WAGE CEILING


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table order in council dated February 6, 1942, relating to a ceiling on salaries and to make a brief statement in explanation. I am tabling for comparison a copy of the original order.
This amending order is intended to clarify the application of the original order and to alter some details of its provisions in regard particularly to promotions, new appointments, and the payment of bonuses. I should like to draw attention to the fact that in clarifying the definition of salaried official, this amending order definitely places some employees under the wages and cost of living bonus order, thereby entitling them to the cost of living bonus from their employers.
All persons receiving salaries or wages of less than $175 a month are excluded from the

class of salaried official and made subject to the wages and cost of living bonus order. All those receiving $250 or more a month are considered to be salaried officials unless their duties or responsibilities show clearly that they are not above the rank of foreman or comparable rank, in which case they are subject to the wages order. The national war labour board, or its regional boards, are made responsible for determining the status of any employee or any class of employees in case of doubt or dispute. The national board has already issued a number of general interpretative rulings on this matter and will be issuing others in due course.
Another change is intended to remove the source of what is regarded as discrimination within many organizations where highly paid workmen or foremen are entitled to a cost of living bonus under the wages order while junior salaried officials earning no more, or even less, are prevented from receiving such a bonus by the provisions of the salaries order. The amending order permits an employer to pay a cost of living bonus to salaried officials earning no more than other employees of the same employer who are entitled to such bonus under the wages order. This special permission is not allowed to apply to officials receiving more than $4,200 per year, and the general limit of $3,000 on those permitted to receive the bonus remains applicable where the special circumstances are not present.
Other provisions of the amending order extend the control to salaries of those hired after the original order went into effect. An employer is not permitted to pay to a newly-appointed salaried official a rate of salary higher than the rate previously paid to another official performing substantially the same services, or if there is no such guide, the employer shall not pay a rate of salary higher than is reasonable and proper, having regard to the rates paid to salaried officials for similar services in like business. This provision is intended, among other things, to check the practice of employers trying to entice employees from one another by the promise of higher salaries.
To avert any danger of an employer paying a higher initial rate of salary than he otherwise would to a newly-hired or newly-promoted official because that rate must not be subsequently increased under the terms of the order, the amending order provides that an employer may, in accord with his established practice, and by arrangement, pay first a probationary or temporary rate of salary, to be followed by a higher rate, in cases of new appointments or promotions tailing place after the order went into effect.

Privilege-Mr. Ralston
There are a considerable number of minor changes in wording, and definitions. A specific limitation is put on directors' fees instead of relying upon the general restrictions on salaries being applied. The intent of the original order is made clear by explicitly stating that the amount of any cost of living bonus being paid when the order went into effect shall be considered as part of the rate of salary at that time. The definition of employers subject to the order is altered to exclude all public hospitals, and all religious, charitable and educational institutions not carried on for gain. Notification is required of promotions within three months, of the first payment of the increased salary, where it is not already required in advance. I will not attempt to go into further detail, as copies of the order are available to all those interested.
Perhaps I should add that in the administration of this order by the income tax division, it is possible to obtain a close check on what is happening to all salaries by an inspection both of employee's and employer's tax returns. There is one other minor change which it may be necessary to make for administrative reasons, in addition to these amendments, and this may involve another brief order shortly.



PRIVILEGE-MR. RALSTON LIMITATION UNDER MOBILIZATION ACT WITH RESPECT TO SERVICE OVERSEAS

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Last night while I was not in the house the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) raised a question of privilege with respect to a passage between himself and myself when I was speaking yesterday afternoon. My hon. friend mentioned the matter to me in the corridor, and I do not accuse him of any intention to cause embarrassment by raising it while I was not in the bouse. I really did not understand from him that he was going to raise it in the house; I thought he was going to mention it to me. In. the short time at my disposal I have endeavoured to have gone over by my "research department," as he calls it, the matter of the speeches which were made and the effect of what was said at the time. I should like to refer to the language a little more extensively than he has. When speaking yesterday I referred to the passing of the National Resources Mobilization Act and the limitation which was contained in section 3 which restricts compulsory service under the act to service in Canada. I said, as reported on page 453 of Hansard:
The present leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) was in the house at the time; he took no exception to that limitation. His only suggestion was that the act might be extended to service in Labrador. And he and his party supported that measure with that restriction in it.
The leader of the opposition then said:
Did I not say I was prepared to accept that as a half-way measure?
I took it that he was referring to the limitation to service, in Canada. I then said:
I am quite satisfied my hon. friend used no such language.
My hon. friend then referred to my research department having let me down. Apparently he then started his research department going over the debate. I must say that if my department let me down, his department has worked overtime because he has gone back to the speech which he made, not while the bill was under discussion or in committee, but before it was even introduced, a speech which was made after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had announced the general terms of the measure. Last night he quoted a passage saying that he had made a proposal to the government that the government should 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. I say again, that speech was made considerably before the bill was introduced, before even the resolution was introduced, and I do not think he would find that phrase again repeated when the bill was under discusssion.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: When in committee.


