1943-02-19

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public AVorks):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) put a question concerning the women's hostel in Ottawa. The information I have is as follows:
The only hostel which comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works is the one in Ottawa. It is true progress is slow on this but it is owing entirely to the inability on the part of the contractor to obtain priorities to provide the necessary materials. Provision of construction materials to-day has become acute, particularly lumber, timber, hardware, electrical equipment and plumbing supplies. In view of the difficulties in obtaining these materials, it is considered

that the contractors are making as good time as is possible. There has been during the past month a small amount of lost time on account of weather conditions, but anyone familiar with the construction industry knows that little or no progress has been made with any project under weather conditions such as have prevailed at certain times in the past month.
The answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) will have to be obtained from Wartime Housing Limited through the medium of the Department of Munitions and Supply, through which this company operates.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 18, 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.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have been in politics for thirty-four years, and I am in my nineteenth year as a member of parliament. This is the most important debate that has ever taken place in this chamber. The purpose of the debate is to know precisely whether our war effort is to continue or whether it is to stop on account of the lack of man-power in industry at large; and when I say that I want to make special mention of agriculture, of railways, and of war industry properly so called.
Since the beginning of the war I have regretted very deeply that the instruments at the disposal of the government for propaganda-and I mention the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Wartime Information pamphlets, and the censor-have not been used at all to help the Canadian people understand the real aim and purpose of the National Resources Mobilization Act.
A halo of glory has been placed around the heads of those wearing the uniform- quite properly so for those who are really in the army, but very improperly so for the slackers in uniform; and there has been a real deficiency in the fact that the farmers of this country, who are doing work that is essential in war as well as in peace, the railwaymen who carry men and food across the country, the workmen in the war industries, those who make arms and ammunition,

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
have not perhaps in the public mind the same glory that has been bestowed upon the army. But if they did not exist, if they were not doing work that is so essential, the army would be unable to fight. I regret, therefore, that the Canadian people have been left under a false impression by such propaganda, which was intended to serve ends other than those *we are fighting for.
If you look at a watch, if you look at a clock, you will see the hands that mark the time, but you will not see the movements of the clock which do the work and owing to which the hands indicate the right time. We do not see those movements. The work of the farmers, the work of the railwaymen, the work of the men in war industries has been unseen by many, but it has been real; and to-day, if some countries in the world are fighting our enemy with such success, that success is due not only to the soldiers who are in the field, or the sailors at sea, but also to the humble working men covered with sweat, whose overalls are covered with grease spots and who do work which is indispensable now, which cannot be ignored and which must have the best encouragement possible from the country which, so far as we are concerned, we represent, in this house.
There is one more reason why it is my duty to point out that this is the most important debate that has ever taken place in this parliament, because now the eyes of all my hon. colleagues are opening to the reality of facts. What I deeply admire from the bottom of my heart is the unanimity of expression in all the speeches which have been delivered by hon. members, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) down to the most humble member. Members of parliament observe that the bright skies of enthusiasm are dissipated. For the first time since the beginning of the war members of parliament are considering war objectively. They are considering war with the logical purpose of winning by putting everyone in his place, in order that each man, whether he be in the army or out of the army, shall do the very best he can towards our common aim, which is victory.
The acoustics of this chamber are not very good and, therefore, I have taken the trouble, rather I should say it was a satisfaction, a pleasure; to read the speeches that have been delivered by all hon. members, showing a unanimity of expression that reveals unanimity of purpose in seeing to it that the National Resources Mobilization Act shall be enforced so that it can guarantee to the army that they will always have food and arms and munitions and guarantee to the civilian
population that they shall not suffer from any shortage of food.
I have made a list giving the names of all hon. members who have spoken on man-power since the beginning of this debate, and the pages of Hansard to which I refer; The Prime Minister, page 45; the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), 267-271; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), 130-131; the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), 284; the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle), 315-316; the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Cassel-man), 355; the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Mills), 365; the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou), 428-429-and may I congratulate him upon his excellent speech-the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir), 476; the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rickard), 483484; the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard), 497; the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette) who is the Quebec whip for the government, 513-514, and the member for Temiscouata, 343-344. All those fourteen government members spoke the same way about it. We want the mobilization act to be useful in this country; we do not want it to serve only one purpose among the many that are expected from it; we want it to give a full result. I shall say a word about that in a moment.
Speaking on the other side of the house my hon. friends will pardon me; this list is not complete; it goes to the day before yesterday, but I will make special mention of yesterday- the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) made an excellent speech, pages 317-326 of Hansard; the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), 456, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond), 310312; the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) 478; the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen), 150-151; the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), 516; the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), 58-59; the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), 97-98; the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), 348; the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), 372; the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) 431, and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr Shaw) 289.
With regard to the Conservative side of the house I have heard to-day that to some people it looks strange that the official opposition, which has been battling for some time for conscription for overseas at all costs, has now adopted another view. Their view is now in comformity with what has been
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Pouliot
[Stage Direction]
said on this side of the house, even bymembers of the cabinet. It has been said by representatives of independent groups; it has been said by Liberals; it has been said by Conservatives also. I pay special tribute to my good friend the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) for the excellent speech that he made; I refer to pages 85, 87, 88 and 90; the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), 136; the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), 160-161; the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), 179-180; the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher), 244-245; the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), 275 and 447; the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), 277; the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), 335-337; the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross), 356; and the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), 464.
If I now take Hansard of yesterday, besides the hon. member for Compton, to whom I referred a moment ago, I find the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White), together with many others, and especially my good friends the hon. members for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix), Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) and Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Aylesworth), to mention those whom I have heard.
I do not say that this list is complete, but I went through Hansard as carefully but also as fast as I could. I came to the conclusion that never in the history of this parliament was there such unanimity about a matter of vital importance. I congratulate my hon. colleagues upon the speeches they have made, as representing the real feelings of their constituents. My hon. friends have been true to the mandate that they have received from them.
What are we going to do? I was greatly impressed yesterday when I saw the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) rising in his place in parliament to ask hon. members to act in accordance with what has been said by all. He wants the members of parliament to be logical with themselves, by passing an act which will remedy the evils that all now deplore.
Everybody has been complaining also of bureaucracy; everybody is complaining that the rights of parliament have been overlooked for a long time. The remedy suggested by the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres is that at the present time the mobilization act should be suspended until members of parliament gathered together in a committee get enough information about the needs of all industries in Canada for the war effort and in

conformity with the letter and spirit of the act. This is fair.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The amendment does not say so.


Mr. POULIOT:: I regret very much that the hon. gentleman has not read it-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have.


Jean-François Pouliot: -but I have not time to read it. It is at page 551 of Hansard, and if he will read it, it will be much better for him than to laugh with the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) when I speak of serious matters. It is not a time for joking; sometimes we make little jokes, but at this time I am talking seriously and everyone is serious except those two hon. gentlemen. I -want them to understand that the matter is worthy of consideration, especially at Vancouver as well as at home.
At the present time the national selective service is just the tool of the Department of National Defence. What do I mean by that? I have explained it in an article about manpower which I have sent to eveiy hon. gentleman. The purpose of the mobilization act is to consider not only the case of an individual but at the same time to consider what can best be done by this man or that woman for the state, the nation. At the county fairs farmers are praised; they are told that they are the salt of the earth, that they have qualities and virtues equalled by no others and that they are kings on their farms. But one must remember that the work of the farmer is very hard, that tilling the land means many sacrifices, and that when a farmer is uprooted it is impossible to transplant him again on a farm. This is the experience of all nations. Yet with the solemn promises that have been made to the farmers not to disturb them at the present time I have evidence that the national selective service is acting like the ordnance stores to fill the requisitions of the national defence department. They receive from that department a request for men; then they try to get those men, from the farms or from industry. That is how national selective service works, and probably that is why the offices of the registrars which were under the Department of National War Services have been transferred to the Department of Labour.
Is that clear enough? I want hon. gentlemen to understand fully the point I am making. I say that national selective service cannot be only the tool of the army. It is impossible; it cannot work. National selective service as we have created it by an act

