Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, at this moment the German and Italian dictators are together considering the request of France for a definition of the terms of an honourable peace. Whatever is the outcome of the conference and the consideration of the inquiries of Marshal Petain, it appears that effective French resistance on land will soon come to an end. Conditions are obscure. The eventual disposition of the French fleet and air force is at present unknown. The unprecedented offer of Great Britain to form a national union with France, with all the implications of common citizenship, common representation, common defence, and common economic control, has apparently met with a divided reception. The
suggestion that Britain and France become the Canada of Europe must strike the imagination of this country. Whether or not it proves a peaceful solution for the present distress of France, it may yet contain the future hope of a peaceful Europe. To-day Mr. Churchill, with his usual thoroughness and blunt sincerity, reviewed the state of the war. Whatever may be the present fate of France, Britain will fight on. That decision is not only Britain's decision, it is also the decision of Canada.
No word of criticism will be found upon the lips or in the heart of any man who surveys with understanding the situation in which France found herself. With her original defences broken, the Maginot line outflanked, her industrial areas and her factories in the hands of the enemy, her troops without adequate food and munitions of war, the streets of her proud capital overrun by the legions of the invader, effective resistance by soldiers whose endurance and fortitude have added new glories to the French name was no longer possible.
We who know the spirit of France know also that, if her soldiers have surrendered to the inevitable, no soldiers in the world could have continued any longer to face the overwhelming odds against which she had battled with such courage. France will arise with a new strength and a new glory from the bloodstained soil on which, three times during the last seventy years, she has fought so gallantly. Her sufferings have been our sufferings. The hallowed French earth where our dead are buried and our proud memorial stands is a part of Canada. In a very real sense she is ours and we are hers. Her romance, her chivalry, her language and her ancient faith are an imperishable part of the Canadian heritage.
If she signifies these intimate and beloved things to a large portion of our people, to the world, to the world of free men she has always personified the eternal truths of democracy and all that belongs to the enfranchisement of the human spirit. A new dawn will follow the shadows of the night. The legions of freedom will yet march again through the Arch of Triumph to the strains of La Marseillaise.
It is for us at this time to consider the new situation in which we find ourselves. I have tried from time to time to forecast the new phases of the war which were obvious, perhaps, to any student of the march of events. To-day it is still necessary, indeed it is more imperative than ever, to examine the situation in its true perspective and to assess anew what may be necessary on Canada's part to meet the new demands.
The plain facts are that the defeat of France has brought the war much nearer home to
854	COMMONS
European War-Emergency Measures
Canada. The British isles are threatened with invasion not as a remote possibility but as an impending actuality. It is now wholly apparent that additional measures both for the assistance of Britain and for the defence of Canada are an essential.
The policy which the government announced at the outset of the war of assisting Britain by relieving her of the duty of protecting certain areas in this hemisphere, has been greatly extended in recent weeks. I pointed out in this house on September 8 last that- ... by contributing as far as we are able to the defence of Newfoundland and the other liritisli and French territories in this hemisphere, we will not only be defending Canada but we will also be assisting Great Britain and France by enabling them to concentrate their own energies more in that part of the world in which their own immediate security is at stake.
Immediate measures were taken at that time to assist in the naval defence of Newfoundland. In the light of recent events additional responsibility has been assumed for the military defence of strategic areas there. I am pleased to be able to announce that Canadian armed forces are now on duty in Newfoundland. The house has already been informed of the contribution which Canada is making in the West Indies by replacing British troops with Canadian troops on garrison duty and thus relieving British forces for other duties. The government agreed some weeks ago to a request of the United Kingdom government that Canadian troops should assist in the defence of Iceland. The first contingent of a Canadian expeditionary force have already landed in Iceland. Further units have been detailed and will follow shortly. I need hardly point out the strategic importance not only to the security of the north Atlantic sea lanes but to the defence of this continent of maintaining control of Iceland.
The increased seriousness of the military situation abroad, and the marked expansion of all three branches of our armed services in Canada have served to arouse widespread interest and concern throughout the country regarding the raising and training of recruits. At the conclusion of my remarks the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) will make a statement on what is now being done and what additional measures are proposed in connection with the recruitment of Canada's armed forces. A bill will be introduced in the house at once to confer upon the government special emergency powers to mobilize all our human and material resources for the defence of Canada. Although the purpose of this measure will be explained in detail on the second reading, I should like to make one or two brief observations regarding it.

So far as man-power is concerned, it will relate solely and exclusively to the defence of Canada on our own soil and in our own territorial waters. It will enable the government to make the most efficient use of our man-power for the varied needs of modern machine warfare. It is of the utmost importance to realize that success in war to-day depends upon the use of men for the kind of work for which they are best fitted. The armed forces are only a part of the essential equipment of war. The skilled worker in the factory, the transport worker and the farmer, to mention only a few, are as essential to the effective prosecution of war as the soldier, the sailor and the airmen. The mobilization of our resources will not, however, be confined to requiring the services of men and women. The government will have power under the provisions of the bill equally to call property and wealth, material resources and industry to the defence of Canada.
The bill is intended to remove any doubt as to the power of the government and the will of parliament that the whole material resources of the country should be available whenever they are required to meet the needs of the war. The operation of the measure will be confined to the period of the war.
Recruitment for service overseas will be maintained on a voluntary basis. No difficulty has been experienced and no difficulty is anticipated in raising by the voluntary system all the men required for service outside Canada. The bill to be introduced to-day in no way affects the raising of men to serve in the armed forces overseas. Once again I wish to repeat my undertaking, frequently given, that no measure for the conscription of men for overseas service will be introduced by the present administration.
A complete inventory of Canada's manpower and other resources, properly classified, affords a necessary basis for some of the further essential measures of home security and defence, which I have announced. A national registration of Canada's man-power will accordingly be instituted at once. Let me emphasize the fact that this registration will have nothing whatever to do with the recruitment of men for overseas service.
Among others, a national registration of Canada's man-power will have the following immediate advantages:
The national registration will constitute an additional precaution against "fifth column" activities such as sabotage and espionage which conceivably might become more menacing as external threats grow more serious. In this way, it will add to our internal security.

European War-Emergency Measures
National registration will also provide the government with an inventory of the mechanical and industrial skill of our population. Such an inventory will prove valuable in affording additional information on the extent of our resources of skilled labour which can be drawn upon to meet the needs of essential wartime industries. It will also show the directions in which intensive industrial and technical training is most urgently needed to provide an adequate supply of labour to -meet the growing demands of our war industries and other essential services.
I should like here to express the warm appreciation of the government of the valuable work already accomplished through the voluntary registration of women undertaken as a spontaneous contribution to the development of Canadian efficiency in wartime. The fullest use will be made of the results of the register now being completed.
It is the intention of the government also to establish without delay a new department of government to be known as the Department of National War Services, to be presided over by a minister of the crown. Since the war began, thousands of patriotic citizens have expressed a desire to engage in some voluntary war work. As the crisis has developed and will develop, there have come new obligations upon our citizens. The care and housing of evacuated children and of refugees, the provision of comforts for soldiers, the economical use of food supplies, the launching of campaigns for war loans and contributions, agricultural developments, the attraction of tourists

these and many other matters demand organization and direction.
The purpose of the new department is not merely to coordinate the activities of existing voluntary war services. It will be entrusted with the duty of directing and mobilizing the activities of thousands of our citizens who are seeking practical and useful outlets for their enthusiasm and patriotism. Women's organizations, patriotic organizations, commercial organizations, and many other groups of men and women banded together in the national interest offer a vast field of activity for spontaneous service. The object of the new department is to help Canadians to help Canada by their free-will offerings, which have been so generously made and will be so generously continued. The minister charged with the duties of this department will be expected immediately to establish a dominion-wide organization of voluntary service, which will be assisted by branch committees in all parts of the country.
Finally, I wish to announce that for some time past I have been giving careful consideration to means whereby there might be included in the government additional ministers to assist in the direction of Canada's war effort, and whose presence in the ministry might serve to give still further assurance of the power of the government adequately to meet the increased responsibilities with which it is faced. Hon. members will realize that there are many considerations of which account has to be taken in any matter which concerns the personnel of a cabinet.
I might mention as not the least important of these considerations what is required of a minister of the crown in the way of a manysided experience in the conduct and management of public affairs.
An equally important consideration is whether the talents of leading executives and business men may not be used to greater advantage in high administrative posts, and in an advisory capacity with relation to particular services, than in the ministry and in parliament.
As the house is aware, my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) expects to bring down the budget before the close of the present week, and thereafter will assume his new responsibilities as Minister of National Defence. At the time that this transfer of portfolios is made, I expect to be in a position to announce the governmental changes and additions at present contemplated.
The situation which I have described, and the measures which I have indicated to meet it, require no further elaboration. The times are the most serious in our history. They hold in their keeping the destiny of Canada as a free nation. I do not doubt the ultimate result, but I realize how arduous and full of suffering may be the via dolorosa along which we must pass before the agony is ended. It is our manifest duty, as it is our unshaken determination, to use all our advantages, geographic, strategic and economic, to preserve liberty for ourselves and to help to preserve it for the British commonwealth and the other nations that yet are free. We must use them to help regain liberty for the victims of bloodthirsty tyranny. The British peoples, who taught the world the meaning of freedom, will defend it to the last. They have become the symbol, the hope and the guarantee of its continuance, and its restoration throughout the world. Endowed by the heritage of Britain and France, with pride in the strength of her youth and the righteousness of the cause, Canada faces what fate may bring with resolute confidence and unyielding determination.
Before I take my seat may I mention to the house that yesterday my hon. friend
853	COMMONS
European War-Emergency Measures
the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) was kind enough to come with his colleague the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) who shares his seat, to my office to discuss the very critical situation which had developed over the weekend. My hon. friend came in a spirit of helpfulness to disjuss measures which he thought ought to be brought into force immediately. He spoke particularly of the desirability of stating that an emergent condition exists at the present time which, to deal with effectively, required further action on the part of the government. He spoke to me about the desirability of complete mobilization of man-power and resources, and also made mention of the desirability of adding to the ministry some gentlemen whose names and ability and capacity, along with those who are in the administration at the present time, would help further to inspire general confidence throughout this country.
I mentioned to my hon. friends that I was not prepared to make a statement yesterday, because I had not the information with respect to the situation in Europe on which I would wish to base what I had to say; that I thought, as I mentioned to the house yesterday, it would be well to wait until the Prime Minister of Great Britain made his statement on the European situation before I should make a statement myself. I told my hon. friends, however, that all the measures to which they had made reference were matters that the government had had under consideration for some time. I said to them, what I have frequently said in the house, that there are times and seasons for all things; some matters can be dealt with in a manner which will be most helpful to the maintenance of national unity and security at one time which, were an effort made to precipitate them unduly, might defeat the vei-y ends that we all have in common. I stated, however, that I would to-day without fail make a statement to the house of the measures which the government proposes to take to meet the emergent situation which has developed. What I have said this afternoon has been by way of carrying out that promise and the intention which I had at the beginning of the week.
I should like to express to my hon. friend, in the presence of hon. members of the house, my appreciation of the helpful and cooperative manner in which he and his desk-mate met me yesterday in the discussion of these matters of great common concern.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to a notable statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). So far as I was able to follow him I take it he is determined that

Canada, in common with the mother country, shall fight on. With that purpose I tell him that we, his majesty's loyal opposition, are in the most hearty accord.
As to our gallant ally, France, I could not find words as eloquent as those he used in which to express my sentiments with respect to the position in which France finds herself at this moment. Our hearts are all bleeding for her, and we hope the day will come, as he has prophesied, when she will rise again to take her place as a great nation among the civilized nations of the world.
With respect to the other subjects to -which the Prime Minister has alluded, perhaps I may be permitted to refer to them at a later stage in the remarks which I now propose to make.
On Sunday night last there came through the air and over the wires news of the disastrous situation in Europe. On Monday morning we were informed by the press that the French had ceased fighting, and that the new French government was seeking terms of capitulation and surrender. I was impressed with the desirability, yea the necessity, of Canada doing something. Two courses I judged were open to me; either that I should on the opening of the house yesterday move the adjournment of the house to debate the matter as being one of urgent public importance; or that I should seek an interview with the Prime Minister, lay certain suggestions before him and ask him to adopt them. I want this house and -the country to believe and appreciate that whether I had adopted the one course or the other, I was deeply moved by the tragic -trend of events, that it had not been suggested to me by anyone, bu-t that I was actuated solely by a deep-rooted patriotic desire that Canada should rise to this supreme occasion. I had little time for conference with anyone. I did have the counsel of my friend and colleague who sits beside me, and I did consult with one or two others in the house, and with a friend who is a national figure in Canada bu-t who is not affiliated with any political party. It was the consensus of all that I should not await the opening of the house and then move the adjournment to debate the matter. I myself thought that such a course would savour of party politics and partisanship, which is -the last consideration in the world that would move me at this time.
Having regard to that decision I decided to seek and did seek an interview with the Prime Minister, in company with my colleague. We were unable to reach him -until 12.30 yesterday. In approaching him I made it abundantly clear, first, that my action in seeking an interview with him was dictated not in any

European War-Emergency Measures
<sense by political or party considerations but only by the terrible situation which had arisen; second, that the controlling thought and motive was that we should have immediate, concerted and extraordinary action for the defence of Canada and for the furnishing of maximum aid to the mother country in this her hour of travail. I also made it quite clear that I was recommending principles rather than details of concerted action.
Specifically I recommended three things: first, that the government should declare that a state of national emergency exists in Canada -I shall allude to that again later; second, that this government propose now to take authority to mobilize all the man-power and all the material resources of this nation for the aid of the mother country and for the defence of Canada; third, that steps should be taken at once to strengthen the government by the immediate inclusion of some of the best brains, intelligence and ability in this country, not on the basis of a union government but on the basis of a truly national government.
I told the Prime Minister in conclusion that if these things were not done, if they were rejected, I reserved the right to appeal to the house and to the nation so that the reaction of public opinion, about which I had no manner of doubt in the world, might be brought to bear on the government to adopt these principles and do the things I had indicated, having regard to the extremely critical situation which had arisen.
At the moment the Prime Minister did not accept my proposal. We debated the matter at some length. He advised me that he had no official news or confirmation of the position in Prance, as he has to-day indicated; that Mr. Churchill, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, would speak in the British House of Commons this morning; that it was hoped that in twenty-four hours the exact position with respect to France would be clarified and that Mr. Churchill's statement to-day would clarify the position of Great Britain. The Prime Minister then and there requested me to delay the whole matter for twenty-four hours, and that he would make a statement in the house to-day. We left him at 1.05 p.m., promising to consult our colleagues. We did so before the house met at three o'clock, and the consensus of my colleagues in this group was that we had done the right thing in seeking the interview with the Prime Minister, and further that we should wait the twenty-four hours asked for.
The result is known. The house met yesterday and I contented myself with merely asking the Prime Minister if he had any statement to
make to the house and the country at that time. You heard his reply. I hope that what I did will meet with the approval of the house and the country; I think I could do no less.
Now, what did I propose? First I proposed a declaration of the existence of a state of national emergency. In our War Measures Act we have no corresponding phrase. They have it in England, and it is coupled with supreme power vested by statute in the government to do anything and everything necessary for the safety of the state. We may have given the government that power now by the War Measures Act, but I doubt it; and if there is any doubt it can be removed by this parliament, on the initiative of this government, in two hours' time. I hold in my hand an abstract from the British Emergency Powers Act, passed May 22, 1940.
I propose to read only one paragraph:
1.- (1) The powei's conferred on His Majesty by the Emergency Power's (Defence) Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the "principal act") shall, notwithstanding anything in that act, include power by order in council to make such defence regulations making provision for requiring persons to place themselves, their services, and their property at the disposal of His Majesty, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community.
A declaration of a state of national emergency means much more than just a question of the powers of the government. It has a psychological significance as well, in my opinion, and a meaning that I would impress upon the government, the house and the country. Among other things it means that this government would realize to the full the responsibilities resting upon it to do its utmost for the safety and preservation of the state and for the aid of the mother country, but it means far more than that. It means that the country, the people of Canada-more particularly those of our citizens who have not a full appreciation of the serious situation confronting us

shall be shaken out of their inertness and complacency and shall be made to feel that this country, this empire and especially our beloved mother country are facing the supreme test for our and her existence and all that it stands for, I venture to think that there is still a large element in our population who are not yet impressed with this serious position, and I would bring it home to them by such a declaration on the part of the government. Their number, I am sure, is rapidly diminishing, yet I feel certain that such a declaration would serve a useful and a patriotic purpose. I suggest that
858	COMMONS
European War-Emergency Measures
the government should do this: warn the country, warn the complacent elements in this country, that there must and shall be concentrated national service.
My second proposal followed naturally from the first, advocating that the government ask parliament at once for authority, enabling legislation to mobilize the man-power and all the material resources of the nation for the safety of the state, for the defence of Canada and for the utmost aid to our mother country. We can do no less. We all love Canada. Irrespective of race, class, religion or political proclivities there is not one of us who would not lay down his life, give his last dollar or perform any service for the state at this time of national peril. This country may be invaded by a ruthless enemy within a short time. What position are we in to defend ourselves? None whatever. Without the British navy we are helpless. The responsibility is the government's and the government's alone. It has not the power to-day effectively to defend Canada. I hope it will have that power when this bill is introduced and passes this house. Has the government the will to defend Canada? I believe that now it has. Then let the government arm itself with all the authority necessary, which to-day at least it does not possess. It is true that we have the Militia Act, section 8 of which provides for liability to military service, while section 64 provides that the government may place the militia on active service in Canada and elsewhere. In my view as a legal man that is not quite sufficient. Apparently the government have arrived at the same conclusion, hence the bill which is to be introduced. It is true that the Militia Act goes a long way, and I have heard it argued that the powers contained therein are quite sufficient for every purpose because they provide for the sending of the militia outside of Canada. But nowhere does the law provide for the mobilization of the material resources of the country, the wealth, the industry and the resources of Canada. The government's duty is to ensure the defence of this country. In doing that in some degree at least it will be aiding the mother country.
What is Canada's war effort after more than nine months as a belligerent? For eight months it was pitiful. Since the house met the force of tragic events overseas, the voice of public opinion, the efforts of this party within this house, all have combined to urge the government to greater action. Some progress has been made. In terms of dollars and cents it is made to look impressive, but it is all in the future. I make no recriminations, beyond that, over the lack of action during
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.I
the first eight months of the war. That is past. It is the immediate future that demands our attention. The government must give leadership, and to give leadership it must be armed with authority which in my view it does not at present possess. To-day it is taking authority in large measure in regard to the particular matters to which I referred, and we shall help the government. We all rejoice that they have gone as far as they have. The responsibility is theirs alone. We offer our wholehearted cooperation, but the lead must come from the government.
On the third point I desire to make it clear that in my opinion the ministry must be strengthened. There are vacancies now existing which must be filled. I cannot accept the view that because of the recent election we have a national government. We have a party government, moved by party considerations, motivated by the party spirit. The result has been that while one-half of the nation is to be called upon to pay, to fight, and, it may be, to die, that half has nothing to say about how our defence shall be carried on. That is not national unity. It is quite the reverse, and in a time of national peril should not continue.
I am not advocating a union government as we had it in the last war; I am advocating a truly national government, to be formed by this administration, with representation from among the best in this house and in the country, and for concerted national effort, so that this nation may present a united front to the common enemy. It was necessary in Britain. It was necessary in two other great sister dominions. It is necessary here. If it does not come, if this government does not move to accomplish this end, this country will not function as it should if we are to present a common front, if we are successfully to defend ourselves. What an electrifying effect such an action would have on the Canadian public, on our neighbours to the south, who are so sympathetic-indeed anxious; and what an effect it would have on Britain!
I beg the Prime Minister, I beg the members of the government, to unite this country under a truly national government. He and they alone can do it. Theirs is the responsibility. Theirs is the power. We can but indicate our readiness to cooperate, as I have done many times. But if they will not give heed, then I appeal to the great voice of public opinion in this house and in the country.
The hour has struck, the time is here. Let us be, in fact and in deed, a united country, banded together for a common purpose,-the

