity cover more of Canada from the far north to the east than do George Black, M.P. for Yukon, and I. In our many trips across Canada we have observed as much apathy and lack of enthusiasm for active service in the armed forces of Canada in other provinces as in Quebec.
Let us of the other parts of this dominion forget our smug complacency and force ourselves to realize that Quebec is as loyal as the other provinces.
We are component parts of a great empire. Let each one do his, or her, part to unite Canada in support of that empire, forgetting petty racial and religious prejudices. We must work, we must fight for the right to worship one God, to be loyal to one King, and to hold a united empire, that our children's children may enjoy the freedom we hold so dear.
I sincerely thank Mrs. Black, wife of the hon. member for the Yukon, for those words.
This campaign of propaganda also reached the ears of the provincial treasurer of Quebec, Hon. J. A. Mathewson. He had occasion to address a district convention of Kiwanis International in Montreal on September 22, 1941, when, as reported in the Montreal Star, he said:
In his preliminary remarks the provincial treasurer declared his belief that a really serious misunderstanding existed in Canada concerning the attitude of French Canada and French-Catholic Quebec. "There are no more truehearted Canadians in all this broad dominion than Freneh-Canadians", declared Mr. Mathewson, "and no people who more thoroughly appreciate and understand the value of the British empire so deeply as French-Cana-dians."
The speaker expressed the opinion that Quebec has fallen into the unfortunate position of being the whipping boy of the dominion

492	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. McDonald (Pontiac)
Note the expression, Mr. Speaker, "the whipping boy"; and that is true.
-those things that are not desired by other provinces any more than by this province are not carried out because of the fear it would not please Quebec and Quebec would not like this or that.
"That is a mask, and an insincere pretext," declared Mr. Mathewson. "If the other provinces come out and say what they would like to be done, we are prepared to sit down and reason with them as to the contribution we can make to the common cause. We may have fanatics in this province, but we have no monopoly of that odious animal, he is found in every province in no less vigorous form than he is found here."
Commenting on that speech of the provincial treasurer, the Montreal Star of September 23, said in part as follows. After referring to the fact that Mr. Mathewson had said, "There are no more true-hearted Canadians in all this broad dominion than French-Cana-dians, and no people more thoroughly appreciate and understand the value of the British empire so deeply as French-Canadians," the Star goes on to say:
Critics of the province should understand these things. Mr. Mathewson says that Quebec has fallen into the unfortunate position of being a "whipping boy" of the dominion, and while the statement is perhaps too broad a generalization, there exists the tendency to blame Quebec for any gaps in Canadian unity when, as a matter of fact, there are many people outside this province who would not close the gaps if they could, preferring their emotional prejudices and private interests to unity based on common understanding and an identity of social and economic interest.
Much is made, as Mr. Mathewson inferred, of political fears that this or that cannot be done in Canada because it might not please Quebec. A great deal of arrant nonsense is talked around this idea. Such a consideration might influence the petty politician, but we are growing up politically, and if Quebec's possible reactions are factors in determining a course of action, in common with every other province, that is as it should be, for this province is a unit in our federal system and has an equal right to be heard with all the other units.
So much for the propaganda campaign.
Let me consider this conscription issue from another angle, that of national unity. In its issue of January 16 the Ottawa Journal published editorially, under the heading, "Speaking of National Unity", an article a copy of which I have, in which the idea of the disruption of national unity was pooh-poohed if conscription should be adopted in this country. The article states in part:
This country is united in this war. All its provinces are united. That being admitted everywhere, and proclaimed ardently everywhere, what is the basis of this talk that adoption of a particular method of waging war would disrupt national unity? To hear certain people talking almost in bated breath about

conscription and national unity, one might almost imagine that conscription would bring rebellion.
What section, what part of Canada is thus bring stigmatized with potential treason? Is it Quebec?
Ia answer to that question, "What section, what part of Canada is thus being stigmatized with potential treason-is it Quebec?", if the inference is that it is Quebec, it is most unfair. Quebec has always been loyal. It is loyal to-day and will continue to be loyal. If the time ever comes, which God forbid, when Quebec should decide that her future does not lie within the confines of the confederation pact, she will proceed in a constitutional manner to attain) her end. Quebec is loyal.
Let me digress for a moment to read an excerpt from an address given by Mr. Louis St. Laurent, who was elected yesterday as Minister of Justice, replacing our late lamented friend, the Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe. Speaking before the Canadian Life Insurance Officers' Association in Toronto, as reported in the Montreal Star of May 30, 1941, he said:
"Let me take you back to a little settlement over 130 years ago, to be exact to August 30, 1807," he said.
"It is Sunday morning in the parish of La Baie St. Paul, a settlement on the north shore of the St. Lawrence about 60 miles below Quebec. A proclamation calling volunteers to take up arms to defend their country against a threatened invasion from the United States has been posted on the church door. The people are all agog over the ominous news of war. They troop into the little church and kneel in prayer and at the appointed moment, the parish priest, Father Louis Lelievre, mounts the pulpit. For this occasion, he has written out what he will say to his flock.
Here are two paragraphs from those notes which a friend of mine recently found among his books and papers which he bequeathed to the library of his alma mater, the old seminary of Quebec:
"Brethren, it is my duty at this time to _express my views to you on the terrible scourge (still uncertain I hope) with which we are threatened. We are told by political leaders that war between England and the United States appears to be unavoidable. For my part I trust that with the Lord's grace, appeasement can still be achieved and that the peace we have enjoyed for 48 years may continue. But assuming that the forecast be realized, what else can we do in such a crisis but show ourselves to be faithful and loyal subjects and give our gracious sovereign, King George, shining proof of our attachment to his crown and of our devotion to his interests which are our own and of our readiness to shed our blood for the defence of our homeland. In a word, be ready my brethren, to show by your deeds, your zeal and your courage to support a government which has treated you so generously. In so doing you will make yourselves worthy of the countless advantages you have enjoyed and especially of that liberty which has ever been yours since we have been so fortunate as to live under British government.