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
of parliament is an organization which should direct each man and woman of military age to the job he or she can do best to help in winning the war. That was the intent of the law makers; that is the purpose of the legislation. That is why we should act at this time in accordance with the suggestion offered by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) in his subamendment and withhold 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-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not the correct phraseology of the amendment. Please read it as it appears at page 551 of Hansard.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will sit down and let my hon. friend read it, and I shall correct him. Everyone has the amendment before him. I am ready to answer any questions but I do not want to be interrupted when I am speaking. However, if I have time I shall read it in full, so there may be no mistake:
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-
That is, the suspension; I say that in case somebody may misunderstand it. That word is not there, but it will appear in Hansard as my own.
-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.
That is the amendment that everyone heard last night or read in the morning papers or heard to-day. This is a vital question. From ocean to ocean, from south to north, in every Canadian home those who were listening to the radio last night at eleven and twelve o'clock and this morning at eight o'clock, eight thirty and nine o'clock, in rich mansions and poor dwellings, asked themselves the same question:	What will be the
attitude of my member of parliament on this vital issue? Of course temptations are great. There are many vacancies in the senate. There is a job which will be open at the transport board. There are the new jobs that have been created for parliamentary
secretaries. The Christmas tree is in full swing. " What will my member of parliament do? Will he think only of himself or will he remember the poor farmers of his county, the miners, the railway men, those engaged in war industries, all those who are trying to do their best to help the war effort?" They all ask that, and they say it is time to separate the wheat from the chaff. They will say, " We hope our member of parliament will not sell our birthright for a mess of pottage." I remember that during a by-election in New Brunswick, in the maritimes, a big bully who was minister of public works of that province was holding a meeting, at which I asked for the opportunity of some discussion. He spoke first, and he told the good people who were there, "Vote for my candidate, and you will get everything; vote against him and you will get nothing." When it came my turn to reply I made reference to that biblical scene describing the temptation of Our Lord, after His fast of forty days in the desert. I said to those good people, "Now history repeats itself. That man is talking like Satan, when he tried to tempt Our Lord by showing Him large cities and wealth which would be His if He dared kneel before Satan." I said to them, " I know your answer will be the same as that made by Our Lord Himself -get thee behind me, Satan!"
Right Hon., W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I think it is advisable for me to intervene at an early stage in the debate on this amendment to the amendment if for no reason other than first to make perfectly clear what in reality the amendment to the amendment says and proposes and, in the second- place, what, in our parliamentary practice, it means.
Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member who has just taken his seat has read the subamendment in part, I should like to repeat what he has read, and also a portion of the subamendment he did not read. After it is stated that the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) moves, seconded by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc) the subamendment begins:
That all the words after the word "that" in the first line of the said amendment be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor.
The point I wish to make perfectly clear is this, that the amendment of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres is in the nature of a want of confidence motion in the present government. The hon. member seeks to effect that end by substituting a want of confidence motion of his own for the want of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
confidence motion moved by the leader of hon. members sitting immediately opposite. The hon. member for Riehelieu-Verch^res proposes that the house should strike out of their amendment all the words except the first few, namely, "We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that-". Those words are allowed to remain, but all the words following are to be stricken out, and in their stead are to be substituted words which I shall read in a few minutes.
I do not know that I could take any exception to that part of the subamendment which would strike out the want of confidence motion on the part of the Progressive Conservative party. I doubt however if they will be prepared to have their want of confidence motion eliminated in order that they might support the substitute motion which is being proposed by the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres.
The words the hon, member for Richelieu-
Vercheres wishes to substitute are the following:
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.
Let me examine these various statements. First:
This house is of the opinion-
And what, is the opinion in which we are asked to concur?
_ -that 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-
Note first these words:
-should have provided for the withholding of the operation of the National Resources Mobilization Act-
" Should have provided "- in other words, before parliament assembled, and when the speech from the throne was being prepared, it is suggested by the hon. member that, instead of setting forth what was set forth in the speech from the throne of the government's programme, the government should have had His Exeelleny say that a part of the government's programme was to withhold the operation of the National Resources
fVTr. Mackenzie King.]
Mobilization Act in regard to the raising of men for military service.
That point I wish to make perfectly clear. It indicates what my hon. friend thinks the government should have done, namely, that it should have come to the house when parliament assembled and told hon. members that part of its policy was to withhold at once the operation of that part of the National Resources Mobilization Act in regard to the raising of men for military service.
And for how long was the operation of this portion of the act to be withheld? The next clause in the amendment makes that clear:
-until at least a complete investigation is made by a committee of the house.
Only yesterday the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) requested a debate in the house before another important matter, namely, social security, should go to a committee of the house for investigation. As his reason for wishing to have the debate at once he said that matters which went to committees were likely to be discussed there for the whole of a session, and that in all probability no recommendations would be made until the end of the session. I said to him at the time I did not think he was wholly correct in that assumption. However, it is perfectly clear from the amendment to the amendment that what the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres wished the government to do was to tell the house that until there had been full investigation by a committee of the house into the matters to which he has referred in his subamendment there should be no further operation of that part of the act which relates to the raising of men for military service.
But an even more remarkable feature, perhaps. is what the investigation was to determine. This investigation was-
-to ascertain and determine by what means or methods Canada can now most effectively contribute to the winning of the war.
In other words it was to be left to a committee of the house to determine the means and the methods by which Canada can now most effectively contribute to the winning of the war.
My hon. friend is an old colleague. I have known him well, both within the cabinet and without it; and I recall very distinctly that when we were Colleagues in the cabinet together no one was more insistent than my hon. friend upon the government having a policy of its own, and not leaving it to a committee of the house or any other body to determine its policy. Yet to-day he suggests in regard to the all-important matter

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
of winning the war that the best method to employ from now on would be to leave the matter, in the first instance, to a committee of the house.
This is all the more surprising, coming from the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, when we find that the hon. member himself has quite frankly stated his warm approval of what the government has already done in the matter of its war effort. And this war effort, which my hon. friend has praised so unreservedly, was achieved by the present administration, with the support of the house, it is true, but without any reference to a select committee in the first instance. Let me read what the hon. member said in that regard in one of his speeches in the present debate:
The speech from the throne also reviews our war effort. It has been a magnificent effort, I admit, and I am glad of it. All Canadians are proud of it, and we have the profound satisfaction of having it recognized that our war effort surpasses that of any other country of our size. As far as man-power and finance are concerned, our war effort is superior to that of the great republic to the south, the United States.
I say to my hon. friend: If the government of the day was capable of so planning its war effort that up to the present time it merits the encomium which he himself has passed upon it, surely the government still remains capable of deciding the best ways and means by which Canada's war effort may be carried on during the remainder of the time it may have that responsibility.
But my hon. friend goes a step further. He suggests that we carry this out without destroying the economic, social and national life of the country. I shall have a word to say later in regard to that particular clause.
I have indicated what my hon. friend in his amendment says the government should have done when it came to parliament, when parliament opened. I want to ask him, and I want to ask hon. members: what would have been said of the government if it had come to this house with the recommendation which he says we should have made at the time, or if we had followed the course which he says we should have adopted? Assuming that we had agreed to the view of my hon. friend and had come to this house and said: We have decided to withhold the operation of the national mobilization act with respect to the calling up of men for service until a committee of this house has made a full investigation and reported to the House of Commons on the best ways and means of carrying on the war from now on. How would that have been received in different quarters?
To begin with, so far as this House of Commons is concerned, there would instantly have been a cry from the other side to the effect that we no longer enjoyed the confidence of the house because we were unable to state a policy which was our own with respect to the carrying on of the war. What would have been the effect upon the people of Canada of a pronouncement of this kind? Simultaneously, from one end of the country to the other, it would have been said that the government was preparing to back out of the war; that the government was quitting the war altogether; that it had started off by suspending the operation of the national mobilization act with respect to the calling up of men.
May I point out in this connection that it is to that part of the mobilization act which refers to the calling up of men for the defence of Canada in Canada and immediate environments that my hon. friend's amendment refers. My hon. friend has made no reference in any particular to the sending of men overseas; that does not enter into it. He himself was a party in the cabinet to the drafting of the National Resources Mobilization Act; he was a supporter of it on the floor of this house. My hon. friend will recall that the National Resources Mobilization Act was enacted immediately after the collapse of France. He was eloquent at that time in his support of the act. Why? Because of what it would mean for the defence of Canada, as well as for the defence of freedom in other parts of the world. Throughout the country there was the strongest appeal for the support of this act, and the calling up of men under it to serve in the defence of Canada. Has the situation so developed that to-day the defence of Canada by men called up under the mobilization act is not as necessary as it has been at any time in this war? Unless I am wrong in my reading of the times, the necessity is greater than ever for protection against an enemy as powerful as the axis powers are at this present time. Let me repeat, my hon. friend was one who supported the policy embodied in the act; he advocated it; but now he says that we should suspend the operation of an important part of the very act he 60 strongly endorsed.
What would have been the effect of action of that kind on the part of our government upon our men who are serving in all parts of the world in the armed forces of the country? What would have been the effect upon our troops in Great Britain and elsewhere? I say that it would have created consternation in the minds of the men of the armed forces in all parts of the world, if it could have been