James Layton Ralston: But he has referred to two passages in which he did, I freely admit, refer to half a loaf being better than no bread. That is on pages 913 and 914 of Hansard of June 19, 1940. And he quoted these two passages last night (see page 471 of Hansard of yesterday) to show what he had said when the bill was in committee. There he says:
I should like to emphasize the fact that the bill is purely and simply enabling legislation, and while it falls short of what many people in this dominion think is necessary and have been demanding, yet on balance and on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread at all, we on this side of the house are prepared to accept the principle of the bill and to accept the measure for what it is worth.
Then in the second column of page 917 of Hansard of 1940 he says about the same thing. I quote his remarks on page 917 (see page 471 of Hansard of yesterday):
I tell the Prime Minister it has not been easy to support the principle of this bill, having regard to the volume of representations I had received beforehand in favour of something more far-reaching, and the protests I have been receiving this morning that we should still have
Privilege-Mr. Ralston

something greater. But as I said before, for the defence of Canada if for nothing else I am willing to support the principle of thi^ bill; because half a loaf is better than no bread.
My hon. friend, I freely admit, did use that expression; 1 had forgotten that; in fact, it had not been called to my attention for, I think, the fairly obvious reason that I was discussing what was said with regard to section 3 of the bill which has to do with the matter of restriction of compulsory service. These two passages which my hon. friend quoted last night were spoken on section 2 of the bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, no, on the whole bill.


James Layton Ralston: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. It was while section 2 of the bill was being discussed in committee. I referred my hon. friend to the pages of Hansard, and he will find that is the fact. I have had my research department go back through my hon. friend's speech to find out what he was referring to when he said that half a loaf was better than no bread. Was he referring to the matter of restriction of compulsory service in Canada, or what was he referring to? I am not going to trouble the house to read all the passages, but I say this to my hon. friend, and he can look it up for himself. The four objections he was taking to the bill were: first, that the emergency declaration-he did not make this objection very clearly-which he had asked for from the Prime Minister was, he thought, not sufficient if simply put in the preamble to the bill. Second, he protested or complained that it was only enabling legislation and that therefore the government could do nothing or something just as they saw fit. Third, he went extensively into the procedure as to the Military Service Act of 1917, and hon. gentlemen will find when they read his long speech, made before the bill was introduced at all, that he was suggesting that there should be inserted in the mobilization bill all the provisions which were in the Military Service Act of 1917, or similar provisions with regard to exemptions and so on. His fourth objection -and he brought this out particularly-was that there was not sufficient indication of how the government was to act with regard to the mobilization of wealth. That was very much on his mind, and he dealt with it extensively in his speech.
These were the four things I found which he might have referred to as half a loaf. But what I did not find is that he ever thought or suggested that it was half a loaf simply because compulsory service was confined to Canada. Let me read a passage from that same speech from which my hon. friend first quoted last night-
(Mr. Ralston.]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, is this a matter of privilege?


Mr. POULIOT:: You are greatly disturbed and perturbed since Monday night.


James Layton Ralston: Here is what my hon. friend said-and, I remind the house that the Prime Minister had in his statement prior to the bill said that recruitment for overseas service would be maintained on a voluntary basis.
Mr.HANSON (York-Sunbury): Mr.Speaker, on a point of order, surely this is carrying a question of privilege beyond all reasonable limits. We may disagree about the interpretation of what I said, but the point to which I referred last night was the minister's denial that I had ever said that I accepted the principle of the bill on the theory that half a loaf was better than no bread. It looks now as though it was simply a question of interpretation of my remarks, and I am sure there is no question of privilege in that.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The minister is entitled to speak on that.


