1943-02-23

SOVIET UNION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: To-day marks the celebration in the Soviet Union of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the establishment of the red army. Its achievements in the last twenty months have given to all the free peoples who have been resisting nazi aggression so much cause for encouragement and thanksgiving. I do not wish to allow the occasion to pass without reference in this house to the successes of the Soviet forces under the leadership of Premier Stalin. The whole free world is in their debt for what they have done to withstand the German invaders and to drive them from many thousands of square miles of Soviet territory. May their arms continue to be successful until victory over our common enemy is achieved.
Speaking of Russia's successes I should like to repeat in this house a warning which Mr. Eden gave to the people of Great Britain in his speech in London on Sunday. The foreign secretary of Great Britain pointed out that German propaganda was trying to succeed where German armies had failed and was making every effort to foster suspicion and encourage dissension between the allies by reviving the bogey of bolshevism and by representing Hitler as the saviour of western civilization. We must be on our guard in Canada against deceptions and propaganda of this kind. Inspired by mutual trust and confidence, begotten of common efforts, let us believe in and work for full and frank cooperation towards victory among all members of the united nations, and after victory has been won, towards a just and durable peace.
The past year has witnessed the establishment of direct diplomatic relations between Canada and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, which was announced in this house on June 12. Shortly afterwards we had the pleasure of welcoming to Canada Mr. Feodor Gousev as Soviet minister, and I am glad to be able to inform the house that Mr. Dana Wilgress will shortly establish the first Canadian diplomatic mission in the U.S.S.R. I am sure it is the fervent hope of all Canadians that the establishment of diplomatic relations is but the prelude to a long period of mutual
[Mr. St. Laurpnt.l

Soviet Union
understanding and cooperation between our two peoples, both in the conduct of the war and in the maintenance of a firm and durable
peace.
Impressive figures have recently been made public in the United Kingdom and the United States of the supplies furnished to the Soviet government by the united nations. I should like the people of Canada to know as fully as possible within the limits of military secrecy what portion of these supplies has been produced in Canada.
Out of a total of over six thousand tanks more than one thousand were manufactured in Canada. Two thousand universal carriers have gone forward to the U.S.S.R., as well as quantities of guns and over 22,000,000 rounds of ammunition of various types. We have sent to the Russian people military clothing and supplies. Many shiploads of strategic metals and materials have gone forward from Canada. In the field of foodstuffs the house will recall the Canadian-Soviet credit agreement under which a credit of $10,000,000 was extended to the U.S.S.R. to cover purchases of Canadian wheat and flour. The Canadian people have contributed $1,000,000 to the Canadian Red Cross Society and these funds have been used to supply essential medical supplies vitally needed on the Russian front. The Canadian aid to Russia fund has also completed an appeal for $1,000,000, to which the Canadian public have generously responded by subscribing in cash a sum considerably over $2,000,000. If the value of goods donated were added the total would be considerably over $3,000,000. Thus essential weapons, munitions of war and raw materials, foodstuffs and medical supplies have gone forward from Canada to strengthen the Russian people in the fight, while at the same time Canadian forces, together with their comrades in arms from each of the united nations, have hammered powerful blows against the common enemy.
In paying tribute to the valour and spirit of the Red army our admiration is equalled only by our determination to face the common enemy with like fortitude. To-day our common task in this vast struggle has brought Russia and Canada closer together. To-morrow, when the scourge of fascism has been blasted from the minds of free men everywhere, our peoples must work side by side to aid in the establishment of a world order based on inter-dependence and on the worth of human personality.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I deem it a very great honour and privilege to associate the
TMr. Mackenzie King.]
Progressive Conservative party in this house with what has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). It seems to me particularly appropriate that on this occasion, when the Red army is celebrating its twenty-fifth anniversary, we in Canada should pay a well-deserved tribute to that great ally who in this war has shown a strength which perhaps many of us at one time thought she did not possess. The other day a German propagandist made this statement with respect to the present situation concerning Germany and Russia; that the Russians had broken loose with a power eclipsing all imagination. I think to-day we in Canada are only too pleased to have the opportunity to express something of our feelings and our thoughts with respect to the tenacity, the heroism and the bravery being shown by the Russian people, their army and their government in the interests of freedom and liberty throughout the world. As long as the voice of freedom is heard it will pay tribute to the valour, the endurance and the indomitable pluck of the Red army of Russia in this conflict, and I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to so honourable and so staunch a fighting ally in this great cause.
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar); Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation I too should like to support what has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). I am sure there is no one in this house or in the country who does not admire the bravery and fortitude with which our Russian allies have withstood the onslaught of a well-prepared, dangerous and bitter foe. A short time ago I was reading Ambassador Davis's "Mission to Moscow", and I was amazed at the appreciation he had, even before Munich, of the strength of the Russian army and the likelihood of its being able to withstand an onslaught from the west. To-day, in endorsing what the Prime Minister has said, may I suggest that it is part of our bounden duty to try to break down the suspicion that still exists in some quarters with regard to Russia, bearing in mind that in the days which will follow this great struggle Russia will play a leading part in the reconstruction of the world. Ever since Russia entered this conflict I have been hopeful that two things might happen: first, that Russia might become rather more democratic in its ways and its methods of government, and second that we, the democratic nations, might become rather more progressive.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

Soviet Union


Mr. COLD WELL:: I mean "progressive"
in the dictionary meaning of the word; when you tag on to it the word "Conservative" you have a conflict in terms. Therefore I should like to emphasize this hope that the association may do us both good.
I know that in some quarters there still lingers a feeling of fear of a repetition of the bolshevik revolution. Well, revolutions are recorded throughout the pages of history, and apparently the people who brought about those revolutions were not always ashamed of them later. If we look through the pages of our own history we find that in 1649 the English people had a revolution which spilled much blood and chopped off a king's head. The American revolution was a great historic event which also caused a good deal of unnecessary bloodshed, as did the French revolution. But out of these revolutions, deplorable though they were, came something better for the nations involved and something better for mankind; so perhaps, and I think indeed for certain, out of the revolution which took place in Russia we may see something better arise in that country.
May I leave with the house just one further thought. We all applauded when we heard of the splendid manner in which our Canadian people had responded to appeals for aid to Russia. This is as it should be; but I suggest that after all Russia is not asking for charity. I am indeed glad that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), in presenting the resolution concerning the gift to the united nations on behalf of the Canadian people, has included all our allies. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the party with which I am associated I heartily concur in the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, coming fourth in the list of speakers it may well be assumed that everything worth saying has been said. Therefore I think it is only necessary for me to add that our group heartily concur in the fine things that have been said.



ALMONTE RAILWAY ACCIDENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to inquire from the Minister of Transport when he will be able to table the report of the board of transport commissioners concerning the railway wreck at Almonte on December 27.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Transport) :: No doubt the hon. gentleman has reference to the findings of the board of transport commissioners following their investigation of the Almonte wreck. The findings, decrees and orders of the board of transport commissioners usually are tabled with their annual report, as required by the act. However, I shall see that a copy of this finding is sent to my hon. friend right away.


Gordon Graydon: I suggest that the
finding should be tabled in the House of, Commons, because it is of interest throughout the country. We should not have to wait until the tabling of the annual report.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I will ask that this report be included with those made up during the last year, and they will be tabled to-morrow or the day after.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MAYBANK DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS COMMITTEE- REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OF MR. GILLIS IN DEBATE ON FEBRUARY 22

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this earliest opportunity to endeavour to wipe out what amounts to a reflection either intentionally or unintentionally cast upon me in the debate last , night. After I had left the house the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) declared with respect to the nonadoption of the report of the committee on the defence of Canada regulations that it was I who had in effect stood in the way of the report being presented for adoption, and that I was responsible for his, and members of his party, being prevented from securing the adoption of the report. I wish to indicate by the rules of the house how completely inaccurate such a statement or suggestion is. It is true, as I said in the house last night, that there is a measure of responsibility upon me; I freely and frankly took such responsibility last night. The hon. member's remark arose from the fact that I had stated that responsibility for the nonadoption rested on his shoulders as well as on those of other members of his party, and of Other hon. members in the house.
The facts are matters of record. I served notice that I would move the adoption of the report, and after forty-eight hours I was free to do so. But when I did not do so, then according to the rules and practices of the house, as is well known by a number of hon. members in the Cooperative Common-

Privilege-Mr. Maybank
wealth Federation party, any one of them was completely free to move the adoption. I cannot speak with certainty as to whether the hon. member for Cape Breton South was ignorant of or whether he had knowledge upon that particular point. I should have thought he was well aware of the position at all times, and that he himself knew he had that right; but if he would say I am wrong about that, naturally, I would accept his statement. However it is perfectly true that according to the rules and practices of the house it was the right of every hon. member of his party, or of any one of them, to move the adoption of the report, and each of them refrained from doing so.
The house, not I only, was at that time seized of that notice I had given. It was not I only who had the right to move the adoption of the report. It was the right also of the hon. member for Cape Breton South. But if he was not personally aware of his rights, then other hon. members of his party, and in particular his leader, or the hon. member of his group who sat , on the committee, certainly did know the facts. There can be no question about that.
One other point: It was the representative of his party who agreed with others-not with me, because I was not in agreement- that the adoption of the report should not be moved.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to have an interpretation of standing order 45. I may say that that was not my understanding of the rule. My understanding was that forty-eight hours' notice was given by an hon. member proposing to move concurrence. Discussing the matter this morning I told the hon. member for Cape Breton South that I did not think anyone who had not given notice had the right to move the adoption. I should like to have that cleared up, because it is an interesting point of procedure.


Mr. SPEAKER:: There is no question
before the house on which a ruling must be given. The question should have been raised at the time the notice of concurrence in the report was given, and therefore I am not in a position at this time to make any distinction between the points made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
Within the rules of the house the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has raised a question of privilege, as he was entitled to do. At the moment however there can be no discussion with regard to
what has been said in raising the question of privilege. That matter will have to be brought before me at some other time.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: With respect to the question of privilege may I be permitted to make a few observations?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: He is
entitled to correct any error.


Thomas Vien: On a question of privilege an hon. member has the right to discuss a misinterpretation of something stated by himself in a speech. He may point out any misconstruction given to his words. But a question of privilege is not an occasion for a debate with respect to a statement made by another hon. member on a question of privilege.


Clarence Gillis: It is not my intention to debate the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. But I say he is in error in his observations respecting my remarks of last night.


Thomas Vien: Do I understand the hon. member to say he is of the opinion the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was in error in the statement he made last night?


Major James William Coldwell: The statement he made to-day.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: That is not a question of privilege.


Mr. HOMUTH:: It is all trial and error.


Clarence Gillis: I stated last night that in his explanation as reported at page 615 of Hansard he had given me the impression that he was largely responsible for the committee's report not being moved at the last session. I still hold that impression, notwithstanding what he has said this afternoon. The report was brought in toward the close of the session. I was not a member of the committee, but I was interested in the report. I was informed that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had given Mr. Speaker notice, in accordance with the rules, that he would move the adoption of the report. I was further informed that under the rules, while his notification stood no other hon. member was privileged to make that motion. I had spoken to him personally, and he told me that he was not sure whether or not he would move the report, but that he would inform me if he did intend to move it. When he decided he would not make the motion there was not sufficient time left in the ses-
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

sion to give anyone an opportunity of going through the regular formula required to bring the matter before the house. I still contend my contention of last night was correct.



NATIONAL WAR LABOUR BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). I have already made an attempt to draw the attention of the government to the fact that French-Canadian workers are not represented on the national war labour board. Is the government considering the advisability of naming a French Canadian to represent that group of workers?


Mr. REID:: I wonder if there is a Scotsman on the board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On February 12 I made a very full statement in the house with respect to the organization of the board, and if there are to be any changes or additions the house will be informed in due course.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. E. Harris (Grey-Bruce) 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. Graydon, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Cardin.
John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose on Friday night I had been speaking for about half an hour, and, as I remember, I was setting forth the reasons why my group would oppose the amendment moved by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vereheres (Mr. Cardin). During the course of my remarks I stated why I believed the motion had been made. I thought it was rather a motion of protest on the part of a considerable section of the people of Canada as represented by the hon. member who moved the amendment. I still believe that to be so. At the same time within the amendment itself two reasons are set forth to justify it. As I understand it, the first is that there is confusion throughout the dominion with respect to labour, and the second is that there is a fear that we shall not have the production which is necessary.

I should like to deal with that aspect of the amendment.
We grant that the whole labour situation in Canada is in a muddle, and we believe that every aspect of it should be examined. We contend that the entire state of affairs as regards this matter ought to be clarified and the various inadequacies adjusted. If the government has fallen down in any one thing more than another since the beginning of the .war it has been in the management of the labour supply of the country. The government has been guilty of making grievous mistakes with respect to labour, and within the next few months I feel sure we shall see a clear manifestation of that fact. Then he who runs may read.
We agree that a parliamentary committee ought to be struck, as suggested by the hon. member in his amendment. This committee should investigate objectively and intensively and completely the labour conditions throughout Canada. It seems to me that a number of departments are involved in the labour question. Obviously the three departments which are concerned with the defence of the country are interested; then there is the Department of Labour and the national selective service branch. At various stages other departments have been involved; they seem to be falling over each other and creating confusion, and the result is that hardly anyone knows just what is what with respect to labour. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has had to step in occasionally and give us a speech setting forth what was to happen, and the result is we just do not know what the position is. A committee charged with the responsibility of ascertaining all the facts in regard to the matter would be doing a service to this country, and I agree with the hon. member in that respect.
I believe also that the whole food situation in Canada ought to be canvassed with the greatest care. I have indicated my feeling in this respect before. The fuel situation is far graver than most people realize; there is much danger of a serious and painful fuel shortage next year which may affect people from end to end of this country. This parliament ought to examine into the situation so that we may know just how serious it is and provide the necessary remedies. Housing conditions in Canada should also be examined into; they are partly a result of the labour situation. Then the matter of transportation, referred to in the amendment, should be investigated. It is my belief that there is plenty of man-power and woman-power in Canada provided that it is wisely and effectively mobilized and applied w'here it is needed.

The Address-Mr. Brunelle
One example that comes to mind is the mismanagement of labour with respect to gold. This point has been dealt with already in some measure in this house by certain hon. members. I understand that something like 22,000 men in Canada are still engaged in the useless work of producing gold. I understand also that over S200,000,000 worth of gold is being produced in this country. Of what conceivable value it can be is beyond the power of anyone who faces the facts to decide.
There is another matter in connection with which I think we should have a committee. As I say, I believe" that this amendment is a protest by reason of the feeling which exists between a great many French-Canadian people and English-Canadian people. A committee should be appointed at this session whose work should be to examine into the whole situation that exists between the two great races of Canada. The object of this committee should be the bringing about of conditions that will be fair to both races. I have heard statements made by some of my French-Canadian compatriots to the effect that they feel they are being discriminated against in connection with the economic affairs of this country. That may be so; I am inclined to think that it is so. That matter should be looked into; the truth should be found out and equal treatment given to everybody from one end of Canada to the other. It should be done at this session, before anything serious develops. The committee should consist of representatives of both races, and the representation should be such as to make everyone feel satisfied that justice will be done, that the whole case will be heard. Every province should be adequately represented, as well as every party, so that there can be a non-political, unprejudiced investigation into the whole question. Thus we might create harmony, good feeling and good will between the two great races whom destiny and providence have ordained should work together in the building of Canada.
I believe that these committees would do a great deal of good in the country. To that extent I agree with the hon. member's amendment. However, I do not think the working of the mobilization act should be suspended until the committee has finished its work. The committee could work just as well while the war effort of this country was going forward under the National Resources Mobilization Act. Therefore I am going to oppose the amendment on the ground that the suspension of this act and the disruption of the country's war effort are unnecessary.
There is another matter which should be taken care of in connection with this whole question. Canada should remove at once the

financial restrictions which are hampering the country at every turn and which are creating unpleasant and probably injurious incidents between the French-Canadian and the English-Canadian people. If Canada were to free herself of all financial restrictions and base her war effort and her economy purely on the man-power and material resources which we have, we should find it easier to clear up many of the difficulties which have caused the feeling which has given rise to the subamendment.
We could reward men for going into the various activities into which we wish them to go. Many people of Canada up to the present time have not realized that we could have encouraged men to join the army in such numbers that we would have found it difficult to keep out of the army a sufficient number of men to carry on the rest of the nation's business. As I say, we could reward men for going to war simply by promising them sufficient financial consideration and thus providing that they should be not worse off but better off for enlisting. We could get men to go into agriculture or any other activity by the simple method of rewarding them adequately for so doing. Consequently, if Canada were in control of the financial mechanism which is operative in this country and if she exercised that financial mechanism with the object of mobilizing all our resources, we should overcome much of the ill-feeling which has developed.


Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, after some hesitation I have decided to say a few words on the amendment of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). In a pressing appeal for support of this amendment the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) the other day made references to some of the members who spoke in the debate on the address and discussed man-power and the labour shortage on the farms. I was one of the members who spoke in the debate on the address and touched on those questions, but surely not in the way that the hon. member for Temiscouata implied. Indeed I think I did the very opposite. I did not criticize the government any more than the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) criticized the government. I said that the Conservative party, having advocated for over three and a half years the conscription of more and more men, were now complaining that there was a shortage of men on the farms, and I congratulated the government upon having followed the policy of a balanced war effort. I also stressed the
The Address-Mr. Brunelle

importance of agriculture and the necessity of its being continued unimpaired. I quoted some authorities in support of my contention and ended by saying that the welfare of the farmers, while in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture was well safeguarded.
I could reply to some other urgings and coaxings and pleadings which have been made recently and which are based on predictions and prophecies, but in order to save time I shall not do so. I repeat to-day what I said the other day, and I am consistent, I believe, in voting against the amendment of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, as I intend to do. Far be it from me to lecture anybody, but I think that in matters which are open to controversy it is often expedient to let well enough alone, particularly in this case, knowing the circumstances under which the mobilization law was passed and knowing the manner and extent of its application. In all these circumstances the act offers a singularly good occasion for letting well enough alone. I shall say no more on that, and I am sure I shall be understood.
This session, Mr. Speaker, has just begun. The members have come here to report on what has taken place in their respective constituencies since the adjournment of the house last fall. The members have already done that duty and have reported to the government what they have found. They have pointed out that great care must be taken in enlisting more men because enlistments seem to have reached what I might term the saturation point. More than ever do I think that the speech from the throne this year has afforded us an opportunity for a debate which has been very useful. We have been able to talk upon any subject. The members have come here from their constituencies with very recent knowledge of what their constituents have told them, and in turn they have been able to tell the government what is taking place throughout the country. The ministers, who are all shrewd men, have listened, and I submit that they have already begun to remedy the present situation. For instance, the Minister of Agriculture in his address in this house on February 9, put on Hansard a letter which has already been addressed to all directors of boards in charge of granting exemptions or postponements of military service. 1 beg leave to quote only two or three paragraphs of this letter:
This is the first of such letters which will be issued by the labour department.
This means that other letters will be sent and that further steps may be taken to remedy the situation. I quote further:

The growing scarcity of agricultural labour makes it increasingly important that essential agricultural workers be encouraged to remain on farms.
Further:
Farm workers who apply for postponement of military training are to be granted postponement until further notice.
This good beginning is sufficient to make me trust the government and believe that whenever the occasion arises other remedies will be applied. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I believe that any investigation which may be made into the shortage of man-power on the farm should be conducted by the ministers themselves. It is their responsibility. I have complained, as almost every other member of the house has done, of the fact- and the fact is an inevitable one-that too much of the responsibility of the ministers is being transferred to somebody else. My friend the member for Richelieu-Vercheres, whom I esteem very much, has himself complained that too many boards and commissions were made to assume the responsibilities of the ministers, I like to approve and follow the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres whenever he is right, and I think he was right when he said that. But in moving the amendment which is now before the house I do not think he agrees with what he said in the speech he made on the address only a few days ago, and I am sorry I cannot follow him this time.
The organization of our immense national resources was a tremendous job. It has been done well by our ministers; and happily this country had at its head the best brains and the most brilliant administrative minds that it could have. In saying this I wish to compliment the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, because he himself was one of the ministers when this mobilization law was framed and passed, and even during the first two years of its operation. In changing the complete national organization from a peacetime to a war-time production it is inevitable that mistakes, will occur, that there will be shortcomings or deficiencies. The shortage of men at the present time is one of those inevitable defects, and I believe the government in charge of the affairs of the country will correct it in due course. When that famous and glorious "new order" is being established the same thing will occur; there will be defects; there will be shortcomings, -but with good will and understanding everyone will do his best to correct those deficiencies and defects. So that to-day, with good will and understanding, the shortage of men on the farms will easily be remedied.
I think that the first duty of hon. members when they came to attend this present session

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
was to make representations to the government and show where remedies should be applied. This we have done. The second duty of members was to afford the government a reasonable opportunity of putting remedial measures into effect. This, I hope, we shall do.
The amendment of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres means the overthrow of the government; it cannot mean anything else. If my memory serves me rightly, I took this definite and precious opinion from the lips of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres himself when last year a similar amendment was made to the speech from the throne while he was a minister of the crown. I cannot support such a drastic measure at this time. In spite of the grievances I have-and at a time like this almost everybody has grievances-I retain my faith in the government; and particularly I trust the Prime Minister, whose record as a brilliant administrator and a wise leader of men is the pride of almost every Canadian citizen. I wish to add that as a rule I revolt against the mere idea of following anyone sheepishly or blindly against the dictates of my conscience or the conclusions of my humble judgment. But when I find a really superior man who is honest, who is highly experienced in a matter which happens to concern me, I do not hesitate; I take pride in following him. And to-day the Prime Minister is really a superman. I wish to add, in case somebody may say that I have changed, that last year the situation was quite different. I, in common with other hon. members, had a special and specific mandate to fulfil. This year I am free to act and to vote according to my humble judgment.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: What was the mandate the hon. member had to fulfil last year?


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I can easily reply to my hon. friend. It was on the debate concerning the amendment of the mobilization law.


Mr. ROWE:: The plebiscite vote.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: It was in connection with the amendment of the mobilization law. I say that I had then a special mandate; and I do not intend to go into this matter again. We discussed it fully last year, and all of us knew about it. My hon. friend must have been absent at that time, because surely every hon. member must know of it.
We are invited to vote for an amendment which if carried would mean the overthrow of the government. Before plunging into such an adventure I want to know where I am going.


William Earl Rowe: Page the Prime Minister.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Honestly and sincerely I wish to ask the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, whom I esteem very much, to tell me now whom he would want to sit in the place of the Prime Minister.


Mr. CARDIN:: I can tell the hon. gentleman that I know perfectly well where he is going.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: What will happen to him at the next election, I suppose.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: This reply of the hon. member is not an answer to my question, and, coming from him, I say that it is a deplorable reply.


Mr. POULIOT:: Is the hon. member going to a deplorable place?


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I hope the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) will not interrupt. He does not like to be interrupted, and I am sure he will agree with me when I say that it takes a great deal less patience for him to listen to me than it takes for us to listen to him.


Jean-François Pouliot: The truth hurts.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Some people say that any man can be replaced. It is true that the most brilliant man, even a genius, can be replaced, but how?
In conclusion I wish to say that the amendment of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres might have its raison d'etre at a later time-if, for instance, the government would not listen to our representations. But coming at this time, when the government has had no opportunity to remedy the situation which has been depicted by hon. members, this amendment is unnecessary, inexpedient and premature.


Major James William Coldwell: Before the amendment to the amendment is voted upon I should like to say a few words, since I was unable to be present on Friday afternoon when the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) placed the considered point of view of our group before the house. As he said then, we shall vote against the amendment to the amendment. We believe that in the midst of this great struggle, when in a very real sense we are fighting for our survival, we could not possibly suspend the operation of any acts or regulations which relate to the conduct of the war. No matter how much we may disapprove policies adopted by the government and subsequently approved by parliament, we hold the view, and I
The Address

Mr. Coldwell

believe it is the proper and! democratic view, that when parliament has given its approval to a certain line of policy it is the duty of members of parliament to support that policy until there is an opportunity of changing it. In peace time one can rise in the House of Commons or elsewhere almost as soon as a policy has been adopted and urge that it be changed; but once we are committed to our allies to taking a certain part in that war, and the war itself is in progress, we must support the policy accepted by parliament under which it is being conducted. That is our position.
I thoroughly agree with my friend the hon. member for Weyburn and others in this house when they point out that the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) is moved by one who was a member of the government when the policies which we are now discussing were instituted. Therefore there can be little doubt that at that time the hon. member gave his support to them.
Since the war began we in this group have urged on many occasions, beginning with the day the war broke out, that the first thing that should have been done was the making of a thorough survey of all our resources in order to determine in what manner we could best serve the common cause. We believed and stated that if we allowed ourselves to be stampeded in any one direction we might ultimately find ourselves in difficulty as a nation. Ever since this war began there have been those who failed to recognize that this is not a war in which large bodies of men move from place to place or are entrenched, as in former wars, but a mechanized war in which many machines are used, the operators of which not only have to be very highly trained but also have to be supported by large numbers of men in industry and agriculture whose business it is to produce the machines and food required for the conduct of the war. Hence our failure to conceive an over-all plan is very largely the difficulty which we face at the present time.
Our friends to my immediate right have been very interesting to many of us in the house this year. In the first two years of the war we heard from them continuous criticisms to the effect that we were not placing enough men under arms, that we were not preparing to send more and more men into the battle line. This year they have been in agreement with the contention of many other hon. members of the house that in order to maintain those men in the battle line we must have large numbers of well-trained men in our factories and on the farms

producing the commodities required to enable us to play our part in the conduct of this war as we are best able to do.
I am in agreement with the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) who said a few minutes ago that even at this time a useful purpose would be served by accepting at least one of the suggestions made in the proposed subamendment, namely, that a thorough survey even at this late day should be made of our man-power in order to see how best we can apportion it in the several fields of endeavour connected with the war. This must be done not at a time when we are withholding the mobilization of manpower, but when we are actually continuing our mobilization. There is no reason in the world why a thorough survey should not be made and an understanding arrived at of the possibilities of our country. So I say that the suggestion in the subamendment to the effect that a committee be set up to inquire into the man-power problem in this country is a constructive suggestion. But while we regard it as such we could not possibly support an amendment which would withhold from the government at this critical time the right to continue to call men for service in the armed forces.
The problem is not only one of men in the armed forces. As has been properly pointed out by many hon. members in this debate, we require to produce this year larger quantities of food than ever. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made this very clear to us when he spoke in the present debate. If we are to have the quantity of food produced in this country that is required not only by our own and allied armies but also to assist in feeding people in Europe when the second front is opened in the west and the nations are liberated, then we require to pay particular attention to the problem of man-power on the farm. I noticed that on February 9 the Canadian federation of agriculture placed before the Prime Minister a brief on the subject of man-power in agriculture in which they made the position clear. The spokesmen for the federation stated that it will be impossible to meet the greatly increased production goals if a heavy-drain on the skilled man-power of the farms continues. They went on to say that it was their considered opinion that the increasing shortage in farm labour cannot be met by the unpaid labour of the farmer's wife and young children, nor can skilled labour so essential to present-day farming be replaced by untrained help from the cities, without a decline in the production of food. The federa-

The Address-Mr. Tremblay
tion recommended that to ensure an adequate supply of skilled farm help the allocation of the available man-power supply should be made without discrimination between agriculture and other essential war industries. For peak labour demands during seeding and harvest, they suggest that military authorities should release men in /military training and that the steps necessary to this end should be taken in ample time to meet the situation. These were constructive proposals from the federation of agriculture which I would warmly commend to the minister.
Underlining the man-power muddle in which we find ourselves, a return for which I asked before the house met, which was tabled on February 10, indicates clearly how serious the situation is, not only because we have shortages in some fields of vital industry but also because we have at the present time a great deal of unemployment.
I asked for a return indicating the number of persons registered as seeking work at the regional employment offices, five in number. I find, for example, that on January 14 of this year there were 96,331 persons so registered, and I believe that number has since risen to some extent. This emphasizes the plea that we should have some investigation into our man-power policy in order that we may serve to the greatest extent possible the needs of this country and of the war effort. The group with -which I am associated has continually urged that an all-out war effort requires not only the mobilization and organization of our human resources but, even more fundamentally, the organization on the same terms and the same basis of industry and wealth. If we are going to have an all-out war effort, we must do exactly that.
Before I sit down there is just one other thing I should like to say. I hope during this session of parliament we may be able to end the kind of controversy about the war effort that from time to time we have had to endure here. If we could only realize that to-day we are in very truth fighting a war of survival; that while we may hold different views and advocate different policies it should be the duty of all to endeavour to see to it that the war effort of our country is a maximum contribution to the common cause of defeating the aggressor powers. So that while it seems to me the time is long past when we should have formulated a thorough-going, comprehensive, over-all war plan for this country, at least now that time ought to be here in a very real sense. As I say, we should endeavour during this session to see to it that we make our maximum effort in the conduct of the war and that the man-power, financial and 72537-41
economic resources of the country are utilized to the very best effect. This cannot be done by overemphasizing one phase or the other of our national effort. We should endeavour to see each part of our great effort in its own true and proper perspective. Only in that way can we make our maximum contribution to the common cause.


Mr. L. D. TREMBLAY (Dorchester) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to conceal the fact that I feel reluctant to rise at this time in order to voice views at variance with those suggested by the amendment moved by the honourable member for Riche-lieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). If I find it so painful to contradict him it is because for so many years-and for my part I might say since my early youth-we had been used to see the mover of the amendment at the head of the Liberal forces in our good old province of Quebec, and we were fond of hearing the redoubtable fighter endowed with such captivating and convincing eloquence. We enjoyed following him when he campaigned in company with the late lamented Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe and indeed we had every reason to admire and esteem him. If most of us cannot follow him to-day he may nevertheless be sure that he still enjoys our full esteem. Of course we are sorry that he has seen fit to leave the government which has and will continue to have our unflinching support.
I may say about his amendment that it expresses some of our feelings. Thus when the hon. member states:
"This house is of the opinion that in view of the recognized shortage of farm labour, also the admitted shortage of labour in war industries and in other essential industrial and transportation activities, . . .
When he voices such a regret, I can tell him that most of us fully agree with him. I, for one, have had an opportunity of representing to the proper authorities that they should make available to farmers such help as is essential to the production required for our armed forces and for our allies.
In Quebec military district No. 5, the responsible authorities-or what we call the deferment board-have as a rule granted postponements to those who could prove that they were bona fide farmers. Unfortunately, our young farmers, not very conversant with the law, have often failed to answer the first call and to apply for the postponement to which they were entitled. On the other hand the deferment board was rather inclined to follow the letter rather than observe the spirit of the law, and in this, as in everything, the letter killeth while the spirit giveth life.