European War-Emergency Measures
defence of our homes, our loved ones, our nation, and our mother country. Anything else will not do.
Before taking my seat I should like to say a word with respect to the Prime Minister's proposals. He was good enough to send me a summary of the announcements he has made to-day. Of some of them we were already aware, and to-day I believe we aire to have a further detailed report from the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) respecting the raising and training of recruits for the three armed services.
The Prime Minister has announced that a bill will be introduced to-day to empower the government to mobilize all the resources of the nation, human and material, for the defence of Canada. That is good; everybody will applaud it. Material aid to the mother country will come from it; that result cannot help following. The trend of events in Canada and in the struggle will indicate how much farther the government should go.
I am pleased to note that recruitment for overseas services will be continued. I hope the enforcement of national service in Canada will in no degree retard our contribution for overseas service. If the war is to cease on continental Europe I can quite understand that we shall not require to send as much manpower overseas. But there will still be great need for material things being sent over- there will be the need for food, clothing, and shelter for the aid and comfort of our people. There will be the- need for munitions, and then more munitions, and then more munitions, from Canada.
The registration for national service is all right, but I am afraid it is three months too late. This cannot be done in a minute; it cannot be organized in the twinkling of an eye. It should have been undertaken before the house met in May last.
I am pleased to note that the Prime Minister proposes to set up a new department of government to be known as the Department of National War Services. May I suggest to him that there should be set up an inner war cabinet from among the best of the members of his government, a cabinet which will not be charged with the responsibility of administering departments, a war cabinet whose functions it will be to examine all the facts and to initiate policies on the part of the government, a war cabinet that will not be trammelled by the burdensome and onerous duties of administering important departments of government. I have in mind the position in which the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) is placed to-day. He is overburdened with the work of the
greatest department this country has ever known. How can he possibly give attention to any question of war policy, when he sits as a member of the general cabinet? I submit this recommendation to the Prime Minister, in addition to those I have already made. I hope he will take it into earnest consideration, and that as a result there shall be set up in Canada a war cabinet similar to that which has been instituted in the old country, the members of which would be free from the trammels of departmental administration.
I suggest also that the government appoint a minister for overseas who will coordinate our activities over there with the activities of the mother country. We had such a minister in the last war. The provision did not immediately become operative, but it was effective in the later stages of the war, and should have been adopted at an earlier stage.
I am thankful to the Prime Minister, on behalf of the people I represent, for the measures he has already taken. Time, and the trend of events, will compel further action.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, we have felt for some time that the trend of events overseas-and particularly does this apply to the grave news which has reached us in recent hours-required more than general statements from the government regarding Canada's support and participation in the great struggle. We welcome, therefore, the pronouncements made this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the suggestions which have been placed before the house. The most important announcement, it seems to me, was that measures would be introduced for the immediate mobilization of our resources and our man-power in order that we may conduct more efficiently the war effort. I shall reserve my opinion of the proposed measures until I see them, because I believe the Canadian people ought to expect a guarantee from the government not only that the power will be taken to mobilize property and wealth, but that the power so taken will be used.
Listening to the discussion which took place last night in the house respecting the munitions and supply bill, I must say I was not satisfied with the answers to many of the questions which were put. They seemed to indicate that the government was engaged in the mobilization of certain industries in a form which would place certain private interests in a preferred position. We do not want that to occur, and any support we may give to the mobilization of our man power for economic and military purposes must be predicated upon the determination of the government to demand equality of sacrifice from those controlling large blocks of property and
860	COMMONS
European War-Emergency Measures
wealth. We have in our midst vast surpluses of wealth owned by various corporations under new forms of corporate ownership and control. That wealth has already been asked to contribute, at a rate of interest. I submit that if we are going to ask young Canadians to lay down their lives in the defence of our country, we should predicate that request upon a demand that owners of large volumes of wealth and of property should first place that wealth and property on the altar of Canadian sacrifice. That, Mr. Speaker, is the principal point I wish to make in that connection.
I wish also to say to the Prime Minister that in the minds of members on all sides of the house there are to-day many questions which we have refrained from asking on the floor of parliament because we did not wish to invite answers or to leave unanswered questions which might give aid and comfort to the enemy. But we are anxious, in view of the situation that has developed overseas, to know what in the event of certain eventualities this government and this parliament and this country would be prepared to do for the welfare of Canada. Those questions it seems to me ought to be answered. I have heard discussions in the city of Ottawa among newspaper men who seemed to know far more about the views of the government than we who are members of this house. Their views may be the result of rumours that are not well founded, but in any event the time has arrived when, in view of the situation overseas, this house should be taken wholly into the confidence of the government. I admit that certain information cannot be spread across the country through the public press, but at the risk of being misunderstood I repeat that the government should have a private sitting of the house in which many of the questions that are in our minds can be asked and answered so that we may know precisely where we stand.
The other matter that comes to my mind can be discussed better, I think, on the bill. Let me say this, however, before I take my seat. There is no group in this house which, our political and economic opinions being what they are, realizes better than we do the danger of a fascist victory. We know perfectly well that the first victims of fascist aggression in every country have been the men holding the views that we of this group hold, and we can assure the Prime Minister that just as we have in past days viewed with alarm the desertion of collective security and the gradual drift towards war, so to-day we will cooperate with hon. members in all parts of this house to preserve freedom of thought, freedom to worship God as we will, freedom

of association and freedom of expression- these freedoms upon which the civilization in which we live has been founded.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, in the special session held in September the group I represent was the only group in this country with courage and vision enough to come forward with the policy which is now advocated. We came forward with that policy definitely and unequivocally, although we suspected that the other parties would endeavour to use it to beat us to death- which they did. It will be realized therefore, sir, that we are prepared now to support this proposal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). But there are one or two matters which need to be pointed out with definiteness and emphasis at this stage of the game.
When we advocated this policy last year we specifically declared that we stood for the conscription of finance, industry and manpower, and we took pains to point out that the first of these must be finance. It is a most interesting thing that thus far finance has not figured prominently in the speech of the Prime Minister. Last year I pointed this out, that finance, industry and man-power are a three-legged stool, and if you bring in any one of them without the other two, you are bound to meet with disaster. That statement is as true to-day as it was when I made it last fall. Let us be forewarned- I say this not in any spirit of criticism or pessimism or defeatism-that the all-important thing with which to fight this war is money. It will do no good for the government to mobilize mines, shoe factories, sugar factories, munitions factories or any other factories unless the government knows where it is going to find the money with which to run them. It will do very little good to enlist hundreds of thousands of men unless the government knows where it is going to get the money with which to train and support and maintain those men.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member's speech, but he is dealing with what may come up later in the form of a resolution preceding a bill, and his remarks might more appropriately be made then.


John Horne Blackmore: I was going entirely, Mr. Speaker, by what the two previous speakers were permitted to say, but I shall comply with your request. I have said what I wish to say, with the exception of one statement which it is highly important should be made at this time. Unless this government discovers a source of money which is very large indeed, so that the money can run as freefy as the goods and services of this country

European War-Enlistments
may run, and so that the money will not create a debt upon this country or an interest burden which future generations cannot carry, then all the measures which are proposed by the government to-day will be futile and will cause us more embarrassment than they will do us good.
I propose, Mr. Speaker, to support the government in the conduct of the war. Above all things wre must win this war, but to win the war takes more than talk.


Georges Parent: I must point out to hon. members that there can be no further discussion on this subject because at the moment there is nothing before the chair. I therefore ask that the discussion now cease, and the house will proceed to the order for motions.



STATEMENT OF POSITION WITH REGARD TO ENLISTMENTS AND RECRUITING IN CANADA

Hon. C. G. POWER (Acting Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the house as to the position with regard to enlistments and recruiting in Canada.
Canada has now approximately 110,000 men actually under arms and in uniform. These are divided broadly as follows:
Outside of Canada, including Great
Britain, army	 26,087
Canada, army	 64,656
Navy	 7,256
Air force	 15,594
Total	 113,593
The late Minister of National Defence has indicated in various announcements that further recruiting has been authorized on a large scale to provide for the raising of men for the third and fourth divisions and other units of the Canadian active service force, amounting in all to about 30,000 men.
Recruits are now being enlisted at the rate of approximately 800 per day. The whole situation with regard to recruiting these troops has been reviewed over the week-end and instructions issued to intensify activity. I am able to say on the authority of the department of supply that we can at the present moment provide clothing, personal equipment and rifles for 1,200 men per day. As a matter of fact yesterday 1,463 men were enlisted and looked after.
In addition to the 30,000 men the raising of whom was authorized by the late Mr. Rogers, a survey of the field in the light of the war situation, recently developed and still developing, clearly indicates the need of a call for further Canadian active service force recruiting to replace troops taken and to be taken for special duties in Canada and elsewhere, and for forestry and railway troops, as well as corps troops for reinforcements.
Whilst it is impossible to forecast what these requirements will be, authorization was given over the week-end to provide equipment for an additional 40,000 men in addition to the 30,000 men now coming in.
It will be remembered that the veterans home guard has been formed as a corps of the non-permanent active militia, and numbers of that guard can be readily increased as circumstances may justify. The veterans' home guard reserve is also, it will be remembered, part of the non-permanent active militia, and in fact the non-permanent active militia units are made responsible for its discipline and training.
Meanwhile, authority has been given for all the infantry non-permanent active militia units which have not been mobilized to carry on their training in the local headquarters and to recruit to their respective establishments, subject only to the limitation of training facilities.
Similar steps are being taken with respect to certain non-permanent active militia units other than infantry.
Training accommodation and instructional staff will obviously be limited in some cases, but the districts are being instructed to assist in improvising training accommodation and augmenting instruction staff as far as that may be found possible.
From the beginning of the war our militia units have been recognized and dealt with as being the backbone of Canada's defence organization and, as is known, the units of the first, second and third and fourth divisions are all being mobilized, based on existing non-permanent active militia units.
The government intends to follow that policy and has been gratified by the response and by the support which has been given by the officers and other ranks of these militia units'.
As has already been stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the government is taking full authority to mobilize the man power of Canada for the defence of Canada. Every ablebodied man in Canada will be given an opportunity of training in the use of arms, so as to come to the defence of the homeland if necessary. The procedure will be that men will in due course be called up for a period of training so as to be prepared for the active defence of this dominion. The training, after due consideration for the requirements of the naval and air forces, will be entrusted to units of the non-permanent active militia which will be recruited voluntarily or filled under the powers of the new legislation according as the facilities for training and accommodation permit.
European War-Enlistments

The length of the period of training will be determined by regulation. Whether this will be for a continuous period of three months or for a lesser time depends: (a) on the advice of the technical officers of the department; (b) on the requirements of industrial and productive man-power as shown by a survey to be immediately undertaken.
The government has received many suggestions with regard to further training of civilians. It feels that enlistment in and cooperation with the non-permanent active militia units across this country will make for simplicity and effective administration and avoid the duplication and confusion of various units under various independent bodies with varying degrees of efficiency due to lack of uniformity in regulations and discipline.
It should be said that anyone who is physically fit and is below the age of forty-five years may and in fact will have not only the opportunity but the obligation to join the militia service of Canada.
The government welcomes suggestions and is at all times ready to consider them, but it believes that citizens will recognize that the responsibility for military direction rests with the federal authorities and their service advisers.
Speaking for the Department of National Defence we feel that all our energies should be first devoted to:
1.	The task of recruiting men for service in the Canadian active service force;
2.	The immediate training of certain nonpermanent active militia units and home guard reserve:
3.	The training of men who will be called
up under the legislation to which the Prime Minister has referred.	_
The Department of National Defence is concerned with military matters. Its responsibility is military. The police authorities of this country are concerned with police matters. Their responsibility is restricted to police matters. There is no martial law in Canada, and no need for martial law. Soldiers will continue to be soldiers, and policemen will continue to be policemen. Any attempt to confuse these two functions can have only one result. It will interrupt and impede the most necessary work of the Department of National Defence.	.
I make a special appeal to ex-soldiers. Discipline and restraint and patience were amongst the qualities that brought us victory in the last war, and will win it for us in this war. No body of men possessed those qualities in higher degree, or learned the lessons which underlie them more abundantly, than the veterans of the war of 1914. The militia service of

Canada and the enlarged scope which new legislation will bring, will offer plenty of opportunities to those who are anxious to assist in the defence of Canada.
I may say that the opinions which I have expressed and the appeal which I have made are supported and shared by my hon. friend the minister-designate of national defence and all the technical officers of the department.
Now a word with respect to equipment. The plain facts must be stated to the house. The situation has altered within the past few weeks, even days. Our immediate requirements will be infinitely greater; our sources of supply are not the same. We must discard even well-founded and carefully-conceived plans based on the best technical advice that above all uniformity of design and interchangeability were essential. We must now procure what we can, when we can, where we can.
With regard to personal equipment and clothing our own factory production should suffice. It will be continuous. But even here, I must warn the house not to expect perfection. There will be delays on account of these extra demands. The clothing may not all be of such appearance and design as would gratify the heart of a sergeant-major of the household guards. It is intended to provide covering and a moderate degree of comfort for a citizen army being hastily mobilized.
With regard to rifles, the situation is in hand for the moment, but procurement and production must be provided for the future. Here again there will be sure to be complaint. But let me say this. As recently as ten days ago a very large shipment from Canada to overseas of the much criticized Ross rifle was gratefully acknowledged.
With regard to most types of mechanical transport, our automotive industry has responded nobly and we anticipate no difficulty either present or future.
With regard to other armament-guns, machine guns, tanks, instruments-there will be a scarcity for training, on account of the large number of men with whom we shall have to deal. These articles must be produced or procured. I will not say when, how or where, but I will say this. We are fully alive to the abrupt cessation of our anticipated major sources of supply and we are also fully alive to the greatly increased requirements which we have to meet, and we are taking all steps to remedy the situation. In a word, the present situation is a challenge to the initiative, the energy and the intelligence of the Canadian people. We will meet it and overcome it by the goodwill, by the sacrifice, by the discipline and by the united, concerted effort of the whole nation.

Emergency Poicers



S63 PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the senate to acquaint their honours that Messrs. Black (Yukon), Dupuis, Edwards, Farquhar, Furniss, Goulet, flowden, Jaques, Laflamme, Lafontaine, Maclnnis, McGregor, Mclvor, Mayhew, Pinard, Purdy, Rheaume, Thauvette, Tucker and Tustin, have been appointed to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask the permission of the house to present a resolution which will enable me to introduce the bill with respect to conferring certain powers upon the governor in council for mobilization of national resources in the present war. If the house would allow me to do so, I should like to move, seconded by Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East):
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to confer special emergency powers upon the governor in council to admit of the mobilization of all the effective resources of the nation, both human and material, for the purpose of the defence and security of Canada during the continuation of the state of war now existing.
His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Most hon. members are aware that the bill which is to be based on this resolution is similar to one passed in the British parliament quite recently. Hon. members may recall that when that bill was passed by the British parliament it received its three readings in the House of Commons and three readings in the House of Lords in one day. This of course placed immediately in the hands of the government the powers desired. I hope that in view of the situation which hon. members are all aware of, a similar practice may perhaps be followed in our parliament to-day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am quite in agreement about putting it through, but I should like to have a chance to read the bill.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: The bill will be printed and distributed at four thirty.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Yien in the chair.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: We could not hear the Prime Minister. Do I understand that he wishes to have just the resolution put through to-day or the resolution and the bill?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to have the resolution passed. I will then introduce a bill based upon the resolution. The bill is being printed and, I am told, will be available for distribution about half past four. I would not ask the house to proceed with the second reading until the bill had been distributed among hon. members, but after they have perused its provisions- they are not lengthy; I believe they are covered in a page-if the house will give its consent to proceed with the second and third readings to-day the government will be greatly obliged.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would remind the Prime Minister that while, as he has said, the bill in the British house conscripting material resources was passed in a single afternoon, this bill provides also for the conscription of human resources. In Great Britain an act of that sort was already on the statute books. This bill might require some further consideration and we should have at least sufficient time to peruse it before going into committee on it.


Ernest Lapointe: The bill is the same.


Mr. CHURCH:: Under these special powers this additional recruiting will be for the defence of Canada and to protect Canada's neutrality, and I cannot see how registration of that sort will help the mother country. I do not understand how these special powers will help the mother country, because France has practically failed and if Britain falls there is no such thing as defence of Canada. It will be all over as far as we are concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the hon. member sees the provisions of the bill he will see that the question is answered. He will see how applicable it is to the situation which he is anxious to have met.
Resolution reported, read the second' time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 43, to confer certain powers upon the governor in council for the mobilization of national resources in the present war.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Business oj the House



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Government notices of motion. The Prime Minister:
That a select committee of the house be appointed to study and report upon the general problems of reconstruction and reestablishment which may arise at the termination of the present war, and all questions pertaining thereto; with power to such select committee to appoint, from among the members of the committee, such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable or necessary, to deal with specific phases of the problems aforementioned, with power to said select committee and to such subcommittees as may be formed therefrom, to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and for such select committee to report from time to time to the house; and that the said committee shall consist of the following members:-
and that the provision of standing order 65 limiting the number of members on special committees be suspended in relation thereto.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This notice of motion was prepared prior to the opening of parliament. It was thought at that time that it would be desirable to have a committee at the present session make a study of post-war problems. However, I am inclined to feel that just at present there would hardly be the interest in that phase of the war situation, important as it is, that the government would wish to have on the part of hon. members who might be considering a matter of the kind, and that, everything considered, it would be preferable to have the motion withdrawn for the present. If before the session is over it appears advisable to have it reappear on the order paper it could be placed there anew. But I am a little concerned as to whether some misunderstanding might arise if the government at this stage were to ask for a special committee to deal with post-war problems. Some word to that effect I recall was expressed at the early part of the session. Therefore if the house will permit I would ask that this notice be deleted for the present, with the possibility of its being restored later on.


Thomas Langton Church: The wreckage will be so great that there will be nothing to salvage or reconstruct.
Motion withdrawn.
IMi Mackenzie King.)



WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER LENGTH OF PERIOD BETWEEN ISSUANCE OF WRITS AND POLLING DAY

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Government notices of motion. The Postmaster General:
That a special committee be appointed to consider and report:
Ways and means whereby the period that must elapse, under the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, between the date of the issue of the writ of election and polling day, may be shortened, and such amendments to the said act as they may deem advisable to effect such purpose.
That the members of the said committee be appointed at a later date, that standing order 65 be suspended in relation to the limited number of members of special committees and that the said committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report from time to time.
Mr. HOMUTH:: Why not delete this one too?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend either was reading my mind or getting away ahead of it. I rose for the purpose, to say that yesterday I had a word with my colleague the Postmaster General about the special committee referred to in the resolution appearing under his name, and it was his view, as it was mine, that this resolution might also be deleted for the present, possibly also making its reappearance later on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree with that. And while we are on the subject of elections may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has given consideration to ordering the issue of writs for the vacancies that have occurred in the representation in this House of Commons?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I have said to my hon. friend so often, there are times and seasons for all things.


Georges Parent: Notice withdrawn.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL-WITHDRAWAL OF BILL TO AMEND THE TRANSPORT ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) whether it is the intention of the government to proceed with the unemployment insurance bill this session, and the Minister of Transport whether it is the intention to proceed with the Transport Act amendment bill.

Defence of Canada Regulations


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is most desirable that the. unemployment insurance bill should be proceeded with this session, and it is ths intention of the government to have it proceeded with.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: In view of the developments of the last few days I have informed the officers of my department that I think the transport bill might very well be held over for another session. I would ask consent to have item No. 5 on the order paper, second reading of Bill No. 14, to amend the Transport Act, 1938, dropped from the order paper.
Bill withdrawn.


Mr. NEILL:: May I infer from the remark
of the Prime Minister regarding the unemployment insurance bill that it is his intention not only to take whatever steps may be necessary by way of application to the British parliament, but also to introduce the bill in all its details into this house and pass it this session?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is
the purpose. May I also say that I am happy to be able to announce that all the provinces without exception, so far as their interest is desirable or necessary, have agreed to the introduction of this bill.



CANADIAN ACTIVE SERVICE PORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops): I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). Ever since an urgent appeal was sent out for binoculars the question has arisen in the minds of the people to such an extent that in my home town it has been made the subject of an editorial. Why it is that the government cannot supply these binoculars to the Canadian active service force?
Clarence Decatur Howe: The government has had outstanding for many months large orders for optical glasses for army use. There is only one source of supply of these goods in this country, that is the Bausch & Lomb Optical company. It has been suggested, and I think with some reason, that this firm has not been too eager to supply the army needs. Court action was taken against them in the United States some time ago. Our order is still standing, but deliveries as called for in the contract and as promised are not being made.
We have a certain stock of glasses, but to supplement present stocks we have made an urgent appeal to all the people of Canada to turn in their glasses to the government either as a gift or to have them valued and paid for, as the owner of the glasses may wish.


Mr. ADAMSON:: Has the Minister of
Munitions and Supply seen an advertisement in the United States press of the Bausch & Lomb Optical company saying that they have a surplus supply of army binoculars? This advertisement appeared over the week-end, advertising the sale.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not see the advertisement in question, but if the type of binoculars advertised is the type we have on order there is a place ready for Bausch & Lomb to dispose of their supply. We have very large orders outstanding.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I
should like to ask the government a question, to which I referred last week. Will the select committee to consider the defence of Canada regulations passed under the War Measures Act have power to deal with two matters which I mentioned two weeks ago and which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said he had considered, namely: (1) Giving some recognition to municipal guards and civilian corps guards formed to aid the federal authority, either by amending the criminal code or the Militia Act or the War Measures Act; (2) Will this committee have power to deal with the offensive subversive articles-the word "subversive" is not in the resolution- continuing to appear in some weekly United States papers which are still allowed to circulate in Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The powers given the
committee were set out in the resolution. I think they are comprehensive. If in the course of its proceedings the committee should find that it wishes to have its powers enlarged in any way so as to take in other matters, including possibly those to which my hon. friend has just referred, if they are not already included, the committee will be free to consider the matter and report its wishes to the house. I think that would be the best way to meet my hon. friend's desires.