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
said by anyone that the government of the day at this time of war had ceased to continue in operation the part of the mobilization act which related to the defence of Canada itself. Those men who are a long distance from home, who are helping to protect this country and to save it from disaster, would be asking themselves: Is this the kind of support we are getting from our home country and from our government? Is our parliament going to support that kind of action? Does it mean that while we are fighting here we are not going to get the reinforcements that we had hoped would be ready to come if they were necessary? Does it mean that we are not' going to get the supplies that are needed at the time of our greatest need? I ask my hon. friend, I ask all hon. members, what would be the effect upon the whole war effort of Canada if a feeling of that kind were spread abroad among the armed forces of this country?
What would have been the effect upon Great Britain and other British dominions? Great Britain to-day has her men fighting in all parts of the world. They are fighting for the protection of Canada as well as for the protection of Britain. They are fighting for the defence of freedom throughout the world. They are fighting to prevent the axis powers from dominating this world. What would have been the effect in Great Britain if the government of Canada had met this parliament with the announcement that it no longer intended to operate under an act with respect to the calling up of men for military service which the parliament of Canada itself had passed, until a whole session of parliament had been devoted to making an investigation as to ways and means in which the war effort of Canada could be carried on from now on?
What about Australia, where men are fighting the Japanese? They are fighting our battle as well as their own when they are keeping the enemy engaged in the southwestern portion of the Pacific. What about the men of New Zealand, who have been fighting in Africa and in other parts of the world and who, at any time, may have to fight on their own territory? What about the men of South Africa who are fighting in north Africa? These men are fighting for the defence of their soil and for the defence of freedom. What would have bf ;n the effect upon them if they had read that the government of Canada had for the time being suspended the operation of an act which related to the calling up of men for the defence of its own country and territory?
To go a step further, what would have been the effect upon our allies other than those I have mentioned? What would have been the

effect in the United States? If my hon. friend had wished to give to the isolationists of the United States the finest weapon they ever had, he would have put one into their hands by having a proposal of that kind accepted. That weapon would be put into their hands now if this House of Commons were to adopt his amendment at this time. Does anyone think that, throughout the United States, from one end of that country to the other, attention would not have been drawn to the fact that the government of Canada had ceased to call up men? What would those isolationists have asked of their administration? We would soon have heard of a widespread demand throughout the United States that there be no more calling up of men for military service. How much would we be helping the cause of freedom and the allies if a cry of that kind were raised in the great country to the south? But my hon. friend has made clear in one of his speeches what he feels about the service that is being rendered by others of our allies. When I referred a moment ago to what my hon. friend said about the war effort I was referring to what he said on February 9, not last night.	.
I want to read to the house another statement which my hon. friend made on February 9, and I must say that when I beard him make that statement I felt that at last he had grasped the full significance of this war-that it was a world war, that it was a war which affects all the countries which love freedom, and that every country which sought to preserve its freedom was helping to preserve the freedom of other countries. No words could have been more emphatic than those which were used by my hon. friend when he said, speaking of China and Russia:
Dear old China, that we love so much to-day, that we praise so much to-day and proclaim to be one of the first peoples in the world!
And a little further on:
We have discovered that she is a great country, a country that deserves our praise and support. We have modified our views; we have become a little more courageous and ready to help China now, as well as Russia. Let us give them what they need most, not men but food and armaments. That is what they want to enable them to carry on this struggle. As a matter of fact they are fighting for us as much as they are fighting for their country.
That is what my hon. friend said, that China is fighting as much for us as she is fighting for China. I think my hon. friend had the correct vision then, the larger vision, and realized that we owe it to China to do all we can in a similiar way for her, that in fighting for ourselves, we are also fighting for her, and vice versa.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
What did he say with respect to Russia:
If we have some success to-day, who has achieved that success? The Russians. Without Russia where would we be? Probably we would be signing a treaty of peace, not according to our terms or our will, but according to the will of others. That would be our position. ,
I say, Mr. Speaker, that if my hon. friend would go out through his own province from one end of it to the other and make those statements to the people, he would be rendering a real service to his country and a real service to the cause of freedom. I believe that there are few truer statements, no more correct perspective of this war and its significance for Canada as well as for our allies than are to be found in these two statements made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. If we have some success to-day, he asks, who has achieved that success? I would not confine the answer to the Russians; I would include all the countries that are banded together as part of the united nations. It is true that the Russians have within the last year taken a part in the war which has saved other nations of the world and, in the mind of my hon. friend as expressed in the words I have quoted, has saved this dominion from being conquered

that is what it is-Russia has saved this dominion from being conquered. Without Russia, he asked, where would we be? And he went on:
Probably we would be signing a treaty of peace, not according to our terms or our will, but according to the will of others. That would be our position.
Are we going to reward China, are we going to reward Russia, for what these great countries have done for us as well as for themselves and others through the sacrifices of their men and women, by telling them that we in Canada have *now reached a decision that we are not going to call up any more men under our National Resources Mobilization Act for service in our own country, but are going to suspend our war effort for a time while parliament and the government make up their minds how best they can carry out the war aims of Canada? I say to my hon. friend that if his resolution were to carry and these words were to be read in China and in Russia to-morrow, there would be cause for humiliation indeed on the part of this country, and shameful humiliation at that.
There is one other all-important aspect to be considered. I have spoken of the effect of his proposals upon our allies. What about their effect upon our enemies? And here I hope this House of Commons will appreciate the real significance of amendments of this character and of statements of this character when made in this House of Commons. The
hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said that in every home throughout his province the people would be reading to-day the statement which was made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres last night. Well, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, in every home in Germany to-day that statement is being poured into the ears of the German people. Perhaps in every home in Japan this statement of a former member of the government of Canada -and stated as being such-is being poured into the ears of the Japanese people. You ask, why would they do that? Well, could anything bring more comfort to the enemy than to tell them that the parliament of Canada at last had had one of its members stand up and advocate that the Canadian government should not have its war policies clearly defined and those policies carried out until a committee of the House of Commons had begun, after months and months of study and investigation, to indicate what should be done?
Here may I read the last words of the proposed amendment and give them their true significance:
. . . 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.
Do not those last words carry with them the implication that the government's policies are destroying the economic, social and national life of the country? And if they carry that implication in our minds here, or were intended to have that implication on the part of the mover of the subamendment, how will they be interpreted in Germany? How will they be interpreted in Japan? They will be interpreted there as meaning that already in Canada the economic, social and national life of the country is beginning to be destroyed. Destroyed why? Because of Germany's successes! Because of Japan's successes, because of the power of the axisl It will be said that because of these successes we see already in the Dominion of Canada, the first of the great dominions of the British empire, a former minister of the crown and a member of parliament saying that the economic, social and national life of the country is being destroyed or about to be destroyed or may be destroyed in consequence of the war and the government's war policies. Is there anything that these axis powers desire more than to sow that kind of belief in the minds of their people, that here and there, first one nation, and then another nation, and then another, are becoming dissatisfied and beginning to withdraw