The Address-Mr. Tremblay

So that quite recently, on February 3. to be exact, the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) sent a letter to the chairman of the mobilization boards-that is to the postponement boards-containing instructions and an interpretation of the mobilization act. I think it important that certain parts of this letter be put on Hansard so that our farmers might be made aware of the privileges to which they are entitled and which should be granted them when they apply to the mobilization board for a postponement. This letter is dated February 3 and reads in part as follows:
It is the intention of the regulations that agricultural workers are to be retained in agricultural employment as far as practical through the national selective service (civilian) regulations. To the extent that their services can he spared from the farms during the "off-crop" season they are to be encouraged to take temporary seasonal employment in lumbering and logging, forestry, fishing, coal and base metal mining, and acceptance of seasonal work in such industries does not deprive men of their right to postponement as agricultural workers providing they return to farm work when the season re-opens.
I have often been asked, I might say, practically every day by visitors who come to see me and by electors who tell me: I have been granted a postponement, and I would like to know if I am permitted to work in the bush this winter, or to work elsewhere during the "off-season", so as to earn a few extra dollars. Well, farmers should be better informed of the interpretation of the law as given in this letter and be in a position to take advantage of this privilege. It should be made very clear to them, and on this subject the minister not only stated that they have this right, but that they should be encouraged to take advantage of it.
I also wished to call the attention of the house to this letter because the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, on Friday last, stated that he was sorry that the farm worker was not left on the farm where he was so badly needed. Now this letter shows clearly that even before this statement was made, the Minister of Labour had sent instructions to the chairman of the mobilization boards telling them to leave the farm workers on the farms where they are needed.
In paragraph 4 of this letter, the minister states:
Farm workers who apply for postponement of military training are to be granted postponement until further notice.
I must admit that a more favourable explanation is given here of the mobilization policy of the government. Ever since this act came into force our good farmers did not know where to apply. They had to fill in

forms which, as we all know, even professional men can hardly understand. Then they had to get letters from their mayor, their parish priest, or from some distinguished or other responsible person and prove that they were farmers. Their cases had to be proved beyond all doubt or else their application was immediately turned down. I wish here to call the attention of the government on this fact- unfortunately we have in the army to-day farmers that are needed on the farm and who came up for military service for lack of information concerning the procedure to be followed to obtain postponement. I hope the government will consider this situation and make sure that it is remedied.
Paragraph 4 states that:
Farm workers who apply for postponement from military training are to be granted postponement until further notice, unless it is established that the applicant is not an essential worker in agriculture. It should be noted that the regulations do not require the farmer to produce proof that he is an essential farm worker. If the board doubts that a man is an essential farm worker, even though postponement until further notice is given, it can always exercise the right to deny postponement by calling such a man before the board when established facts are presented.
This is my understanding of the matter- and I would ask the hon. minister to correct me if I am mistaken; a farmer or a farm hand is not obliged to prove that he belongs to that particular class. If the board is of the opinion that he is not a farmer, it is up to the board to prove it. Yesterday, upon meeting the Minister of Labour, I submitted precisely such an interpretation and the minister assured me it was absolutely what the Department of Labour wished to see put into force.
Now then; I now quote paragraph 5 of the letter:
If a worker who upon receipt of "order- medical examination" claims to be an agricultural worker but is not considered by the board to be essential to the operation of a specific farm-the question then arises as to whether or not he is essential to agriculture in the district.
If agricultural labour is needed in the district, he should be given an opportunity to place himself in a position where his services would be essential to agriculture on some other farm; or in the alternative to increase the production of a specific farm. The board could give a deferment for three months instead of "granting postponement until further notice" in order to give the man an opportunity of finding essential work.
Here again, an improvement is evident. Let us take, for example, the case of a farmer who has three sons at home and only needs two absolutely to run the farm and does not need the third who consequently is

The Address-Mr. Picard
not an essential worker, the board must grant a postponement of three months to the latter thus giving him an opportunity to find employment on some other farm in his district where his services will be required and essential to agriculture. The board, moreover, must grant him an exemption for the time during which he will do some essential work on another farm. It is one of two things: either the government are sincere ar they are not. The government is sincere, of that I am convinced; they want the farmer to produce and to produce as much as he can. Hence the new interpretation given to the mobilization act. I therefore congratulate the government and particularly the Minister of Labour on the instructions issued to competent authorities, and I now hope that the government will see to it that this interpretation is accepted by the mobilization boards throughout Canada.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres to-day, after deploring the conditions which the government must remedy, urges us to give a vote which would express a want of confidence in the government.
His own statement, however, according to the Citizen of February 22, is as follows:
Hon. Mr. Cardin said in an interview here Saturday it was not his intention through his subamendment introduced Thursday in the throne speech debate to force the formation of a national government or to consolidate groups of Quebec members opposed to the government's man power policy.
The honourable member was stating, no doubt, his honest opinion. He himself has told us on a previous occasion-and we believed him-that any government other than that of the present Right Honourable Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) would offer no guarantee that the province of Quebec and its feelings would be respected as they are by the present Prime Minister. I do not believe it was the honourable member's intention to precipitate a want of confidence motion against the King administration. He himself has said as much. However, he states further:
Mr. Cardin admitted his subamendment could be interpreted as a want of confidence motion but "essentially it was not intended as such."
A little further on the article continues:
However, Mr. Cardin was "perfectly sure" the government would not suffer a defeat on his subamendment.
From this, it might be deduced that the hon. member, while intending to blame the government, does not wish to be unfair. I hope that he desires the conversion rather than the death of the sinner, if there is a
sinner. Just the same, it may be inferred from his statements that he does not wish the fall of the present administration. But in what position do we find ourselves? The adoption of this amendment would constitute a censure of the government, expressed by a vote of want of confidence from the hon. members. By voting for the amendment, we would express a wish to overthrow the government and we do overthrow them technically as well as practically.
I may say that popular sentiment in the province of Quebec favours our support of the government who alone offer a guarantee that our legitimate requests as well as our rights will be respected. The hon. Prime Minister surely enjoys not only the confidence of the great majority of my fellow-citizens, but even the esteem and affection of nearly 100 per cent of the population. During the 1940 election, especially in my constituency, there have been, for a certain time, dissatisfied people. One of them, known as a Liberal, not a very fervent or steadfast one, even ran against me. In Dorchester, even among the leaders and the rank and file of Conservatives who gave me their support, it was stated: "We want Tremblay because we know that he will not detach himself from Mackenzie King in the House of Commons." Which goes far to show the sincerity of my stand. I have always taken this attitude with my constituents, with those of other constituencies, of the entire province and1 even of other provinces, when I have supported candidates outside Quebec who were standing for election. My attitude to-day has not changed. I have faith in the hon. leader of the present government; I have faith in his ministers and my vote against the amendment moved by the hon. member, will express this confidence.


Mr. L. P. PICARD (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the universe is ablaze; for the last three and a half years the world has been ravaged by one of the worst wars that has ever come upon humanity in all history. Two groups of nations are facing each other; two ideologies are trying to destroy one another. Three and a half years ago Canada made its choice and sided with the democracies. When the proposal to declare war was brought before this house few members raised their voice against it; it was carried without a recorded vote. Since that time Canada has made a splendid effort under the present government. Our industrial machine has been geared to produce more than we ever thought it could. Our agricultural production has been raised to new levels. A strong army is now under
The Address-Mr. Picard

arms and our navy has been multiplied more than five times. We have more than 150,000 men in the air force and have contributed more than any other nation in the commonwealth to this splendid plan which has provided airmen for the united nations. All this has been done by progressive steps, with the least disturbance of the normal life of the country and the preservation of national unity; it has been done under the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King).
In considering the present amendment to the amendment every hon. member should ask himself what his attitude was in the past, what it has been up to now and what will be the logical attitude to take on it. In 1940 a vast majority of the members from Quebec supported the bill to provide for the mobilization of the human and national resources of the country. During the following three and a half years if the members from Quebec have been at variance with the government to any great extent, it was on Bill No. 80. French Canadians want to win the war and they want to win it under the present government.
If I may be permitted to talk about my own views and ideas I would say that in the past I have been against our fighting the wars of the British empire unless Canada was directly concerned. My views have not changed. But this is not a war being waged for the pleasure or the aggrandizement of the British empire; this is a world war, a war in which our own institutions are at stake. Canada, whether it is French or English, whether it is the east or the west, stands united on this question. While we may differ as to the best methods to be used to achieve the desired result, we are all convinced that Canada has a better chance to achieve this without disrupting national unity under the leadership of the present Prime Minister.
French Canada has accepted the mobilization of our youth for the defence of Canada and it has volunteered in much larger numbers than it did under the different methods used during the last war. The law that now governs this mobilization was voted upon by a great majority of the members from Quebec. That law is still the same, and that is the law that this amendment to the amendment would suspend. Men will be needed on the other side and volunteers will be taken out of the ranks of many of the regiments now defending our country. Men will be needed to train for the defence of Canada. Nothing has been changed. The law was passed with that intention and despite Bill No. 80 it is still being operated in that spirit.
Under Bill No. 80 the government is given the power to send men overseas, but I do not
(Mr. Picard.]
think that power has ben exercised except to send men to Labrador, Newfoundland and Alaska. I may say that I have had the approval of meetings in my district where I have been told that they have no objection to men being used for the defence of the hemisphere in Labrador or elsewhere, but they are against our men being used on the other continent. This attitude has been approved by French Canada at large, and I am sure that many other hon. members from Quebec will say the same thing. Nothing has been changed and the government is still tied to the declaration that whenever it passed the order in council to use conscripts for overseas service, it would bring it before the house for approval or disapproval on a confidence motion. So that the members from Quebec are still just as free as they were before to vote confidence in the government now; they are in the same position as they were when they voted for the mobilization act in 1940.
What I stated in my speech a few days ago in the debate on the address I still repeat. My good friend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) reminded the house the other day that I was one of those who had talked about man-power and criticized the government's policy. What I criticized was the operation and the interpretation by the boards of the mobilization regulations, and I still say that clearer instructions should be given to all these boards dealing with deferments or exemptions of farmers or workers in industry. I still think those instructions should be made clearer, but that is a question of interpretation and a question of the operation of the lawv It is not a question of principle as to whether the government has taken the right course in carrying out the mobilization act. It is just a question of knowing whether the government has instructed the boards as to the proper interpretation of the rules, and whether the boards interpret them in such a way as to ensure a proper flow of workers for the farms and for industry. Should we now suspend that law and say to the rest of the world: We will deliberate for months to find out if we have enough men at work or not in industries and agriculture? Should we say at a time like this: Let us wait-German armies may be on the march here and there, and it is true we want to win the war, but let us Wait and argue before committees for months in order to please a certain element of the electorate? I would rather be defeated, Mr. Speaker, than support such a proposal. The whole world would gape in astonishment if they saw any democratic institution in one of the united nations waiting and arguing for months as to whether we have enough men on the farm or

The Address-Mr. Picard
otherwise. I have enough confidence in the government to believe that if abuses have crept into the administration of the law on account of a misinterpretation of the rules, and the facts are brought to their attention, they will be clever enough to correct those abuses. May I say with all due respect to the house that the people have more confidence in the Prime Minister himself settling this question than they would have even in a committee of this house.
People have evoked in the last two years quite frequently the name of a man whose memory is so dear to me that I feel I should say a word about him to-day. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) mentioned his name in the house the other day, and if there is any who has the right to do it, it. is the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. For him I have the greatest respect, because he has rendered great service to the country, and no matter what people in other parts of the country may think of his present amendment they should bow to him because in moments of crisis in the past he knew what to do. He stood where he should, and he used his great influence at the time with the people of his province to get them in the right way. He deserves the gratitude of the people of this country for his past services, but on this question we cannot follow him.
I have as much right as any to evoke the memory of Lapointe, whether here or in public gatherings. I knew Mr. Lapointe for some thirty years, ever since I was a child. I knew him as his secretary for twelve years, and without boasting I think I may say I enjoyed some of his confidence. Frankly, those who tried to picture Mr. Lapointe, as some have tried at meetings of the Defence of Canada League, are either not sincere or they know very little of the man. There is one thing that Lapointe had, and that was a true sentiment for Canada at large, not only for his province but for the whole country. He was one hundred per cent a Canadian. Lapointe was a disciple of Laurier, and he believed in the true Liberalism of Laurier. He went further and believed in the true Liberalism of the English school of Gladstone and so many other leaders on the other side. He was, above all, for a united Canada. He would not have given one inch of ground on matters of interest to his compatriots where a question of principle was concerned. But in matters where the interests of the whole country were concerned he would have thought as a Canadian above all else.
Lapointe at any moment was ready to fight bigotry where he found it and when he thought that it would hurt Canada. In English Canada
he would fight men like Shields and others who are trying every day to stir up racial hatred. In his own province he preached a better understanding and fought all his life against the extremists from the days of 1910 when he fought nationalism, and successfully in his own constituency; when he stood by Laurier on the question of the navy. When people said that Kamouraslca would turn against him, Lapointe summoned a meeting of his people the day after he returned to his constituency from Ottawa and got his people to follow him. He was not one of those to flinch. The people stood behind him and he was sent back to Ottawa. It was those who had hesitated to follow Laurier who were defeated at the next election by Nationalists, and not those who had remained steadfast. Lapointe in Quebec in his last years had enough trouble fighting the views and sentiments preached by the Bouchards and other separatists who came against him, sometimes with the silent support of the official opposition. Everybody will remember Lapointe's attitude during this war, and none of those who vote against this amendment should think that he is not in the true line with Lapointe. That was true also, at the time, of the member for Richelieu-Vercheres. He then stood by Lapointe and the two deserved credit. I again pay my due respect to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, whose true Liberalism for a quarter of a centuiy has been an example for all of us, whose views I cannot share now, but whose sincerity I would not question. But I cannot follow him in the steps he is now taking. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres sat here on Laurier's side; he was one of his disciples. Does he think for one moment that Laurier would bring in such an amendment as this? If he does, I respectfully differ; I do not think so.
Mr. Lapointe before his death said on many occasions that he had not changed his attitude as to Canada's participation in this war to the utmost, with this reservation, which he had given to his friends and compatriots, that he would not ask them to be conscripted for the defence of Canada overseas. But he said he would support everything short of that to win the war, and if he ever came to the conclusion that that was necessaiy, he would withdraw himself rather than do it, because of the undertaking he had given.
That was the attitude of Lapointe. I say, if Lapointe were living he would be sad, even sadder than we are, to see this house faced with such an amendment to the amendment. Lapointe, had he lived, would not have brought forward such a subamendment; and
The Address-Mr. Lajontaine

I can assure you, sir, that the vast majority of the members from his province will be true to him, and will vote against it.