Munitions and Supply Act



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply) moved the third reading of Bill No. 41, to amend the Department of Munitions and Supply Act.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is given third reading-from across the floor I have just heard the remark, "Oh, sit down". I thought Canada was fighting a war for democracy. This parliament is the outward manifestation of that form of society. In my opinion certain people here are in the wrong place. They ought to go some place where they will find institutions more to their liking, where only one person speaks and the rest listen. I want to say thank God we have not come to that state in this country as yet.
I should like to say a few words in connection with this bill before it is given third reading. During the discussion last evening the question of the relation of certain organizations, particularly the John Inglis company, doing government work, and the trade union movement, was referred to. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) referred to a discussion which took place in this house I think on Friday last. He made this statement, which appears on page 846 of Hansard:
I am told by our own men-not by the Inglis company men-that the John Inglis company has a good many trade unionists working in that plant. I am told that the company have stated publicly to our own officers that they had no objection whatever to their workers being organized by responsible union leaders, and I do not think they intend that word "responsible" to be restrictive, particularly. They did say that they did not consider it their business to organize the workers, but they had no objection to the workers organizing if they cared to do so.
Last week I had a conversation with Charles H. Millard, director of the steel workers' organization committee for the province of Ontario, and he told me that it was quite impossible to get any union recognition from the John Inglis company. Last night, after the conclusion of the sitting of this house, I wired John W. Buckley, general secretary of the Toronto trades and labour council, as follows:
What is the attitude of the John Inglis Company to union recognition? Have any of the American Federation of Labour unions a working agreement with this company? Please wire particulars. . . .
I asked in regard to the American Federation of Labour unions because I had already satisfied myself in regard to the Committee

for Industrial Organization. To-day I received a wire signed by John Higgins, boilermakers' representative, dated to-day, as follows:
Angus Maclnnis, M.P.
There is no union recognition in the John Inglis plant. Arbitration board applied for by boilermakers on the 15th of May last. No action yet taken on the request. Until the middle of May last the forty-four hour week was the accepted condition in the plant. The change is explained by a quotation from letter received this day from Gerald H. Brown-
I believe that is the assistant deputy minister of labour. The quotation is as follows;
" As you know the hours approved in the original contract for the Bren gun were forty-four per week, but were extended in the month of November past to forty-eight per week, under government approval." This quotation is the only information the boilermakers had that the change had been made six months later.
In other words the hours of labour in that plant were changed from forty-four to forty-eight, and the men concerned, the men doing the work, the men who had to work four more hours per week than they had worked formerly, were not informed until they inquired of the Department of Labour here some six months later, as to when and why the change was made. I should like to put this on record, because this company has received a substantial and important contract from the government at a favourable rate of profit. Not only do they manufacture Bren guns under that contract, but because of the contract they have the capacity for manufacturing many other articles required by the government of Canada. According to the reply given on May 30 last to a question asked by the hon. member for Melfort, this company already has been paid $1,882,997 and there still remains to be paid on the contract $3,725,826. This means a contract worth some $5,500,000 in all. We should certainly be able to ask a company that has received a contract of that magnitude to give recognition to the workers of this dominion as organized in their trade unions.
As I mentioned last evening, Mr. Speaker, the mere fact that the company allows a man who carries a union card to work in the plant is not union recognition at all. There is no union recognition until such time as the union, through its elected representatives, sits around the table with the company's representatives and decides the wages, hours and conditions under which their work shall be done-in other words the basis on which they will sell their labour.
From this wire and the conversation to which I referred at the outset it is quite clear that the John Inglis company refuses to recognize collective bargaining in its plant. A few moments ago we heard a statement by

Munitions and Supply Act
the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in which he told this house that the government was taking steps to assure the whole effort of the people of Canada for a single purpose. I hold the view that you cannot get the whole effort of a people so long as the position is such that only one class shall decide questions of policy; that one class shall give the orders and the other class shall take them. We cannot mobilize the efforts of the people of Canada on that basis. It may be all right in Germany, where trade unions have been destroyed. It may be all right in Italy, where trade unions have been destroyed; but it is not now and should not be all right in the Dominion of Canada.
About a month ago the British cabinet was reorganized, and some twelve members of the labour party were included. Mr. Churchill, who became Prime Minister, went outside members of parliament for his minister of labour, and took for that portfolio a man who understood the labour movement, a man who had lived his life among the working class. He selected Mr. Ernest Bevin, the secretary of the transport and general workers' union, the secretary of an organization of the unskilled workers in Great Britain.
I was interested to read in one of the Ottawa papers of June 7 a statement made by Ernest Bevin, made not to the board of trade, not to the British manufacturers' association, or whatever they may be called over there, but to the London building workers' organization. Mr. Bevin said that all his present steps were being taken both to win the war and with an eye to their possible value when the war is over. He continued with this statement:
The system based on monopoly and big business failed to deliver the goods in our hour of trial. One thing we are producing; we are producing order out of chaos; and chaos it was, when we went in.
I submit that we in Canada could benefit from what is being done and has been done in Great Britain. The working class in Canada is no less intelligent than the working class of the United Kingdom. They will be the people who will build the tanks, the aeroplanes, the shells, the rifles and every other article used in the war. It will be their intelligence, their muscles, their brain and their brawn which will shape and perfect these things, and it will be the working class, largely,
who will use them in the field. I said yesterday and I repeat to-day that this government should make it a matter of policy to see that no firm, no individual, no corporation shall secure a government contract who does not recognize the trade unions and deal with them in all matters affecting hours, wages and working conditions.
It is not enough to tell the House of Commons that there are trade unionists in the John Inglis company. As I said last night, if there were not it would be definite discrimination against trade unionists. People in unions throughout Canada would be placed in the position where instead of their trade union membership being a benefit it would be a decided detriment.
I am not going to move an amendment, nor shall I say anything further except to suggest to the Prime Minister that he continue along the line of the course he pursued the other day when he called in representatives of labour and discussed matters with them. I suggest that he continue that policy by insisting that wherever the government gives a contract the firm or firms involved shall negotiate and bargain collectively with the trade unions concerned.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Last night the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) said that he would place on the votes and proceedings a list of men in key positions. When may we have that list?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I asked last night that the list be prepared. There is a good deal of work involved in the preparation of it, but just as soon as it is placed in my hands by my officers I will table it, and ask that it be printed in the votes and proceedings.
Mr. O'NEILL:	I rise to a question of
privilege. Just as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maelnnis) got up to speak, an hon. member from this corner of the house said, "Sit down." I noticed that the hon. member who was about to speak looked at me, and I take this opportunity to assure him that I was not the guilty party.


Angus MacInnis: I want to assure the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) that I knew it was not he.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
868	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief[DOT]-Mr. Homuth


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 42, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Mr. Speaker, before the house gives second reading to the bill I would point out that on two or three occasions I have brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) the fact that some firms are working on cost-plus contracts. Now being asked to speed up and told to rush production of the articles they are manufacturing, in certain instances they have gone out to other firms and tried to hire their workmen. In some instances they have been successful, and have hired the men at greatly increased wages. They have been able to do that because of operating on a cost-plus basis. The other firms which have been working on production of munitions and other supplies for the government, articles just as important as those supplied by the firms of which I complain, obtained contracts by tender. They are now placed at a disadvantage, and I am wondering if some regulation could not be made in connection with the giving of contracts. We are told that we are to have a mobilization of industry and a registration of labour, and I am wondering if something could not be done whereby the rights of labour would be protected, and the workmen would receive proper and adequate wages. It seems to me we could do the same as they did in England at the time of the last war; I believe they are doing the same to-day. No man can be taken from a firm engaged in the production of munition or any other war material purchased by the government unless he obtains a release from his original employer. Wages in such localities are set at an adequate level.
Something will have to be done in this connection, because a serious situation has arisen. I do not wish to name the firms involved, because I believe it would be unfair to do so. The minister may take my word, however, that what I have described is being done, and in fact is prevalent in industry in Canada. Steps should be taken to see to it that the condition does not continue.
Mr. McLARTY:: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in answer to the question of the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) I have no intention of closing the debate but would
I Mr. Maclnnis.]
like to take the opportunity of answering the question immediately. I am advised that at the present time only one cost-plus contract is in existence and is being carried on by the Department of Munitions and Supply.
The difficulty which presents itself in connection with the point raised by the hon. member is that there is inserted in all contracts either one of two clauses, namely: the specifying of appropriate rates for each trade in the particular plant or the application of what is known as clause B requiring compliance with local wage rates and working conditions. These both apply to the minimum wages paid. It would be very difficult, as I know my hon. friend will appreciate, to overcome the difficulty he suggests unless we fix the absolute wage rate.
Certain manufacturers I believe among themselves are entering into an agreement whereby they require a certificate that the employee is not working for another firm before they will take him on their payroll, but it does seem to me that it is more a matter of voluntary action among the manufacturers themselves rather than the government establishing a maximum as well as a minimum wage rate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-'Short title.
Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman-


Norman Alexander McLarty: If the hon. member for Temiscouata will allow me, I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, if the house will give its consent, we might now proceed with the second reading of the bill to confer certain powers upon the governor in council for the mobilization of our national resources. The bill has been distributed and I think hon. members are already familiar with its provisions.



EMERGENCY POWERS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 43, to confer certain powers upon the governor in council for the mobilization of national resources in the present war.

Emergency Powers-Mr. Church
Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discuss the bill now, but I wish to ask that it be left over until after the dinner recess so that we may have an opportunity of looking it over. So far as this group is concerned we have no lengthy discussion to make on the bill, and I do not think we shall hold it up after dinner, but we should like to have the opportunity of examining it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that if he presses his point strongly, of course I will accede to his wishes, but the government is most anxious to have the bill passed and sent over to the senate after the dinner recess, and if possible passed by the other house so that it may become law immediately. The government had thought of having His Excellency the Administrator come to parliament to-night to give his assent to the bill. What I should like to suggest to my hon. friend is that we pass the second reading now and go into committee, and then if he finds when we are in committee that there is any difficulty about any clause we can postpone the discussion until a little later. The clauses are so simple that I hope my hon. friend and his group will be prepared to see their way to facilitate the passing of the measure this afternoon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not only a matter of the bill being simple; it is a question whether the bill covers all the aspects of the situation that we have in mind. We have had no opportunity to read it over. Parliament has been sitting for a month and we have not had such a bill before us during that whole time. Two hours' postponement cannot possibly make any difference. I think in all fairness to the house we should be given an opportunity to read the bill and to make suggestions and suggest additions if we feel the bill is not complete. While I would be glad to see the bill given its second reading this afternoon, it should not go through the committee of the whole until it has been thoroughly considered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would suggest if it is agreeable that we pass the second reading now and then discuss the bill in committee with the understanding that we will not report it from committee until this evening. Any further matters hon. members might wish to discuss could be gone on with after eight o'clock, and the bill given its third reading to-night.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill is involved in the second reading, and therefore I should like to take two or three minutes to call the attention of the house to what this bill means.
With all due respect to the proposed bill, I believe that the defence of Canada is not going to be decided here in Ottawa or in Vancouver or Quebec or Montreal. The defence of Canada is going to be decided over in Great Britain, in the English channel, in France, in the Mediterranean-over there. Glorious France has done its best but unfortunately it has failed of its objective. If Britain falls, what have we in this country? We have not even had a national registration, which I have urged in this house for three years. We have home conscription, but what that means nobody knows. Nobody knows what this bill means so far as man-power is concerned.
Ever since September there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction in Canada over what the government and parliament have done about side-stepping man-power. The country has one division overseas.
But the point is this:	The government's
whole defence policy is based on two cardinal principles. One is home defence. There is no such thing as home defence. If they fall over there, it is all over as far as we are concerned. The second cardinal principle is to protect our neutrality. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the late Minister of National Defence, Mr. Rogers, told us in the special war session that Britain wanted, not men but munitions; and in the regular session last year and this year they said that there are two cardinal principles involved in the defence policy of Canada within the empire.
As I see it, Mr. Speaker, it is going to take two years to train any men who are to be recruited under this bill. It is going to take nearly two years to get them equipped or to secure their equipment for training. True, you may be able to equip them as they do in France and England with dummy weapons while they are in training here, if they have no rifles, and mufti if they have no uniforms. Is this Canada's contribution by this bill to cooperation and coordination with Great Britain? Britain is now left to go it alone against these two dictators, opposed by Germany's six million soldiers and Italy. All we have is the British fleet to protect our shores, and if they fail also, Canada is through. Many people feel that this bill for partial conscription and a compulsory national register in the present war will not go far enough. Every country in Europe has conscription. Everybody knows that all law is compulsion, that one out of three parents would not send their children to school if education were not compulsory. All health laws are compulsion. As I say, we and the United States at present are the only countries without conscription

Emergency Powers-Mr. Church
I doubt if the people of Canada will be satisfied with this meaningless bill. If the government of the day had encouraged recruiting, we could by now have raised and equipped from coast to coast an army of 600,000 under the voluntary system since war broke out. Who would have thought that France would collapse in nine months? In the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 the Germans were in Paris in six weeks. In this war the Germans have reached Paris in nine months. If Canada does not bestir itself in man-power, food, munitions and all these other vital matters I do not know to whom this country is going to belong next summer or next fall, if Britain fails in the meantime, surrounded now as she is and left to fight the battles of the whole civilized world.
On the second reading of a bill the house adopts the principle of the bill. This bill confers certain special, drastic powers upon the governor in council for the mobilization of national resources of various kinds in the present war. Last fall the late respected Minister of National Defence announced in this house, as did the Prime Minister, that Britain did not want men, that what she mostly required then was food, equipment and so forth. But we find, with war breaking out on many other fronts, that this was not so, and that there is a shortage of trained men and of all kinds of equipment. France could not hold the line against these hordes of barbarians, four or five millions of them. No Maginot fortifications could endure forever. France tried to hold the enemy at bay until Britain and the dominions could come to her support with an adequate army, but she waited in vain for sufficient troops or equipment or support to enable her to hold the line, and the United States failed her also.
As I said at the last session, are we going to wait until Hitler comes to Canada? There is only one course which will stop him now. France, that great and glorious nation which has borne the main brunt of the land attack, has failed, and if Britain fails on the sea, the so-called defence of Canada will be all over, as we have it in this bill which will do little to beat Hitler. Three years ago, two years ago, a year ago in the war session, then when this house met on the twenty-fifth of January, and again on the sixteenth of May last, I proposed the policy of a compulsory national registration all along the line, of man-power, food, industrial and economic power, and a survey of all, large and small, industrial plants. I do not believe that this bill will satisfy our people that they are secure, because we know how weak are our defences, notwithstanding the statute

of Westminster, under which we undertook to look after our own protection on the land, the sea and in the air. Our territory extends nearly four thousand miles; yet so far as our home army and home guard are concerned, they could not begin to take care of one or two miles, let alone four or five thousand. Nevertheless any number of volunteers in this war from coast to coast would have been available to make up a force as large as 600,000 if the government had acted during the past nine months and opened up the recruiting offices daily since then. I have seen them recently in Toronto open only four days a week and closed at the week-end, so that young people cannot enlist at all at times, with this "on again, off again, on again" policy.
In my opinion the bill does not go far enough. It is a very inadequate answer to the demand I made the other day in this house, when Italy came in, for compulsory national service, a national register, the calling out of the militia, the creation of armed forces, on land, sea and in the air, commensurate with what we owe to the mother country, and the reenactment of section 98. The principle of the bill is all wrong. If you are going to have an army, only for home defence, what foe are you going to use it against? You say it is for home defence. You say it is also to protect your neutrality-that was the statement made at the last session; it was to protect our neutrality and to help the United States to guard their coasts if their territory was attacked by a foreign foe. We were to protect the neutrality of the North American continent.
I can only say to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that it would have been well had he taken last year the stand he takes to-day, instead of decrying then all forms of military effort and depending on shams like the League of Nations and " collective security." For our own security and defence the principle he now supports on behalf of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation would have commended itself to the wisdom and judgment of the country two or three years ago, but previously the members of that group upheld a different point of view; they depended on Washington, the illusion of " collective security," the league and pacifism.
I repeat that it is doubtful whether the principle of this bill will entirely commend itself to the wisdom and judgment of the country, or if it goes far enough. In my opinion it will carry very little comfort to the people over in England, that glorious country which all alone is now upholding the cause of freedom, liberty and civilization, while waiting for those on this continent, the

Emergency Powers-Mr. Blackmore
people of the United States included, to come to their support, and the dominions to render further aid. If the British fleet should fail, no one can foretell the day or the hour when Canada will find the enemy at her gates, and all our home defence will mean little and come too late.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, if a bill of this kind is worth passing at all, it must provide the means of attaining Canada's maximum war effort. The principle of this bill is not such as to achieve that purpose; consequently it is wrong.
Let me point out that, unless I am completely mistaken, all this bill calls for is that people shall place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty in the right of Canada. Now, their property means, I take it, either their money, in whatever form that happens to be, or their substantial property such as farms, factories, forests, oil wells, mines, et cetera. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, merely to take the money which the Canadian people possess is not going to provide the government with enough money to run the industry of this country if it assumes control of industry. All one needs to do is to turn to any dependable bank report, and he will see that all the money we have in Canada at the present time, both currency and credit, will not be sufficient to put the country in a sound, productive condition. We must have such financial means as will stimulate production of consumers' goods to sufficiency. That is, we must have means of stimulating the production of wheat and other primary products and of shoes, sugar and other secondary products to the maximum desirable, and we must have also such an amount of financial means as will enable us to provide such fair prices and purchasing power that those goods may be distributed to the maximum desirable extent; which means that a high standard of living will be attained in this country of abundance. In addition to that, we must have enough money to provide for the production of such goods of war and destruction-tanks, aeroplanes, explosives and the like-as we desire.
I maintain that all one needs to do is to consider the facts as they are. Take every dollar which is in the banks to-day belonging to every person, corporation and group of people in the dominion, and you have not nearly enough money to accomplish these desirable things which I have mentioned. Therefore, I say, inasmuch as this bill apparently does not provide for the creation of new money, money which does not now belong to
anybody, it falls short of what Canada should be aiming at, will be only a disappointment, and before long will be looked upon as a delusion of the Canadian people. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the principle of this bill.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on the second reading of the bill but, over the week-end, I visited my county with a view to seeking the opinion of my electors and I deemed it my duty yesterday to make to one of the members of the government a report concerning the views held by my constituents on this important question. I think we should avoid undue haste in the discussion of so important a subject. We should take our time. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are passing legislation similar to that enacted at Westminster does not prove that our legislation is excellent. The measure should be considered on its own merits, and as each one of us here represents a certain group of electors it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that I should be failing in my duty were I not to communicate to the house the views of the good people of my county.
This is the letter which I wrote, with some slight alterations intended to ensure the anonymity of the addressee:
Ottawa, June 17, 1940.
I consider it my duty to tell you of my trip of last Saturday to Riviere du Loup where I met several of my electors who gave me their opinion regarding the war. All realize the gravity of the hour and consider that all our war effort should converge upon the defence of Canada.
Some of those I met went so far as to say that they were favourable to the idea of conscription, provided it were only for the defence of Canada.
On this point, I congratulate the government on the restriction they placed in the bill with regard to compulsory military service.
Others are in favour of recruitment on a voluntary basis for the defence of the country, and such is also the opinion of the entire rural population where there exists a strong sentiment in favour of annexation to the United States or at least of a formal alliance with our powerful neighbours. The latest events, particularly the offer of capitulation made by France, are not likely to change this sentiment.
Here, Mr. Speaker, may I say how sorry I feel about what has just happened in France.
During the last election I said in each parish that under your government anyone would be free to enlist if he chose, but that no one would be forced to do so, whereas with Mr. Manion in power we would inevitably have compulsory military service. Such was also
Emergency Powers-Mr. Pouliot

the position taken by the party in the province of Quebec, as well as, with a few exceptions, outside the province.
Allow me to say that after the victory obtained by our party following that campaign the majority of the people are not yet in favour of the idea of conscription. It may, therefore, be dangerous to impose it at present.
On the other hand, the Canadian sentiment is so deeply rooted in the hearts of our compatriots that they are more ready than ever to make sacrifices for the defence of Canada.
Enlistments have been numerous in our province in spite of two obstacles: first, those who wish to enlist are obliged to pay their travelling expenses when their medical examination proves unfavourable;-
May I say here that young men have come to my office Saturday to ask me to pay the expenses of their trip to Quebec to enlist, [DOT]because if they failed to pass the medical examination they would be obliged to pay their travelling expenses themselves. It seems *to me that the government would greatly facilitate voluntary enlistment by doing away with red tape.
-secondly, in order to be accepted, those who seek to enlist have to agree to fight overseas.
This also is an obstacle to voluntary enlistment. Large numbers of young men were ready to enlist for the defence of Canada but did not care to sign an engagement to fight outside the country. I am convinced that without this clause voluntary enlistments would have been far more numerous.
That policy is a wise one to the extent that our soldiers are sent overseas; it is also consistent with the promise of recruitment on a voluntary basis made by our leaders and by all the Liberal candidates during the last election campaign; but, in view of recent events, do you not think that it is more than ever time to organize the military defence of Canada in Canada and to keep here our best men and to train and equip them properly for our own defence ?
With the obstacle of red tape removed from voluntary enlistment there would be a very large number of enlistments providing the government's policy were clearly defined as being a policy for the defence of Canada. Our people have been deceived so often in the past that they have maintained a certain degree of mistrust, as you know very well.
If we say to the French-Canadians that henceforth recruiting will be solely for the defence of Canada, in Canada, and if we remove all obstacles to voluntary enlistment, you will be surprised to see the number of French-Canadians ready to enlist, providing they are well equipped and well trained and that they be given competent commanding officers.
The speed with which event is following upon event is making everyone reflect very seriously. Public opinion is changing day by day.
I have summarized the conversations I have had with a large number of good Canadians. Since then, I have had occasion to converse with English-speaking members who told me quite openly that war was too serious a matter to be considered from the point of view of

sentiment and that our policy should be guided by reason. They added that in their counties there is an awakening of Canadian sentiment for the organization on a solid basis of the defence of Canada against any aggressor.
By a strange revulsion of feeling, it is on the solid basis of Canadianism that national unity will be established.
Yours very truly,
Jean Frangois Pouliot.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: Very well.