The Address-Mr'. McDonald (Pontiac)
That was the voice of a humble priest in the province of Quebec in 1807, about forty years odd after the conquest. Yet there are men in Canada to-day who will, say that there is disloyalty among the Freneh-Canadians. We Anglo-Saxons in Canada are of yesterday. The French-Canadian has been rooted in-the soil for a period of almost 400 years; and yet he is not supposed to be loyal to that country wherein he has lived for 400 years. It is ridiculous.
Returning to the point of national unity, I wonder whether the organizers of the election campaign of 1917, and those newspapers which gave publicity to the literature of that time, realize how close they came to bringing about disruption. I would ask them in all sincerity if the publication and circulation of those pamphlets, excerpts from which I am about to quote, tended to bring about, unity. I have before me Union government election pamphlets of 1917, and I will give one or two quotations just to show what they used against us at that time, what false accusations they made against us, what false charges they made, and how they slandered the name of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Here is one item:
Make no mistake. If Laurier wins Canada will send no more reinforcements to the front which practically means quitting the war and placing the country in the same class as Russia.
And number two:
Freneh-Canadians who have shirked their duty in this war will be the dominating force in the government of the country. Are the English-speaking people prepared to stand for that?
That is from literature of the campaign of 1917 by the Union government which some distinguished patriots whom we 'have in Toronto to-day would like to carry on.
There is another one, and this is the "most unkindest cut of all." This is furthest away from the truth of anything that could be published. Listen to it; you are from the province of Quebec, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it will be news to you;
Laurier gladly takes Bourassa to his bosom.
Then there are extracts from French-Cana-dian newspapers. But that title in particular caught my eye, "Laurier gladly takes Bourassa to his bosom." Laurier did not take Bourassa to his bosom. The Conservative party took Bourassa to its bosom in 1911. I stated in my speech in March last year, that we had fought on two occasions, in a provincial election and a dominion election against sixty-five nationalists in Quebec-and an election was fought against one of them yesterday in that province. How did they attain the influence
they exercised in Quebec, particularly in 1911? By the very fact that Sir Robert Borden and his government made a pact with Bourassa to finance his candidates in Quebec and paid for subscriptions to his newspaper Le Devoir to spread his propaganda throughout this country.
My belief, Mr. Speaker, is that that propaganda was not the most loyal ever propagated. Then turn round and say that Laurier took Bourassa to his bosom after they took him to their bosom, and we have had from that time to the present the reflection of these men in the province of Quebec, due to this loyal Conservative party. They cast aside everything they stood for, including their patriotism in 1911, to gain a victory over Laurier. They won twenty-seven seats out of sixty-five in Quebec by that, and to-day they would- like to charge the Liberals of Quebec with having taken these men to our bosom. They are reaping what they sowed, but they cannot cast a reflection on us.
The resultant effect of this campaign of insult and slander directed particularly against the Freneh-Canadians in Quebec was the introduction of the following resolution in the legislature during the session of 1918:
That this house is of opinion that the province of Quebec would be disposed to accept the breaking of the confederation pact of 1867 if, in the other provinces, it is believed that she is an obstacle to the union, progress and development of Canada.
That motion was proposed by Mr. J. N. Francoeur. The premier at that time was Sir Lomer Gouin, and through his influence the motion was withdrawn. But I say this to-day, having in mind this propaganda directed against us, if it continues, are we certain that there will always be men like Sir Lomer Gouin at the head of public affairs in Quebec? Can we reasonably expect these Freneh-Canadians to continue to lend a deaf ear to these reflections on their loyalty, these gratuitous insults directed at them by a blind, fanatical group? My advice to them is' Beware, Watch, Look, Listen.
I am not going to undertake the defence of the war effort of Quebec since 1939; that was very ably done to-night by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and I personally thank him. This province has done her duty thus far and is determined to continue to do so, and in return she asks only that she be' treated with the respect and consideration which are rightly her due.
In the by-elections of yesterday the people ini no uncertain manner gave their answer to those who, by their speeches and writings, would destroy the unity of this country. They
Wage Ceiling

have definitely consigned to the limbo of forgotten men the Meighens, the Hepburns, the Drews and others of their ilk, whence we hope they will never be resurrected.
In discussing this issue of conscription to-night, my mind reverts to my last conversation with the late Minister of Justice, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, in his office on the morning of November 3 last, the date of resumption of the last session. The conversation having turned on conscription, he expressed his unalterable opposition to it, chiefly upon the ground that it would disrupt national unity. His last words to me were: "I will oppose this measure with all my strength, even to my last breath." Alas, Mr. Speaker, he made his last appearance in this chamber that afternoon. To th'e memory of this * earnest advocate and fearless champion of Canadian unity, loyal follower and worthy successor of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I pay my humble tribute of respect. To his wife and family I extend my sincere sympathy, while o'er his grave I reverently breathe a fervent Requiescat in pace.	_
On motion of Mr. Crete the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.56 p.m.
Wednesday, February 11, 1942