James Layton Ralston: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I point out to my hon. friend that he interrupted me when I had referred to the restriction of the bill and said:
Did I not say I was prepared to accept that as a halfway measure?
Meaning, I took it, the restriction in the bill, and I am pointing out that if that was the interpretation, I was justified in what I said. He did not say that that restriction of the bill made it a halfway measure.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With regard to the point of order raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), the hon. minister is entitled, of course, to reply, on a question of privilege, to what was said last night, but he is not entitled to bring in new matter. He must confine himself solely to rebuttal of what was said. I have not noticed that any new matter has been introduced by the minister in rebuttal, but I must urge upon him that he must confine himself strictly to rebuttal.


James Layton Ralston: I am certainly not bringing in any new matter, Mr. Speaker. I am dealing with the question whether my hon. friend objected to the restriction in the bill and whether, when he said that he referred to it as a halfway measure, he was referring to the restriction in the bill. I am proposing on that point to quote what my hon. friend said

Singapore
in the house in the same speech to which he has referred as indicating that he was not objecting to that restriction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is simply a matter of interpretation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; it was a question of privilege.


James Layton Ralston: I was going on to say that at page 859 of Hansard of June 18, 1940, after the Prime Minister had announced that recruiting for overseas would be maintained, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition said:
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 service 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 wre shall not require to send as much manpower overseas. But there wall 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, fr'om Canada.
I say that that indicates clearly that my hon. friend did not object to section 3 of the bill, which was the point I was endeavouring to make.
May I conclude with this. My point was that my hon. friend did not object to that restriction, and the best evidence of that is his own remarks at pages 967 and 968 of Hansard of 1940, where you will find exactly what I said he said, namely, that the only suggestion he made was that compulsory service be extended to Labrador. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have taken the time of the house for so long. I thought that some hon. members might want to read and enjoy these passages as Sunday reading or in their leisure time, and so I am giving the house the references to enable them to do so. They are all that my "research department" are able to find: Hansard, 1940, pages 853 to 855; 857 to 861; 913 to 932; 939 to 967; 967 to 976.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: What is the situation at Singapore to-day?



THE WAR IN THE FAR EAST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: We have been disputing-the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and myself-over a matter of interpretation and not of very much consequence. Now would the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us what is the latest news from Singapore?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have to make the same reply as 1 made to my hon. friend a day or two ago. Such word as the government has received with respect to Singapore differs in no essential particular from what has appeared in the press.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: The situation is very serious.



AID TO THE EMPIRE AND ALLIED FORCES IN THE PACIFIC AND EASTERN ASIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I would like to ask the government if one of its members, before the close of the present debate, will clarify various statements already given regarding the trouble in the Pacific and the far east, so that the country can understand what we are doing and are ready to do for our empire and allies in those areas where the danger is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I really am prepared to answer some aspects of the question of my hon. friend, but I thought it desirable before making a reply to communicate further with London, as perhaps he would be better pleased to have the reply from that source. I hope to have it soon.


Thomas Langton Church: Our belated air bases on the Pacific are of very little real value without adequate sea power back of them.



TAXATION CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the government to make the report of the last interprovincial conference available to all members of parliament; and if so, will it be an unrevised copy?
Old Age Pensions
[Stage Direction]
I have two other questions to ask as a private Liberal member of this hon. house: (1) Did any member of the government inform the provincial representatives attending this conference that there were Canadian soldiers, sailors or airmen at Singapore as well as at. Hong Kong? (2) If so,
(a)	how many of each branch of the army;
(b)	who are their commanding officers;
(c)	does the government get in touch with those men now?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend's questions are too long to answer on the orders of the day, but they will be noted as a question.


James Layton Ralston: For fear there may be a misapprehension in the mind of the hon. member for Temiseouata, may I add a short statement. He asked whether or not at a conference with provincial representatives some member of the government had advised that Canadian troops were at Singapore. I do not know anything about what took place at the conference. But I want to say for the information of the hon. member and of the house that there are no Canadian troops at Singapore. There may be, of course, and there are, Canadian individuals in the air force and the navy and, probably, in the British forces, but there are no Canadian forces.



AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: In view of the great need of aircraft, as exemplified by the statement which came over the radio yesterday that the defenders of Singapore were using obsolete aeroplanes, what action does the government propose to take to see to it that the five hundred employees of Ottawa Car and Aircraft Limited who were laid off are again put back to the work of producing aircraft?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I may say that Ottawa Car and Aircraft Limited were never prime contractors for aircraft. They make parts, and largely for other contractors. They are not prime contractors of the government except in a very small way. There has been some reorganization there, and I sincerely hope that the work can be restored shortly.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I
should like to ask the acting Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) a question based on the report which appeared in the press a few days ago announcing that old age pensions have been advanced by the British Columbia government from $20 to $25 a month. Is it the intention of this government to see to it, if the matter is within their power, that old age pensions are advanced in all the provinces to assist in meeting the increased cost of living?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: I believe the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has directed his question to the wrong department. The Department of Labour has nothing to do with the administration or the payment of old age pensions. My hon. friend will remember that both are functions of the Department of Finance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can answer the question. The action taken by the British Columbia government is for the account of the province of British Columbia alone. The dominion government makes no contribution to the additional $5 a month. The position of this government was made clear in a statement which I made to this house in November. If the hon. member will look at it he will see to what extent this government is prepared to go with regard to old age pensions.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Has
the Canadian government by order in council amended the old age pension regulations so that the increased pension being paid by the government of British Columbia will not involve a corresponding reduction on the part of the federal government?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Steps have been taken towards that end, but I do not know what stage they have reached. I believe we have communicated with all the provinces with regard to such an amendment of the regulations, and I do not know that replies have been received from all the provinces. I will find out what the present position is, and let my hon. friend know.

The Address-Mr. Crete


Victor Quelch: Can the minister say what is the immediate situation in British Columbia? Will there be an increase, or will no increase be effected until action has been taken by the federal government?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot say what is the
situation in this respect at the moment.



MERCHANT SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. The statement is attributed to him that this year Canada will produce a tonnage of merchant shipping equal to that produced^ in the United Kingdom. If this is so, it is a magnificent effort. Can the minister give the details to this house, or if not, will he furnish particulars to hon. members in whose ridings shipyards are located?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The statement I made was that the programme of production in Canada of merchant ships during 1942 is practically as large as the programme for Great Britain. These two statements, perhaps, are parallel; at least both are statements of intention, and I think the accomplishment will follow the intention. I am not particularly interested in giving statements to hon. members representing particular ridings, but I should be very glad to supply full details of our merchant shipping construction programme to all hon. members at a convenient time.



YUKON AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: On Friday last I asked what steps, if any, are being taken for the defence of the airports in the Yukon. The Minister of National Defence said he would consult with the Minister of National Defence for Air. I wonder if he can give an answer now.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend knows, as I spoke to him personally, that the matter is at present under discussion between the Minister of National Defence for Air and myself and the chiefs of staff.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Alphonse Fournier for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (Yorlc-Sunbury), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. J. ALPHIDA CRETE (St. Maurice-Lafleche) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I regret my inability to associate myself with the members of the Conservative opposition in the cruel loss they have just sustained.
Throughout the present debate I have followed with an attention and a patience worthy of a better cause the speeches of the Tory group which constitutes the official opposition in this house. These hon. gentlemen can scarcely be taxed with originality. They all dwell in the same house-the Hotel Empire- utter the same words and use the same gestures, the only slight difference being in the tone of voice. Their very limited vocabulary partakes rather of finance than of the academy. They have only got to the letter C of the dictionary, and even then by skipping A and B. The word "conscription" is their only question and their only answer. Outside of this word, which they appear to be able to articulate correctly, there is total paralysis of the tongue and of the brain. They are somewhat like those monks who when meeting each other say "you wild diie" or like whippoorwills uttering the same continuous cry throughout the night.
When these gentlemen want conscription nothing must stand in the way, not even a plebiscite. They are deaf to all arguments. Whenever someone utters the word "conscription," these portly gentlemen jump up from their sleep. They show anxiety or joyfulness, according as conscription is hidden by a cloud or becomes more visible. One would think they had already begun to reckon their war profits.
Two questions may quite properly be asked: Firstly, who is demanding the enactment of this supremely detestable measure? Secondly, against whom is their attempt aimed? It might also be asked what benefit would thereby accrue to our war effort and what serious harm might not thereby be caused to this effort, as well as to national unity.
Let us get to the bottom of things and realize that behind the veil of words there is concealed no more no less than the matter of conscription for overseas service. Now, who
The Address-Mr. Crete