Major James William Coldwell: I am sorry that we have not had a longer period to look over the bill before the second reading came. I should have preferred to have the second reading after the supper recess. I regret also that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has not given us a fuller explanation of the extent to which the powers granted under this emergency bill are to be used by the government. Perhaps the most important words in the bill are to be found in section 2, "requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty in the right of Canada". When a similar bill was introduced into the British parliament on May 22, Mr. Attlee, the former leader of the Labour party, who introduced the measure, went fully into the government's intentions under that bill, and I have in front of me a fairly complete report of what he said on that occasion. He pointed out, of course, the situation that faced the allied powers, and he said:
It is necessary that the government should be given complete control over persons and property, not just some persons of some particular class of the community, but over all persons, rich or poor, employer or worker, man or woman, and all property.
Then he went on to show that the government intended to use this power. Recent dispatches from Great Britain have shown that the British government has already taken over something like 15,000 plants to be operated entirely under public control. At the same time he assured the ordinary people of Great Britain that the excess profits tax would be raised to 100 per cent, wiping out all excess profits.
It seems to me that if we are going to ask our young Canadians-and I believe that under the threat of invasion we have the right to ask young Canadians-to defend the soil of this country, then we ought at the same time to give these young men the absolute assurance that no one will make any profit out of this great struggle.
I should be glad if the government, either now or later, would give the house an assurance that this will be done. In order to bring this matter before the Prime Minister

Emergency Powers-Mr. Coldwell
and the government, I might refer to a carefully prepared statement I have here showing the operation of our excess profits tax under the act which was passed last year. In 1939, for example, the Aluminum Company of Canada, Limited, made profits of $15,799,927, and if they elected the plan under which they would pay excess profits tax, they would of course elect the one under which they would pay the lower tax, which in this case would be under the A plan, which would involve a tax of $1,803,000 or thereabouts. The complete statement is as follows:
Excess Profits Tax
on basis of 1939 earnings (approximate)
24 per cent. Aluminum Limited
profits: $15,799,927.
Under A	 $1,803,019
Corporation income tax	 3,159,985

Leaving $10,836,923, or over 16 per cent on capital as defined in the act.
As the table shows, this leaves $10,836,923, or over 16 per cent profit after paying all the taxes on the capital employed as defined in our act of last September.
Next I take Canadian Industries, Limited, which is to operate certain of our new munition plants. Their profit on capital involved is 36 per cent. They would choose the B plan and would pay no tax whatsoever. They will pay corporation income tax of $1,246,429, leaving a profit of $4,985,714, or over 28 per cent on capital involved as defined under our own act.
If we take next the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, on profits of $9,339,586, being 48 per cent, under pian B which they would elect they would pay no excess profits tax. The corporation income tax would amount to $1,867,917, leaving a profit for distribution of $7,471,669, or over 38 per cent on capital employed as defined in the act.
International Nickel Company, on profits of $36,847,466, or 26 per cent, under plan B would pay no excess profits tax. The corporation income tax would be $7,369,493, leaving $29,477,973, or 20-8 per cent profit on the capital as defined by the act.
I bring these figures to the attention of the house. I have more. I bring these at the present time because I and the group with which I am associated believe that if we are passing a bill to conscript the young men of this country for the defence of Canada and the territory adjacent thereto, then we have a right to ask that the government at the same time assure these young people that the excess profits tax will be instituted as in Great
Britain, and will be one hundred per cent. And we ask that prior to giving our support to this bill.
At the same time it was announced in the British house that the entire banking system of Great Britain would be taken over in order that they might use the institutions properly to finance the war. That I understand has been done. In Canada we have none of these assurances. Without them the bill 6eems to me simply one for the mobilization of manpower, and while we are prepared to support the mobilization of all our resources, including man-power, for the defence of Canada and for our industrial effort, none the less we feel that before we do so we should have assurances of the kind to which I have referred.
Then there are other matters which have come under discussion in this house during the past few days. A little earlier this afternoon I referred to the discussion on the munitions and supply bill, which revealed that new industries established under government ownership are to be operated by persons who are in the employ of one of the great corporations whose profits I have stated. We believe that these industries should not be given a preferred position in the industrial life of this country at this time.
Also involved in this is the right of the worker in industry to have some say concerning the conditions under which he works. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) pointed out the other night, there should be an undertaking that all the war work in which we are now engaged or are likely to be engaged should be governed by mutual agreements between the workers' organizations and the industry engaged in the manufacture of munitions. That I believe is something the government should provide for; if we are going to mobilize for industrial effort, labour should be adequately protected.
We believe that the mobilization of industry and property and wealth involves also the condition of the great agricultural industry. Some hon. members come from areas where agriculture is the main industry and means of life. At the moment the prices of farm products are exceedingly low. There is no demand. But when the war ends, it is altogether likely that an impoverished Europe will require every available food commodity that we can send across the sea. Meantime the people who produce these commodities should not be expected to carry the whole burden. In the mobilization of our resources they should be guaranteed a fair and reasonable return so that they may live.
In the same manner if we are going to mobilize labour and industry and all resources,



Emergency Powers

Mr. Lacombe
there will have to be some control of the price level, in order that the producer may get a square deal and the consumer pay a fair and reasonable price. I am not going into all the implications of this bill, but in my opinion we should have a full statement as to what the government intends to do in such particulars as I have mentioned before we are asked to vote for the measure. In Great Britain care was taken by the government to see that the measure introduced there was properly explained and fully understood. We have this bill before us, and so far we do not know the extent to which these powers will be used, except that it is quite obvious that some recruiting of men will be instituted and proceeded with.
Then there is another matter to which the government has probably already given consideration, and concerning which the Prime Minister may be able to give a satisfactory answer almost immediately. There are certain religious organizations, the members of which I believe are already exempted by law because they are averse by reason of their religious beliefs to bearing arms under any circumstances. I assume that Quakers, Mennonites and such groups will receive similar consideration when the government institutes this measure.
When the bill is in committee we can go into the various phases of it more thoroughly, but I wish to impress upon the government the need to tell the house and the country the extent to which this legislation will be used immediately. As I said, before we can give our support to this measure we want to be assured that there will be equality of sacrifice. We ask from the government a statement definitely assuring the country of this. We realize that Canada to-day is threatened as never before. But our young men, as well as those engaged in industry, have a right to know that they alone will aot pay the whole price which will be lemanded.
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two
Mountains) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I
should be remiss in my duty if I failed to protest at once against the plan for mobilizing our man-power and wealth announced by the right honourable the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). This new policy is in glaring opposition to the electoral platform of the reelected government. There was to be nothing but a moderate, voluntary and free war effort, we were told. I referred to that platform in this house on May 23 last. I was then speaking in defence of the prime minister who was being harassed on all sides by the opposition. At that time, the shores of the British Isles had

been bombed by the enemy. Then came a cessation of attacks against British territory and the whole might of the enemy was turned against France. While that noble and heroic country was being trampled upon by the Germans, those same members who had been clamouring for conscription became strangely silent. Why? That is their secret and I would rather not delve into the matter, preferring to ignore it in the interest of the spirit of harmony which should prevail in Canada. This parliament has no right to order the mobilization of man-power and wealth because it lacks the necessary mandate. The Canadian people, whom we represent in parliament, never endorsed such a mobilization. On the contrary, they voted on March 26 for a moderate, voluntary and free war policy. Consequently, I am strongly opposed to such a mobilization so long as the Canadian people have not endorsed it. Besides, has it been shown that voluntary enlistment is not sufficient for the defence of the country? Until such time as proof to the contrary has been adduced to the people, I shall have the feeling of discharging a sacred duty toward my electors and my country in opposing that policy with the utmost vigour. I foresaw the very serious events that are happening to-day when, on September 9, 1939, I stated in this house my principles and beliefs upon the grievous mistakes of the past and of the future. The future has become the present and the very things that I had anticipated are now happening. In so speaking, I am voicing the views of a great majority of the people in my constituency who kindly gave me their confidence some weeks ago. I have never betrayed my electors. In these troubled times I am continuing to defend their freedom in the parliament of my country.


Mr. STIRLING:: Would you, Mr. Speaker, be good enough to read the amendment in English?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I have not the official translation as yet, but I might give a free translation for the benefit of hon. members of the house:
That all the words after the word "that" in the bill be struck out and replaced by the following words:
. . . "the war policy of the Canadian government must remain free, voluntary and moderate."


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of
order. I ask for a ruling as to whether or not the amendment is in order.


Thomas Vien: It is always in order to move an amendment to a motion for the second reading of a bill.

Emergency Powers-Mr. Lacroix (Montmorency)


Mr. WILFRID LACROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is my duty, as member for Quebec-Montmoreney constituency, to express my opinion on this bill and to state that I positively do not hold the same view as some of my fellow members in the house who favour unlimited participation by Canada without any thought for what the post-war period has in store for us.
On September 9 last I voted against declaring war and I then gave my reasons for taking that stand. The majority decided otherwise. I must perforce submit and abide by the consequences. Since that time, however, an election has taken place in this country and the people of Canada have clearly declared themselves in favour of a moderate and voluntary participation as against participation to the utmost of our ability. For should we reach such a limit, it will mean, once the war is over, eventual bankruptcy, extreme devaluation of the currency and above all an almost certain lack of adequate means to cope with post-war problems.
And why, indeed, should we extend ourselves to such an extreme limit of our capacity when there was a minimum of representations and expressions of opinion at the time there was question of adopting a policy of financing Germany so that she might rearm and attain that stability which allowed her to rise from the prone position we had left her in at the close of the Great War and to unleash once again her barbaric hordes upon civilization and democracy.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, however splendid the role of those who have fallen recently on Vimy Ridge in defense of right, liberty and justice, and to whose anonymous heroism I wholeheartedly pay tribute, I need must blame the stand taken by those statesmen who boast of proficiency in matters of diplomacy and who are responsible for the fact that once again our own have fallen in great numbers right by the monument which symbolizes their predecessors' heroic effort that democracy might endure; and that, 25 years after had been written one of the most glorious pages in our history telling of the fallen's struggle for justice 1
The dead of Vimy and Courcelette, resting all about the great monument erected to their memory, must be wondering to themselves in the Great Beyond: "Why did we sacrifice so much when it has availed so little?"
Mr. Speaker, France has indeed staunchly defended her territory and I trust that victory will crown her struggle for her very existence; for France, remember, cannot vanish from this earth; as a flaming torch she brightens the world with all that is beautiful and generous in the realm of thought, art and science.
95826-56J
France has fought for her existence, England for her empire and as for ourselves, while doing our share for a cause admittedly just, I entreat you, let us also fight to preserve this great Dominion of Canada in America in which we take such pride. If we wish to maintain the integrity of this dominion and preserve the pact of confederation, designed to protect the liberty of each of its ethnical groups, then, sir, let us not make the mistake of wreaking our own destruction by leaving the country, after the war, without any possible means of material and economic reintegration. Any other course would throw the country into the hands of an element which would prove fatal to its very existence, namely, communism.
What is Russia doing? She stands aloof in order to be in a better position to spread her propaganda through those countries which will have been shattered by war, whatever its result may be, because I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that war will bring about such an economic chaos that it will be impossible for anyone to tell victors from vanquished.
I say, therefore, that we ought to limit our participation to what we can actually do instead of making it a maximum war effort. This would be the wise thing to do and moreover this would be in harmony with the policy advocated during the last general elections by the right honourable Mackenzie King and the right honourable Ernest Lapointe.
If we wish to maintain the integrity of this Dominion, Canada's war effort must remain voluntary, free and reasonable. While earnestly hoping that liberty, right and justice may triumph in Europe; while paying tribute to the heroic patriotism of the French and English people who are now fighting, regardless of social rank, in a sublime effort to maintain the freedom of their respective countries, I hope that our Canadian political leaders will use discretion and avoid making mistakes which might prove irretrievable.
After having heard certain extremists, who are dissatisfied with our participation, speak the way they have in this house since the opening of the session, I feel justified in wondering whether they are not lacking in loyalty to Canada.
If we wish our war effort to remain free and voluntary, let us not, for pity's sake, make the mistake of stopping public works.
I further wish, Mr. Speaker, to reiterate a request already made by the premier of the province of Quebec, the honourable Adelard Godbout, to the effect that farmers' sons should not be enlisted in the army, for if there is a class of people which is needed to increase war time agricultural production in keeping with allied requirements, surely it
876	COMMONS
Emergency Powers-Mr. Lacroix (Montmorency)
is the farming population. Moreover, should we make the mistake of recruiting in rural communities and, worse still, of imposing compulsory service to these people, I doubt very much whether after demobilization, the majority of these men would return to the land. They would inevitably add to the congestion of the cities where unemployment resulting from commercial, military and industrial demobilization will create a serious problem for the government and where they would fall an easy prey to communistic propaganda.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge that we abide by the policy advocated by the right honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King during the last elections, namely a voluntary and reasonable measure of participation, without resorting in any way to conscription of man-power. In view of the fact that we are at war, as a result of the decision taken by a majority of the members of this house, this would afford everyone an excellent opportunity of serving his country well and of insuring a future for the country after the war.
Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, the American Senate at its sitting of yesterday, I believe, adopted by a vote of seventy to nothing a resolution to the effect that the Monroe doctrine was considered to apply to all of North America and all of South America. By so doing, the United States have agreed, so to speak, totally to exclude any European power which might attempt to invade our territory or any other American territory. Why not continue with our voluntary participation and wait at least until the United States enact conscription of men?
A bill is before us now, and I am looking at section 3 of that bill I shall read it in English, because I have no French copy. The bill was distributed this afternoon, but unfortunately my French Canadian colleagues and myself did not get a French copy. Taken by surprise, they are obliged to consult the English copy for the study of this bill. In section 3 of the bill introduced this afternoon to establish conscription of men in Canada, we read the following:
The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
If my understanding of English is correct, the words "may not" mean "the government may" and they should be replaced by at least the words "shall not"...
be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have but the English copy of the bill and we are using
[Mr. Wilfrid Lacroix.!
it. Since it has been introduced this afternoon, 1 would ask the government to put off the second reading of the bill, until at least after six o'clock, so that the French members may take note of the French copy which is essential in studying a bill of such importance.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, the amendment that has been moved states that this bill should not be read a second time but that there should be substituted therefor a statement to the effect that Canada's participation must remain free, voluntary and moderate. I am convinced that my honourable friends the mover and the seconder of that amendment do not wish to suggest that Canada's participation in her own defence, were she invaded, attacked or imperilled, ought to be moderate, free and voluntary. If my hon. friends will read the bill that is before them they will notice that it is introduced in this house on account of the tragical circumstances with which we are confronted to-day and which are threatening the very existence of our country.
My hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lacroix) referred to France which, he said, had fought for her existence. She did not fight with moderation or with freedom, she just fought. If this bill is, as I claim it to be, a bill for the purpose of putting Canada in a position to defend herself in a tragic emergency, I assert that we have no right to say that we must defend ourselves only in a moderate, free or voluntary way.
Mr. Chairman, the first duty of a citizen is to defend his country and if it be true, as I believe, along with all those who are considering the present situation, and as, I feel sure, my hon. friends themselves believe, that we are threatened even though the danger might not be probable, its very possibility compels us to take those precautions which worthy sons of a country must take to defend their mothers, their parents, their families and their territory.
Those who have to shoulder the responsibility of governing the country in such a situation have a most difficult task to perform. It is a duty fraught with responsibilities. But they would not be worthy of the mandate entrusted to them by the people were they unable to discharge their duty fully and to take whatever steps are necessary for the protection of their country. We cannot shirk such a duty.
If I believe-and my friends know that I believe it sincerely-that my country is threatened, can I stand back and refuse to do what is essential for her defence and protection, and compel and request every one, all

Emergency Powers-Mr. Lavointe (Quebec East)
Canadians from every part of the country, to come forward in order to defend with their blood the national heritage and everything they are so anxious to preserve?
Canada is a land of freedom. Our wish is that she may continue to be a land of freedom. The monsters who at this time want to destroy civilization and who are drawing nearer to us, must not expect that we are going to repel their attacks with moderation. We are going to defend ourselves with all the strength we can find in our hearts and souls and to the utmost of our capacity.
Mr. Chairman, I feel perfectly at ease to explain my attitude on this question. Somebody speaks of the pledges given. I invite all my friends to read the observations I made in this house when war was declared; I invite them to read my speech of the preceding session on the subject of Canada's neutrality. I then said to my fellow-countrymen that the province, one of whose representatives I have the honour to be, was opposed to compulsory military service overseas, and that we would fight it-


Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: Write it down in the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: -and that I would fight it; that if it were proposed by my government I would resign from that government.


Édouard Lacroix: Write it down in the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what I said, and that is what I repeat to-day. But for the defence of my country, for the defence of Canada, nol The defence of the fatherland is the duty of every citizen, and it is an obligation for every one to defend Canada. This bill provides that its powers may not be exercised, in so far as the question of compulsion is concerned, in connection with service overseas.
My -hon. friend wants the word "shall" instead of the word "may." I have not the least objection to that word being changed to "shall." The only reason it was not used is to be found in legal phraseology. As Minister of Justice drafting an act of parliament, I would use the word "may," but to satisfy those who want to read a different meaning in the word-.the word "may" is imperative when applied to the crown or the government-but to please my hon. friend I will myself move that it be replaced by the word "shall." There is another aspect of this bill that I submit to the sympathetic consideration of the mover and seconder of the
amendment and of my other friends in this house. That act for the defence of Canada provides for the contribution not only of the lives of our young men in the defence of the fatherland, but also of the money, who have any, to help us in the defence of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, we often read in the newspapers appeals in favour of conscription. But they always call for the conscription of manpower. The newspapers, which represent the financial interests of the country, take care not to mention conscription of their property and of their wealth. This bill aims at equalizing sacrifices. The government will have the right to ask sacrifices not only from our young people who have to run personal risks for the defence of the country, it will also force those who are in possession of capital, those who are the most able to help in the defence of Canada, to contribute their share should they not come forward voluntarily.
I think I have said all I wanted to say. I respect the opinions of my friends who have moved and seconded this amendment. I think I have said enough to convince them of the sincerity of my opinions and of my sentiments.
I think I am acting in the interest of my country, and in the interest of my province. I would be unfaithful to the trust which has been placed in me if I acted otherwise for fear of shouldering the responsibilities which I must assume and which I shall always assume with courage when necessary and when conscientiously convinced that it is in the interest of my country.


Mr. LACOMBE (Translation):: Mr.Speaker, I understand that your ruling is based on the fact that there is no such word as "that"; however, the bill has the word "whereas".


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: May I ask you,
Mr. Speaker, to read the amendment. I was not in the chamber when it was moved.


Thomas Vien: The motion is:
That all the words after the word "that" in the bill be struck out and replaced by the following:
. . . "the war policy of the Canadian government must remain free, voluntary and moderate."
I declare this motion out of order because there is no such word as "que" in the bill, and, further, because on motion for second reading the amendment should be to the motion and not to the bill. Third, a bill can be amended only after second reading and in the committee of the whole (Standing Order 75).


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker-
878	COMMONS
Emergency Powers-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)


Thomas Vien: My ruling has been given, and the only course now would be for the hon. member to appeal from my decision to the house.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Ernest Lapointe: Surely " financial " is part of " material " resources.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh, yes, but there has been no statement from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on what the government proposes to do with reference to the banks.


Ernest Lapointe: We cannot say in the bill that " two and two are four."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Attlee made it clear when he introduced the bill in the British house that steps would be taken to bring the financial institutions of Great Britain directly under government control. Never in the history of Canada was there a better time for the Prime Minister to bring about his suggestion to " issue credit and currency in terms of public need " than under this bill and during this present war. We have the right to know what this clause about mobilization of material resources means with reference to those who are using the natural resources of this country, those who get the minerals and the oil out of the ground. We know how they have been using them. I say it is to the everlasting disgrace of this dominion that they were used, not very long ago, to arm the nations with which to-day we are at war.


Mr. MacNICOL:: We shall not be at war very long unless we get along with it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We shall not get on any better with it by passing a bill that is to be purely a conscription of poor men and not a conscription also of rich men.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read the bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Augur writes in the New York Times and in the Montreal Gazette on June 13-and he is a fairly reliable authority-that when the war broke out last September, Mussolini had enough oil on hand for only a fortnight and that he has been allowed during the last nine months to accumulate such resources of oil that to-day he has enough for many months.