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
from active participation in the war in which they have been participating up to the present time? I can imagine what Goebbels is saying to the German people. I can imagine what his vile tongue will repeat to the German people as to wdrnt is taking place in the Dominion of Canada. I wish to repeat that these are the things that count in this war- the morale of a people, the belief in the unity and determination of a people. These things mean more at this present crisis than any thing else could possibly mean. For any word to go out from Canada which could be construed in any way as meaning that the economic, social and national life of Canada was being destroyed because of the part we are taking in this war-I say that nothing more unpatriotic could possibly be expressed.
But is it a fact? What about the economic, social, and national life of our country? My hon. friend has spoken about agriculture and about industry. Is it not true that to-day industrial production and agricultural production are greater than they have ever been in the history of Canada? Is it not true that the national income and the revenues of this country are higher to-day than they have been at any other time in its history? Is it not true that more men and women are in gainful employment to-day than have ever been in gainful employment in Canada in the whole of our history? How then can it be said that our economic, social and national life is being destroyed? I believe that there has never been a time in Canada's history when the Canadian people, speaking generally -not taking note of individuals here and there, but speaking generally-were more united and determined in any effort than they are in our war effort at the present time? And may I add to what I have said, as to the position of Canada, that there never was a time when consumer goods were as equitably distributed among the great body of the people as they are in Canada at this time.
Let me come now to the nature of the amendment to the amendment itself. I indicated at the outset that it was a no confidence motion, and I want every hon. member of this house to understand that. Those who support this motion are supporting a motion of no confidence in the administration. I want to ask the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, this question: If he has no confidence in this administration, in whom has he confidence? I ask, has he confidence in the Progressive Conservative party opposite? Is he prepared to give his support to them? Has he confidence in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and is he prepared to give his

support to that party? Has he confidence in the Social Credit party, and is he prepared to give his support to them? Has he confidence in the leader of the so-called Canadian party, the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), and is he prepared to give his support to him? Is he prepared to give his support to the new leader of le bloc populate Canadien? And I notice there are several others who are styled as independents. Is he prepared to give his support and confidence to them? If he is not prepared to give his support and confidence to any of these parties, or groups, or individuals, why does he try to destroy the confidence of the people of this country in the one party upon whose shoulders rests the responsibility of carrying on this war?
There is something I should like to point out at this moment, which I think is very significant indeed in the history of Canada, in the light of rvhat we have witnessed in Europe since the beginning of the war. It is the danger there is to a country that begins to have a great number of different political parties. Look at France as she was prior to the war. Why did France collapse? France collapsed because, prior to the war itself, there began to spring up in that country political party after political party and personal and political rivalries-personal rivalries as well as political. We had an illustration of that sort of thing in this house last night. My hon. friend who moved this motion rose to introduce it, and immediately the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) felt that he was a political rival and that he should score, that he must have an opportunity of presenting a motion, no doubt something of the same character, before the hon. member, who was a former minister of the crown, obtained a chance to present his motion.


Mr. ROY:: May I be permitted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down. *


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: What is my hon. friend saying?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Will the Prime Minister permit me to make a statement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres did not rise before me; I rose before he did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think Hansard will show very clearly where the personal and political rivalries came in, and I want to emphasize that fact. Those gentlemen who are forming new parties of their own, who are constituting themselves new leaders with a

The Address-Mr. Lacombe
view to asserting certain views of their own in particular parts of the country, are doing the very same thing that was done by individuals in France in seeking to create parties and groups which would be able to satisfy their own personal ambitions, their own political aims; and the result was that the chamber of deputies in France-


Mr. GAUTHIER:: On a point of order, I would call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to standing order 41. Even the Prime Minister is not allowed in this house to impute motives to any member, be he independent or a member of le bloc populaire Canadien, and this is the second time that the Prime Minister has done so this afternoon. I want him to withdraw that remark.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With reference to the point of order raised by the hon. member, I did not take it that the Prime Minister imputed motives to anyone.


Mr. LACOMBE:: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, I will read standing order 41:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, nor of any of the royal family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof. No member may reflect upon any vote of the bouse, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
I think the Prime Minister should withdraw the remark.


Thomas Vien: I have already ruled that I did not take it that the Prime Minister had used offensive remarks regarding any hon. member, or imputed motives to any hon. member.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I spoke of personal ambitions and political aims, and I said that certain gentlemen had personal ambitions and political aims in this country, seeking to exert their influence beyond this House of Commons among the people of the country. These different parties are beginning to create within Canada itself a situation such as existed in France prior to the beginning of the war. I say it is part of my duty, perceiving that situation, and realizing what it has led to in the old world, to point out that danger to the people of Canada at this time. And I say-and I hope my hon. friends will heed these words-if they will look at the present situation of the French people to-day, in France, in north Africa, and what has helped to make the situation the tragedy that it is, they will see the unwisdom of forming innumerable political parties for personal aims and political ambitions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the session opened last year with an effort to divide this house on a major political issue. I thought I perceived at the time where that issue would lead, if this house ever became divided and the country became divided upon it. I did my utmost to keep this country united through the whole of that crisis, and I am a proud man to-day because I feel that I succeeded in that great aim despite all the belittlement, all the detraction that persons from different parts of this country as well as some inside this house sought to level at me. What I want to make plain is this: I do not intend to go through another storm of that kind this session. If we are going to have this session open with an effort again to divide this country, to destroy the unity that we now have, the sooner the government of this country knows it the better. And I want to say to my hon. friends around me that I look to them to show where they stand in their support of me. If we are going to have a multitude of leaders in this country I want to know whether I have the support that will commend my leadership to the people of all Canada, or whether I am among the number that cannot count upon their own following.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief, I shall give my entire support to the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin); not for reasons of political ambition but as a true Canadian. The amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member deserves my support. It reflects a constructive policy, because it relates to the reestablisment of farm labour and industrial war workers.
On February 19, 1942, I moved a similar amendment. This one goes farther, since it deals with the post-war period and reminds the government that it is very important to protect right now the economy of the nation. The hon. member is quite right in attempting to withhold operation of the National Resources Mobilization Act, which has caused us and is still causing us so much harm in all domains. An investigation should be instituted immediately of all our resources. This will put a stop to the wastage of man-power and materials and to the ruin which is awaiting our agriculture.
One year ago to-day I moved in this house the following amendment as reported at page 722 of Hansard:
That all the words after "this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers" in the amendment be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
The Address-Mr. Gray don

"(a) did not deem it proper to advise Your Excellency that the government should adhere to its commitments and the terms of its mandate against conscription for overseas service which it received from the people of Canada at the general elections held on March 26, 1940;
(b) that the farmers, farm employees, fishermen, fisheries employees and all persons engaged in industries connected with agriculture or with war industries, should be exempt from military service."
Eleven hon. members, including the mover and the seconder, voted in favour of this amendment. I sincerely hope that the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres will get more generous support. I shall indeed vote for his amendment, because I never refuse to adhere to a good measure, no matter where it comes from. Will any hon. member of this house, whether he represents an agricultural, labour or industrial riding, dare vote against the amendment moved by the hon. member? By doing so he would be in favour of ruining agriculture, he would refuse to the farmer the labour he needs so badly to operate his farm, he would approve the disorganization of our economy which is so acute and the lack of labour which exists in all our industries.
By all means we must withhold the operation of the National Resources Mobilization Act. Its present application threatens with bankruptcy our agricultural, industrial, social and economic domain. The amendment to the amendment which is the subject of the present debate deals with the basis of all these activities. I much prefer it to the vague programme of social legislation announced in the speech from the throne. I always prefer a frank and practical policy to a vague and unbalanced programme. I am satisfied with the amendment to the amendment because it is honest, sincere, loyal and in the interest of Canada. Therefore it is with pleasure that I shall vote in favour of it.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think our party would desire to have this important amendment to the amendment go to a vote before I at least declared in a very few words our position with respect to it. In beginning my remarks, which will be in very simple terms, I think I should say that with regard to the whole problem of man-power in Canada we have not been in agreement with governmental policy. As I have said on the floor of this house on previous occasions, we have felt marked disagreement with respect to what I choose to call the muddled man-power policy of this government. As a result of the haphazard allocation of labour that policy has been responsible for the shortage mentioned in the amendment to the amendment which

has been moved by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin); and in the position we as a party take with respect to the amendment to the amendment I want it distinctly understood that we are opposed to the policy of the government which made possible these man-power shortages in agriculture and industry. We have believed, and we still believe, that under a proper man-power policy in Canada there would have been no necessity for these shortages to have arisen.
In our opinion there is only one real issue facing parliament and the Canadian people at this time, namely, the winning of this war. Much as we are opposed to what we think is in many instances a bungling policy on the part of this government, at the same time we wish to make it clear that while in many ways this government has shackled itself with respect to the war effort, we do not think that by supporting this amendment to the amendment we should now shackle it further. Accordingly it is our opinion that if this amendment were to carry it would be a retrograde step rather than an advance toward the objectives which this party has in view. We are being faced now with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on more than one occasion has referred to as a major shooting war; and much as I disagree with the policy of the government concerning the whole question of man-power, at the same time I do not want this country put in a position which would permit the rest of the world to say that we in Canada were stopping short of total war. 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 manpower, financial resources and all things that will bring forth a total war effort in this dominion.
I said in the beginning that my remarks would be brief, and my position and the position of this party is very simple. We have not tried to embarrass the administration in the effective prosecution of this war. We are not going to embarrass them at this time, because there are greater things in public life than striving for power or political manoeuvring.