is demanding this sort of conscription and who is seeking to impose it upon the country, if not a small group of Canadian financiers and of super-imperialists from Toronto? Even though concealed behind the folds of the flag, their purpose is still quite clear. What they want is to get into power. For what purpose? The record will show. As in 1917 when they did get into power they will build up huge fortunes by shameful speculation in war contracts and in commodities essential to the existence of the Canadian people. These financiers of to-day, like their fellows of 1917 whose memory is still execrated, control powerful means of propaganda-newspapers, magazines and radio stations. The Wall Streets of Toronto and Montreal are their instruments. For these people who see in war only a means to get rich, all methods are good. They seek to set aside the people's representatives who refuse to submit. Already in many quarters intimidation has been used.
In the light of the still vivid teachings of the last war, ended less than a quarter of a century ago, what must we think of the present campaign in favour of conscription for military service overseas?
To-day as in 1917 conscription for overseas service seems to be a campaign directed against the province of Quebec, that is, against those who have committed no other crime than to love Canada before and above all else. What good would such a brand of conscription do to Canada beyond swelling, as I said just now, the fortunes of a few Tory speculators and stripping our lines of defence to add a few thousand men to a potential of 25 million soldiers from the United States, Russia, China and all the British and allied countries?
If the speculators who want to seize power were to succeed in their antinational design, it may be considered as a certainty that they would start tampering with our tax system not only to protect their own interests but also to fasten upon the lower brackets of rate payers and the common people a heavier share of the economic load of our splendid War effort.
What would be the drawbacks of such coercive legislation?
Speaking on behalf of the Saint-Maurice district, which I represent here, and of the whole province of Quebec, I may emphasize that the voluntary system, both as regards the air force and our motorized and other units, has given on many occasions in that area more recruits than some districts near Toronto. The response of my compatriots to conscription for service in Canada has been surpassed in no other area of Canada.

Moreover, reference to statistics will show that our districts have greatly oversubscribed the quota that had been allotted to them in the last loan. Members and mayors, and in short all leaders in our province have identified themselves with the voluntary enlistment movement; and with the campaign for the Victory Loan, the Red Cross, and the Queen's Fund for the London bombing victims. Salvage committees are being established in every centre of our province. Of their own free will, and enthusiastically, the workmen in our factories devote part of their weekly salary to the purchase of war savings certificates. A considerable number of people-and I am one of them-.have pledged their bank credit to the limit for months to come in order to borrow-at a loss as great as three per cent-money to place in the victory loan. We have put away over fifty per cent of our motor cars in order to save gasoline, which might be needed for our war effort. I do not know of one person among our people who does not already feel the impact of these troublous times and who does not make heavy sacrifices with a view to helping our soldiers.
We can say with a clear conscience and without boasting that no group of people in this country has a right to give us lessons in patriotism. The pilgrims of imperialism in Canada should understand that our deep and unshakeable love for the land of our fathers represents the highest form of patriotism. Those same champions of imperialism should realize that the province of Quebec has hitherto patiently borne the continued attacks launched against it in this house and among certain Toronto groups where, from generation to generation, fanaticism has been carefully nurtured. We feel that such repeated injuries to our pride are a poor way of acknowledging the spirit of loyalty displayed by French Canadians in the past as well as in the present crisis. It would seem, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec people have an untiring patience since they still tolerate among them a bumptious upstart, a profiteer in the last war, who has taken it upon himself since the beginning of this war, to issue orders to our people in his Montreal Gazette, and to presume to regiment them.
Let it be understood once for all that the patience of the province of Quebec is not eternal. If unity and the preservation of the Canadian confederation are only possible provided we always make concessions and put up with every kind of insult and provocation, I fear very much that a measure like conscrip-