Mr. CRERAR:: What is the hon. gentleman's authority for that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have quoted my authority, Mr. Augur in the New York Times and in the Montreal Gazette. He is a correspondent of some repute who writes also for the London Spectator.
But I will come to something that cannot be disputed. The export figures for minerals from Canada, starting January 1, 1939, show that every month from January up to August inclusive, until a few days before the war, we allowed the men who are using the natural resources of this country to send scrapiron, copper, nickel and aluminum-to whom? More than half our nickel went to Japan, copper to Germany, copper and aluminum to Italy, right up until the last few days of August, 1939.
What do we propose to do with these men? Do we propose to allow the International Nickel company and other mining concerns to continue to send this material outside the country without control? I made the suggestion once before to the Prime Minister and I repeat it now. Somewhere in one of the departments there should be set up a branch which would do the work that would be equivalent to what is being done in Great Britain by the Minister of Economic Warfare, to make absolutely sure that in the war effort which is going on in Canada (a) war material shall not find its way from Canada into the hands of our enemies, and (b) certain men in this country are not making money out of our natural resources and assisting our foes at the same time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, before this house is asked to vote on this bill, to vote on the principle, I do not think it is too much to ask the Prime Minister to make a very clear statement, first, as to what forms of wealth will come within the term, "mobilization of material resources"; as to whether or not this government is prepared to bring in a one hundred per cent excess profits tax; as
880	COMMONS
Emergency Powers-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
to whether or not large corporations are going to be allowed to continue to make money while at the same time we propose to take boys off the farm, from the workshop and off the streets and put them in uniform to go out to defend another group of men who, unless the government take drastic steps, are not making their fair contribution to the defence of Canada.


Mr. REID:: What about a boy defending his own home?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but at the same time as he is defending his own home, the International Nickel company ought to be making some contributions to the country out of which it is getting this tremendous return. Moreover, many of the boys have not any homes; yet some of them have been much more willing to go and defend Canada than some who are making money out of the country. All we ask is that this bill shall be what it purports to be; that it shall really mean the mobilization of human and material resources; that the phrase, "material resources" shall not be merely a sugar-coating to get people to swallow the other rather unpleasant half of the bill; that this shall be a real conscription bill, not a poor man's conscription measure but a measure that shall endeavour to marshal all the resources of Canada and to spread, as far as it is humanly possible to do so, the responsibility for defending the country over all classes of the Canadian people.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who says it does not?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member who asked that question knows that this is an enabling bill. He knows that we have had no statement yet from the Prime Minister as to how these powers will be used. I am not saying that they will not be used this way or that. I am asking that the Prime Minister shall give us a statement. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that all over Canada to-night there are thousands upon thousands of men, and women too, who are prepared to devote all their energies and, if needs be, to risk their lives in the defence of the country. I think we all are. Last fall, when this country entered the war, I offered my services to the government opposite, and on November 17 last I was paraded before the commander of military district No. 13. I am prepared to risk my life, as thousands of other Canadian citizens to-night are prepared to risk theirs. If needs be, there are thousands to-night who are prepared to risk their lives in the defence of everything that is at stake in the war.
In 1936 I saw something of what Hitlerism has meant to some people in Germany. I

saw men who had come out of concentration camps; I saw women whose sons and husbands were in concentration camps. I saw people whose spirits had been broken, bodies mutilated, because they chose to serve their conscience rather than a neurotic megalomaniac. I doubt if there is a man in this house who is not prepared, as thousands of people across Canada are prepared, to shed his blood, if needs be, in order that we in this country, the people of the British commonwealth of nations and the other democracies, do not have to live under a regime in which such things as I have described are possible.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Will the hon. member
permit a question? He saw these things in 1936. Why did he oppose the defence estimates of 1937?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will answer the hon. member willingly. What we opposed in 1937, if he will read Hansard-


Hughes Cleaver: I have read it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We were
prepared to support any expenditures that were to be used for a system of collective security. We were convinced that they were not being so used.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Give us another.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I make this plea: If men and women in Canada are prepared to serve the state, if they are prepared to offer their lives and to place their services at the disposal of the country, we should get some assurance from the government to-night that the material, financial and economic resources of the nation will be taken on the same basis as human service is taken, namely, without profit but for the service of the state and for the duration of the war.


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk):: This is
surely no time for recriminations of any kind. I entirely agree with the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) this afternoon that to-day, when we are witnessing the tragic events taking place in Europe, is not the time for recriminations, whether they come from the other side of the house or from this side. Views that may have been expressed years ago were honestly held and honestly expressed.


Mr. BROOKS:: Not so many years ago.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: This is no time for seeking to cast blame. We are witnessing a tragic turn of events in Europe, and the safety of Canada is involved. As a Canadian whose


Emergency Powers-Mr. Thorson
origin is neither British nor French, I give my whole-hearted support to this measure. In giving that support I speak as a Canadian whose undivided loyalty is to Canada. When' I entered this house first in 1926, my main motive was that in all I should do as a member of the House of Commons I should further the destiny of Canada as a great nation. And when I speak as I do, I believe that I voice the sentiments of many Canadians, over two million of them, whose origin is neither British nor French but who know no other country than Canada. Canada has their undivided loyalty.
I am opposed to conscription for overseas service. We on this side of the house are pledged to resist conscription for overseas service, and I stand by that pledge. I listened this afternoon to the impassioned plea of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) when he said more eloquently than any other man in this house could say it, that in the defence of Canada, our own land, there could be no limitations, There can be no limitations to the defence of Canada. I stand with the Minister of Justice and with his leader the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in this attitude expressed in this bill, that all the forces of Canada, man-power and material resources must be devoted to the aid of Canada, for the defence of Canada.
I say also that in this extremity we must have faith. This is an enabling bill, giving to the government of the day wide and extensive powers to deal with a dire emergency. We must have faith that the government will use those powers in the best interests of Canada. I, for one, have that faith, and I support this measure.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: In
rising to speak on the second reading of this bill, I feel it necessary to make some statements. Prefacing my remarks, I should like to remind the house of the most noble stand that this group made in the special war session of last September. The leader of our group, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blaekmore) to-day reiterated that stand. He pointed out that in that stand we were particularly anxious and careful to see that finance should be conscripted first. The stand that we made last September I think I can say was one of the most noble stands that could have been made at that time. I think I can add that this group foresaw certain probabilities which have come to pass, perhaps a little faster than we expected, nevertheless they have taken place. Since we took that stand last September, there has been an election. I am not going to dwell upon that event; that is history but during that election certain speakers in Alberta misrepresented our stand. They portrayed us as conscriptionists of the first order. That misrepresentation perhaps cost this group several seats. On the other hand, perhaps one reason why the government now sits with its huge majority may be the promise that conscription would not be sponsored by them. That misrepresentation necessitated our correcting the false impression that was left. The reason why I speak along this line at the moment is to give to the house the same thoughts that I had to give to my constituents. I believe I speak for all the members of this group in saying that what we told our constituents was that while we reiterated our stand of last September, we would demand of the government that before they brought in a measure of conscription of man-power they must first conscript finance.
I said a little while ago that this was a noble stand. I know that between last September and now many things have happened; I know the exigencies of the hour, and that we must put our utmost efforts into winning this war. But we are not so certain-and in that we agree with the hon. member for Wey-bum (Mr. Douglas)-that this bill expresses all that it is desirable that it should express. In our view it seems somewhat evasive, and we believe that on second reading of the bill the Prime Minister should be willing to make some amendments to clarify the meaning of the bill and to set forth in it what things are to be mobilized for the successful prosecution of the war. We believe that the bill should go further than it does in its present form. Of course we shall discuss this in more detail in committee. The second section reads:
Subject to the provisions of section 3 hereof, the governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, requiring persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of his majesty.
There are three things; persons, their services, and their property; while this financial system as it is now set up still rides in the saddle. That is what we are against. We say that finance must be conscripted. It is not enough to say that the people's savings must be taken; the banking system, the financial system, must be taken and made to make financially possible that which is physically possible. I say we want to go further than this legislation goes. I have no desire to seek sympathy, but I say this for the benefit of those in the press gallery; I ask them to be fair in dealing with the stand we take on this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

Emergency Powers-Mr. Hansell


Ernest George Hansell: That is all right. I am appealing to the press gallery to be fair in reporting anything that is said during this debate. I am quite certain our Quebec members want them to be fair. I believe they will be, but sometimes things can be coloured a little. It may be that it is not our desire to support the bill as it is now worded, and the report may go out that we are not in favour of the conscription of these things. What we are in favour of is something more than this bill gives us. I said I was not seeking sympathy, but let me tell this house that my own father and mother are living in England to-day, right in the line of attack. In addition to that, I have three boys, one nineteen and the other two, seventeen years of age. So after the stand we made in this house last September, a stand which I believe to have been a noble one, if I am now to vote for a bill which may send my boys to war, I say that if they are to march in battle, finance must march with them.
We could say a great deal about these matters. The leader of our group has referred to the evidence which was given before the banking and commerce committee a year ago, and in which the governor of the Bank of Canada declared that that which was physically possible was financially possible. But I have a very, very strong feeling that the reason why we have not advanced as far as we should, in the entire British empire, is because of the restrictions placed upon us by reason of the present financial set-up. One gets worked up a little about such measures as this. This is perhaps the most important bill we shall be asked to vote upon this session. Some time ago I read in the press that in a speech the governor of the Bank of Canada had told the people what they should do, and later I saw the report of another speech by the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, also telling the people what they should do. Well, if I were the man on the street, believing in democracy as I do, I would say, "Who is this Graham Towers, anyway; what right has he to tell the people what to do?"


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: He is a very able man.


Ernest George Hansell: I admit that he is an able man; I am not questioning that. I say, however, that the government, whose responsibility it is to bring this nation to the greatest possible efficiency in the prosecution of the war, is the body that should tell the governor of the Bank of Canada what to do, and that in no uncertain terms. If that which is physically possible can be made financially possible, why has it not been done? That is the question.
(Mr. Hansell.]
A week or so ago I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) how he was going to finance the present war policy of the government. His reply was that it would be done as it was in the last war. Perhaps the situation has changed in the last couple of weeks; but I say that if the policy of financing this war from now on is to be the same as that followed in the last war, then this bill falls far short of what it should be. That is not the conscription of finance.
I should like to refer to the new democracy platform that was issued during the election campaign, in order to state our position once more:
We believe that Canada should finance her share in this war by the creation of the necessary debt-free credit and currency, with definite price regulations to prevent any inflationary rise in prices, thereby enabling the dominion to give the most effective support without the nation incurring huge debts by borrowing or resorting to exhorbitant taxation.
I am reading a paragraph from the division entitled "Preservation of the Empire." The next paragraph reads:
We strongly support the just demands of Canadians for the greatest possible equalization of sacrifice, including adequate measures to ensure the present and future economic security of all our people. We affirm that the conscription of finance, without expropriation of individual's property or money, should precede the conscription of man-power.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say to you that it is our desire that when this bill is in committee, the Prime Minister should so word its sections as to state very clearly that the banking institutions, the financial institutions, the industries and the corporations of this country will be conscripted before we have any conscription of man-power.


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I hope that
participation by hon. members in the debate on this all important measure will not lead this house or the Canadian people-English or French speaking-to believe that they are afraid to defend their country or that they are devoid of bravery or courage.
We have recently been elected mainly on that time-worn subject of conscription. If 10,035 out of 14,200 electors registered in my constituency elected me as their representative, it was because I had been, like themselves, opposed to the enforcement of conscription in this country. Let me explain. In 1937, some fellow-members and I initiated in this house a struggle in the course of which we have opposed the dispatch of contingents overseas. We have stood against participation in external wars and on several

Emergency Powers-Mr. Gauthier
occasions we have asked for a reduction of money votes because we believed that a contribution in the form of munitions, foodstuffs and clothing would be more useful to the allies and would better answer the needs of our country than a contribution in manpower. At each session we have risen in debate against the dispatch of troops overseas. We were unsuccessful. However, during the provincial electoral campaign held in 1939, which we waged and won in supporting Liberal candidates on the assurance that there would be no conscription, we did accept the dispatch of troops overseas because we were sure that there would be no conscription. During the last federal campaign, this conscription act was discussed. I did not ask my electors the plain question: "Are you in favour of conscription in this country?" and if I have risen to-night in this house, if I ask the government not to be too hasty in having this act passed by the house, it is because of my wish to be consistently honest toward my electors and to have the opportunity of asking them what they think of the enforcement of conscription in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am told that the people are in favour of the establishment of conscription in this country. I shall await the opportunity of consulting them before expressing an opinion on that point. I can assume my responsibilities as well as any one in this house or outside, and my purpose in rising to-night is not merely to embarrass or criticize the government. I have no such wish, but, as a representative of the people, I am entitled to ask the government to avoid hasty decisions. The system of voluntary enlistment is still giving results; we can only accept 1,200 or 1,400 volunteers a day according to the honourable the Minister for Air (Mr. Power), and we could raise 400,000 soldiers through voluntary enlistment just as easily as if we resorted to conscription. If we were to enforce conscription in this country while continuing to dispatch forces overseas, would this not, Mr. Speaker, lead the people to believe that volunteers are no longer coming forward? I do not say that because of any lack of confidence in the Liberal government simply because outside of the cabinet, outside of the house, there are over-zealous officials. I have been visited by people who wanted to enlist and who had complaints to make in that regard. One man who wanted to enlist as a dentist was unsuccessful, and why? Because preference was being given to men who could speak both languages more fluently, mainly the English language. I do not say that this was done with the knowledge of the authorities; it may very well have happened without government officials being aware of it.
It may also happen that men who enlisted exclusively for military service in Canada will be sent overseas against their will. That has already happened-in the 1914-1918 war. And I know that certain recruiting agents used more or less commendable methods to persuade men-their fellow-citizens-to enlist. Some of these men went to bed at night unconscripted, unenlisted, to awaken the following morning as enlisted soldiers without knowing how it had been done. That must not happen this time. Why not exhaust the voluntary system before resorting to conscription. Why go so fast? I am ready to admit that the news from Europe is not good; I am ready to admit that what is told us is the truth; I admit that we are heart-broken at seeing France forced to yield to the enemy; but at this time I look at the matter in my own way from the purely Canadian point of view. I do not claim to be infallible, but 1 claim the same right as others have to express my opinion and to discuss this question without being considered as lacking in courage when the defence of the country is involved. I shall not be the last man to offer his services for the defence of Canada, but I consider that we are going too fast in imposing conscription upon the country before having exhausted the voluntary system. That is my view, and I cannot declare myself in the matter without having at least slightly consulted those who gave me their confidence at the last election, when conscription was one of the issues. I cannot vote on the question without ascertaining their views. I have an account to render to those who sent me here to represent them, and, if I want to be honest, I have to ascertain their opinion before casting my vote for a measure of the vital importance of this one. I believe that we could continue with the voluntary system even for the defence of Canada and that the question of conscription could very well be postponed until we have an opportunity of consulting our electors. But, Mr. Speaker, there is one other thing that grieves me, as a Liberal. There are within and without this house men who have for years pinned the label of conscription to their party and who with a broad smile and very comprehensible satisfaction can now say that they have pinned the label of conscription to the Liberal party. They are already exulting. That makes me sick at heart, Mr. Speaker. I say so in this house and I know that I am telling the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I have said what I had to say, and may I add in closing that I believe that if errors have been made, unpardonable errors have been committed by other countries; it seems to me that Canada has played her part in paying the way she has;

Emergency Powers-Mr. Roy
she has done her share, has she not, in the way of munitions, food and supplies. Canada is ready to do her part in order to assure her people that she is doing everything in her power for the protection and maintenance of the British empire and of Canada, but, after all there is a limit to paying. I hear someone saying in this house that this is not the time to speak of past errors. If never a word is said about these errors, they will be committed again, as it has happened in the past when, before and during the war, supplies were sent to the enemy and our soldiers killed and wounded by shells made of Canadian metal or of ore extracted from the soil of the Allies.


Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister of Canada evoked in moving terms this afternoon the sorrow of France, that unfortunate country which has fallen a prey to aggression, and when he promised England once more in most forceful terms all that Canada could do to help her even to the utmost of our capacity, this house might have thought that the government, realizing the full gravity of the situation, was now leading us on from a stage of amateurish war, which we had declared upon Germany, to a stage of serious and definite action, and that the comedy was over.
Unfortunately, it was not quite that yet. The Prime Minister stated, if I understood him correctly, after announcing compulsory mobilization in Canada-you will observe immediately the play on words, fearing the use of the term " conscription ", (and the honourable member who just spoke gave the reason for this)-after announcing, as I said, general mobilization of wealth, resources and men in this country, immediately added " not for service overseas but for the defence of Canada and only on our own soil, for the present government is opposed to the conscription of men for service overseas." These are contradictory statements, Mr. Speaker. How can we promise to help France rise from the ruins scattered over her blood soaked land, how can we promise England to come to her aid to the utmost of our resources if we state at the same time that we will not send over there the men we are about to conscript?
There is something there that we do not understand. As a matter of principle, I am not opposed to the mobilization of all of the resources of Canada, both human and natural and financial for the purpose of defending our country in case of attack, which is after all possible. For that reason, I would not object to the principle of the bill. If I could only place confidence in those who are now running

the country. In declaring war on Germany in September last, we laid the country open to dangers which we rightly seek to avert to-day. If France is compelled to surrender her navy and whatever arms she may still possess, I can easily see the danger that lies ahead for Great Britain. And if, in turn, Great Britain which we wanted to defend and which we are now defending were to be conquered by Germany, I believe that Canada would be in much greater danger because of all the armaments which Germany and Italy already possess, and which are superior to those of the democratic powers, and which would be further strengthened by the addition of the conquered navies. Like all other French Canadians, I am in no way opposed to making provision for the defence of Canada and I am glad to endorse the statement which the honourable member-whom I do not know as yet-has just made. I shall congratulate him later on his speech. I gladly agree with him when he says that the French Canadians, anything to the contrary notwithstanding, will be ready to do their duty if Canada is attacked, even if we have been drawn into the conflict for failing to mind our own business.
Tre right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has said over and over again in the province of Quebec during the last twenty-five years that participation in the empire's wars was no concern of ours. Only a few years ago, he said in this house: "I am opposed to any participation in external wars on the part of Canada." This he repeated in the constituency of Lotbiniere last summer. He said in this house and repeated afterwards: "I am opposed to the dispatch of expeditionary forces overseas." During the electoral campaign in the province of Quebec last fall, he spoke along the same lines. He said that the war we had declared on Germany was a moderate, an amateurish war and that if the electors voted for the Hon. Mr. Duplessis, conscription would be enforced and he, the Minister of Justice, would retire and leave his post. He said: "I am the bulwark that protects you. Follow my advice. Vote for us in this election. Vote for the Hon. Mr. Godbout; otherwise, you will have conscription and Mr. Duplessis will forsake you."
Cartoons published in le Soleil, the official organ of the liberal party in the province of Quebec, during the campaign led by the Hon. Mr. Patenaude in 1925, showed side by side Mr. Patenaude and the Hon. Arthur Meighen, then leader of the Conservative party with the legend, printed in heavy type: "A vote for these men is a vote for war, for participa-
8S5