Mr. CARDIN:: If the leader of the opposition would permit me a question, I do not want to embarrass him, but what would be the effect of his amendment, if it were carried, if not to destroy the government?

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)


Gordon Graydon: 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.
I speak very much from the heart this afternoon, without attempting to dress or adorn my words in any special parliamentary phraseology. Let us be clear on this one point. We in this country are Canadians, not simply members of political parties. We are striving toward a coipmon objective; and no matter how much I may disagree with the manner in which the government is carrying on-and in many instances we do disagree most sharply-I do not want to stand in my place in the house this afternoon and give support to an amendment which in my opinion will not increase our war effort but will have the effect of decreasing it, of lowering our position as a nation fighting this war, as well as lessening our prestige all over the world. Therefore, in taking this position to-day I am only carrying out an undertaking which I hope we on this side may continue to carry out during the period of this war. We may not always succeed; it may be that sometimes our point of view is wrong, but we are going to try to put our country first.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word with regard' to the subamendment and the attitude of this group with reference to it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has already analysed the amendment, so that I hardly think any further analysis is necessary. However, I draw the attention of the house to these words:
. . . 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. . . .
I wish to point out first that this act was passed in June, 1940, and that it was in operation for two years during which the hon. gentleman who moved the subamendment, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), was a member of the administration. Never was there any suggestion that the operation of this act should be withheld, from the time it was passed by this house until last night, despite the fact that for two years the hon. gentleman was a member of the administration responsible for administering this piece of legislation.
With what the hon. member said in reference to the allocation of man-power we are to a large extent in agreement. We have said
repeatedly that we think there ought to be a more adequate plan for the utilization of manpower in Canada. We have urged repeatedly that the government ought to take a more courageous stand with regard to allocating our man-power.
To give an illustration: The other day the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) quoted a letter from Mr. MacNamara in which the first thing stated is that men shall be free to volunteer for active service. Actually we may have to come to the place where we shall say to a man, this is where you can be of most use in the winning of the war. If it be in the military service, then that is where it will have to be; if it be in the air service, that is where it will have to be; if it be in a coal mine, that is where it will have to be. For too long we have tried to operate a wartime economy with a laissez-faire philosophy, and in our opinion the government has not been prepared to take the courageous steps necessary to place men and women in those occupations in which they could best serve the country.
The result has been, first of all, that in many instances there is economic pressure and intimidation placed upon men to get them into the active service and, second, different departments of government have been competing one against another for man-power; one department seeking to get a man into one service and another department seeking to get him into another service, with the Department of Agriculture probably telling him to stay on the farm and produce foodstuffs. At the same time the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) may be advertising that he needs men in certain munitions plants.
There has not been any responsible body prepared to say to a man, here you can best serve, and here we think you should go. While, however, we think such a policy should be worked out in order to utilize our man-power to the best possible advantage, there is no reason why this cannot be done now by the government, or why it cannot be done while the mobilization act is still operating. To suggest, as the subamendment does, that we should withhold the operation of the act pending such an investigation would, it seems to us, be most inimical to the best interests of Canada, and her prosecution of the war. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) put the matter bluntly when he said, "This act should be suspended." What would that mean? It would mean that we should not continue to call up men for military training. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) was a member of the government which
564	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
passed the act. It was passed because the country was facing a great crisis. We believe we are still facing that crisis; we do not believe the crisis has passed. We believe, further, that the menace of nazism and fascism are still facing this country and every other liberty-loving country in the world, and that we ought not to comfort ourselves with the thought that the danger of invasion or even the possibility of defeat has completely disappeared.
Consequently, for parliament to suggest to the government that it should suspend the act whereby men are raised for military training would be tantamount to suggesting either that we think the danger is over or that we are not now as vitally concerned about winning the war as we were two and a half years ago when the act was passed. As far as this group is concerned, we will continue to press for a more aggressive and forthright manpower policy in which we will allocate our man-power on the basis of need, and through a process of planning rather than by the haphazard method we have used thus far. But we are not prepared to suggest that the legislation through which men are called up for military training should be suspended, and that we should give up this very important part of our war effort.
While I am on my feet may I say a word about the amendment. I might as well say how we propose to vote on it, because the vote will probably be taken immediately following that on the subamendment. It will be noted that the amendment reads:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed:
(a)	to provide an adequate plan for the effective use of Canada's man- and woman-power;
(b)	to adopt and carry through a rational labour policy which will ensure maximum production and give to labour its rightful position as one of the major partners in our Canadian democracy; and
(c)	to provide adequate measures whereby Canadian agriculture can make its maximum war contribution and receive a fair share of the national income.
With the three things suggested in the amendment we are in complete accord. We want an effective utilization of our manpower. We want a rational labour policy. We want a policy which will give to agriculture a fair share of the national income. But in voting for the amendment, which we intend to do, I should like to point out that in our opinion it completely fails to take cognizance of the complete picture with regard to our war effort. It provides for the utilization of man-power, for a labour policy and for an agricultural policy; but it still makes

absolutely no provision for harnessing the economic, financial and industrial resources of the nation, with a view to producing all the weapons of war in order that Canada may make its maximum contribution.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) quoted this from the Winnipeg convention:
We believe in the effective total utilization and proper allocation for war, by compulsion where necessary, of all the resources of Canada, including agriculture, industry and finance, as well as man-power, and that our aim should be at all times to bring about so far as human means can achieve it, an equality of sacrifice.
I draw attention to the words "where necessary." Where it is necessary hon. members to my right believe they should-to use their own words-use compulsion in utilizing industry and finance. But they would do that only where necessary. Apparently it is not necessary, because it is not in their amendment. The amendment makes no mention of industry, no mention- of economic resources, no mention of finance. It mentions using compulsion only in connection with conscripting and mobilizing the human resources of Canada.


Mr. BOUCHER:: It does not mention
compulsion of woman-power, either.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It mentions
using compulsion in connection with woman-power and man-power, but makes no mention of using compulsion in connection- with material resources.


Gordon Graydon: Is the hon. member
now speaking about that part of my speech in which I referred to the Winnipeg convention?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: I think he has misunderstood the purport of what I read.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, I may have; but the hon. member quoted it himself last night, as reported at page 549 of Hansard. It is quite plain there in the English language that, where compulsion is necessary, his party is prepared to use compulsion for the utilization of financial and industrial resources.


Gordon Graydon: And man-power too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this group last evening were quite prepared to have the vote taken and the address disposed of, but it seems now that because there was not sufficient control in the ranks of the government to keep their own members in line a brand new debate has been precipitated.
There are a few things I should like to say this afternoon, and I am forced to say them largely because of statements which have been made by members to my right. I am not going to deal with the amendment to the amendment because I think the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) has clearly set out the position of the members of our group.
I should like to say a few words with respect to the amendment proposed by the Progressive Conservative party-I think that is the name they give themselves now. I was disappointed in the statement made last evening by the new leader of the official opposition (Mr. Graydon). I had believed he was an honest and sincere man who would stand behind any policy which was in the interests of the people, and I was disappointed to find him on his feet last evening using all the technique of a lawyer to expose any loopholes there might be in the phrasing of the amendment to the amendment as proposed. by this group, and also apologizing for the programme that was laid down at the convention of his party in Winnipeg. In my opinion he was merely quibbling with words and demonstrating to the house and the country that while the party has done a new paint job on the party machine, as it was so well described by the hon. member for Weyburn, the machine is nevertheless the same old1 machine. It is merely a matter of fooling the people once again with phrases and slogans that do not mean anything. If there is anything I despise it is intrigue and lack of sincerity.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Oh, now!


Clarence Gillis: I think my hon. friend should despise those same characteristics.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He would, but he would not mention them with respect to any member of the house.