Mr. JOSEPH LAFONTAINE (Megantic-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, if I rise at this stage of the debate to speak on the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), it is because of the fact that I want to give to this house and place on Hansard the reasons which, I think, will justify my voting the way I intend to vote when the division is called.
During the 1940 election, I visited all the parishes of the constituency of Megantic-Frontenac which I have the honour to represent in this house. Addressing all the electors of those parishes, I then stated sincerely and frankly what, if I were elected, my attitude would be on any questions which might arise, such as the very question which is now before the house.
At those meetings, in the light of statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the late lamented Ernest Lapointe and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) who was then Minister of Public Works, I pledged myself to do two things.
First, I promised to oppose any measure or bill of conscription for overseas service; second, I promised to oppose any union or coalition government, a dream so dearly cherished by a number of members sitting on the opposite side of the house. These are the only two specific promises I have made to my electors and I may state, Mr. Speaker, that I will keep them at all cost, being convinced that keeping my word is preferable to any honours that might be conferred on me.
Moreover, at each of the meetings at which I made those promises, I declared that, in view of the war we were waging at the side of France and England, I could foresee dark and difficult days ahead. I stated that we might be faced with complex problems, such as those that confronted us during the last session and such as the present one, but that, realizing the extent of my responsibility, I would consider all these questions in the light of circumstances and in relation to the facts and arguments expounded and that I would vote according to the dictates of my conscience. I have been faithful to this policy ever since I came to this house and I will adhere to it when the time comes to vote on the motion before the house.
What does the amendment moved by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) refer to? It appears at page 551 of Hansard, as follows:

This house is of the opinion that in view of the recognized shortage of farm labour, also the admitted shortage of labour in war industries and in other essential industrial and transportation activities, Your Excellency's advisers should have provided for the withholding of the operation of the National Resources Mobilization Act in regard to the raising of men for military service until, at least, a complete investigation is made by a committee of the house, to ascertain and determine by what means or methods Canada can now most effectively contribute to the winning of the war, without destroying the economic, social and national life of the country.
Scarcity of farm labour. No doubt remains in the minds of anyone regarding the scarcity of farm labour; but should this scarcity be blamed on the mobilization act exclusively? I do not think so, for you know that the regulations enacted under this act permit farmers' sons and farm workers to obtain a postponement of training until a specified date or until further notice.
Any man, whether a farmer, a farmer's son or a farm worker, when notified to report for his medical examination could, within eight days of the receipt of such notice, apply for postponement or extension by duly completing the questionnaire enclosed with the notice and returning it to the registrar of his division. The latter would submit the case to the board set up for the purpose, which passed upon the advisability of granting or declining suspension or postponement of the call-up in the light of the reasons set forth in the application.
May I be allowed to mention incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that all men in Division F who were called up under this Act have been treated with fairness and impartiality, both by the registrar and his staff, who invariably made it their duty to supply all the information requested by those r jncerned, and by the members of the board In so far as I know-and I am conversant with the question-they have discharged their duties in a fair and sensible manner. There may have been and, undoubtedly, there were some mistakes made, but they were made unintentionally and, in most cases they were due to a lack of knowledge or a lack of attention on the part of the applicant in filling the application for postponement. In every case where an applicant deserved a postponement, such postponement was granted. If, as I have just stated, all true farmers, their sons and their employees were granted a' delay or a postponement until further notice, as has been the case in Division F, then the Mobilization Act cannot be held responsible for the present scarcity of farm labour. I am inclined to believe, on the contrary, that it was caused by the large number of farmers who, lured by the industrial

The Address-Mr. Fauteux
areas, their war munition and equipment industries and the high wages paid, have forsaken the farm for the cities. Of this, Sorel, the home town of the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres offers a typical example; its population has nearly doubled since 1939 on account of its war industries.
The same condition obtains in the city of Quebec whose population has considerably increased during the past two years. The amendment says:
Until, at least, a complete investigation is made by a committee of the house to ascertain and determine by what means or methods Canada can now most effectively contribute to the winning of the war.
I oppose the setting up of such a committee, for I feel that a measure of this sort might be a step toward the establishment of a union government. Anybody familiar with the setting up of a committee of the house is aware that such a committee is made up of members belonging to every party. Is it not exactly in this fashion that the union government of 1917 was organized? The amendment continues:
Without destroying the economic, social and national life of the country.
I am wondering, at least up to the present moment, where is to be found the (lost ruction of the economic life of the country and how it could be destroyed, even though the industries of war require more workers.
Just now, more people are at work than at any other time in our history; the salaries are just as high, or perhaps higher, than they have ever been.
To support what I have just said, may I be permitted to sketch the part played by war industry in Quebec? As regards implements of war, four of the nine types of aircraft made in Canada are manufactured in the province of Quebec. The largest plant in the British Empire manufacturing 25-pounders, from the raw materials to the finished products, is located in the province of Quebec. Our province manufactures and assembles two types of tanks, and turns out every kind of aerial bombs. It has two of the largest shell factories and half a dozen shipyards which launch cargo-boats, corvettes and minesweepers. Sixty per cent of the Canadian soldiers walk in shoes made in our province, which turns out, in large quantities, parachutes, bullets, cartridges, trench mortars, chemical products, explosives, and electrical and wireless apparatus.
The aluminum industry has built there one of the largest plants in the world. The province of Quebec is the centre of the newsprint industry. Pulp and paper, essential products
in modern warfare, are manufactured in our province, and the capital invested in that industry amounts to $360,000,000. Our province produces more rayon than any other province. As to the mining industry, we can say that the fabulous resources of our province saved the allies from a difficult situation. Aluminum, copper, asbestos are our main products, but other strategical products badly needed by the united nations, such as manganese, tungsten, molybdenum and chromium, are to be found in our province and are in process of development.
The weekly earnings of the 600,000 industrial workers of Quebec amount to $16,300,000. They produce the whole of Canadian aluminum; they operate one of the largest tank factories on the continent; they produce planes and ships in vast numbers.
In view of such facts and figures, I do not believe that the government have been, nor are they now, leading us toward economic ruin; quite the contrary, they have given us a kind of prosperity.
Whatever may be said to disprove it, the amendment as drafted, were it adopted by the house, would constitute a non-confidence vote against the government. As there is nothing in the speech from the throne which is contrary to the obligations I have taken toward my constituents, I shall vote against this amendment and I shall support the government, for I have every confidence in them.


Mr. GASPARD FAUTEUX (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, it is not without a feeling of emotion and without fvdly realizing my responsibilities that I rise to address the house. Since the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) has moved the amendment which is familiar to all of us, I believe we can truthfully say that the province of Quebec has been deeply stirred. One cannot rise in this house and speak for or against that amendment without first realizing that he shall have to speak for or against the mover, the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres, the former minister of public works.
The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) stated the other day that during the thirty-odd years of his political life, he had perhaps never witnessed such a momentous occasion. I am not much advanced in years, Mr. Speaker, but still I have been in politics for about twenty years. I come from a family which is active in politics and which has taken a part in the development of our province, and if I rise in this house to-day, I may say, with all due deference to my good friend the hon. member for Temiscouata, that
The Address-Mr. Fautewx

it is not for the sake of the Christmas tree or the gifts that may hang on it. But, before registering my vote I simply wish to explain my stand. And, as I said at the outset, it is exceedingly difficulty for a member from the province of Quebec to speak on the amendment. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres must certainly be aware that the whole province and all the members, even those who do not see eye to eye with him and who will vote against his motion, have nevertheless much affection and admiration for him.
However, the electors of our respective constituencies have sent us here not from any considerations of friendship or affection, but to fulfil our duty, all our duty. And if we must not vote for the gift hanging from the Christmas tree, neither must we be prompted to vote by any fear of the pack of any organization, or of a press which I dare not style as I should, and which is striving neither for national unity in Canada, nor for the greater good of Quebec, not for the defence of Canada, but for a single cause, which is to assume power both in Quebec and in Ottawa.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres will permit me, I shall quote a few remarks of his which still move me deeply and which, if they were true and heartfelt when he made them over the radio, must still hold true in this debate.
On April 24, 1942, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, speaking over the radio on the question of the plebiscite, made a marvellous speech that we all like to remember. At the beginning of his speech, he said:
The discussion of the great problem of to-day has upset and worried the minds of many people, especially amongst the French-speaking population of this province. I am old enough to remember a similar campaign that was made in 1911, the year I entered politics. Laurier was then thrown out of power following the attacks hurled against him by his compatriots of the province of Quebec. The men and women of my age remember it as they remember also the consequences of that serious blunder.
The famous navy question was then to the fore. In certain parts of the country, Laurier was accused of not being imperialistic enough. . . .
The same thing is said to-day about Mr. King.
. . . and his idea of establishing a Canadian navy was laughed at; and in the province of Quebec, he was accused of having sold his country to England. . . .
History repeats itself, Mr. Speaker.
. . . and it appeared that the campaign in the province of Quebec was financed from outside, by Mr. Borden's supporters, through the imperialistic fund. These people were then trying to divide the province of Quebec so as to succeed in throwing Laurier out of power. How many false declarations of independence did we not [Mr. Fauteux.l
hear then, how many self-seeking denunciations against so-called political partisanship. . . .
We are called "yes-men" today
. . . accusations of weakness and treachery, in short, appeals to prejudice. It was very much like what we hear to-day, save that the leaders of the movement at the time were more important and more gifted.
A few of the would-be saviours of that time can still be found to-day taking part in this agitation. They are somewhat older, but appear not to have learned from experience, probably because they have not personally suffered from the conditions which they contributed to bring about. These agitators claimed that Laurier was a coward and a traitor, that he was bent on retaining power at any price and that he had sold out to England.
It was then possible to frighten the people of Quebec and many honest individuals were taken in for lack of a proper understanding of actual facts and of the grave situation of the moment. As a result, under attacks coming from two opposite directions, but supported, it has been said, by funds coming from the same source, Laurier was overthrown. Sir Robert Borden succeeded him at the head of affairs and it was under his leadership that we had the would-be union government of 1917. Those who had remained faithful to Laurier stood with him in the opposition. They still could protest, but having lost power, they were forced to submit to the law as imposed by the majority,
I call upon my province and my colleagues not to forget that statement. Therein lies perhaps my motive for rising in my seat to-day, Mr. Speaker. In 1911, I had not, like the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, the privilege of waging the political campaign at the side of Laurier. I was then but a boy at the Quebec seminary. But I perfectly recall how Laurier, our leader, defeated candidate in Quebec East, the man who the preceding day in Quebec had been called a freemason, an enemy of the French Canadians, an imperialist, a traitor-with a profound emotion, I can still see him, the traitor to his own people and to his church; he was standing in the hall of the Seminary by the side of the Right Reverend Mathieu, archbishop of Regina. He who, according to his own people had forsaken his fellow-countrymen, and his faith, had in time of defeat and sorrow found no better place to seek solace than in Quebec Seminary by the side of that great man, the Right Reverend Mathieu.
What, may I ask our electors, the province of Quebec and our hon. friends now on the opposite side of the house for whom I have great respect, what have we promised to the province of Quebec at the last elections? What have been our promises to the province of Quebec for the last twenty years? We, of the Liberal party have promised that there would be no conscription. Yes, it is true, we have made that promise, I have made it

The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
myself. When bill No. 80 was before the house, almost a majority from the province voted against conscription and most regretfully and unwillingly against their leader, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.
But what are we being asked to-day? What measure is before the house? We are discussing the speech from the throne, and I believe that each and every one of us appreciates the fact that in the speech from the throne there is nothing which is likely to create embarrassment nor to interfere with our political ambitions and the interest of our country. The most striking aspect of the speech from the throne are those social reforms announced by the government, their social security programme. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker, which is before the house to-day. The debate is not on conscription, nor on the question of dividing the country; it is not directed against the Province of Quebec nor against any other province. Notwithstanding the wonderful speech made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres in which he praised Canada's war effort, a war effort in accord with the sentiments of the Province of Quebec, the hon. member moved an amendment which comes as a surprise to everyone. For my part, I oppose this amendment though it mean the end of my political career; I represent a constituency of workers in the city of Montreal and one of the most important counties in the province; I was elected without the help of the Liberal association.
I won over the friends of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe). I asked my friends what they were willing to do for this war and this is what they replied, and I think they expressed the sentiments of the province of Quebec: "We wish to do our share; we are willing to make sacrifices and work for the war; we will subscribe generously for the war effort but we are opposed to conscription."
As far as I am concerned and speaking for my electors, I may say that as long as conscription for overseas service will not be forced upon the people of this country, there will be but one leader for the constituency of Montreal-St. Mary, the province of Quebec shall never have but one leader and that leader is the present Prime Minister of Canada.
I received this morning a resolution from the Liberal Association of Montreal-St. Mary, a highly important organization since during the last election out of four candidates running three were Liberals and the other took good care not to mention that he was not a Liberal.
We, the officers of the Liberal Association of Montreal-St. Mary, gathered in a special meet-72537-42
ing, do declare unanimously that we have always had confidence in the Right Hon. Mackenzie King;
That to-day we must more than ever before be true to his policy as the only one capable of maintaining unity amongst all component parts of the country and of meeting the manifold demands of the hour;
That we have enough confidence in the patriotism of our member of parliament, Dr. Gaspard Fauteux, to give him full liberty to take the stand he deems necessary on the amendment to the amendment moved by the Hon. P. J. A. Cardin, as we are convinced that the vote he will give will be in the best interests of his country, his province and his county;
And here are some more telegrams. At the last minute, at 4125, probably learning that my name was on the list of members who were to speak this afternoon, and knowing that I had received telegrams asking me to vote for Mr. King, the Jeunes Laurentiens sent me a wire stating they hoped that I would vote against my leader. I say again to this house and to my colleagues, from Quebec that I prefer to work with Mr. King to help build a country united from coast to coast, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, than to work against him to comply with the wishes of a small group of Laurentiens who think only of their own petty interests, who seek to overthrow King as Laurier was overthrown, who attempt to overthrow another leader in Quebec as they defeated me in 1935 by resorting to slander and lies.
Mr. Speaker, with your permission and the consent of the house, I shall conclude with a sentence we love to quote in the province of Quebec, even though it was uttered by a man who was not our leader. It applies, I believe, not only to the province of Quebec, but to the whole country, and I think it is the very spirit of the policy followed by the Liberal party: " Cessons nos luttes fratricides et unis-sons-nous." Let us put a stop to our fratricidal struggles and let us unite.


Mr. LIONEL BERTRAND (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken a great deal of interest in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) and I am doubly interested for the simple reason that I intended, during the session, to express certain opinions along the same lines. More than once I have noted a scarcity of labour in my constituency, and since, on many occasions, the leading authorities in our country have deplored this condition, I had anticipated a debate on the question and I intended to take part in it. The sub-amendment moved by Mr. Cardin offers me an occasion to express my views on the subject, and I avail myself of this opportunity.

650	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
During the past two weeks in particular, the information given by the members of this house, to whatever party they be long, and the complaints they have made, offer ample proof that we are faced to-day in Canada with a serious labour shortage not only in agriculture but in essential industries as well.
In my estimation, this scarcity of labour is due to the fact that recruiting in our. country has been carried on without any definite and comprehensive plan and in total ignorance of the needs of agriculture and its allied industries, as well as of the needs of other industries essential to the economic life of the nation. The raising of armies may seem all important in the eyes of the Department of National Defence, but is it possible for this department to be unmindful of the fact that armies would be helpless if, on the home front, we had no men for the production of implements of war, or to keep our communication lines open, or to extract from the soil the food products necessary to the physical life of the nation.
Agriculture is short of labour. It is asked to deliver maximum production, while on the other hand it is deprived of the necessary labour. All farmers' sons called up before or after the 23rd of March should be sent back to the land without further delay. And they should not have to go through that red tape which takes their requests from the commanding officer to the defence boards, from desk to desk, for weeks and weeks, until they get the routine answer which, no matter how important the reasons put forth, is always negative. Moreover I suggest that under the law the miller, the blacksmith and the saw-mill hands should be rated as farmers. Agriculture cannot yield sufficiently unless it has the services of those workers, especially at a time when restrictions of all kinds cripple its efforts.
Our war industries, our essential industries are also complaining of a labour shortage, which will shortly become more acute when three large plants in the Montreal district will ask for some twelve thousands of workers. War production is essential; to be efficient, it needs stable as well as skilled labour.
A number of factories have witnessed the exodus of their employees to the military camps and have been unable to replace them. Mobilization has also deprived a number of other factories-some farm implement manufacturers among them-of their skilled labour and are thereby in an embarrassing and disastrous position. It seems ridiculous to me, for instance, that expert machinists and technicians have been called for training and assigned, in military camps, to secondary jobs, while they could have been a strong element of stability and efficiency for the war effort.