Emergency Powers-Mr. Roy
tion in England's wars to the last man and the last cent." Near them could be seen the Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe and the Right Hon. Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie King, the minister of justice and the prime minister-I mention Mr. Lapointe and Mr. King by name because they are so indicated in the newspaper. The cartoon bore the legend "Not one man, not one cent for the empire." It is as a result of such propaganda that the province of Quebec is opposed to participation in wars overseas. As was said by the hon. member who has just spoken, the province accepted, for want of better, to participate in the European war on the strength of the assurance or promise that there would be no conscription for overseas service. We accepted participation but we never ceased to be opposed to conscription.
On June 12 last, to mention a more recent date, the right hon the Minister of Justice, was reported by French language newspapers, and particularly by La Presse, of Montreal, as having said in a radio address to the province of Quebec that our participation-1 am quoting from that paper-was to be voluntary and unsolicited. Let me ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is voluntary to-day. For the defence of our country, as I said before, I am not opposed to the mobilization of all our resources. French-Canadians will discharge their duty like all others. That is what I was saying in this house some time ago. We have an opportunity of proving our sincerity, our loyalty to England, and I shall repeat the words of Sir Etienne-Pascal Tache, who said: "If this country ever ceases to be British, the last shot for the preservation of British sovereignty in America will be fired by a French-Canadian."
I believe that we would all repeat these words to-night for the defence of the Crown, on Canadian soil. The question of conscription is now before us with the assurance that it is intended for the defence of Canada alone. As far as I am concerned, I do not believe this statement. The Right Hon. Prime Minister contradicted himself this afternoon. He promised to help England to the extreme limit of our capacities, then a few minutes later he said he was opposed to conscription for overseas service. Those two statements are contradictory. Moreover, I refer to the whole of this party's past, who has so often deceived us during the last twenty-five years. In order to triumph in the province of Quebec, this party declared during March last: "Participation must be on a voluntary basis. We are opposed to the raising of expeditionary forces for overseas service." Our soldiers are already on foreign soil. "We are against any
form of participation in wars," did they say in time of peace, in Lotbiniere county. And in this house, when the budget of the Department of National Defence was being voted, they continued to repeat: "We are against any participation in the wars of the empire." This was in time of peace, always.
To-day, we are in time of war. The hour is very grave, they say. Everybody agrees that it is. Surely we are serious enough to admit that when we are at war, we cannot command the enemy to wage war against us in an easy-going and pleasant manner. A war is always serious and dangerous.
But in peace time, those people have sought to develop among us a certain mentality by leading us to believe that we did not have to participate in external wars or that if we did participate in them, it should be in a moderate way.
To-day, inconvenienced as they are by having made so many thoughtless election promises, they loudly proclaim that we are in dire peril and they do not hesitate to disavow their former statements in adopting a policy which they have so strongly opposed.
That is why I am wondering, along with several members on the government side of the house, why the government are showing so much haste, and why they no longer stand by their statements and promises. They are beginning to gild the pill by introducing a conscription bill supposedly for the defence of Canada on her own territory. Having been deceived so many times, we have every reason to believe that this conscription will eventually result in the dispatch of our sons overseas if the European war goes on for a long time. That is why we cannot trust them.
Furthermore, I am opposed to this bill to-day because I 'believe that it is the seed from which will sprout conscription which they denounced only a short time ago. I realize, however, that the situation is serious in Europe and, that being the case, let us seriously consider that situation. Let us, according to the advice given by our English or French language newspapers, avoid falling a prey to hysterics or losing our heads. In so doing we shall probably be better able to uphold our cause. And there are numerous means, which are imperative, more pressing even and more necessary than conscription for which there is no immediate necessity. I believe that a careful analysis of the dangers involved in such a bill will show that it can quite possibly bring more trouble than good results in our war effort.
An understanding is quite possible without resorting to petty politics, without accusing one another and without seeking political
Emergency Powers-Mr. Roy

advantage. If we keep on making mistakes, if the government persists in playing politics, as they have done in the past, politics may be greatly discredited thereby. It is time for our leaders to take their duties seriously and to seek the best means of assisting France and England and of warding off the dangers that threaten us and that we have brought upon ourselves.
The hon. member who just spoke stated that we did not need men. That is a fact. The Minister for Air told us this afternoon that we can only equip between 800 and 1,200 men a day. Why then conscript manpower, when we are unable to accept the large numbers who besiege our recruiting offices? I have repeatedly brought to the attention of the military authorities that a certain Major de Gruchy, living in my constituency, who was a recruiting officer from 1914 to 1918, has been offering his services since September last. Recently, he informed me in a letter which I transmitted to the Department of National Defence that a great number of young men were going to offer him their services to help France and England. He replied that he had no official authority and that they must apply elsewhere. These young men did not have enough money to go to other recruiting camps. Therefore, in the Gaspe peninsula, there are a number of valiant young men offering their services, but unable to enlist. A man of experience like Major de Gruchy is not accepted either, though he is offering his services since almost eight months. The services of Captain Louis-Phillippe Cote who is in this house tonight, are not accepted, though he is offering his services since August 29. He is a qualified instructor, 43 years of age and in perfect health. Two or three weeks ago I met in Quebec two or three returned army officers willing to serve in the Canadian army and who have not the chance. Since all the generous offers of voluntary enlistment cannot be accepted why must we have recourse to conscription? We have no rifles, as some hon. members have just stated, we have no finished products and no raw material for use in this war, and we are going to send more men to be crushed by the German tanks while armed only with bayonets or hay forks. This is nonsense. We should commence at home; we should make use of all our undeveloped natural resources. Let us fit our ports, particularly that of Gaspe which is the key-port of the gulf of St. Lawrence, to accommodate the British and French navies in case of emergency. Let us develop the vast Gaspe oilfields covering from 700 to 800 square miles on the surface of which runs a valuable fuel oil. It is a war factor to-day and to-morrow

it will bring us victory. Let us organize those primary resources. In that way we will be able to carry on the fight against the dangerous enemy who is at our doors. Let us mobilize our man-power for the production of what we lack, because there lies our shortcoming in the present war.
There is no urgent need for conscription. We are unable to equip the conscripts, we cannot provide arms for a greater number of soldiers. Let us accept those who generously offer their services and their blood. We might possibly enlist as many as half a million men, as stated a moment ago by the hon. member.
I wish to call attention to another danger, that of trouble in the province of Quebec. We will be told that those who have distorted the mentality of the Quebec people in dealing with conscription for electoral purposes will appease them. Only a few days ago, the Quebec French papers were condemning most bitterly the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate because he had called for a more active participation and also for conscription. How is it possible to enforce conscription without stirring up trouble? Those who anticipate disturbances are wise and responsible men. Careless handling of such a dangerous subject cannot go without risk for conscription has been the hue and cry among the people ever since 1917. The leaders of the government are themselves worried over the consequences of their utterances. That is the reason why the expression " conscription of men " is not used. It is stated that this measure applies only for service in this country, for if there were question of service overseas, every one knows what would happen. The danger is quite real. Why should there be such haste, then, in running the risk of causing so much trouble?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that I am not in principle against such a measure which may yet prove necessary. Should we find our country in danger, we would defend it as bravely as any one in the land. As for conscription for service overseas, I repeat that in view of the mentality developed in Quebec by the very people who are now in power, the best advice I can give to the government and to all those who have expressed a desire to serve their country well, to protect it against all danger, is to admit that such a measure providing for conscription under another guise may do us more harm than good.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: The reason why we who support the government are not making speeches is, not that we have not anything to say, but because of the

Emergency Powers-Mr. Maclnnis
splendid statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the clear statement by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). I think we should swallow our speeches and express our sentiments in a vote, send this measure to the upper chamber at once, and get action. Hitler is ready. Let us tell him we are ready.


Angus MacInnis: I fully agree with the wise remark
made by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) when, speaking earlier this evening he said that there should be no recriminations. In the past we may all have made mistakes. We of this group do not claim for ourselves infallibility, any more, I suppose, than do other groups in the house. I do not believe that it is really a matter for shame that this country did not make greater military preparations between the end of the last war and 1937 or 1938. I really think, on the contrary, it is a matter for pride. It indicates that this is a peace-loving country; that we are not a warlike people; that we do not want from other people something that we have to take by force.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How about protecting ourselves?


Angus MacInnis: Our lack of preparation did not cause this war. What caused this war was the stupid international policy followed not only by Canada but by most of the other democracies during the last ten or twelve years. On other occasions statements have been made by all parties in the house that we did not intend to take part in European wars; that we would defend Canada; that we could live in isolation. But we cannot live in isolation, and this is beginning to dawn upon us at this time. If anyone shouts, " Why did you do this or that in 1937?" let his shout.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.):: I will tell you. You have always been wrong.


Angus MacInnis: No, I have not always
been wrong, and even if I were I do not think you are the one to tell me.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I told you three years ago.


Angus MacInnis: Do not glower at me; you will not scare me.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am not glowering; I am smiling.


Angus MacInnis: We are going to put our position before the house and we are going to do so in very few words, so that hon. members will know where we stand. As far
as I am concerned, I favoured Canada's participation in this war. I favoured it regardless of the past policies either of this government or of the British government, because I was not unconcerned as to who would win this war; and because I was not unconcerned as to who would win the war I could not say, let the other fellow win it, we will keep out. I felt it affected me; it was my concern, and consequently I favoured Canadian participation in the war.
In Canada we have a country that is wonderfully rich-a country with great wealth and also great poverty. We want to see Canada's participation in the war carried on so that when it is over, the rich will not be richer and the poor poorer as they were after the last war. As soon as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) gives us that assurance, as soon as he assures us that the government will take effective measures to see that such a thing will not happen again, we will vote for this bill. In the bill that has been put before the house, however, there is nothing to indicate that it will not happen. As a matter of fact, as far as I can see, there is nothing in the bill introduced to-day that is not contained in the bill we passed yesterday evening, except the conscription of man-power. The government took every power in the bill that was before the house last night to do all of the things provided for in this bill except the conscription of man-power, so that this bill is put before us to-day for the conscription of manpower and nothing else. But we want to see other things conscripted so that, as I said a few moments ago, we shall not end this war with the rich richer and the poor poorer. We want a certain amount of assurance. I have in my hand the British House of Commons debates of May 22, 1940, when a similar bill was introduced there. Mr. Attlee, who was piloting that bill, said:
This is an enabling bill under which regulations can be made.
The bill before us is an enabling bill under which regulations can be made. He went on;
I want to give an indication as to the sort of regulations and the kind of control that may have to be exercised.
The Prime Minister to-day did not give any indication of the kind of control that would be exercised.
Let me say that I do not want anyone to jump to the conclusion that all of a sudden everybody is going to be ordered to do something different from what he is doing now.
Now, we do not expect that, if this bill is passed to-day and the Prime Minister said that certain industries were going to be nationalized, therefore to-morrow all the
88S	COMMONS
Emergency Powers-Mr. Maclnnis
industries in Canada would be nationalized. We do not expect that, nor do we ask it. But we ask that an indication be given of what is going to be done with our industries. We were talking to-day about the position of the trade union movement. Will this bill be used to break down labour conditions that have already been won? We have no indication of what may happen in that regard. Mr. Attlee continues:
With regard to conditions and pay, it is proposed that we should carry out, wherever they exist, industrial agreements which have been arrived at, and, wherever such agreements have not been arrived at, observe the rates normally paid by good employers. If there are cases, in which people are asked to shift from one district to another, there should be payment to deal with things of that kind. . . . Let me deal with a few points about control over property. Some establishments will be controlled altogether right away.
We have no indication that such will be the case here. Mr. Attlee continues:
Others may be controlled later. They will in effect be working on government account. Wages and profits will be under government control. The excess profits tax will be at the rate of 100 per cent.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On a point of order, may I ask what the hon. member is reading from.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Why do you not listen?


Angus MacInnis: Before I began reading from this report I said what I was reading from. The hon. gentleman was writing and did not hear me and so he had to rise to a point of order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Thanks very much for the information.


Angus MacInnis: You will see it in Hansard to-morrow. The excess profits tax will be at the rate of 100 per cent, Mr. Attlee said. He went on:
There will be no profit out of the national smergency.
Can the Prime Minister of Canada rise in ais place to-night and say that there will be ao profit to Canadian employers out of the present emergency?


Mr. DUPUIS:: There has been none since the war began.


Angus MacInnis: I gave up believing in fairy tales many years ago. Mr. Attlee continues:
Other establishments may be ordered to carry on and they may perhaps be ordered to carry on at a loss, but there must be power to carry on essential services, and if people are put in a position where they are making a loss, they must have adequate remuneration in order to do their job effectively. The essential thing is that over a wide field-how wide one cannot
TMr. Maclnnis.]
say at the moment-industry will be carried on for the community in fact, and not for private profit.
If the Prime Minister or any member of the government on his behalf will make such a statement to this house, then much as we dislike conscription of man-power, we shall be willing to vote for the conscription of manpower. But until such a statement is made, we are not going to vote for conscription of man-power because we know the long distance between the promises of this government and their fulfilment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend, in view of what he has just said, what value would attach to anything I might say, if what he has said is true?


Angus MacInnis: Well, I believe there is
room for the position I have taken in regard to the Prime Minister's past promises. But after all-possibly due to this war of nerves -we are willing to rely once more on another promise in order to get something done. However, the Prime Minister can go much further than a promise. He can put it in the bill, and then there will be no doubt about it. And in order that we may get ahead with the bill as quickly as possible, I move the following amendment:
That in the opinion of this house the governor in council shall not authorize the compulsory enlistment of man-power for military service until he has authorized the conscription by nationalization of essential war industries and financial institutions.


Ernest Lapointe: That is
not an amendment to the motion for second reading. It is a resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is an expression of opinion in the form of another resolution.


Georges Parent: I am afraid the amendment is out of order. It is not an amendment but is rather a substantive motion.


Angus MacInnis: Before Your Honour makes any definite ruling may I draw to your attention-


Georges Parent: My ruling is not debatable.


Angus MacInnis: I am raising a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Angus MacInnis: I am quite willing to obey the ruling of the Speaker-


Georges Parent: Order. The ruling is not debatable.


Angus MacInnis: I am not debating your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I want to refer you to the rule on which we base our amendment, paragraph 755, under standing order 75.

Emergency Powers-Speakers Puling


Georges Parent: I am sorry; I have already made my ruling. Any statement to be made should have been made before I made my ruling.


Angus MacInnis: I am very sorry that I have to appeal against your ruling. I would much rather explain my position, but if I may not, I appeal against your ruling.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
Mr. Mackenzie King moveB that the bill, an act to confer certain powers upon the governor in council for the mobilization of national resources in the present war, be now read a second time.
To this Mr. Maclnnis moves an amendment:
That in the opinion of this house the governor in council shall not authorize the compulsory enlistment of man-power for military service until he has authorized the conscription by nationalization of essential war industries and financial institutions.
I have ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it is a substantive motion and does not amend the original motion. The question now before the house is, shall the Speaker's ruling be sustained?


Thomas Langton Church: You aire right. But Hitler had better stay away from the bay of Quinte.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I say to my French Canadian colleagues from the loyal province of Quebec who have spoken in this debate to-day-and I regret exceedingly that I was not able to follow their remarks very closely-that as citizens of this dominion their homes, their families, and their lives are in jeopardy just as surely as we are sitting here, and we shall share the fate of Mother France if we do not wake up to the necessity of every citizen, you and me and every one of us, doing his utmost to win this war.
Let me make this suggestion to my fellow members of this house: Let us say to the government of Canada that we as members will devote 10 per cent of our sessional indemnity to helping the Minister of Finance prosecute this war. If we are not prepared to give our all, we shall have nothing to give eventually, and we shall not be debating here on the floor of this house or quibbling over the rules. If we lose the war we shall do what we are told, and we shall do it at the point of a bayonet. So let us members of this house as a body say to the Minister of Finance, take 10 or 20 per cent of our indemnities to help in financing the war. Let us fling everything we have into the struggle, and then we shall find out who is loyal.
I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, for taking up the time of the house, and perhaps a word of apology is due to my fellow members, but I live and breathe this very thing. Standing in my place in this house three years ago, on February 19, 1937, I asked for 8100,000,000 to be placed in the estimates for defence, and it was apposed by every member of that group in the far corner. But we all realize to-day that the only way to fight Hitler is with bombers, machine guns, destroyers, tanks and every other kind of war machinery that we can mass together.
In conclusion I say earnestly, from my very heart and soul, let the government take heed, let the members take heed, and let the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific take heed, for the hearts and homes and lives
of every one of us and of our loved ones in this dominion aTe threatened to-day by Hitler and his ally.
Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-
Laprairie) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that we have been asked to take a decision on such short notice concerning a matter of so grave an importance, and notwithstanding the circumstances stated in the preamble, I believe that a twenty-four hours' notice would not only have proven unprejudicial to the cause of the defence of Canada but would have enabled us more fully to appraise the significance of this measure.
I have already made clear in this house on more than one occasion, notably in the course of debates on military estimates and the external policy of Canada as well as during the special session of 1939, that I stood opposed to the participation of Canada, a free and sovereign nation, in any external war. Each time, however, I did state that I was ready to vote any amount and support any measure thought necessary for the defence of Canada in Canada.
The present bill empowers the governor general in council to mobilize the human and material resources of this country to ensure its security.
And the Prime Minister has assured the house at the same time that the government would not impose conscription for overseas service and I wish to give him credit for this statement.
I regret that the government and parliament, in decreeing our participation in this war have placed themselves in a position where they are now obliged to resort to the mobilization of the entire human and material resources of this country in order to provide for its defence. Such is the result of our participation. By declaring war on Germany, we assumed the risk of having to defend ourselves some day against her onslaught and that is precisely what I opposed. The Canadian Militia Act already authorizes the governor general in council to mobilize all our man-power up to the age of sixty for service in the defence of Canada, both inside and outside the country. Now the measure at present before the house has in view the mobilization of human and material resources for the defence of Canada. Why have provided for the mobilization of our man-power in this bill when such a step could have been taken under the Militia Act?
Has the government exhausted every means of recruiting at its disposal? Has there been any appeal for volunteers to defend Canada before resorting to this measure? These are
Emergency Powers-Mr. Quelch

all questions that spring to my mind and which I find myself unable to answer at the moment.
I am prepared, as I have always been, to ensure the defence of Canada, but before supporting any conscription measure I would have to be sure that all other means have been exhausted.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) have outlined the general policy of our group on this question, and I shall therefore make just a few observations further to clarify our attitude.
I think we are all agreed that our major objective is to win the war and that every endeavour must be made to that end. Therefore we in this group maintain that it is necesssary to mobilize first of all the financial resources of the nation, second, our industrial resources, and lastly, our man-power. To suggest for one minute that we can make a major contribution towards winning the war without first of all mobilizing the financial resources of the nation shows, I think, a deplorable lack of understanding of the economic system.
I find to-day that people all over the country are asking this question: How is it that a nation like Germany, which in 1932 was bankrupt, without capital and at the same time with over seven million people unemployed, is to-day in a position where she has conquered one nation after another? Of course we know that it was possible for Germany to do that only by first of all making her financial policy subservient to her national policy. In the past six years, ever since Hitler's rise to power, it has been quite apparent that Britain would probably be embroiled in a European war, in which event Canada as a member of the commonwealth of nations would also probably stand by her side. Yet, knowing these things, having them constantly before it, this government during the past five years has continually maintained a policy of laissez-faire. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has tried to make the excuse that public opinion would not have allowed an increase in expenditures for war purposes. Why was that so? It may have been true, but there was a definite reason; it was because the Minister of Finance dared to tell the house that there was only so much money available; that if more money were used for the purpose of defending the country, there would be that much money less to meet the needs of the people, and that the people were not prepared to have their social services cut down on that score.
fMr. Raymond.]
We have heard a great deal about subversive elements, but I would say the greatest subversive element which has been at work in Canada during the past five years is the financial policy of this government. When the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) talks about hanging those guilty of sabotage I would say, if we are going to do any hanging let us hang the really great saboteurs of this country, those people who by their policy have forced this country into the condition in which it is to-day, a condition whereunder we are not able to make an effective contribution towards defeating Hitlerism.
Time and again in this house this group has urged a more energetic development of our resources by a carefully controlled policy of monetary expansion, but always we were met by an hysterical outburst of the then Minister of Finance that such a proposal would be inflation. I suggest it might be a very good thing for the former Minister of Finance to go over to France to-day; let him stand up in front of the onward-rushing tanks, hold up his hands to them as he did to this house, and tell those tanks they are not sound because they were built as a result of monetary expansion. Then let	him	see how	quickly he	willbe deflated, as	his	policy has deflated	this
country; let him see how soon he will be wrecked, as his policy has wrecked the health and well-being of thousands of the people of Canada during the past few years.
I believe the	minister will	agree that	thereal cost of the	war	must be	met during	the
war. I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ralston) has said that he has not made that statement this session, but I would point out that on September 12, 1939, in this very house, the acting Minister of Finance made that statement; and in view of the fact that the present Minister of Finance was the Minister of Finance at that time, surely he would not suggest that the acting Minister of Finance in September last made a statement with which he did not agree. I should like to read to the house a statement which was then made by the acting Minister of Finance:
The real costs of a war must come out of current production.
The Minister of Finance, replying the other day to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), said he never made that statement. I would again point out that this statement was made by the acting Minister of Finance on behalf of the minister. I will read further down:
Taking it by and large, the fact is that the shells that are fired and the other goods and services that are used up in the course of a war must be produced during the period of the war. This being the case, it follows that, and