Clarence Gillis: I have not said anything
about any particular member, and if anything I have said happens to hurt anybody, I cannot help it. But I do despise those characteristics. If I stand for certain principles after thinking

The Address-Mr. Gillis
them through, I think I should stand up for them under any circumstances. But in my opinion the programme and policy laid down at the Winnipeg convention of the Progressive Conservative party certainly is not being advocated in this house by members of the party who have spoken in this debate-or anything like it.
My conception of the house at the present time is that there is taking place a realignment of forces. I am not surprised at the stand taken by the members of the group to my right on the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation amendment, because the forces of reaction in this country are being lined up; the issues are becoming clearer; the lines are becoming more sharply drawn. There is no third course in my opinion as far as Canada and its future is concerned. Either you stand for the necessary social changes to guarantee the full implementation of the objectives for which we are fighting this war. or you believe in a continuance of the conditions that brought about the war. My conception of the stand taken by the party to my right is they are quite prepared to hang on to the old machine. They are not prepared to make any basic changes which would eliminate in the future the conditions we are experiencing at the present time. I think the alignment is a logical one and that the party to my right are taking the course which they would be expected to take.
They are not proposing in their amendment anything that is not being done already by the government. If all they want, is compulsion to use the full man-power and woman-power of this country, that is already being done in every field in which it can be done. There is ample evidence of that in the numerous orders in council which have been passed and in press statements which have been issued. Anyone in this house could prove within fifteen minutes that that is now being done by the government in every field in which it is possible to do it. The only thing the government is not doing is the things that were advocated in the amendment to the amendment proposed by this group, and our friends to my right are not prepared to make any changes in that direction or in any direction. I shall say no more on that.
My main reason for rising this afternoon is to defend the people whom I think I represent directly in the house, and that is the members of the unions, and particularly the Canadian Congress of Labour and its affiliates in the United States. The member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) in addressing the house on February 16, as reported at page 486 of Hansard, interpreted the labour policy of the Winnipeg convention,
and evidently he did it writh the full approval of every member of the group with which he sits.
He attacks the Congress for Industrial Organization in Canada. I said a moment ago that it was an uninformed attack. I said it for this reason-and I think it is something that should be clearly understood. The C.I.O., for the information of my friends to the right, is not a union. It has no union functions. It does not make nor does it negotiate contracts. The C.I.O. is the legislative centre in the United States to which the unions in that field are affiliated, and the C.I.O. in the United States carries on the legislative activities necessary to the movement in that country. It has no function whatever in Canada. The Canadian Congress of Labour in this country is the parallel organization to the C.I.O. in the United States, and all this drivel which the member for Parkdale talks, taking his cue from advertisements that are circulated throughout the country at this time with reference to the C.I.O., is irrevelant, inasmuch as that organization does not exist in Canada.
A few years ago the cry was communism. Any time you tried to exercise your rights as a citizen in the field of collective bargaining, you were considered a communist. Well, Russia has become respectable and it is not popular now to attack her, so that the slogan, particularly in the province of Ontario, is the C.I.O. Evidently the hon. member had the endorsation of the rest of his party in that regard because no exception was taken to his statement. The Canadian Congress of Labour to-day have 150,000 members in Canada. They have an affiliation with the other legislative body in the United States, and when that organization was attacked, the hon. membfer for Parkdale attacked the organized steel workers of Canada from coast to coast, the organized mine workers from coast to coast, the organized packing house workers, the textile workers, the united electrical workers. Every one of these organizations which he condemns so roundly as agitators and disrupters of industrial peace in Canada is thoroughly organized and is doing a good job in this country, and if there were more of them and they had more cooperation in that field from the powers that be there would be less strife. It is the fight put up by those who will not grant the workers of the country their day in court, which every other section of society enjoys, that is responsible for most of the turmoil that exists to-day.
I am glad that the member for Parkdale has put this on the record, because at the
The Address-Mr. Gillis

Winnipeg convention, while there was much talk about the right of the workers to organize, and all that kind of stuff, and how their heart bled and what they were prepared to do for the working people of their country, their official pronouncements in this house should be a clear indication to everyone in Canada that while they are still in opposition they are not ready, even for the sake of fooling the people, to make gestures in the direction of the right of the workers to bargain. What would be the situation if they were on the other -side of the house and had the right to make laws? Evidently their programme at Winnipeg, as far as its practical application is concerned, is company unionism, because the hon. member paid tribute in that speech to company unionism in this country.
The other evening I called the attention of the Prime Minister to this advertisement that has been circulated in every newspaper in Canada. It was put out by the Steel Company of Canada, with a personal letter from R. H. McMaster, president. I took exception to that for this reason. The responsible people connected with the trade union movement in this country are desirous of seeing our war effort promoted; they are not desirous of seeing strikes, confusion and everything else that goes with it; and when the Prime Minister made the statement that a new board was being set up, a new jurisprudence for labour in Canada was being established, and that the new board would function as an industrial court, I thought it was bad taste for the Steel Company of Canada to take the attitude it did. I thought so in view of the fact that newsprint is rationed in Canada. Moreover, my suspicion is that the taxpayers of Canada are paying for this advertising, because advertising is a part of operating cost, and is deducted from the corporation tax. Just before that court even got started, a tense labour dispute was going on in Canada, an ultimation having been given that if, within a reasonable time, a peaceful solution was not arrived at we were likely to have a repetition of what was gone through in the steel workers' strike. I thought it was ill advised on the part of the government not to take note of the fact that the steel company was circulating that advertisement throughout the length and breadth of Canada, provoking the steel workers, provoking the organized labour movement, and at the same time making the taxpayers pay for it. The member for Parkdale complimented the steel company upon its action. He thinks it was a wonderful thing. If that is part of the Winnipeg convention's attitude
[Mr. Gillis.)
towards the working people of the country, then I think it is time we found it out and governed ourselves accordingly.
In the field of compulsion, here is a newspaper dispatch from the Sudbury Star of Saturday, February 13. This horrible C.I.O. in the mines and steel plants and in the essential industries that are working, some of them, sixteen hours a day, are frozen to their jobs. They stay on the job. They are not permitted to change their job. In this order which I have here they are placed in this position-and I think it is something of which the government should take cognizance. The order of October 24, 1942, which brought about the means of holding labour to the production of important commodities in these essential industries, has been extended, and these people, whom the member for Parkdale classifies as agitators and disturbers of the peace, are placed in this position now. Those employed in essential industries are given deferment for military call, but that deferment is in the hands of the employer. The employer says^ whether you are to be called for military service or not, and evidently that power is being used, particularly in Sudbury in the nickel industry. It puts a weapon in the hands of the employer. If you happen to join an organization which he does not like, he can immediately notify the selective service board that your deferment should be discontinued and that you should be called for military service. If you are not exactly the kind of employee he thinks you should be, he has the right to see that you are called for military service. If that is not sufficient compulsion in the field of man-power, you have conscription in Canada not only for military service but for all essential industries.
On this question of national selective service may I make this statement, seeing that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is in the house. I followed closely the controversy between the Department of Labour and Elliott Little. I think there is room in Canada for a thorough overhauling of our national selective service regulations. Many things are happening that should not happen. For example, the wartime prices and trade board has been given authority to close out some
20,000	small industries in Canada-non-essential industries, they are declared to be-and you will find that many of these non-essential industries are highly unionized. For a period of years they built up certain wage schedules for themselves. When that industry is closed out under the present selective service regulations, these men will be relegated to the ranks of the unemployed.