I shall go even further: I claim that essential industries should be allowed to keep all the labour they need to enable them to place production on the efficient basis which will never be reached by the present ceaseless changes in their personnel.
Is it possible to attain maximum efficiency in farm and war production when, in such a vast country as ours, fast and excellent means of transportation are not available to them? Is there not a scarcity of railway employees? Do not the same conditions obtain for the motor transport companies who have to work under more and more stringent restrictions?
On November 30, 1942-about three months ago-on the occasion of the 78th general annual meeting of the shareholders of the Banque Nationale, its president, Mr. Beaudry Leman, said:
The present scarcity of labour may be due, to a certain extent, to the lack of a comprehensive plan to allocate all fit persons methodically as between the military and the economic fields. In any case, scarcity of labour is already felt in certain essential branches of production such as agriculture, stock raising, lumber operations, coal mines and even other mines which produce essential metals for the prosecution of the war. Should we not profit by England's experience, where 50,000 miners who had joined the army had to be returned to the coal mines?
Until recently, mobilization was under the Department of National War Services. To this end, the country was divided into districts headed by administrative commissions and registrars. The divisional offices were supposed to fill the requisitions for recruits, sent in by the department of National Defence, and grant postponements in accordance with a clear-cut policy. It would be unfair to say that these commissions did not try to be fair. The Montreal commission, apparently well organized, and evidently administered by a well-chosen staff, neglected nothing to attain this object. But those boards, in conformity with the instructions they had received from Ottawa, had to call for training a number of men who, if a fair plan of labour allotment had first been worked out, would greatly enhance our war effort in factories, on farms, in mines, in lumbering and in transportation.
Sooner or later, owing to the impulsion thoughtlessly given to recruiting, the labour shortage was bound to bring about the serious problem which this country is facing today. So far, nearly 800,000 men have gone into Canada's armed forces, out of a mobilizable population of 2,215,800, or one third of the latter. Now, the United States, whose population is about 140,000,000, has decided to call to arms no more than a maximum number of seven million and a half men, and a committee has just opposed the enlistment

The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
of married mem, such a policy being considered by them as detrimental to the welfare of the American, nation. Canada would then make, as regards enlistments, a greater effort than the United States, which seems ridiculous. In the neighbouring country, recruiting has been conducted on a basis which kept into account the fact that industry and agriculture are two fields which in a well organized war effort should be on a par. For a few months past, the national selective service has replaced the war services in so far as mobilization is concerned. To this date has that organization achieved what was expected of it? Obviously it could not be efficiently organized without a temporary stop to recruiting, so that past errors might be corrected and a new labour allotment plan worked out for the benefit of the various phases of our war effort. To date, our man-power has been almost thoughtlessly requisitioned, as if that were the only important factor in achieving a war effort. If the present situation continues, the economic life of this country will be threatened. If production of war supplies should decrease, if transportation facilities should be curtailed through a labour shortage or a lack of materials caused by a labour shortage, would our war effort be enhanced? If agricultural production should lag, on account of a labour shortage, would that place our war effort on a better footing? This labour problem must be faced or it will cause irreparable clefts in the economic structure of our nation.
In the speech he delivered at the meeting to which I have just referred, Mr. Beaudry Leman made this important statement which speaks for itself:
War expenditures for the present fiscal year will reach nearly $4,000,000,000. This figure shows the magnitude of our economic effort, but it also emphasizes the burden which has to be borne by a country of eleven million and a half people, a nation which wants to be, at one and the same time, a granary, an arsenal and a man-power reservoir. Now the leaders of the united nations tell us about a war of attrition which might last for a few more years. We ought to remember that "slow and steady wins the race."
In order to win the peace after a war of attrition, there should be left reserves of manpower, capital, foodstuffs, raw materials and products of every description. Influence in world affairs will pass from those countries which will have to ask for assistance to those which will be in a position to tender assistance.
Furthermore, the power of a belligerent country depends in a large measure on the balance between its war-time economy and its peace-time economy, for a loss of balance might give rise to serious results. An excessive effort, untimely or misdirected, disturbing the national economy which is its basis, might weaken Can-72537- 42J
ada before the end of hostilities. After the war, our country will be unable to assume the heavy responsibilities which will be devolved upon it, if its economic position is not sound and secure.
I am not opposed to the war effort of my country as witnessed by my attitude in the past. I feel that, in a war which has developed into a world war, Canada upholds the principles of democracy as well as a civilization based upon the fear of God and regard for human freedom. I am not opposed to our war effort; I have done more in my constituency than any member in this house has done in his own to help the government solve its war-time industrial problems. I am not opposed to our war effort, but if it is shown that, at the present time, Canada is doing more, in relation to its population, than any other country, am I not right in assuming that there must be a limit to its effort and that this limit has already been reached? If such talk brands me an isolationist, I welcome the name. However, I look upon other nations of the empire. Has not Eire asserted her neutrality? Did South Africa impose conscription? Is not her war effort limited to the confines of the African continent? As for New Zealand and Australia, are they not waging war within circumscribed areas and have they not clearly defined their position? Isolationists? No; but Canadians for short, that's the word. Descendants of this country's first settlers, we set Canada above all other countries. Allowances we have made aplenty since the war's outbreak. The province of Quebec has made more indeed than any other province and I need not give details. If Canada can boast of national unity, or of anything like it, let us not seek afar for the reason: it has come out almost entirely of the allowances made by the province of Quebec.
These few words, Mr. Speaker, have enabled me to express my views. I have done so without mental reservation, with the sincerity of which I feel possessed and with no thought of personal advantage. I don't know how long I shall remain in politics but, so long as I am here, I mean to say what I believe to be fair. On February 8 last, I said I continued to sit on this side of the house because I am afforded freedom of speech or of utterance. I wonder now if this freedom still exists after the speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) Friday afternoon. During my address on February 8, I conceded the Prime Minister's special abilities as a leader and admired the prestige he enjoys in the United States, with whom after the war, Canada, an American country, will be called upon to assume a leading role. I did say
The Address-Division

nonetheless that, on all measures that come before the house, I will vote as my conscience dictates; and, in the present debate, duty compels me to support the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Vien: Before the house took
recess for dinner the debate had closed, and I had read and put the question from the Chair and stated that the vote was on the amendment to the amendment. I have now to put the question.


Mr. PARENT:: I was paired with the hon.	
member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.

The Address-~Mr. Roy


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with ray comments on the amendment to the main motion I should like to say a very few words about the situation created last Friday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). He made certain remarks concerning the numerous parties formed lately throughout Canada. To a certain extent I think his remarks are quite right, but I wish to remind him that those newly-formed political parties have all arisen under his regime. Some of them have been formed right from the. ranks of the Liberal party.
The Prime Minister also made reference to the rivalry existing among different opposition members in the house. Well, with regard to that I would point out that the most typical example of political rivalry we have seen in the House of Commons was at the conclusion of the debate on Bill No. 80 of last session, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, when the Prime Minister himself replied to the then leader of the opposition, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). The Prime Minister said also that the opposition lodged against the government was to serve some political aims and ambitions.
We from Quebec know what was said and done in our province during the twenty-five years prior to the provincial election of 1939 and the federal election in March, 1940. We know the promises that were made in Quebec during that period. Those promises were such that the Prime Minister was obliged to hold a plebiscite to be released from them, and that cost the country nearly 82,000,000 of public money. That was political ambition, and the Prime Minister should be the last one to talk to others about political ambitions.
The amendment moved by the Conservatives has been read in the house so many times that I shall dispense with having hon. members listen to it again. It looks to me like a soft pedal on the policy of the Conservative party in the past. The Winnipeg convention was held this winter, and since that time speeches have ben made by the new leader of the party, Mr. Bracken. Those speeches have been made in such a form as to give an impression to the population of Canada that the Conservative party was putting a soft pedal on its imperialistic policies. We have heard two speeches in the house, one by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon), which dealt in considerable detail with the man-power shortage faced by war industries and agriculture. Then the former leader of the opposition, the hon. member for York-Sunbury, said
that the people of this country were more heavily taxed than the people of the United States or Great Britain.. Hearing those speeches I thought the party had changed its imperialistic policies; I thought it was no more in favour of a greater war effort than the Liberal party was making. However there appears to have been some change in this late policy. There is a saying that what is bred in the bone will come out in the flesh. Last Friday, answering a speech by the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition said this, as reported on page 562 of Hansard:
In the months that lie ahead we shall need reinforcements for our army. Let us, as a parliament and as a country, not leave any doubt in the minds of those fighting with us in this great war for freedom; let us not permit the word to go forth that we are not ready to do everything that may be necessary with respect to man-power, financial resources and all things that will bring forth a total war effort in this dominion.
That completes the amendment. Now that that has been said, we know more of what to think about the amendment. The leader of the opposition continued:
It is true that our own amendment is a vote of want of confidence in the government, but it is founded on grounds that we think will make for a greater war effort in Canada instead of a lesser one, as would be the case if the hon. gentleman's amendment should carry.
If that is the aim of the amendment, we now know exactly what to think about it.
At the conclusion of my remarks I intend to move an amendment which will also be a motion of want of confidence in the government. It is to replace and improve the one which has already been offered, and I hope the Prime Minister will be satisfied with it.
First of all, I should like to say something about the shortage of man-power throughout Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: In your new party?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: You will hear more about the
new party after the next election. Many of you will hear about it, but from seats different from those you now occupy.
As I say, I intend to move an amendment at the conclusion of my remarks. Most of the hon. members who have taken part in this debate have referred to the man-power shortage that exists at the present time. I wonder how one can ask for a greater war effort and still criticize or complain about the man-power situation. I know that in the past the Conservative party have never brought about any great miracles and perhaps they think if they were in power they could bring one about that would supply to industry and agriculture all the man-power that is needed, and at the same time continue the
The Address-Mr. Roy

drafting of men; that would be a wonderful miracle, but I do not think they will have a chance to bring it about.
There is without doubt a shortage of manpower. All the speeches we have heard in the house testify to such a shortage. In order to prevent it there is only one thing to do-and that is why I voted in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Richelieu-Ver-cheres (Mr. Cardin)-we must stop the drafting of recruits throughout Canada. There are but three places where our man-power can be found. One is the army and the other two are the war industries and the farms. If there is already a shortage of man-power and the army continues to draft men from the other two sources, the problem will increase. I do not think anyone can bring about a miracle to change the effect of this wrong procedure.
In spite of all that has been said about us we are for victory. That is why last year I joined with the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) in moving an amendment to exempt from military service all men employed on the farm in order to permit the vital industry of agriculture to carry on with a production which is most necessary to our war effort. I cannot understand why hon. members should support a government which follows such a rash policy When the government needed additional employees for its own civil service, it did not let those employees go into the army. The civil service has been increased by about 70,000 men and women. However, when agriculture, which is the basis of the war effort for our allies, is concerned, the government does not deal with it in the same way. It did not proceed as it did to meet the needs of the civil service or the other needs of government in connection with various organizations. It went right ahead and took the skilled manpower, that cannot now be replaced. It took so many men that to-day every hon. member, including even those who have not expressed their opinions in this house, believes there is a shortage of labour on our farms. If we do not have an abundant crop next fall; if the season is not as good as it was last year, and if we lack labour to cultivate the farms, we may find ourselves in very great misery before very long, and our war effort will suffer as a result.
As I have said already, no miracle will happen to give us more labour on our farms and in our war industries. There is only one way to correct the situation, namely, to stop this policy of drafting men which has gone far beyond the limits of our mathematical capacity. In my opinion the way to stop such a

policy is this. Conscription must be applied to those financiers who are making as much more money as there are more soldiers in the army, or who are making as much more money as there are more contracts coming to war industries. Those people will stop making money out of the army and out of our war effort when they are compelled to take the money out of their own pockets to help win the war. Then, as I said in a previous speech, their advice will become much wiser.
I should like now to deal with another matter, and I wish I had a far better knowledge of English in order to do so, for it would be much easier to keep from making any slips of the tongue, as it is said in English, and to avoid hurting the feelings of anyone. It should be well understood that the complaint I have to make about a certain gentleman or a certain little organization does not in our opinion involve all our Anglo-Saxon fellow Canadians. We know them far too well for that. We remember what was done for us by great statesmen like Baldwin, MacNab, Macdonald and a great many others, and we would not want to. hurt the feelings of any person or any group, but this is a very particular case with which I wish to deal. I hold in my hand a publication entitled the Gospel Witness and Protestant Advocate. The editor is Reverend T. T. Shields, and I should like to read a few extracts from this fine example of literature which seems to be founded upon a hatred of all Catholics in regard to our war effort in Canada. First I would refer to the issue of October 22, 1942, at page 2:
The Roman Catholic Cardinal "will assume the responsibility of settling the whole matter." This is the man who has been recently honoured by Queen's university. It seems to us that if the devil himself would only appear in the robes of a cardinal-and it must be admitted that in this cardinal he has an excellent representative-universities, city councils, Canadian clubs and empire clubs, the dominion cabinet and the Canadian premier himself would all bow down to him.
Then a little further along he says:
That is Roman Catholicism-as deadly a poison to the individual, to the family, to evangelical Christianity and to the state- indeed a more deadly poison than the germ of typhus, or tuberculosis, or smallpox, or leprosy, or the black plague.
That is what this gentleman has to say about the Catholic religion. Then in the issue of June 25, 1942, this review reproduces an article from the Victoria Daily Times of Monday, June 22, reporting a speech made by Mr. Shields somewhere out west. The article states:
Roman Catholicism was the enemy of free institutions everywhere, he said. It was the fourth axis power and just as much the implacable enemy of Britain as Germany, Italy

The Address-Mr. Roy
and Japan, he added remarking, Though we win the war the chief enemy will still be in the Vatican.
The real ruler of Canada this moment is not Prime Minister Mackenzie King, but Cardinal Villeneuve of Quebec, he said. Not a thing could be done without approval from the Vatican, he added.
Doctor Shields told his hearers one of the reasons R. B. Bennett left Canada lay in his weariness of having the Roman Catholic church continually pulling his coat-tails for special privileges.
In the November 12, 1942, issue of the same publication appears an article entitled "The Relative Importance of Unity," which concludes in this way:
In religious controversies we have repeatedly seen errorist minorities numerically overwhelmed, only to observe an organized subtilty defeat a superior number of unaffiliated individualist advocates of righteousness.
All this is another way of saying, Beware of peace. In these colunms we have repeatedly pointed to that religio-politieo thing called the papacy as the chief of all visible enemies of mankind. As the tide of battle turns and the doom of the axis powers becomes visibly nearer, we may expect the papacy, gradually and without announcement, to abandon its neutrality, and endeavour to ingratiate itself with the powers of freedom. We must not allow ourselves to feel the slightest elation when gangsters begin to cheer the police. As the tide gradually turns in our favour and against the axis, we may expect to see the whole Roman Catholic hierarchy in Canada emulate the example of Admiral Darlan: they will fight even openly just so long as they think there is any chance of winning, but as soon as they see the die is cast, they will make their exit from France, and turn up as a guest of the victorious armies. Therefore, wrhile we are far from the end_ of the conflict, the Quislings who helped to precipitate it will soon be attempting to reorient themselves in order to get as much out of the wreck they have made, as may be possible.