Emergency Powers-Mr. Cardin
I repeat it again, in real terms, namely, in terms of the loss to the nation of this production, a war is paid for substantially during its duration.
If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I would ask, what possible excuse can there be for leaving a great debt at the end of the war? The minister will agree that it is possible greatly to increase the production of the country to-day. The minister will also agree that anything which is physically possible and desirable can be made financially possible. That statement was agreed to by the governor of the Bank of Canada. If then it is possible greatly to increase the production of the country, and if the real cost of the war is incurred during the war, what possible excuse can there be for piling up a great debt against the country? It will result in a condition whereby the people of Canada will be in debt to, comparatively speaking, a small number of people as a result of the profits and savings which they acquire during the war. If the real cost is incurred during the war, what possible excuse can there be for such a condition? What justification can there be for placing a levy against the people of this nation for time everlasting in order to pay for a war which will have been already paid for in human lives, in blood and sweat, and in material? Yet the government have the nerve and audacity to say that they are going to insist upon equality of service and sacrifice. How much equality is there when, while men are sacrificing their lives to the winning of the war, we allow individuals in this country to pile up profits by which they will be able to exact tribute from the people of this nation for all time?
I maintain that	any	man	who	can	gothrough this period and be no worse off at the end of the war than he was in the beginning should consider himself lucky. When one thinks of all	the	men	who	will	beslaughtered, when one reflects that many of the survivors will reach the end in a maimed condition, it is natural to ask, is it a desirable condition that there shall be	men	in	thisdominion piling up profits and savings from that blood money? How can the government pretend that they	are	going	to insist	on
equality of service and of sacrifice? No attempt has been made by them to bring about any such equality. How can they say they have a pay-as-you-go policy when they are continually piling up debt? Within a few weeks of the outbreak of the war we borrowed $200,000,000 from the chartered banks. Not long afterwards we borrowed another $200,000,000. They are merely creating a smoke-9creen by trying to persuade the people that they are paying for the war
with 'twenty-five cent stamps. We know that practically the whole cost of the war is being paid by borrowings from financial corporations and banks. While it is true that a considerable number of people are subscribing small amounts, when the history of this war is written and the financial aocounts are rendered we shall find that only a very small number of people and financial institutions have really financed the cost of this war.
So, Mr. Speaker, this group maintains that if we are to make a really maximum contribution; if we are to .pursue a pay-as-you-go policy; if we are to assure equality of service and sacrifice, we must use that bank which was nationalized by the government, the bank which, the Prime Minister stated, would issue currency and credit in terms of public need to meet the domestic and social requirements of the Canadian people. I ask why that is not being done to-day? Why should we have to borrow from financial corporations; why should we have to go to the private banks, when to-day we have a bank of our own? If the resources of the Bank of Canada are used as they should be, we can truthfully say that we are following a financial policy which is based on the pay-as-you-go principle. Let us finance this war through the Bank of Canada, taking what money we need from that bank, increasing taxation in the most equitable way possible, and introducing price control so that there will be no danger of inflation. Then the Prime Minister will truly be able to say that we have adopted a pay-as-you-go policy and have insisted on an equality of service and sacrifice.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my very humble contribution to the debate in French to which we had the advantage of listening this afternoon. The speeches which were then made against the bill now under consideration recalled to my mind the oft stated truth that there is actually little difference between men as regards their ideas and principles, and that the sole difficulty lies in their method of approaching a problem. Generally, everything depends on setting the problem correctly.
As I listened to those speeches, I asked myself, in good faith and with due respect to those who have spoken before me, whether the hon. members had read the bill they were criticizing. Reading it over and over again, I can find nothing in its provisions that would justify the attitude of the hon. members who are opposed to the principle of this bill.
Judging by the remarks addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, one might feel that the house were considering the adoption of a conscrip-

Emergency Powers-Mr. Cardin
tion measure intended to go immediately into force and to empower the military authorities to draft every child, boy and able-bodied man in the country. This is not at all the spirit of the act nor is it the meaning of the bill at present under consideration. The government merely seeks, through this measure, the authority to take, according to circumstances and to our needs, adequate steps for the defence of Canada. That is the whole meaning of the bill.
Now why frighten the youth of our province and our country, why frighten ourselves by raising in every mind the nightmares or the dreams of tired men? The government is merely seeking the authority, in an hour of danger the gravity of which is realized by every well-thinking person throughout the world, the government merely seeks the power to adopt, in this grave situation, at its own discretion and according to circumstances, the means required to safeguard the very lives }f those who oppose the bill.
It may be, perhaps, that they have not had ime to read the bill. As a matter of fact, it was given to us only a short time ago. But the gravity of the present situation and of the danger which threatens us all increases hourly. No one should criticize the government for not adhering strictly to the time limits set by parliamentary procedure and for being slightly late at times with urgent measures such as the one we are now considering. This bill, however, is very brief and could have been read, well digested and understood in a few minutes.
This power which thr government may have, if the bill is passed, to draft the ablebodied men of the nation into the service of their country, is limited in its application- one cannot repeat or stress it too much-this power is limited in its application by the statement, repeated four times in the bill, that military sendee shall be limited to Canada. There is no need to be a brilliant thinker nor a great legislator to understand the provisions of this bill. In the first paragraph of the preamble, we note the following:
Whereas by reason of developments since the outbreak of the present war a special emergency has arisen and the national safety of Canada has become endangered;
Let us consider next the second paragraph of the preamble where we find:
Whereas it is, therefore, expedient to confer upon the governor in council special emergency powers to permit of the mobilization of all of the effective resources of the nation, both human and materia], for the purpose of the defence and security of Canada.

And you come now to section 3:
The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
Is it plain enough, is it clear enough?
Now, proceeding in logical order, we find that section 2 which is the pith and substance of this bill, begins with the following words:
Subject to the provisions of section three hereof, the governor in council may do such and such a thing. . . .
So it is clear that these powers are being taken, so far as military service is concerned, only for the defence of Canada.
Can anyone find serious objection, I ask you, against a bill such as this?
I have heard one hon. member state in the course of his remarks: "It is all very well to empower the government to enlist men and to control the wealth of this country, but we must remember that within the past few years and even within the last few months, the government has allowed the exportation of raw materials and goods which may be used for war purposes." Arguments such as this do not amount to anything. What is the use of criticizing to-day what has happened last year or a few months ago? What we have to keep in mind to-day is the situation in which Canada finds itself but we should not trouble about the past. Mr. Speaker, it is the present that matters, and particularly the future, fraught with dangers and so ominous for the whole of our population, irrespective of race or creed. Such is the responsibility that lies with the government and with all those who are bent on doing their share for the defence of liberty and the safeguard of democratic institutions in this Canada of ours, even if they will not take any interest in what is going on overseas. Such is our duty, if we see it clearly, rather than to stir up [DOT]prejudices and revive old quarrels which come from a lack of information or of a proper understanding of the real situation which the country has to face.
There has also been a question of the conscription of wealth. It is claimed that this bill does not go far enough and that while provision is made for the conscription of ablebodied men the same attention is not given to the conscription of wealth and material goods. I contend that the bill now before the house, Mr. Speaker, goes further than any similar measure taken in the whole British empire and even in Britain herself. This bill confers on the government unlimited powers over Canadian citizens and Canadian property. Whenever the present government or

Emergency Powers-Mr. Cardin
any other government shall decide to apply this measure, they will have power to take every action that is now being taken in Britain with regard to conscription of men, wealth, finance and economic resources.
Every possible authority is given there in comprehensive terms and this bill covers conscription of wealth just as much as that of man-power. And when it is suggested that finance should be enlisted to fight along with the soldiers, I wish to state that under the bill now before the house the government is authorized to request finance to keep step with the soldiers in their fight for our liberty. The bill now being submitted to the house could not be worded in more general terms. This bill covers everything.
In any event, what the government is being given under this measure is the broadest blank cheque, ever given to its executive by any parliament for the administration of public affairs and the safety of the sacred interests of the nation.
It has been stated just now that if we are now called upon to vote on a measure of this kind it is because we have made the mistake, in the past year, of taking part in the European conflict. I cannot understand anyone expressing such an opinion and I cannot understand how, when attempting to voice the opinion of the province of Quebec, one can so give the lie to the vote given during the recent provincial elections and during the last federal election, elections during which my old and intelligent province of Quebec gave its approval to Canada's participation in the war and returned the very government which had decided to participate in the defence of liberty and democracy in the world. The peopli of my province possessed enough vision, enougl intelligence to realize that by restricting their participation to the defence of the Canadian soil only, their participation should prove of no avail, that it would prove fruitless whenever Britain and France were crushed. At such a time, rhetorical, high sounding speeches and empty words concerning the defence of Canada shall partake only of the theatrical and shall be devoid of any quality of true patriotism to be found among men whose main preoccupation is to forestall possible threatening dangers and to prepare, as intelligent men, for the defence of the country.
I am not afraid to return to my province and to my county, to support the bill which the Government is now submitting to Parliament for approval.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec City):: Hear,
hear.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have too much confidence in the understanding of my electors and in their
true patriotism to hesitate for one moment to meet them or to set forth before them our point of view and the present situation.
Moreover, we would only be repeating what we have been telling them at two memorable elections in the province of Quebec. With all due respect for those who do not agree with me, I say that when they speak as they have they do not represent the views of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, an hon. member said: "I am in favour of the principle of the bill, but I am going to vote against it." He did not have faith in the government because, said he: "You have not been logical and the Prime minister himself is not logical in his statement." I wonder how logical the hon. member is when he says: "I am in favour of the principle of the bill, but I will vote against it because I have no confidence in the government." Such arguments are worthless in opposition to this measure.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, although the bill is a government measure, it will when passed by the house no longer be the bill of the government, but a law enacted by the Parliament of Canada. It will be the law of the land and not an act of the government for the time being in charge of the affairs of Canada.
The arguments brought forward have no foundation. In spite of all efforts to quote statements made by someone or other in various circumstances by detaching phrases from the general context of speeches, the clear and explicit terms of this bill remain. The bill must be taken as it is and interpreted according to its terms, without taking into consideration so-called reproaches heaped upon the government or some of its members concerning the consistency of their position or of their statements.
Mr. Speaker, one of my good friends said to us in the course of his remarks: "With this act, with this extravagant war effort on the part of our country, we are going to bankrupt Canada, and to jeopardize our financial stability, we shall run into considerable difficulties and perhaps put ourselves in the position of being unable to provide for the reestablishment of our soldiers after the war." I have much respect for the honourable member, but I cannot have much respect for such an argument. What will be the value of our petty chattels and even of our great assets, what will become of our accumulated wealth if Germany succeeds in crushing under her blood-stained boot the combined strength of France and England? What will become of our savings, and of the money deposited in the banks or invested in industrial plants if the military power of France and England is annihilated? Our so-called

Emergency Powers-Mr. Cardin
wealth will be worth as much as that of Poland, of Czechoslovakia, our so-called assets will have just the value that those of Holland, Norway and Belgium have to-day.
That is how the problem should be faced. During the last election I stated many times, in the province of Quebec something which I am not afraid to maintain before the people, before every one of my fellow-citizens: Money is of no importance when the freedom of a nation is at stake.
I cherish highly the liberties I enjoy in Canada, the right to speak my mother tongue as I am doing at present in this parliament, where the majority are Englishspeaking; I appreciate this freedom, as well as that of practising my own religion, so highly that I would not trade them for all the money in the world. I place above every financial consideration the rights and liberties I have enjoyed, with my people, on this American continent, under the British flag.
No doubt there have been clashes at times, and we have encountered difficulties; there have undoubtedly been moments of friction . between ourselves and our English-speaking fellow citizens, and we have perhaps certain claims -that are worthy of more serious consideration than has been given to them up till now, but I say that this is no longer of moment, that it is a thing of the past. I am only concerned with knowing to-day if I shall continue to enjoy liberties which I cherish and if I shall continue to live as a free citizen on this Canadian soil, which was formerly called the New France.
Mr. Speaker, some hon. members say that they cannot come to a decision without consulting their electors or the province of Quebec. There is no need of consulting the province of Quebec. The electors of Quebec were consulted twice in the space of a few months and they rendered an unanswerable verdict. Quebec said what she thought; she expressed her approval in a most striking manner of the policy of Canadian participation in the war. When she declared herself opposed to enforced registration and to conscription, she was thinking of conscription for overseas service. But I am unable to believe, such is the pride which I entertain for my race, that any of my compatriots can not appreciate the liberties we enjoy, or has no interest in the future of liberty and democracy in the world. I am unable to believe, Mr. Speaker, that my compatriots would be so lacking in courage, in vision and in patriotism to refuse participation in the defence of Canada whose noble soil covers the ashes of our forefathers, who reclaimed it from barbarism for civilization and Christianity.
TMr. Cardin.3
No, Mr. Speaker, there is no need of consulting the province of Quebec. Such an action would perhaps provide a few agitators with an opportunity to make some noise. An hon. member has told us: " There will perhaps be some agitation in Quebec." Let me re-assure you as to that, Mr. Speaker. The right-thinking people of Quebec are with the government; they are in favour of our participating in the war to the extent of our ability and they are ready to defend Canada with the greatest energy. That is the view of the people of Quebec and it is well known. To consult them on that subject would be to express a doubt, to entertain fears as to their state of mind. No, I do not wish thus to insult the good and wise province of Quebec, in thinking that it does not understand the situation and is afraid of responsibilities. My compatriots are too attached to tradition, they are too grateful for the noble deeds of their ancestors to refuse to defend the soil of Canada, their fatherland. I say to my good friends: "You are mistaken. Should you consult them they would tell you that you did wrong to question their patriotism, that you misjudged the people who elected you to represent them in the House of Commons."
Mr. Speaker, everyone seems to admit that there is danger or, at least, that there may be danger. But those who oppose this measure say: "Let us wait a little longer; it may be dangerous to do so, but let us wait to prepare ourselves until the danger is at our gates." It will then be too late to defend ourselves.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear,
hear.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A handful of men, ten or
eleven million of a population on an immense territory like that of Canada, we would be unable to defend our country when the might of England and of France have gone under. It would be too late. The time to act is now, before the enemy seeking to invade our territory appears at our gates.
We should wait, say some hon. members. With what would we defend ourselves? At this moment, Mr. Speaker, we do not even know what is to happen to the French navy following the treaty to be signed between Germany and unfortunate France. Let us suppose for a moment that France's navy were to be handed over to Germany and Italy. What would be the position of England, at whose side we are fighting to-day?
There is every reason to fear the surrender of the French navy to Italy. What might happen if together with whatever German fleet there may be, they undertook to fight



194C

[Stage Direction]
Emergency Powers-Mr. Cardin
the British fleet? Who would be able to quietly fall asleep at night and indulge in pleasant and amusing dreams? Our soul would be torn by fear and anxiety because we would not know what would be the fate of the world the following morning.
The time for action is not to-morrow; the time for action is to-day. Together we must make use of all those forces which Canada is able to mobilize in order to prepare ourselves for the defence of Canada. If it does not become necessary to defend ourselves, so much the better; but if it does, it will at least be a consolation for us to think that we have seen to it in time and that we have made preparations when it was still time to do so, instead of waiting until the last minute to put up a stage fight.
Mr. Speaker, reference was made a while ago to great and noble France. In his speech, the hon. member who seconded the amendment, which you have ruled out of order, drew a fine picture of the intellectual, moral and military glory of the old country whence came the forefathers of us, French Canadians. He pitied the fate of unfortunate France. Allow me to tell him, Mr. Speaker, that France, poor France, is agonizing at the present time. She has always stood, down the course of history, as a shining beacon illuminating the progress of ideas and principles throughout the world, and has spared neither sacrifice nor the life of her sons in the defence of freedom, in protecting the weak and the humble. She has ever been in the forefront of spiritual progress, of intellectual development and of liberty. Poor France, she has suffered down through the ages because of her principles and of her noble feelings of humanity. She has just put up such a valiant struggle as to prove even the humblest soldier of her powerful army a hero. One after the other, by the hundreds and by the thousands, they have fallen on the battlefields and have been crushed by the barbarian Hitler's powerful war machine. They have fallen in defence of humanity, in defence of human liberties, yours and mine, my friends. They have fallen together with other noble allies to save democracy and fight slavery. Let us bless their memory but, in heaven's name, let us respect their sacrifice. Let us not use it to justify our inaction in the presence of danger.
Anyone who refuses Canada the right to control all its human and material resources in order to ensure the defence of our territory, has no right to invoke the name of France, it is a sacrilege.
I trust you will forgive, Mr. Speaker, if I have expressed myself somewhat heatedly, and I am sure my good friends who do not
95S26-57
share my opinions will do the same. They know me too well not to do so. They are aware that I am not a good politician, that I am far from being a good parliamentarian. I would be a poor diplomat. I can only play the game when all the cards are on the table. I have no way of hiding my feelings or my thoughts and when I deal with matters such as these I am forced, by nature, to follow the dictates of my soul and all my feelings. That is why I have perhaps injected too much heat into these remarks. I therefore beg your forgiveness, Mr. Speaker, pleading my sincerity and good intentions.
I have endeavoured, to the best of my ability and according to my modest lights, to explain my point of view and convince, if possible, some of my compatriots of the value of the bill at present before the house, as well as to request them to show confidence once again in this administration, to show confidence in the present prime minister who has introduced in this parliament a bill consistent with the policy he stated during the entire recent electoral campaign, and which we ourselves have stated in Quebec during the last two elections we contested in that province.
I do not want to resume my seat without dissociating myself from those who always place their reliance in the Monroe doctrine. I have had occasion, at the two last elections in the province of Quebec, to discuss the argument based on the protection provided by the United States. I say that it would be a mistake to place our sole trust in the application of the Monroe doctrine for the protection of the liberties of Canada and of the rights and privileges enjoyed by the province of Quebec. Moreover, it is unworthy of a citizen of Canada, which we are pleased to call a great country, to shift our responsibilities on our great neighbours.
Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no use for that kind of patriotism which would limit itself to selling produce, materials and arms, in short, to making money without accepting the responsibilities of a free and independent people.
Doubtless we can help the cause of liberty and democracy by supplying arms to England and her allies; doubtless we can help them by sending them as much as possible in the way of munitions and foodstuffs; but I ask those who bring forward this argument: Do you not in your heart feel a bit ashamed of thinking only in terms of money while abandoning to your neighbours the protection of your life, of your possessions and of your rights!

898	COMMONS
Emergency Powers-Mr. Mackenzie King
Mr. Speaker, I spurn that theory. I do not want it to be said in the country that we are trying to hide behind the Monroe doctrine.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the house
will recall that this afternoon, after making a brief reference to the very critical condition in Europe, I proceeded to set forth certain measures the government had decided to introduce immediately, in order to meet the emergent conditions with which our country is now faced. In the statement I made at the time I gave a very full outline of the measure before the house to-night. If at the beginning of the debate on second reading I failed to speak again, it is because I thought that in my preliminary statement I had set forth all the essential features of the measure.
I had thought, too, that the measure itself was so clear in its limited number of sections that there would be no difficulty on the part of any hon. member to understand fully what was meant. More than that, I realized that many hon. members had a very full knowledge of a similar measure passed by the British parliament. I had thought, indeed, that most hon. members were familiar with that measure; in fact, several hon. members who have questioned my not speaking on the second reading have quoted from it this afternoon.
For those reasons I thought it unnecessary to take up the time of the house with a second statement of the principle involved in the measure, particularly because the extreme need for immediate action must be apparent to all who are concerned about the present position of our dominion, in view of the appalling changes which have taken place in other parts of the world. I mention these 'points because some hon. members have rather called in question the fact that I did not speak at the outset of the debate on second reading.
May I at once refer to the situation which occasioned the British government to introduce the measure which is very similar to the one now before this House of Commons, and on which indeed the present measure is based.
Hon. members will recall that when in September last war began, the British government immediately adopted the defence of the realm regulations. We in Canada followed a similar course. We gave ourselves virtually the same powers as the British government had taken in dealing with the situation at that time. It was not until May 22 of this year that the government of the United Kingdom felt it necessary to supplement the powers which had been given to them by parliament

in September by introducing a further measure in the nature of an amendment to the previous act, and giving additional powers to meet a very emergent situation.
What was the emergent situation which developed on May 22 which had not existed before? In a word it was this, that for the first time the United Kingdom found there *was no longer a single country standing between her and the enemy. Since the beginning of the war Germany had not merely extended her power over Poland, which she invaded at the outset, but swept into Norway, and she had swept through Denmark, subjugating that country. She had gone into Holland and into Belgium and conquered those countries, and at that time she was invading France. The result was that for the first time in the history of Europe the British isles found themselves with only the North sea and the English channel separating them from a German foe. That is a condition which has never existed heretofore.
May I point out, with respect to Canada, that the parallel is very striking, if we but stop to think of the situation which exists to-day. At this very time France lies under the iron heel of Germany. And with what result? With the result that also between ourselves and the enemy there is no longer a single country. There are the waters of the English channel, and the waters of the Atlantic, but that is all there is between Germany and the British isles and ourselves.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is the British navy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking *geographically just now; I am not speaking of measures of defence.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do not
forget the British navy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my hon. friend will not assume that I am not trying to give all honour and credit to the United Kingdom and its forces that can possibly be given. My hon. friend knows I am doing that. Perhaps my hon. friend will see that he would have been wiser not to have said what he has said, in view of what I am about to say now. At this very moment we do not know what disposition, if any, has been made of the French fleet. We do not know what disposition is going to be made of that fleet. I have been receiving dispatches this evening, as I have sat here, with respect to that very matter, and up to this hour we do not know what disposition has been made of the French fleet.
Now may I ask this question? Suppose the French fleet has already passed, or should