The Address-Mr. Gilhs
They must go then to the national selective service offices and make application for employment in an essential industry. They carry with them none of the wage rates they have been able to build up over a period of years. While they may have been receiving 85 cents or a dollar an hour at some skilled occupation that is not to-day essential, they are obliged at times to go into a war plant and start as apprentices at 42 cents an hour; they lose the standard of living that they have built up through their own struggles over a long time, and nothing is done to protect them. To boil the thing down to plain and simple terms, I cannot see how the Minister of Labour could for a moment imagine that Mr. Little's proposals and the powers he asked for in connection with national selective service were in any sense dictatorial. I think the reverse is true; that the dictatorial powers that Mr. Little was accused of asking for are operating to-day in the selective service as administered by the Department of Labour.
My conception of Mr. Little's proposals is that he was prepared to accept full responsibility in that field, and he wanted the authority to do so. If an industry was closed out he wanted to make sure, before four or five hundred men were thrown into unemployment, that there was employment for these men. and that in the turnover they went from one industry to the other en bloc. In addition he wanted to protect the wage rates built up over a period of years in industries considered to-day non-essential. He did not want to reduce the standard of living of men or women who were obliged to change their employment because of the exigencies of war. That is my plain and simple conception of Mr. Little's proposals in the field of selective service.
I am not blaming the Minister of Labour; he is only one man and the problem is a big one. It is one with which someone who has technical and practical experience, which I think Mr. Little had, should be given full power to deal.
When Mr. Little first came to Ottawa we advocated in the house that he should be freed from war service regulations under that department. In addition we said he should be freed from any supervision or influence by the Department of Labour in connection with the mobilization of man-power for war service; that the transfer of man-power from coast to coast was a job that required a fulltime administrator, and that he should have some latitude with respect to the administration of these regulations. The whole thing to-day is in a knot; from coast to coast there is chaos. I do not say that to be critical. I moved about the country considerably last summer, and I ran into it. If anyone here has any doubt about how it is working I would advise him to call at the Spadina avenue office of the selective service in Toronto and have a look. I do not say that the Minister of Labour can go there and kick that loose, but I do say that someone down there should have some authority to do something. Before there can be any success in the field of selective service someone will have to be appointed full time and be given full authority to make the necessary changes in the way I think Mr. Little proposed making them. When 20.000 non-essential industries are being closed out it is a big job, affecting the livelihood of a great many people. It is throwing out of the field completely a large number of men who have quite an investment in their businesses, and that is something which requires careful consideration.
I do not think anyone should take the stand in this house that you or I should be asked to reduce our standard of living fifty per cent in any transfer from non-essential to essential employment. If that were done with contractors who are building airports and ships and all that kind of thing, I would say yes; we would be quite prepared to make the same sacrifice that the other man is making. But when a man is working for a wage which just enables him to live from day to day, and he is told that he must leave that employment, discontinue all his associations, and be transferred to another section of the country and another line of work, and at the same time reduce his standard of living at least fifty per cent-I can name industries where that has actually taken place-the Department of Labour would be well advised to do something along the lines suggested by Mr. Little.
There are many more things I should like to say but I shall not detain the house any longer. I rose this afternoon simply to say something for the people whom I think I directly represent here. I belong to that outlaw organization of which the hon. member for Parkdale speaks-those troublemakers. I have belonged to the mine workers' organization for the past twenty-five years. Unfortunately the working people of this country have not many agencies that will take up their cause. The press of this country belongs to the people represented here by the hon. member for Parkdale; the radio is largely in their hands; the House of Commons is largely in their hands. They have many spokesmen here, while unfortunately the people I attempt to speak for have very few agencies through which they can defend themselves.
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

I hear someone mention this committee of two hundred in Toronto. That committee does not consist entirely of Conservatives; there are as many reactionary so-called Liberals in it as there are Tories. My friends on this side and my friends over there who really believe that we are fighting a war to do away with wars in the future will have to begin to understand that the machine at the top, the small invisible government of this country, has no politics. They are not Liberals; they are not tories; their aim is power and direction from behind the scenes. Let everyone in this house understand that, and make this House of Commons supreme in legislating for the people. If while we are fighting the war it is necessary to have controls-and it is- let the members of the house use their voices in this house and out of it, to see to it that the people they directly represent here are given some share in the controls behind the scenes, in order that we may come out of this war with a free and democratic parliament. I am doubtful about it now, judging from the trend of events.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Before dealing with the amendment to the amendment I wish to refer briefly to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Since I came to parliament I have never heard the Prime Minister in such fine form as he displayed this afternoon. It really deserves note, I believe, that a man who is advancing in years is so full of fire and energy and able to give a good rousing talk on such short notice.
The Prime Minister said one or two things of which I believe every hon. member should take special note. He had a good deal to say about the formation of new parties, and seemed to be disposed to lay the blame for the formation of new parties on the people who form them. May I point out, however, that the Prime Minister completely missed the boat. He placed the blame just where it should not be. He referred to Prance; what caused the fall of France? Was it the new parties that arose, or was it the dead old-line parties that stood stolid and utterly refused to change, no matter what happened? Their leaders were dead; the majority of the people behind them were dead, and when the impact of war came upon them it became clear that they were dead. Let me point out that it is generally accepted and is coming to be more generally accepted in this country that the two old-line parties in this country are dead, root and branch; that the leaders and the prominent men in both of them, as well as the powers behind the scenes to which the hon. member for (Mr. Gillis.]
Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has just referred, are dead. This means only that though they are not dead to their own interests they are utterly dead to the interests of the people of the country which they have undertaken to rule.
Now I ask the Prime Minister to take a few minutes' even in his busy life to tell me what possible recourse the Canadian people have if they find that whichever old-line party is in power betrays their interests and fails to keep its promises. What other recourse have the people but to organize new parties? The organization of new parties stands as a condemnation of the policies or administration of the old-line parties, in whatever countries the new parties are organized.
I think it would be a good thing to refer just for a moment to the Prime Minister's appeal to the members of his party to support him. I am unable to tell whether he was trying to intimidate the members of the house by holding forth the threat of an election, or some such thing. If he was; if he thought that by going to the country he would remove from his side several thorns which are now beginning to hurt considerably, I believe he is very much mistaken. Anyone who would imagine that a new election would remove from this parliament gentlemen like the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) and others, had better do a little more studying. The Prime Minister may have been indicating that he was weary of it all and would probably resign. I would sympathize more with him if I had not heard his speech this afternoon, but considering the energy and power he then manifested I believe he is quite capable of carrying on even through another plebiscite, should that become necessary. The Prime Minister asked for the responsibility that he now has. He organized for it; he and his party henchmen did everything in their power at the last election to get it. I think the Canadian people are thoroughly justified in expecting him to stand right up to the task and carry through the responsibility which he very willingly assumed.
This house must make two very important decisions with respect to the subamendment. The first is, what are we going to do with the subamendment itself? That is a relatively easy question to deal with, but the second one is not so simple. What are members of this house to do about the causes that produced the subamendment? That is a matter not to be

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
disposed of so easily. I should like to give some attention to the answers to these questions. First, I should like to turn to the question of the subamendment. As I see it, the plebiscite on which we spent so much time last year was designed to answer the question raised by the amendment to the amendment. A "yes" vote was generally understood to mean the willingness of the voter to give the government freedom to introduce conscription for overseas service. Canadians as a whole definitely voted "yes". A majority in Quebec voted "no", which was theif absolute privilege and one which they should be free to exercise without any abuse from any organ or any person in the country. In accordance with the expressed will of the majority of the voters the .government introduced Bill No. 80, which modified the National Resources Mobilization Act in order to give the government freedom to introduce conscription for overseas service. This house voted on Bill No. 80 as follows. After having told the people, through their leader, to vote "yes" on the plebiscite; after having helped the Canadian people, therefore, to vote "yes", the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation came into this house and voted "no" on the bill based upon the plebiscite. Many of my fellow Canadians who speak French, among them being the mover of the amendment to the amendment, also voted against .Bill No. 80. The total vote against that bill was fifty-four, so that there was hardly any doubt as to how the house stood with respect to that measure. In view of the fact that the country voted "yes" and this house voted "yes", I fail to see how, in the short space of time that has intervened, this house could possibly reverse its position and support the amendment to the amendment.
Our group, the social crediters, are committed to vote against the amendment to the amendment because of several things in our history. There has been some sort of attempt on the part of this group to be consistent, and on at least certain matters I think we have been consistent ever since we went into Canadian public life. In 1937 I issued a statement to the press to the effect that I was going to support the government's proposal to increase the defence estimates. When those estimates came up I voted in favour of them, indicating quite clearly that I believed Canada should be prepared to offer effective cooperation in the defence of the British commonwealth and all that it holds dear. When the war broke out, this group took a stand in favour of unreserved cooperation with the British commonwealth of nations until victory should be won. Again, when the National Resources Mobilization Act was introduced in 1940 we supported
the principle of the mobilization of all the resources of this country, in order that we might build up a powerful force with which to fight to foe. When the plebiscite question was up for discussion I, representing this group, did not tell the Canadian people how to vote. We took the view that it was not the prerogative of any group or party in this house to tell the Canadian people how they ought to vote on a question so vitally important as the matter of conscription. We simply outlined certain problems involved and left the people to form their own decisions. When the Canadian people voted we held ourselves, as the democratic representatives of democratic people, bound to vote as the people required we should vote. Thus when Bill No. 80 came up this group voted for it, and therefore supported the change in the mobilization act which gave the government power to apply conscription.
My group will continue to vote "yes", in favour of the mobilization of the resources of this country. There is no change in the condition since last year which in any way could justify our reversing our decision. The national existence of the British commonwealth is at stake, a point which I am afraid some hon. members forget. The national existence of all the nations of North America is at stake, and that includes both English-! speaking and French-speaking people, both in Canada and in the United States.
The foe continues dreadfully powerful and, in the main, victorious still; and stern, with an almost fanatical determination to win, a sort of frenzy generated by despair. I think we can hardly expect a crack-up in our enemy such as favoured us during the last war. They are fighting with their backs to the wall. All these matters should, I believe, persuade anyone to vote for the greatest possible measure of strengthening of the government's hands in the conduct of the conflict.
The good which could be accomplished by the passage of the subamendment could not possibly compensate for the inestimable harm which would result. I think in his most thoughtful moments even the mover of the subamendment would agree that that is so. Social crediters therefore will vote against the amendment to the amendment.
May I turn now for a short time to the consideration of a problem which, in my opinion, should exercise the house deeply, namely, the discussion of the cause which resulted in one who was a trusted colleague of the Prime Minister, one who has been honoured and respected from coast to coast in Canada, moving an amendment to the
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