Thomas Vien: Order. I must call attention to the fact that there is so much conversation going on that it is impossible to hear what the hon. member is saying.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I have just read is quite clear; we can see that the reverend gentleman becomes more than saucy. He becomes somewhat dangerous. It would be easy for the government to stop this sort of propaganda. Again, in the Victoria Daily Times of Monday, June 22, 1942, Doctor Shields is reported thus:
"I don't believe the Roman Catholic Church need be feared after the war," he added. It was the most gigantic bluffer in the world. Its forces would fight in ambush and darkness, "but when you turn the light on it, it runs," he said.
He denied any personal quarrel with individual Roman Catholics, but said sometimes "in exposing the ravages of Rome some Roman Catholics may get a few splinters of shrapnel."
Is that what he wants-a sort of bloody persecution against the Catholics? He does not
put to himself this question: Are the French-Canadians or the Catholics in Quebec being treated fairly in this war effort? Are they getting the same wages in the war industries in Quebec as workers in similar industries in Ontario? Does he ask himself, when our boys are sent to Hong Kong, Dieppe, or elsewhere, whether they are Catholics or not? No; this gentleman does not worry about conditions that exist in Quebec or about what Quebec is doing in spite of the unfair treatment we are at present receiving.
There is another matter I would draw to the attention of the government. This issue of October 22, 1942, of the Gospel Witness from which I have quoted, and which at the time of the last victory loan seemed to circulate to the extent of a good many thousands of copies, contained on the back page a cartoon, showing in the centre the church of St. Peter of Rome, with the armorial bearings of the pope at the top, and showing at either side of the church Mussolini and Hitler making a salute to the church of Rome. Written -in big letters, so big, Mr. Speaker, that you can see them from your place, are these words, "The Relationship of Roman Catholicism to Nazi-Fascism." This pamphlet was distributed among the English-speaking population of our country at the time of the last victory loan in October. At the same time there was distributed throughout the whole province of Quebec another pamphlet, in French only-according to the information I could secure from the bureau of information-and on the front cover is a photograph of the interior of a Catholic church in which a service is proceeding. There is written at the bottom, in French, "Us Veulent Detruire l'Eglise de Dieu", which means in English, "They want to destroy the Church of God". That is referring to Hitler and Mussolini. On the back, to give this publication the appearance of another religious pamphlet which is also published in Quebec under the name of "Le Messager du Sacre-Coeur", there is printed a picture of the Sacred Heart with these words below, in French, "Je suis la Voie, la Verite et la Vie", which means in English, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life". Inside the booklet will be found pictures of Hitler. His portrait is close to that of Cardinal Villeneuve; and the statement of Cardinal Villeneuve in favour of our war effort and against the axis powers appears under the portrait of Hitler. This booklet was published by the Service of Information, Ottawa, under the authorization of Hon. J. T. Thor-son, Minister of National War Services. This was circulated in Quebec at the very same

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
time that the other review from which I have quoted was circulated among English-speaking Canadians in other parts of the country. This one that was circulated in the province of Quebec was published by the government's own bureau of information. I wonder which one of these gives the truth? I do not know. But I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of propaganda throughout the country is not only false, but lowers respect for religious beliefs. It is against the unity of Canadians; it is against the best interests of our war effort, and it should be condemned. Since the government has permitted the circulation of this review and at the same time has published this other pamphlet which has been circulated in Quebec province, I say that the attitude of the government in both instances is wrong, and that we should stop this business.
I should like to speak English well enough to appeal to the spirit of fair play and- justice of all the members of this house and to the respect which I am sure every hon. member has for the religious belief held by Catholics throughout Canada. I appeal to my fellow-members to support our country in which all serious-minded men are willing to work to help win this war, for which purpose we are asked to vote huge sums of money. I also ask the government to stop this kind of propaganda which is nothing else but forgeries and rashness.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion):
That all the words after the words "Your advisers have" in the amendment be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"not taken the necessary measures to stop the present anti-Catholic propaganda and prevent the circulation of some abusive publications conflicting with the purposes enunciated at the time of our war declarations and contrary at the same time to the spirit of the confederation pact and of the Atlantic charter, and, further, the rural and labour populations of the dominion are not adequately represented among Your Excellency's advisers and that this deficiency is responsible for the inequitable application of the National Resources Mobilization Act."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to speak to the amendment but to correct a statement made in the course of the remarks of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy). I did) not wish to interrupt him when he was speaking, but I do not wish a certain statement he made to go unchallenged because it is wholly incorrect. My hon. friend, as I understood him, referring to third parties in this house, said that they had come into being during the course of the administration of this country's affairs by a government 
of which I had the honour to be the head. Looking at the third parties in the house, I recognize first the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. My recollection is, and I think I am right, that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation came into being at the convention which was held in Regina in 1932 or 1933.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They were here before that, perhaps under another name.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The convention was held, I believe, in 1933, when the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was the leader of the Conservative party and the Conservative party were in office. I look beyond, and see another third party, the Social Credit party. My recollection is that that party also came into being between 1930 and 1935. I believe that Mr. Aberhart in his province came into power in the early summer of 1935, and that the first Social Credit candidates who offered themselves for the federal house did so in 1935. So that that party came into being during the time when the former Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett, was leading the Conservative party in this house and that party was in power.
I come to another party, the Progressive Conservative party. It has come, it is true, into being in the time during which this administration has been in office, but I think I can safely say that the Progressive Conservative party is the same old Conservative party, under another name.
As for the remaining parties, so-called, I do not think they are so much parties as they are leaders and would-be leaders of parties.
I hope that my hon. friend will see that I am seeking only to correct him, but I think it is advisable that the correction should be made.


Gordon Graydon: May I say a word to the Prime Minister with regard to what he said about the Progressive Conservative party being the same old party? Of course no one knows better than he that his statement is at least seriously open to question. The Prime Minister has been quite keen to-night to describe the growth of new parties and new groups in Canada. I believe we shall all agree that he is the same old Prime Minister whom we have had for a long time.


An hon. MEMBER:: And whom we shall have for a long time yet.


Mr. LACOMBE:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. This debate is absolutely out of order. The vote has been taken on the amendment to the amendment; you have now

The Address-Mr. Church
in your hands another amendment to the amendment, and that is what we are discussing at present.


Thomas Vien: We have an amendment which has been moved but not yet read from the Chair. The Prime Minister was making a correction, and the leader of the opposition wishes to reply to the Prime Minister before the amendment is read from the Chair. I think it would be fair that the leader of the opposition should have a reply.


Gordon Graydon: I merely wanted to say this to the Prime Minister, with all seriousness and gravity. I suggest to him that in the course of this debate, at a time when he himself has said that this country, and indeed the whole world, are facing grave issues, requiring our serious consideration and our urgent attention, these old questions of how many parties grew up, and when, could be appropriately left until such time as victory has been won.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words with reference to the amendment to the amendment of the member for Gaspe as to what he calls "abusive publications". Freedom of religion is something which the British, empire and the mother country have had since time immemorial. This is the greatest war the world has ever seen. Its importance, is primary, not secondary. While I believe in freedom of religion I believe also that this parliament should stick to its task of attending to the war; and let me say that there is no province which has more to fear to-day from at least one aspect of that war, the sinkings around our coasts, than the province of Quebec.
A great many people do not agree with some of these papers. All my life I have been a warm friend of the Catholic people of the city of which I was the head. There is no bigotry in Toronto; it is a tolerant place. If we are to set ourselves up as a sort of religious parliament and take into consideration every pamphlet which is published on either side, we shall be doing something which we have no right to do. The matter is one of property and civil rights, within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and in dealing with it this parliament is going very far afield.
The amendment to the amendment also brings in the Atlantic charter. Well, Casablanca put the Atlantic charter in the waste-paper basket the other day.
Many matters which are not in order have been discussed in this chamber. Let me say to the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment to the amendment that I have a warm regard for him, but I fail to see what we,
sitting here as a parliament, have to do with religion. All of us, Jew and Gentile, black and white,, should be equal before the law, and subject to the law every person is free to express his opinions. A great many of the matters which are referred to were virtually forgotten long before the last war, at least by a large number of the people of this country, and why they should be reopened at this time I do not know. I recall that the Rev. Mr. Toplady, who wrote that great hymn, "Rock of Ages," was in his time one of the most violent controversialists in. behalf of certain religious opinions. Those doctrines and dogmas are forgotten to-day, but his hymn written in 1836, has brought comfort to the sick and dying the world over, while his religious controversies were long ago forgotten. I believe, with war on, that we should leave these disputes alone. We must think of such matter as the sinkings in the gulf of St. Lawrence; of the fact that five hundred ships sent to North Africa, with three hundred and fifty men-of-war and one hundred and twenty escorts, have been removed from the north Atlantic; that General Winter that has been the best friend we have had in the St. Lawrence, will not continue to aid us much longer. We had better stick to our own business. It is for the provinces, controlling property and civil rights, to regulate this issue. There is a law of libel, and if there is anything libellous in these articles the courts are available to determine the question; it should not be brought before parliament. .
I protest against an amendment of this kind, dealing with a purely religious controversy of which people know little or nothing, very few having even read these pamphlets. I believe in freedom of religion and freedom of thought. I have heard a great many controversies and I do not agree with most of the controversialists on either side. I am a humble member of the church of England. That church believes in freedom of religion and freedom of speech. In any event we are wasting our time, for this is a subject beyond our powers. If you ask me, sir, the amendment to the amendment should be ruled out of order as dealing with something which lies within the jurisdiction of the provinces under section 91 of the British North America Act. If there is any grievance, let those who complain of it go to Queen's Park, which authorizes the publication of pamphlets. I repeat that I object to this parliament being made the scene of a religious controversy which is none of our business.


Liguori Lacombe: I seconded the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for
The Address-Mr. Lacombe

Gaspe (Mr. Roy) just as I would second any amendment moved in the public interest. It is indeed regrettable to view religious quarrels brought about by fanatics who should be excluded from our society. It is a known fact that a certain clergyman in Toronto is constantly attacking the Roman Catholic religion by his speeches and his articles. This gentleman even sends to hon. members of this house his publication. Does he know how insulted we feel when we receive his paper? The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) is vested with all the necessary powers to stop this propaganda, which affects more than four million Canadians. The attitude taken by Rever-'end Shields is a cause of scandal in a country which more than ever should attempt to maintain harmony. On many occasions municipal authorities have had to intervene in order to stop this man from spreading doubt, dissension and discord. The clergyman from Jarvis street causes trouble not only in the province of Quebec, but from the Atlantic to the Pacific. A bishop from British Columbia had to appeal to the Minister of Justice to prevent this man from repeating in his diocese his insults against the Roman Catholic church. This state of matters must cease and the government should take action in that regard without further delay.
The amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gaspe deals with the readjustment of salaries for Canadian workers. This measure is urgent, and I know that the working class of Quebec is entitled to a just reward for its labour to the same extent as workers in the other provinces. Let us take the farm labour problem. As I have already said very often in this house, if the government does not grant complete exemption from military training to farmers and farm hands we shall be headed for disaster and starvation. Furthermore, all farmers actually undergoing their military training should be sent back to their farms. The hon. member for Gaspe is perfectly right in deploring the fact that farmers and labourers are not adequately represented in the cabinet. This is the reason why so many people in this country are exploited by the trusts. While farmers, labourers and craftsmen are working, toiling and suffering, war profiteers are reaping public funds. This deplorable situation must cease.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) does not seem to be pleased with the new parties. At least this was the opinion he expressed with unusual strength on February 19. He said that multiplicity of parties was responsible for the downfall of France. This was not the determining factor of the defeat of that great country, and the Prime Minister

knows it. One must go further back in history, to the point where the victorious allies of the last great war began losing the peace when they were preparing the treaty of Versailles. If France was in a state of extreme weakness when the present war broke out, it was as a result of the guilty complacency of the victor much more than of the formation of new political parties in that country. Who allowed the Rhineland to be remilitarized a few years before Stanley Baldwbn stated that the first line of defence of Great Britain was on the Rhine? The unquenchable financial and commercial imperialism of certain nations was responsible for the downfall of France to a greater extent than was the creation of new political groups.
During the last war a few people grew rich while others suffered untold hardships. A few loathsome profiteers flooded Europe with war equipment. Boundaries did not exist for cannon merchants. The ocean itself was no barrier for those ever greedy madmen, the most active and at the same time the most repulsive of whom was Sir Basil Zaharoff. Holder of a baronetcy, commander of the order of the bath and grand officer of the legion of honour, that shady character became the intimate friend of the great political and military men of that period. He gave advice on war operations; he travelled from one seaport to another in perfect safety; he laid down the law, and compelled those in power to obey him. In short, he dominated governments and influenced history.
The terrible and horrible war which engulfed the lives of sixty thousand of our countrymen on foreign battlefields, which cost and is still costing us billions, which cost thirty-three countries the staggering sum of $186,000,000,000, and in which fifteen million men were killed, now appears to have been useless and to have settled nothing. Why? Simply because Germany, though she may have lost the war, won a great peace-time victory through the failure of the other powers to realize the inevitable consequences of their actions. When Germany was condemned to pay reparations a few of the victors proved quite willing to grant her loans much more considerable than the amounts she had to pay. When her commercial fleet was seized her enemies of yesterday provided her with the funds required to build another and more powerful one. Dictatorship of money; what crimes we commit in your name! Twenty-five years ago the old Germany was crushed and begging for mercy. To-day the new Germany, in a shaken Europe, openly defies the democracies. Behind the back of the League of Nations she imposed humiliating

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
conditions on Great Britain and France. What happened when the vanquished of yesterday demanded the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia? Two great nations gave way in the face of the terrible doctrine, "Might is right".
These are indeed cruel truths, but no purpose is to be served by concealing them. It is far better to turn the searchlight of truth on the lowest strata of international life. In the face of events like these, invisible forces such as cooperation and love of peace remain the only safeguards of our civilization. The petty interests and criminal hypocrisy of certain nations have led all peoples into the terrible situation which now confronts us. To ensure the peace and progress of the world should have been the ultimate goal of the statesmen who were called upon to guide the destinies of the most powerful countries on earth; but arbitration and conciliation treaties were wrecked by a formidable instrument, 'that of financial and military imperialism. As substitutes for disarmament, tranquillity and the free development of peoples, heinous psychological trends have given us all the devilish weapons invented by a barbarism which we still dare to clothe with the noble name of civilization. Even Winston Churchill raised loud protests at Westminster in 1938 and 1939 against the criminal complacency shown by financiers of all kinds who continued to lend Germany enormous sums of money in order to facilitate the rebuilding of her navy. Right here in Canada a few weeks and even a few days before the present war broke out, shameful trusts were shipping to the enemy large quantities of nickel, rubber, steel, oil and gasoline. With heroic Belgium and Holland, heroic France, my mother country, was the first to fall under the blows of a formidable war machine which past and present allies had built up for Germany. No; France did not succumb to the quarrels of a few new political parties who were rather harmless. France was defeated by the shameful betrayal of commercial, military and financial imperialism. When history is written the impartial historian will strike out that page which the Prime Minister wrote on February 19, 1943, on the deep causes of the fall of France.
In conclusion, I would formulate this wish. National unity will live in Canada inasmuch as our living strength is preserved from disaster by a sound political economy. Where are we going in this whirlwind of billions succeeding other billions? Where are we heading with this mad race on public funds? What will become of our agriculture, our industries, our trade? In what society are we living? The future is so dark that I foresee
the disintegration of our families and the bewilderment of our population, with generations of Canadians toiling under the burden of excessive taxation. I am thinking at present of the state of decadence and bankruptcy which will fall upon us as a consequence of our participation in this war on a scale out of all proportion to our resources, and I sincerely hope that God may' preserve us from such a calamity. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gaspe.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Before the vote is taken I have just a few words to say with regard to censorship. There was a great man who was in charge of the censors in Great Britain at the beginning of the war. He was Lord Macmillan, and he stated his views on the general rules of censorship in this way:
Lord Macmillan sensibly gave orders to the censors that they are to confine their activities to news of a military character likely to be of value to the enemy, and are to refrain from censoring matter which merely happens to be politically disagreeable to the British government.
I take this from The Week, September 20, 1939, just at the beginning of the war.
This is a very reasonable view. It is a view which is in accordance with British usage. I do not discuss the qualifications of the head of the Canadian bureau of censors, who is supposed to be a counsel of certain fame; but what I cannot understand is the laxity of censorship regarding yellow-press news, such as the publicity stunt afforded by the trial of Errol Flynn. Some incidents in his trial were simply disgusting. Then, there was the story of Frances Farmer who was always drunk; it was one which could not be accepted as an example for either the young or the old.
It takes a great deal of courage to bring the case of Pastor Shields before the house, on account of the blackmail Shields uses at all times against those who dare to criticize him. I do not know whether or not I am right, but according to my information his case was to be considered-or was considered. I would direct the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to some Quebec jurisprudence respecting the rights of minorities. It is a very old case in which a man-and I do not recall whether he was a notary or a journalist -named Plamondon was sued by a Quebec Jew who complained that the defendant had written articles which had the effect of dissuading clients from buying at the plaintiff's store, simply because he was a Jew. I do not remember the decision of the superior court, but I have a distinct recollection of the judgment
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