Emergency Powers-Mr. Mackenzie King
pass into the hands of Germany to-morrow. What is there that stands between the enemy and our country other than, as the leader of the opposition has said, the British fleet? That is all. What about the French possessions off our coast, St. Pierre and Miquelon? Might not Germany feel, as part of her subjugation of France-we do not yet know what the terms of any armistice may be-that the next step must be the immediate possession by Germany of the outlying possessions of France? Who will say, who can say to-night, that there may not already be crossing the Atlantic part of a fleet that Germany may have seized in order immediately to carry the war into other parts of the world in addition to Europe to which continent fighting has been mostly confined up to the present. That is one of the reasons why we as a government felt that it was necessary to ask this house to give us additional powers, powers in addition to those which we have under the defence of Canada regulations, powers if not greater, at any rate as large as those-and this may be a surprise to some-that we already have under the Militia Act.
I want to say a word about the powers which this country has under the Militia Act if the government chose to exercise an authority which the government of Canada has had ever since 1868. The point I wish to bring home at the moment is this: It is essential that we should let this country know that there is an emergent condition of very grave character, and that not an hour nor a moment should be lost in giving the government all the enabling powers that it may need to deal with this new situation.
Some hon. members have referred a great deal to the statement made by Mr. Attlee at the time he introduced the corresponding British measure. May I draw to the attention of hon. members how long it took to put that measure through the British parliament? Debate on the bill commenced shortly before 3.33 in the afternoon of May 24. The resolution had been passed, the bill introduced, three readings and committee stage passed, and the whole was completed by 5.22 in the afternoonless than two hours. And here we are, with imminent danger facing this country, and it looks now as if we are probably going to be two days instead of two hours upon this bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had rather
expected, when I presented the existing circumstances to the house at the outset, that hon. members would be so concerned about the well-being of their own country that they
95826-57i
would be ready to see this measure for its more adequate protection put through the two houses in Canada as speedily as it was put tn rough both houses of parliament in Great Britain. I did not think, Mr. Speaker, that when dealing with a situation such as confronts us, time would be lost by this house in an appeal from your ruling on a point which was at best a very trivial one in the light of the circumstances of the moment.
May I now cite what Mr. Attlee said. My hon. friends particularly of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group have referred to him frequently. Let me read what he said in introducing the measure, and then I will come to the paragraph which has been so frequently quoted. Mr. Attlee began by saying:
I have to inform the house that the present situation is so critical that the government are compelled to seek special powers from the house by a bill to be passed through all its stages in both houses of parliament to-day.
I can repeat those words literatim et verbatim in regard to the position of Canada as we see it as a government at the moment. Mr. Attlee went on-I shall leave out a few sentences:
A great battle is now proceeding. . . . The result of that battle we cannot know, but it must be clear to all that the next few weeks will be critical. Our ruthless enemy, who is restrained by no considerations of international law, of justice or humanity, is throwing everything into the scale to force a decision. We are resolved that he shall not succeed. The government are convinced that now is the time when we must mobilize to the full the whole resources of this country.
That is the position that we have taken, that the time has come when we must mobilize to the full the whole resources of this country. Mr. Attlee went on:
We must throw all our weight into the struggle. Every private interest must give way to the urgent needs of the community. We cannot know what the next few weeks or even days may bring forth, but whatever may come we shall meet it as the British people in the past have met dangers and overcome them.
Has not the situation become identical so far as Canada is concerned? Mr. Attlee was speaking of the position in the United Kingdom as it was at that time. For Canada the situation is identical as it exists to-day. The situation has become one of Canada being directly faced by an enemy which now possesses the whole or at all events the greater part of western Europe. And do not let us forget that, instead of just one enemy, there are now two, because Italy is in this war as well as Germany and this country is at war with Italy as she is with Germany. Do not let us forget that.
900	COMMONS
Emergency Powers-Mr. Mackenzie King
But let us realize this. We have been watching Germany as she has pursued her conquests in different parts of Europe, and we have been saying that after she is finished with France she will immediately make an attack upon the British isles. But are you sure it is going to be the British isles only, or that the British isles will first be attacked, and that only then other parts of the British empire will be attacked? I do not like to speak in words of defeat because I do not think any member of this house has that thought in his mind, just as I have not. I believe in ultimate victory; but I also believe, as I said this afternoon, that it is going to be a very long and a very sorrowful path before that end is reached.
But to-day the position is this. Germany and Italy combined are fighting the British empire, the British commonwealth of nations that makes up our empire. They are going to pick and choose as to which particular part they will attack first. They know the part that Canada has taken and is taking in this war. They know to what extent Britain is dependent, and will become increasingly dependent once they seek to surround her shores, upon the men, the food, munitions and other aid that flow from Canada across the Atlantic, and it is as certain as night follows day that they are going to use every effort in their power to see that aid from this dominion and from the other dominions is stopped as rapidly as possible. In such circumstances are the hands of the government to be tied and is the government to be prevented from exercising the authority under this measure that we are seeking and consider necessary? I am amazed that it should not have been possible for us to have concluded this debate this evening. I see it is now eleven o'clock.
If the house will allow me to conclude my remarks I shall not take much longer, but I should like to answer some of the questions that have been asked by some hon. gentlemen opposite.	*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am grateful to hon. members for having given permission for the bill to be passed through its various stages to-day, and I should like to show my appreciation by seeking to answer, before I conclude, some of the questions which have been asked.
One of the questions that was put was: Would the government indicate what it intends to do with the powers that are being given to it under this bill? But before I answer that, in case I should overlook it, may I refer to the other matter to which I alluded a moment ago, namely, the powers we already

have under the Militia Act. Under the War Measures Act we have powers to go very far in what we may wish to do, but under the Militia Act we have also powers, and they relate to the conscription of men, not to the conscription of wealth or to the conscription of property, or materials or whatever other entity you may wish to designate, but to the conscription of men in Canada. Here is the law as it stands to-day. I quote section 8, subsection 1 of the Militia Act. It makes provision for the conscription of man-power in the following terms:
All the male inhabitants of Canada, of the age of eighteen years and upwards, and under sixty, not exempt or disqualified by law, and being British subjects, shall be liable to service in the militia:	Provided that the governor
general may require all the male inhabitants of Canada, capable of bearing arms, to serve in the case of a levee en masse.
That is part of the law to-day. One or two of my hon. friends who have spoken this afternoon and have been talking about conscription, as if we were introducing something new, forget altogether that when it comes to the defence of Canada the law of this country has given the government that authority by statute ever since the first year after confederation. There is one difference between our law as also the power we are seeking in the present bill, and the authority as it exists under the British law. It is a difference which limits rather than extends our power. Under British law conscription of man-power is conscription for service anywhere. As in the Militia Act we have in the present bill purposely by a special clause in this measure kept a pledge which we on this side of the house made before and at the beginning of the war, that we would not, while this administration was in office, enact a law for the conscription of men to be sent overseas. We have kept that promise by a clause which is specifically set forth in the bill that is before the house to-day. In other words, we have in this particular measure gone no further in the right of mobilizing man-power than we had authority to go under the law of this country as it has been since 1868.
I may be asked, "Why, if you have that law, do you find it necessary to introduce this?" I will give you one reason. The law as it now stands, provides that when selecting men by compulsion, they are to be chosen by ballot, which means that, no matter how well-fitted a man may be for one calling and how unfit for another, he may be chosen by ballot to render a service which he is less well-qualified than is some other to render. Under the power we are asking to-day we seek to remedy that state of things, by giving the

Emergency Powers-Mr. Mackenzie King
government the power to decide what particular work is to be performed by particular individuals should the occasion arise to make a selection. From the beginning of this war up to the present moment, if one thing more than another has been impressed upon the administration by those who have counselled us from other quarters, it has been, that the outcome of this war is going to depend upon the output of the resources of the country in the form of food, of munitions, of aircraft and other armaments, quite as much as upon the men who serve in the active forces, and that so long as sufficient men can be found for combatant duty, no greater mistake can be made than to take a valuable mechanic, highly skilled and trained, out of some industry where he is capable of making, say, aircraft and put him into a regiment where he will have to serve instead of some other person far better qualified as a soldier than he may be. Now, under the measure we are introducing to-day, we have the power to make that kind of selection if it is necessary, and I think it is a very wise discretion to give to the administration.
I come now to the inquiry as to how we are going to exercise this power. I would say, in a word, that we shall continue to exercise all the powers we have or may be given., just as we have from the beginning of the war when exceptional powers were first given to us. We are not going to exercise all these powers-put into effect the provisions in their entirety-within the next twenty-four hours. We need enabling legislation-for that is what it is-to enable the government to meet each situation as it arises in the most effective way it can possibly be met. The need to-morrow may be for one thing in one place; the need the day after may be for something else in another place. We do not know how the situation will develop in the next little while, but we want to be in a position to take the most effective action in the shortest possible time.
Under the defence of Canada regulations, what was the criticism that was made against us by hon. gentlemen who this evening have been again expressing their doubts about us? Their criticism was along the line that we had gone too far in our defence of Canada regulations. To-day, from one end of the country to the other, if there is any criticism at all, it is that those regulations do not go far enough. We have proceeded step by step, adopting the courses which we felt were necessary, and seeking to avoid a step which would make the last condition worse than the condition we were trying to remedy.
Here I come to the wisdom of exercising judgment in the matter of the time within which some measures are to be put into effect. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) remarked this afternoon that perhaps we were a little late in the time we were introducing a system of registration now required to enable us to carry out more effectively some of the measures mentioned to-day. May I remind my hon. friend

I do not do this except to illustrate my point- that it was three years before the government which was in office at the time of the last war introduced registration. It took the administration of that day all of three years to arrive at the time when they believed that they might with wisdom take that particular step.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not prove anything with relation to the present government's effort.


Mr. ROWE:: At that time there were already 400,000 men "over there".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will find, when three years have gone by, that the number of men in this country's active service will not be surpassed by anything done in the last war.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Overseas, or here?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Please allow me to go on for a moment. I hope that I have not introduced a note which will be controversial. I was simply illustrating the point that another administration in previous years had to wrestle with exactly the same kind of problems with which we have to deal, namely, the best or the right time at which to do certain things. The debate we have had in this house this afternoon and evening is sufficient to illustrate that, if a measure making provision for registration had been introduced before to-day, it would most certainly have been regarded or construed as a measure intended for the conscription of men for service overseas. We would then have had a division of feeling in this country the like of which fortunately we have not had for many years. As I said the other day, we considered this matter in the past; we here consider it in the present, and we would continue to consider it. When the situation became what it has now become, when France had been defeated by Germany, and the whole picture had changed, when it was only too apparent that we were in another phase of the war, where measures of a different character would be immediately required, we felt we could rely upon the understanding of the
902	COMMONS
Emergency Powers-Mr. Mackenzie King
people of this country as to why a system of registration should be introduced at this particular time. I venture to say that, having waited until this moment, instead of having [DOT]created dissension, confusion, unrest, and what not, we shall find that in the way of opposition, the adoption of a system of registration will now meet with general acceptance from all parts of Canada.
Another point raised by some hon. members was expressed by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), in the following words: "We support what the bill purports to stand for, but we would like to know if it will be used for what it purports to be?" Well, I must say that that is a singularly odd question to ask at this particular moment. If my hon. friends support what the bill purports to stand for and will vote in that way, they will be doing what will be expected of them as members of parliament. What is the sense of introducing any legislation in this parliament if what appears in black and white and in type as a statute of Canada does not mean that the government intends to give effect to what appears in the statute? I tell my hon. friend that so far as the government is concerned, we have put in this bill what we think is necessary, and we intend to administer it in accordance with what we think is necessary. It must be apparent that the bill will be carried out in accordance with the purport of its provisions; that has surely been evidenced by the practice of the government in carrying out its war measures up to the present time.
Then some hon. gentlemen speak about human and material resources and they wish to know whether " material " covers " financial." Well, in what category would you put finance unless you put it among material things? It is not spiritual, nor is it human. It is material, and probably if my hon. friends were expressing their minds to the full they would say it is the most material of all things. Surely finance is covered by material, and the reason why these two words are used-material and human-is that so far as possible they cover all aspects of life, life itself and the means of sustenance of life. The measure is intended to cover every resource that the country has, human and material. But may I ask my hon, friends this question: What justification is there for assuming that it is only going to be the provisions of the measure related to the human that will be invoked and not the material? Is not any fair-minded man entitled to say that there is just as much reason to assume that this bill is introduced solely for the purpose of applying it to material things?


Thomas Miller Bell: Experience of the past.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not experience of the past. I absolutely deny that statement. Does my hon. friend mean to say to me he believes that I place more value in material things than I do on human life?


Thomas Miller Bell: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what
it comes to.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not mean that at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad my hon. friend does not, and on behalf of every member of the house I make this statement: Every hon. member, irrespective of party or group, is primarily concerned with preserving the human, and if there is any sacrifice to be made in a material way to help to save the human, that will be the first sacrifice made. But I do not know that you will in any way help to preserve the human if by one stroke of the pen you wipe out the whole of the material. Some of my hon. friends say, "Will you wipe out all the banks and take all the credit, the little savings of people which they have put in the banks? Will you wipe out everything?"


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They say they are not asking that, but they are insinuating that that is what we ought to do before we do anything else. All I ask is that hon. members take this bill at its face value. It seeks to give the government enabling powers to deal with human and material resources according to its best judgment, and according to its best judgment the government is prepared to deal with these resources.
This specific question is also asked:	Are
you going to take 100 per cent of excess profits in the manufacturing of war munitions? Let me read a statement which I made in this house at the beginning of the war with reference to excess profit. Before I quote that statement, however, I should like to make this observation. When Mr. Attlee spoke in the British House of Commons the budget had already been brought down, and the country knew from the budget what was being proposed with respect to excess profits as they stood at that time. His statement was in the nature of a supplementary announcement to the country with respect to excess profits and occasioned for reasons which I think are now pretty generally known throughout the English-speaking world.
My colleague the Minister of Finance is bringing down his budget on Friday of this

Emergency Powers-Mr. Mackenzie King
week. I doubt if I would be justified in saying at this moment anything with respect to what is certain to be one of the features of the budget he will introduce. May I say this, however-and I apply it not to that particular matter but to everything in the nature of what is proposed under this measure. Everything that is done by this government under the enabling powers given it here, or anything that is left undone, will, while parliament is in session, be subject to the review of this parliament from day to day. If we do not go far enough, hon. members will have plenty of opportunity to tell us how much further we should go; if we go too far, they will have equal opportunity. It must be kept in mind that we shall be administering this legislation not as a body of dictators, free from any kind of control, but as a responsible government, responsible to the House of Commons and, through the House of Commons, to the people. If we bear this all important fact in mind, then I think it will be found that there is ample security as to the way in which the government may exercise the powers given it under the legislation.
With reference to the statement on excess profits I made last year, I see that it was made, not after the war commenced, but some time before. It was when the government was making it clear that the shadow of war was at the time overhanging the world and seeking to indicate how it would meet the situation if war came. I used the following words on March 30, 1939, more than five months before the outbreak of war. I was outlining the policy which would be followed in the event of hostilities arising:
Planning and coordination would be essential, but the necessary coordination could be made, and if this government were in power it would be made, without sacrificing those vital ends and conditions of our existence. Profits could and would be rigidly controlled, and profiteering suppressed. Men's lives and men's wills cannot be put on the same basis as goods and profits.
The government stands by that declaration to-day. The fact that that is our policy is one of the reasons why this measure has been introduced. One of its purposes is to ensure that there will, as far as possible, be equality of sacrifice in Canada's effort in prosecuting this war.
Mr. Attlee in the British House of Commons made this statement:
It is necessary that the government should be given complete control over persons and property, not just some persons of some particular class of the community, but of all persons, rich and poor, employer and workman, man or woman, and all property. It is these powers for which I am asking the house this afternoon.
May I say that these are the identical powers which to-day, in the name of the government, I am asking from this house. It is not powers to be exercised against the poor man to the exclusion of others. That sort of argument is hardly worthy of the hon. member who uttered it, and I say that sincerely. At a time like this anyone who tries to raise in the country divisions between class and class, rich and poor, employer and employee, deserves censure, and I say most sincerely that my hon. friend did not do himself justice in that remark. Let us not think that there is still a general election on and that we are trying to win our seats by all kinds of oratory. Let us remember that this countiy and the world to-day are faced with a calamity such as mankind has never known in the whole of its history.
Another question has been asked-what about the relations between employer and employee? We are told that we are to make a condition first or the bill will not receive support in certain quarters. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said that it would be a condition of his support of this legislation that the government give an undertaking that labour's rights would be protected from now on. Now is my friend going to make conditions before he supports this measure? If he is, I am prepared to give him that opportunity by stopping my speech right away, in order that we may see where he really stands in relation to the purpose intended to be served by the bill. But I do not believe that in his heart he intends to make any condition. I believe he and his group intend to support this measure to a man.
Having said that, I shall now answer his question about labour and employers-not meeting a condition, but stating what I think he already knows. On Thursday last, following a previous meeting which the government had with employers, and at which there was a very free and frank discussion, some of my colleagues and myself had a meeting with a representative gathering of officers of labour organizations in Canada. The chairman of that group was Mr. Tom Moore, president of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress, who I think enjoys second to none the confidence of labour in this country. During the course of that conference there was a very free and frank discussion as to the conditions that should exist between employer and employee during the period of this war. An undertaking was given at that time by myself that these conditions would not merely be put in the form of a declaration by the government made to a representative group of labour organizations, but be drafted in a
904	COMMONS
Emergency Powers-Mr. Mackenzie King
form which would find its expression in an order in council of the government, and that that order in council would be published in the Canada Gazette and would be laid on the table of parliament. In order that an arrangement satisfactory to labour in that particular might be worked out, not by the government alone but in conference with labour, I asked my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) if he would, as he had been doing in the past, meet not merely a few labour advisers but that particular group of gentlemen or those of their numbeT whom they wished to have represent them, and work out together what would be from their point of view a satisfactory basis for the relations that should exist between capital and labour, employer and employee, during the period of the war.
As I said, we had had before us representations of the employers; we were now having the representations of labour, and we had also before us what was done by the previous government during the period of the last war. As a result of the conferences held, and the government's previous consideration of the subject, a declaration of the principles that should govern employers and employed, regulations that should be put into effect were prepared and framed in the form of an order in council. That order was brought to the cabinet by my colleague the Minister of Labour as soon after the conference between these gentlemen and himself as was possible. Had it been possible for me to be present for any length of time at the cabinet meeting yesterday, the order would have gone through then. Had it been possible for me to give any substantial time to-day to the proceedings of the cabinet, that order would have gone through to-day. I hope it is going to be possible for me to have time to attend a meeting of the cabinet to-morrow; if it is, that order will go through to-morrow. It will set out conditions that should govern between employer and employee, conditions which I believe will be regarded as fair and which will I believe meet with the full acceptance of those concerned in the relations of industry. I hope that answers what my hon. friend may have had in mind on that subject.
There is one other matter, the only one to which I shall refer in conclusion. It is the question asked as to the exemption of certain religious groups in the matter of military service. I wish solemnly to assure the house and the country that the government have no desire and no intention to disturb the existing rights of exemption from the bearing of arms which are enjoyed by the members of certain religious groups in Canada, as for example the Mennonites. We are determined

to respect these rights to the full. My hon. friend said he believed that the government would certainly have considered that aspect, and we certainly have.
Now I must thank hon. members for allowing me to take up this additional time. May I say this further word in conclusion: it is not possible at such a time as the present, or indeed at any time for the government to do everything that everybody wants the government to do. We have a very heavy obligation to meet, and a part of that obligation is to see that whatever we do is done in the light of what appears to be wisest and best at the time. We shall be held responsible if we are too precipitate in our action, just as we have been held responsible by some who have thought that we have not been precipitate enough. When the story of this war is written, or rather when the communication? and documents are produced which have passed between the different governments, and the full record of Canada's part in the war up to the present is known, I think there will not be a man in Canada but will be proud of that record and the manner in which these very serious matters have been carried on by the present administration. However, that relate* to the past. To-day we stand at a place different from any at which we have stood thus far, in relation to the world situation. To-day we, along with the United Kingdom and other British countries, are on a front line, facing an enemy which has shown his power to dominate an entire continent, and whose forces are supplemented now by another enemy that is seeking to dominate another continent nearby. Let us keep as united as we can in our thoughts, in our words and in our deeds.


Georges Parent: It is rather late-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carry on.


Georges Parent: I was just going to ask whether it is the wish of the house that the present sitting be continued now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no objection at all to the bill obtaining second reading to-night, but I certainly shall object to the house going into committee at this late hour and on to third reading to-night. I had no idea that this debate would extend to the length that it has. I would not have objected if there had been any possibility that the bill might be enacted into law at this sitting, as the Prime Minister expressed the hope that it would when he introduced it.
There is a further reason for my position. Unfortunately I am not familiar with the

Emergency Powers-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
French language. That is my misfortune. I understand that two very important speeches were made here to-day, one by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and one by the very eloquent Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). These speeches were made in French. I desire to read these speeches before this bill passes this chamber.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that I think my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is quite right in the position he takes. Indeed he was courteous enough to mention to me earlier in the evening that it had been a pretty heavy day and he thought that we should not seek to press this bill through all its stages to-night. I feel with him that if we can have an understanding that we shall go on with its consideration immediately to-morrow, and that its passage may then be expedited, we should not seek to press the matter any further to-night.
May I make this clear, the one and only reason why the government desired to press this measure through in one day if possible is, as I have said, the sense of responsibility we have as to the use we may have to make of the powers thereby given. There is, however, one other consideration, and it is equally important, that is the situation as it will appear in other parts of the world. The action of this parliament in dealing with this measure quickly would make an impression on the hearts of the people of the United Kingdom and also make an impression in other parts of the world much deeper and more effective than anything else in connection with the measure possibly could.
Perhaps the discussion to-day has been sufficiently comprehensive to enable us to proceed with rapidity to-morrow. If we can do that, I believe it will serve to meet in large measure both the situations to which I have referred. The second reading of course will be taken now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should
like to make one other observation which I had intended to make when I was on my feet. The house will realize that as far as this party is concerned there has been absolutely no delay in the passage of this bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Wednesday, June 19, 1940