amendment amounting to a vote of want of confidence in this Liberal government. That cause cannot be brushed aside lightly, nor can it be scoffed away.
What caused the situation which faces us in Canada? I believe all Canadians, both English- and French-speaking, should bear in mind that fundamentally the thing which caused the feeling we have to-day was a thing over which none of us had any control whatsoever. It was the. fact that the British perhaps happened-I cannot say that is correct, at this distance-to be fortunate in winning the conflict of 1759. In the peace treaty they were given the responsibility of helping to govern the lives of a great many people extracted from a race which for centuries must have been the traditional enemy of the British people. Let us face that situation squarely, and without passion or prejudice. Let us make allowance for the feeling which must have passed on naturally from father to son, through the generations. That was the first cause of the present condition.
The second is one over which perhaps no one in this house could have exercised much control, but over which perhaps all can exercise some control in the future. I refer to the knavish tricks of politics. If I am correctly informed, there has been carried on among the French-Canadian people-


Mr. LALONDE:: What kind of politics?


John Horne Blackmore: I shall enlarge upon that matter shortly. I refer to the intrigue, machinations and even downright treachery by ignorant and even knavish politicians, whose efforts did not add to the knowledge of French Canadians respecting the new situation in which they found themselves; did not add to the understanding of British institutions and the purpose of the British empire, including the whole set-up in which we must live our lives; did not add to the confidence those people could feel in their English-speaking compatriots in Canada. I believe that a large part of the blame for that unfortunate ill-feeling, which at least in some measure exists in Canada, must be laid at the door of those unscrupulous men whom, on the floor of the house, I have called shysters. And before leaving that point may I add that the shysters were not all Liberals or all Conservatives.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Many of them were.


John Horne Blackmore: They were both.


Maurice Lalonde: The Social Credit party was not in existence at the time.


John Horne Blackmore: I may add that the Social Credit party had nothing to do with it.


Maurice Lalonde: Not at that time.


John Horne Blackmore: No, nor now. If your people are carrying on down there under Social Credit, then they are basing everything they have to say on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and are not engaging in any measures designed to arouse passion, prejudice or ill-feeling. There is plenty of evidence of that. I may say that the only group in the house which from the time of its entry up to the present has seen practically just what was going to happen, and which then stood for the very things for which it stands to-day, and consequently has a record for consistency not paralleled anywhere in the British empire, is the Social Credit group. You can be pretty certain they were not entirely blind when they first formed their party, some eight or nine years ago. They had some vision.
May I turn now to the third cause of the unhappy condition which exists in parts of Canada with respect to differences of race? For some reason after the last war there was sown in Canada from coast to coast one of the most pernicious forms of propaganda in favour of pacifism that one can conceive. I believe every hon. member should study seriously that propaganda with a view to finding out where it originated. It completely blinded the people of Canada and, as hon. members of the Liberal party know very well, the result of that blindness was that many men stood in the house and fought against armaments, against participation in any war to come, and all that sort of thing-only to find that they had been completely deceived. That pacifistic propaganda went throughout the length and breadth of French as well as English Canada. That malady of pacifism did not affect the French-Canadian people any more thoroughly than it did the Englishspeaking Canadian people. It had a part to play in the plebiscite for which the Prime Minister worked last year. It had a part to play in the delivery of his speech this afternoon. It had a great deal to do with the abuse which he has suffered.
The fourth cause of this unhappy condition I think must be called by just what it is, a lack of vision and understanding on the part of the Prime Minister. I am not suggesting that he was insincere, but I will say that if we may judge from his pronouncements, as referred to with such passion and justice by some hon. members to my left, he lacked vision and understanding of the things which might come to pass in this country. The

Precedence of Government Motions
result was that where he should have given strong, courageous and understanding leadership, he failed to do so and is now suffering the consequences.
The fifth cause is the Liberal stand from generation to generation, particularly during the last twenty-five years. I do not desire to say anything offensive, but I think they will have to grant, as hon. members to my left declared last night, that they deceived the people of French Canada into thinking for twenty-five years that if they just persisted in electing Liberals they never would have conscription. I suppose some of the most ardent devotees even told- the people that they would never have war, that we would never participate in a war, and all that sort of simple foolishness. There was no justification for any man over sixteen years of age with any degree of intelligence ever forming a conclusion that we in this country could be free from war. Yet the Liberal party deluded the people from end to end of this country for twenty-five years into thinking that by electing them they would be putting in power magicians who could keep us out of war. No wonder that they were believed, but no wonder that disappointment is so general, resulting even in the mild amendment to the amendment which we are now discussing! .
The sixth cause of our difficulty must be recognized as the suddenness, the strength and the fury of the attack by the foe. I had every confidence that we were going to be attacked, but I must say that I was never able to find evidence to show me how terrible the attack would be when it came. The fury of that attack placed the Canadian people as a whole, along with all other British peoples, in a most painful situation.
This brought about the seventh cause of our difficulty, which was the consequent need of Canada to leap as it were from a weak peacetime position into a great warlike exertion. Many soldiers had to be had. At the same time we were expanding our food production, our munitions production and every other activity in our industrial and economic life. What could the government in Canada do? I think hon. members will all recognize that I am in no way minimizing the blame attached to the Prime Minister, but neither am I going to exaggerate it. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I say, even although I am in the opposition, I do not feel that much of the abuse which has been hurled at that man's head is justifiable. He found himself in an exceedingly difficult position; I think far too little allowance has been made for that, perhaps from all sides of the house.
What could he do? What could the administration do? It had to have men, and a large part of the people of Canada had been deluded into thinking that conscription would never be used. It was almost sacrilege to mention it. His own party had committed themselves and they did so again in 1940. In many instances members occupying seats on the government side obtained those seats because of their pledge against conscription. The result was that the Prime Minister found himself in an almost impossible position. Men had to be had, but he was denied the privilege of using conscription even when the plebiscite had been voted upon. What could he do? The result was, as the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) pointed out last night, that there have been abuses in our efforts to raise man-power in this country, which I think probably five generations of Canadians will not live down.


Thomas Vien: I understand it is the
intention not to sit to-night, so that perhaps the hon. member will move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before I move the adjournment of the house I have a motion which I should like to place before the house. I move:
That the order passed on the twenty-eighth of January, 1943, giving precedence to the debate on the address be suspended until next Tuesday, the twenty-third of February instant.
The purpose of this motion is to enable us on Monday next to make headway with some of the motions on the order paper with respect to the appointment of select committees. If this motion carries, I shall indicate the order in which the various items on the agenda will be taken up.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. members will see in the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday that I give notice:
That on and after Monday the 22nd February, 1943, to the end of the present session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence at every sitting over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
Civil Service

Questions will be the first item on the order of proceedings, and then that motion will be the next. On the order paper of to-day hon. members will see, under government notices of motions, reference to certain motions. One is in the name of the Prime Minister with respect to the committee on privileges and elections investigating the holding of an election for the electoral district of Stanstead. That would be the second item.
There is a notice standing in the naipe of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) for the establishment of a committee in connection with the defence of Canada regulations. That will be the third item. There is a motion standing in the name of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) for a committee on reconstruction and reestablishment. That will be the fourth item. If we conclude with these and there is time, we might take the first resolution under government orders, with respect to the $100,000 grant to the city of Ottawa. I think that will probably fill up Monday. There will be two other motions on the order paper for the appointment of committees, one on radio broadcasting and the other on railways and, shipping. If we make better progress than at the moment I anticipate, we might be prepared to take them also.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 6.05 p.m.
Monday, February 22, 1943