rendered by the court of appeal, which was headed by no less a person than the late Sir Horace Archambault, then chief justice of the province of Quebec. That judgment stated that any man guilty of such offence against a citizen belonging to a minority in the province should pay a considerable amount of money. That is Quebec jurisprudence.
Now that most of the civil powers of the province have been taken by the federal government, I wonder that no distinction is made between freedom of speech and abuse. I did have some observations to make respecting the address in reply, and perhaps this would be a good time to make them. The amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) refers to the Atlantic charter. Well and good. I am all for the Atlantic charter. It will be remembered that four freedoms were mentioned in that charter, the first two of which were freedom from fear and freedom from want. Those two appear in the speech from the throne as it is contained at page 3 of the Votes and Proceedings of this session. But to my great astonishment the speech from the throne does not mention the other two freedoms, which are just as great and just as necessary in any democracy as are freedom from fear and freedom from want. I refer to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They are not mentioned in the speech from the throne. Why? Let hon. members now sitting in the house check the record. I was astounded when I noted that omission.
I have another regret to express, namely, that there no distinction is made between freedom and licence. Freedom of speech and licence of speech are not at all the same thing. Freedom of speech is the right to say anything which is not against good order in the country. Licence is the procedure of saying things which may be injurious to public safety and order. I sincerely believe that what Shields has said from the pulpit is dangerous to good government, good order and peace in this country. So much is this so that two of the largest hotels in Canada-the finest hotel in Ottawa, the Chateau Laurier, and one of the largest in Montreal, the Windsor-have refused Pastor Shields the right to repeat an address in which he called the Roman Catholic church the fifth column in Canada. The authorities at the Chateau Laurier are officials under the control of the Canadian National Railways, and certainly the board of directors of the Windsor hotel at Montreal are not bigoted men. However, the officials of both those hotels felt they could not admit this man Shields to repeat under their roofs that which

was injurious to large numbers of our fellow citizens. Their understanding was the same as that of the King's Bench which was presided over by the late Sir Horace Archambault on a different occasion, namely, that minority rights in this country shall be respected.
We hear a great deal about national unity. One thing I regret very deeply is that some people take for granted that Canadians of British origin necessarily think differently from Canadians of other origins. That is a great mistake. The troublemakers in this country are a very small minority. I have had the privilege of travelling in Ontario and in the maritimes, although I have not been so fortunate as to have done the same through the west, but I shall do it soon. The people of Ontario whom I know and the people of the maritimes whom I know, whether of British origin or of French origin, think the same when they consider anything without religious or race prejudice. They are all vgood people. There are, however, certain people who are interested in having this country disunited. They are only a few, but they do this to prevent the Canadian people from being informed of what they are doing. These troublemakers are the war profiteers who control the press through their advertisements.
One of my regrets is that there is not an independent English daily press in this country to give the proper information to the Canadian people. Recently I was in a large Canadian city where two evening papers are published. I bought both papers and they could be r.ead in five minutes, or possibly in three or two minutes. There were just a few headlines on the front pages, some newS, and then advertisements for the women who wanted to go to the stores to buy food or clothing or other commodities. I made a comparison between those large fat papers and the weekly press.
Why is our daily press not just as good as the average weekly press? The weekly press publishes some advertisements, but the editors are close to the farmer; they take time to think and they show more independence. I do not know whether the publication referred to by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) was monthly or weekly; since I do not read it I do not know what it is. I have listened to the quotations he gave. It is deplorable that papers with the largest circulation among the English people are quite often-there are a few happy exceptions-much below the average of the weekly press.
Speaking again of censorship, what I have to say will be quite brief. The other day I wanted some information about our trade but

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
I could not get it because the censor held it up. If any horn, member will look at our trade publications he will see that they contain practically no information. We are told that our exports are larger than they were before. This may be true because I do not know whether my information is correct, but I have been told that the total amount of our exports includes the gifts we have made to other countries. This is absurd, if true.
It is also impossible to get any information about importations from Great Britain. Why? Is it because the minister of trade of Great Britain said when he was in Canada last year that they could supply us with any merchandise we wanted? Is it because our exports at the present time are mostly war munitions, food, grain and lumber? Is it forbidden by the censor that members of parliament be given detailed information about our exports because our imports from Great Britain are entirely different from our exports, being made up mainly of commercial merchandise? If that is the situation there is no reason why this information should be refused. It would not help the enemy to know what kind of merchandise we are getting from Great Britain provided it is not war munitions and arms. That is why I express my feeling about this matter.
We are doing our best to help the common cause; we are all for it. But is it not time to follow the example of Great Britain and produce merchandise for export like that country is doing although it is exposed to bombardment? That is one question. If we do not do that, what will be our external trade when the war is over? We shall be left without any trade at all. It is time to think of that. Many people are employed to-day. They do their work happily. They make money; so much the better for them. But we must think of the aftermath and see to it that all good examples which are given by the old country are followed by us.


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sorry I have to speak a little louder for my hon. friend. I have expressed my views on these matters, and I think my hon. friend the member for Gaspe was right in bringing them to the attention of the house.
But there is something more. I have heard from a source which I cannot give that when Mr. Chaloult was prosecuted, Pastor Shields was also to be prosecuted. Then it was not Pastor Shields who was prosecuted; it was Mr. Drew. Then the charge was withdrawn. I have also been informed that it was a Roman Catholic from another province than
that of Quebec who intervened to stop all prosecutions against Pastor Shields. Did he act for himself or on the suggestion of some other gentleman? Although I cannot disclose the source of my information, I can say that it is generally pretty good. If the government had really considered the case of Pastor Shields and decided that he should be prosecuted, why did they change Shields for Drew? That I cannot understand, because they do not belong to the same church, and their cases are entirely different. By the way, Mr. Chaloult was acquitted, and so was Mr. Decary of Montreal, who was the registrar of the National war services board. He was accused before the courts and suffered calumny, and then he was acquitted by the Supreme Court of Canada. I was humiliated as a French-Canadian when I saw the way in which those gentlemen were treated, but I was most indignant when I saw the way in which the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) was dealt with. When a charge is laid against an officer there is a previous investigation and all the charges are summarized. Therefore the army authorities know in advance the charge in the case. What I complain bitterly of is this, and I would say the same if it had been any Conservative member or any Jewish member or any citizen of Canada: Here was this man, a member of the House of Commons, put in custody, in gaol, if you wish, for fifty-one days, during which time the worst calumnies were circulated against him. Some one sent me some clippings from papers from all over the country, papers from British Columbia, for instance, with headings in type about two or three inches high, " Quebec Scandal." It was portrayed as a Quebec scandal. That is what happens every time when it is a case in the province of Quebec.
I have the best possible disposition toward this government, not toward all the members of the government, but especially towards the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), for whom I have been fighting for years; but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if those things had been done by a Tory government, the Liberal party would have been one to fight it. How can we speak of freedom when these things happen? It was the reverse of the British practice. In Britain a man is considered innocent, or not guilty, until he is found guilty. In the case of the hon. member for Portneuf, it was known in advance by the national defence department that the charge against him could not be substantiated. Nevertheless the brass hats decided to humiliate him by keeping him for fifty-one days in the "clink" at the citadel. Not only that, but gossip-I know it is untrue-went on and
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

on, and even members of the cabinet were associated in the calumnies that were made against the hon. member. I protested each time very strongly. But that is what was done. It is not only as a Roman Catholic, not only as a French Canadian from the province of Quebec, but as a Canadian, that I protest against the abuses I have mentioned which appeared in the Gospel Witness and the abuses of which the brass hats in Ottawa have been guilty, and so on and so on. It is as a Canadian I protest, a Canadian who has never raised a racial or a religious issue in this house. I have always abstained from doing so, but I think this sort of thing should stop. Of course, there are some people who live by it. But now that people throughout the' country are showing a spirit of magnanimity in this war, I hope that all this which has to be regretted will not happen again and will not have to be deplored again. These things would not happen if the proper distinction were made between licence of speech and freedom of speech, and if the government were ready to assume their responsibilities when it is time to do so. Sometimes it is not necessary to assume any responsibility; yet they tell us, "Well, we have assumed a great responsibility". This time I must remind my good friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) that he has at his disposal all the machinery which is necessary to stop this; and I will tell also the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleehe) that he must give definite instructions to the censor to censor news which should not appear in the press, and also comments which are prejudicial to the good understanding that must exist in this country.
I have been very mild in my remarks. Before closing, as I do not want to make another speech on this address, I have just a word to say to the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Picard). I listened to him this afternoon; he is an able speaker. I know that for many years he was the secretary of the late Mr. Lapointe, and he was of a good enough disposition quite often to speak on my behalf in my constituency. I know him well enough to tell him that I was very sorry regarding what he said of the late Mr. Lapointe, who was a very dear friend of mine. As he knows, Mr. Lapointe and I were on the best possible terms, and I always regarded him as a big brother. I will say no more about him because his remembrance is in the hearts of all those who have known him. What Mr. Lapointe had to say in his lifetime he said, and I believe that hon. members know enough of the good relations which existed-


Thomas Langton Church: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question before he concludes?


Jean-François Pouliot: Just one minute-between the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) and myself to know that I was a good friend of Mr. Lapointe and that it was not only the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres and the member for Temiscouata who were good friends of that great minister. I was deeply touched when an English-speaking colleague, who sits across from me but is not in the chamber at the moment, told me with tears in his eyes what Mr. Lapointe had done for him. Others, too, have testified how much Mr. Lapointe was to them personally. For all these reasons I think that, while it would be perfectly in order to quote what Mr. Lapointe said in his lifetime, it is pretty difficult to accept his interpretation of the events of the day and that they should be judged in the light of the attitude he took while he was still alive.
The only thing that remains for me to do is to thank the house for their kindness in listening attentively to what I have said. 1 hope nobody has misunderstood my remarks. What I have done is for the public good, and for no other purpose.


Thomas Langton Church: Will the hon. member answer a question? Does he not think it will be far better to wait until after the war before some members raise questions of this kind in the house? We are not all theologians, and this forum is not a religious seminary. Surely the war is paramount. Most of us have not read the articles or even seen them. We cannot be expected to interfere in differences of opinion between reverend doctors on both sides of a religious subject of which we know nothing.


Jean-François Pouliot: In answer to the hon.
member for Broadview I would say this. In the first place we do not know when the war will end; and if we wait until the end of the war to prevent Pastor Shields from abusing French Canada the country will be in an upheaval within a few months.


Thomas Langton Church: Religion is outside our sphere of authority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but, having regard to what has been said in the course of the debate thus far, it is important, I think, that I should draw the attention of the house and the country to the possible consequences of continuing the debate and permitting a motion of this kind to go to a division.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
There are times and places for all things. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who has just taken his seat, said that he thought it was well that the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) should have brought this subject to the attention of the house. I take no exception to his bringing any subject to the attention of the house, but I take very strong exception to the hon. member bringing the subject in the form of a motion of ^ant of confidence in the administration, bringing it on the address, and raising for discussion in the house at this particular time a subject which cannot be other than perhaps the most controversial of any which could be raised at this time of war.
On grounds of public policy I am going to make a personal appeal to my hon. friend to withdraw his amendment. He has brought the subject to the attention of the house; he has brought it to the attention of the country; and I ask him now in the interests of the country, the maintenance of national unity and the avoidance of religious controversy at this time of war that, having served his purpose by bringing up the subject, he ask leave of the house to withdraw his motion and not have the matter carried to a division. I shall give him and the house reasons why I feel the way I do, and what I think would be a preferable course to the one he has adopted.
While I was speaking with one hon. member this afternoon as to a previous vote, the vote on the motion moved by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), the hon. member mentioned to me that he thought that all the ex-minister had in mind was to bring the matter up for discussion, that he did not really mean any want of confidence in the government, but that it was perhaps the only chance he would get to present the point of view which he had presented. There may be some hon. members who are still of that impression with regard to the motion to which I have referred and some who may so view the present motion and other similar motions. May I point out that, on going into committee of supply, hon. members have the right to bring up for discussion any subject whatever if it is of the nature of a grievance. To bring forward a subject of grievance at the time of a motion to resolve the house into committee of supply does not mean that the matter has to be in the form of a motion or if in the form of a motion, pressed to a division.
If hon. members wish to bring a subject up in this house and have it discussed without subjecting the government to any expression of want of confidence they may bring the matter up on the motion to go into supply,
and if this is done by way of amendment when the proposed amendment has been discussed they may ask that the motion be withdrawn and that the house be permitted to go into committee of supply. That opportunity is open to hon. members and that is one way in which questions upon which hon. members wish to present their views can be presented even if they are of a most controversial character. But to dignify a question of this kind by treating it as something so important that it must be brought forward in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne in the form of a vote of want of confidence in the administration, seems to me to be not only the wrong way of proceeding but to be a course which helps to bring parliament itself into contempt in the eyes of the people.
The people of this country expect this parliament to get on with measures relating to the war. They are not looking to members of parliament moving amendment after amendment all in the nature of motions of want of confidence in the administration, once the house has tested the confidence or lack of confidence there may be in the ministry. The motion of the leader of the opposition is a test on that point, each amendment is a further test, but all these motions when they are moved on the address in this way are want of confidence motions, because they mean that if they should carry his excellency would not be thanked for his speech, a speech which set forth the policy of the government, and the whole policy of the government would be repudiated by the House of Commons. If hon. members appreciate the significance of proceedings of the house and the manner in which, according to parliamentary procedure, they should be conducted, they would have no difficulty in finding that this want of confidence motion should be voted down, if it comes to a vote.
But may I go a step further than that. The government I maintain has the right to ask every hon. member of this house if they are not prepared to give their support to the government in most things, that at least they will not seek to embarrass the government in its war effort. I ask my hon. friend, does he think that the motion which he has introduced to-night is in any way going to strengthen the hands of the government in seeking to maintain national unity in this country in this time of war? If he does not, I think he ought to be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
May I say to him that the government has considered what it is wisest to do with Mr. Shields. I want to put before him a side of the matter which perhaps he has not considered. I do not think it is part of the business

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
of the government to try to deal with matters of religious controversy. The first part of my hon. friend's amendment has the effect of blaming the government for not taking steps to stop what he terms "the present antiCatholic propaganda." That is one of the grounds on which his amendment is based, that the government should have taken steps to prevent anti-Catholic propaganda. When I said that the government had thought of what action it should take in regard to Mr. Shields it was not in connection with what he was doing in the way of anti-Catholic propaganda, it was in respect to one particular statement he had made which had relation to the defence of Canada regulations, and whether or not Mr. Shields should be prosecuted for what he had said in that connection. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) by a slip of the tongue, I think, said that if Mr. Shields was to be persecuted such and such a course should be taken. I think my hon. friend meant to say, if he was to be prosecuted.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now there is the whole situation as related to the amendment of the hon. member for Gaspe. The government would have to consider whether it were best to risk making a martyr of Mr. Shields, give him an excuse for saying he was being persecuted, or whether it were better to leave matters of libel and slander to the courts of the country to be dealt with in accordance with the law of the land. The law of the land provides as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) pointed out, that prosecutions in such matters are to be instituted by the attorney general of a province, not by the attorney general of the dominion. Let me ask my hon. friend this question-and I am putting the whole case before him and before the house and the country in order that all may see how I at least view' these matters. Assume that my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) who has been in the government just over a year I think, within the first few months of his coming into office, or at any time up to the present, had as Attorney General of Canada sought in some way to bring action against Mr. Shields in the province of Ontario, what would the cry have been all over this country? That the government at Ottawa, which had a large following from the province of Quebec, at the instance of its following from Quebec province, through its new Minister of Justice from Quebec province had started a prosecution on religious matters in the province of Ontario.

What situation would have followed from that. If you want to start a religious controversy in this country that it may be impossible to control, just begin having matters of the kind affecting race and religion dealt with as between one province and another.
The laws of libel and slander exist and to these laws recourse for redress may be had by churches as well as other institutions and by individuals. It is open to anyone to bring an action against Mr. .Shields for anything he says that is libelous. But as long as no individual brings an action against him, as long as the church itself or representatives of the church think it wiser not to bring action, because they do not wish to let him assume the role of a martyr and give more notoriety to a man who may be seeking notoriety and martyrdom above everything; so long as that step is not taken by the parties most interested I do not see why the government of Canada should be expected to take action to deal with religious controversy.
Turn the situation, around. What would be said of an effort by the government to stop, in one province, anti-protestant propaganda in another? Unfortunately, both among those who profess that they are in the communion of the Roman Catholic church and those who profess they are in the communion of the Protestant churches, there are men \vho to my mind have no right in this world to speak in the name of religion, who despite their professions, are intolerant and seek to stir up all the religious strife they possibly can. I think the common sense of the people deals in the end most effectively with those people. I do not think the people of Ontario take Mr. Shields as seriously as does my hon. friend from the province of Quebec. They know men, of that type, and they feel that the best way to deal with them is to ignore them, treat them with contempt. Speaking here as a member of a Protestant church, I wish to say that I have utter contempt for Mr. Shields and his unworthy utterances. I believe that the right-thinking men and women of our country share an equal contempt for the head of any church or one belonging to any denomination who tries to stir up in this country in time of war religious controversy and strife. If in these matters there is any action to be taken by any government the action should certainly be taken by the authorities of the province which is the proper one to deal with such matters.
I have dealt sufficiently I think with the point that I wished particularly to bring out.

The Address-Mr. Cardin
namely, how completely we would have misapplied the government's powers had we taken the course of action which my hon. friend says in his subamendment we should have taken. Instead of making a bad situation any better we would have made it infinitely worse.
I have said that there are other times at which this matter could more fittingly be dealt with. If the house wishes to have a further discussion with respect to Mr. Shields or any matter that has to do with religious controversy, then I say let us have one of our secret sessions and there discuss the matter as fully as we please. My hon. friend opposite smiles when I say, let us have a secret session


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was not smiling at that. I would not dignify it with a secret session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, my
reason for suggesting a secret session is that if there are any hon. members who feel deeply on these matters and want them discussed, I for one would be prepared to discuss them as fully as possible in any session of this parliament which would not create in this country a worse situation than it was being sought to remedy. A secret session, as I see it, is the only kind of session at which a matter of this sort could be properly dealt with in time of war. So I say to my hon. friend that if he withdraws his amendment and wishes to have this matter further discussed at a secret session, for my part I will be prepared to seek to meet his wishes by providing an opportunity for discussion in that way. But I do not think this debate should be continued longer, because every voice that is raised in discussion, on one side or the other, is only helping to create or foster religious controversy in Canada during this time of war. Since the beginning of this war I have done my utmost to prevent anything in the nature of political discussion of a serious controversial character from developing to a point where it would become a question of race or religion. If in time of war we ever get into a discussion of controversies that relate to matters of race and religion, then, we shall be handing this country over to the enemy without further fighting to save it.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend will accept the suggestion I have offered and at least, if he cannot help the government, will not seek to embarrass us more than is necessary in our endeavour to carry on the war effort of the country.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not propose to make any extended remarks on the subamendment that
has been moved by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy). While I sympathize with many of the points he has expressed during the presentation of his case, in all sincerity I must tell him that as the motion is framed I cannot support it, because it mixes religious questions with economic and political matters.
I agree with the hon. gentleman that there is necessity for a discussion of the subjects dealt with in his subamendment. Because we come from the province of Quebec there is no reason why we should not express our views on such questions and always be afraid of endangering national unit}'. We are not the only province responsible for the maintenance of national unity in Canada. We have our rights and privileges under the constitution, as have the citizens of every other province. We have the right, to which no one can object, to voice our views and our contentions on the floor of this house, and it is time we stopped trying to teach a lesson to the representatives of the province of Quebec only. Difficult questions affecting national unity are often raised by other representatives of the Canadian people in this House of Commons, but unfortunately the blame always falls upon the province of Quebec. We are always being asked to make sacrifices and to cease making representations because in the opinion of some our attitude might be interpreted as interfering with our war effort.
With that I cannot agree. I repeat that the motion presented by the hon. member for Gaspe deals with matters which we should be given an opportunity to discuss, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has promised that such an opportunity will be provided. That opportunity should be given not only to the hon. member for Gaspe but to all other members of this house who have similar questions to raise.
I am not ready to support the subamendment, however, because it raises too many questions at the same time. The subamendment is a little too complicated, and a vote upon it would be almost unintelligible not only to this house but to the country. If an opportunity is given for discussion I would be ready to support the hon. member on many of the points he brought up in his remarks, whatever may be the criticism as to the length of time taken or the delay occasioned to the other business of the house. These matters are of importance, and we should have the right to discuss them freely and completely.
I am not entirely satisfied with the observations made by the Prime Minister. We are told that all our actions should be directed toward the winning of the war, that we should not do anything to embarrass or hinder what
The Address-Mr. St. Laurent

must be done by the government. If we are going to stop thinking; if we are going to cease taking any action in this house; if we are going to cease expressing any opinions which are not in agreement with the policies of the government, then we might just as well close parliament, go home and let the affairs of the country be administered by orders in council. We ought to be reasonable, I admit. We ought to take into consideration the position in which the government finds itself and the difficulties with which it has to contend. I am quite ready to do my share to help the government discharge its duties. But I am not ready to sacrifice the right to express my own view's on questions which I think are important and deserving of the attention of the members of the house.
The practice we are asked to follow here does not prevail anywhere except in Canada. If you look at the reports of proceedings in other parliaments you will see that members are free to discuss any question, that representatives are not met at every step with the objection that what they are doing may delay the progress of the war effort or may in some way embarrass the war policy of the government.
My motion was not made with that purpose at all. It was the logical conclusion of what had been said by all members having spoken in the debate.	I never asked that the
mobilization act should be suspended in its entirety. I asked that part of it only should be suspended for a short time, pending an investigation; that was all. My motion has been misrepresented and my words have been distorted during the debate.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: By whom has it been misrepresented?


An hon. MEMBER:: Order. Shut up.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Who said that? I will not shut up. Who distorted the hon. member's words?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I will not sit down; I don't have to.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I frankly admit the great responsibility which is on the government at the present time; I have never denied it. I have been ready up to now, as I will be ready from now on, to do the best I can to help, without going to the extent of trampling upon my own convictions. I am ready to do the best I can to help the government discharge its responsibilities, which I repeat are great; but I claim that on certain questions at least parliament has a right to express
fMr Cardin.]
its will, and that the representatives of the people in this house have a right to voice their disagreement with certain policies of the government. This is not unpatriotic. This is not doing anything against the united nations in their endeavour to win the war. It is merely preserving, even during war time, the privileges and liberties of the members of a democratic parliament, for which at the present time our armies are fighting.
If we are going to be prevented from expressing our views on any subject on account of the war, then I repeat that we might as well go home, and close up parliament, because there will be nothing left for us to do here.
Therefore I am not very much impressed by the argument that we should stop discussion on most subjects not directly related to the war, simply because it might be embarrassing to the government. I am not very much impressed, either, by the argument that if action had been taken against Pastor Shields by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), who is a French Canadian, it would have caused an upheaval all over the country. It could have caused trouble only in the minds of those who do not understand Canadian problems.
If there was cause for prosecution, whether the Minister of Justice is a French Canadian or an English-speaking Canadian, procedures should have been taken, without any fear or hesitation. The Minister of Justice, as such, must prosecute any man who does something contrary to the laws of the country. His action should not be influenced simply because he happens to belong to the minority.
But I concur in the opinion of the Prime Minister that at this time we should not mix religious matters with political and economic questions. And it is because I agree with that view expressed by the Prime Minister, that I join him in asking the hon. member for Gaspe to withdraw his motion, now that he has been given an opportunity of speaking on the subjects contained in his subamendment. I suggest to him, as a French Canadian, as a citizen of the province of Quebec, and as a man as deeply interested as he is in having our race and our religion respected in Canada, to make that little concession, reserving his right to discuss fully the matter on a more appropriate occasion.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, before the debate goes any further may I point out that evidently the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) has overlooked a provision in the British North America Act which a minister of justice cannot overlook, namely, that the

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
administration of justice is not only the privilege but is the responsibility of the attorneys general of the provinces respectively. Whenever anything requires to be done by the Attorney General of Canada the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres may be assured that so long as I am the Attorney General of Canada I will attempt to do it, no matter where it happens to be, no matter what race or creed may be affected, no matter what persons may be concerned.
But this matter, if it does constitute an offence constitutes such offence against the criminal law of the country, the administration of which is the responsibility of attorneys general of the provinces. It is not a war offence; it is not something contravening the regulations for the defence of Canada. If an offence has been committed along the lines suggested in the subamendment of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) it is an offence against peace-time law as much as it is against war-time law. And it possibly may be an offence, if in fact it does amount to sedition, under the common law of British countries. Sedition in British countries may consist of exciting ill-will between different classes of his majesty's subjects. But that raises a question of fact which must be determined by a court, according to the common law procedure of the country; and a prosecution can be brought about by anyone who will take the responsibility under oath of laying a complaint. Such complaint will be investigated, and if the investigating magistrate comes to the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out, he will commit for trial. The case will then be the subject of a bill which, in due course, will be presented to his majesty's grand jury. If they in turn find a true bill the case will be brought before an ordinary court of justice. A jury will be empaneled and will determine the question whether the words or actions did amount to something which would excite ill-will between different classes of his majesty's subjects. That is as much a peace-time matter as a war-time matter, and as such is something which could be prosecuted by the attorney general of any province where the alleged offence was committed.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Except the George Drew case.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The hon. member is very desirous, I presume, of drawing a red herring across the trail.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I might as well, because-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The George Drew case arose out of an alleged offence against
regulations for the defence of Canada. And this, if my hon. friend is susceptible of understanding the kind of language I use, would be an offence against the ordinary criminal law of this country.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a word, following the remarks we have just heard, remarks which have disturbed me rather greatly. I suppose none of us wants to see any controversey raised of a religious or racial nature, and I think everything should be done to prevent anything of the kind from being fomented in the country in which we live at this particular time.
I was, however, rather alarmed at the statement just made by the Attorney General of Canada, the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). The wide interpretation he gave respecting the laws of sedition and slander is such that if the government of Canada followed the line he laid down, then a government could constitute itself the judge of what should be said and what should not be said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, yes. That was surely implied in the remarks made by the Minister of Justice.
This is a British parliament. It is a parliament which operates under the greatest possible freedom of thought and the greatest possible freedom of speech. In my opinion it is a dangerous thing to interfere with freedom of thought or freedom of speech at any possible time and under any possible circumstances. In my opinion, if you interfere with freedom of thought or freedom of speech on the part of a certain individual to-day, you interfere with freedom of thought and speech of another individual to-morrow. And you gradually narrow down the range of that freedom in the country in which we live. Ultimately you arrive at something in the nature of a dictatorship.
Yesterday we were debating the defence of Canada regulations. The party with which I am associated stood for a principle. We have no association with the communist party. We have no association with the Jehovah's Witnesses, but yesterday we stood resolutely for the principle that under the British constitution and under British laws these people have the right to freedom of thought and freedom of speech. The same thing applies to every other religious and political organization in the dominion. I hold no brief for Doctor Shields; indeed in my opinion the doctrine which he is preaching has led to a
The Address-Division

dangerous feeling of disunity in this country. Every person ought to be aware of the danger that lies therein.
Let me say in passing that the party with which I am associated, although at times it has been subjected to religious condemnation, has never adopted similar tactics. We would never under any circumstances raise the issue of race or religion in this parliament or in this country. I appeal to my hon. friends on all sides of the house, of all races and of all religions, to accept as a principle in this parliament that we forgo any appeal to religious or racial prejudices. Let us live together in unity under the constitution and under the principles upon which this parliament has been founded, the principle of freedom of thought and the principle of freedom of speech, believing as we do that ultimately right and justice will prevail.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend must have misunderstood what the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) said. Would he tell the house what were the words or what was the effect of the words used by the Minister of Justice from which he drew the conclusion he has?


Major James William Coldwell: The record to-morrow will show.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: I am quite content to abide by the record. I did not take a note of what the Minister of Justice said, but I think the purport of his remarks was quite unmistakable.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: If I may be permitted, I should like to answer the request made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Before doing that, I should like first to answer the request made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin).


Thomas Vien: I must point out that the hon. member is speaking twice on the same question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I should like to answer the requests which were made to me on this amendment, and then perhaps I will make an agreement. If I can answer, we shall see what we can do.


Thomas Vien: I understand that the hon. gentleman is rising to speak to the request made to him by the Prime Minister and also by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. If that is so, I think it is the wish of the house that he should reply to that request.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres asked

me to withdraw part of my [DOT]amendment. I was amazed to hear that request from him. I remember only a few days ago, and also once during the last session, the hon. member explained that for the welfare of the people of Quebec he had made all sorts of concessions to the government which had led to his dismissal or his running away from the cabinet.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member must understand that a simple request was made to him and he should reply to that request in terms as simple as the request itself. He was asked whether he would consent to withdraw his amendment.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: If I understand you, Mr. Speaker, you wish me to answer the request of the Prime Minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes or no.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: If I am not allowed to do more than answer the Prime Minister, I will say "no". If I am allowed to answer him I shall try to make an agreement with him. That is what I offered the house.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Now that the religious question is settled, I think we should call it eleven o'clock.
Mr. ADAMSON moved the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Thomas Vien: The question is not finished, and the house has a right to stay until it is finished.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
there is an objection to the house sitting beyond eleven o'clock, on the part of some hon. members, and in that case I think we ought to adjourn. We will continue tomorrow with this debate, and if we conclude this debate we might take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) with respect to reconstruction and rehabilitation, and the one in the name of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. LaFleche) with respect to radio broadcasting, or the one in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Michaud) for a select standing committee on railways and shipping. If there is any more time we might take the resolution respecting the city of Ottawa.	-
Motion (Mr. Adamson) agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Wednesday, February 24, 1943