The Address-Mr. Maybank
tion for overseas service will mean the definite severance of the ties that have hitherto kept our country united.
It has been said time and again that the Quebec French Canadians would accept all sacrifices that are necessary for the defence of British institutions. That is right, and such is my own view. But on condition-and I wish to emphasize this point-that Canada be a British institution, for the defence of Canada.
"The French Canadians will give even unto their last sons." True, but let us be quite clear about this. Speaking on behalf of my compatriots, I may state that the love of their country is too deep-rooted in their hearts to allow them to endanger their own defence by sending their fellow-citizens abroad to take part in the defence of African or Asiatic possession or to else support the vanguard of General Chiang-Kai-Shek's armies.
I may add that a handful of saboteurs of Canadian unity could possibly succeed in enforcing conscription for overseas service, that a few- domineering soldiers from Toronto could, as they did in 1917 and 1918, wander through Quebec, terrorizing our brave and peaceful mothers, setting up puppet courts to sell exemptions to the highest bidders; but I solemnly declare that Canada and the whole empire does not contain enough Tories to reduce to slavery and thraldom a people as enamoured as they are of the small country which they were the first to settle and where they intend to sleep their last sleep. If, coming into our province, you use coercion and compulsion, if you disorganize our agriculture and industries of such a great importance to the w'ar effort; if you force our young men in their prime, our sons, to serve and die on foreign lands, you will, in that same gesture, paralyze our splendid war effort. Then, national unity will have become but an empty memory, a thing of the past which, in all probability, can never be revived.
If you should wish the abolition of the present status of Canada, if you should wish the dislocation of confederation, conscription would be an appropriate measure to accomplish this fatal and hateful task.
However, Mr. Speaker, I could not conclude my remarks without expressing the confidence I place in the common sense of the majority of members of this house, in the fairness of my fellow'-citizens of British origin, for I am convinced that a measure requiring such a degree of compulsion could never command the support of the majority of our population.
I conclude by stating that I remain irre-ducibly opposed to any kind of conscription
for overseas service and that I shall not request my constituents to release me from past commitments in this connection.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat difficult to follow a speaker such as the last, because I am under the same disability as perhaps the great majority of us of not understanding the French language. Therefore I have lost the benefit of his remarks. Many hon. members have the advantage of us there, something that I think nearly all English-speaking members regret.
This afternoon I shall be as brief as possible, and as direct as possible. I think this debate has run long enough now that brevity is an even greater virtue than ordinarily. It is my desire not to transgress at all in respect of making lengthy remarks. Moreover I consider that this is a time when no person should endeavour to hide, by words, what he is thinking, but should rather try to use words as they should be used, to express exactly and deliberately his views.
I fancy that if I were to give a caption to such remarks as I shall make, the caption would be "In Praise of Restraint." I have, of course, no right to criticize any person, and I do not criticize any person. I merely wish to say that as a Canadian and a member of this house, where I have many pleasant associations, I do deprecate some of the language that has been used in the course of this debate. Such words as "dastardly," "cowardly," "infamous," hurled across the chamber seem to me out of place in any debate in Canada, faced as we are with the most serious crisis that has ever been upon us and the most serious I hope that we shall ever face. It is interesting to note just how far that sort of language can sometimes lead us. I have not read the morning newspaper to-day, but I have been told by another member of the house that there is in the newspaper to-day a reference to a question asked of President Roosevelt, relating apparently to a statement made by the premier of Ontario to the effect that the United States navy was hiding from the Japanese "tissue paper" navy. That just illustrates the heat which has been generated in the last few weeks and how far sometimes people will go under the spur of partisanship. I suppose there could not be anything more reprehensible than a remark of the sort attributed to the premier of Ontario. While I do not feel that I have any right really to criticize any other person, and I do not wish my remarks to be taken in that way, I do wish to say that I deprecate most strongly any extreme language used in debate, at the present time particularly.
The Address-Mr. Maybank

Again I think it is a mistake on the part of hon. members supporting the government to sneer at those who would advocate "total war without restriction," as it is called, as being quite willing to break pledges easily, and that sort of thing. As a matter of fact the point about which most of the controversy, in fact practically all the controversy, runs to-day is a point which has been raised by the Canadian Legion. That legion, with some 1,470 branches, has put out what is called a "Call for Total War." And arising out of one phrase in it a controversy has developed. It seems to me wrong to denominate organizations that have supported that call, or the Canadian Legion itself, as mere pressure groups, or individuals influenced by it simply as people who are weakly influenced by pressure groups. I know that in Manitoba a great many organizations supported the legion call, a great many service bodies and other organizations.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the Manitoba legislature.


Ralph Maybank: I was coming to that. The organization that comes most readily to my mind is the Rotarians of Winnipeg. Their membership is so varied that to dub them a pressure group is particularly inept. Incidentally the person who sponsored in that organization support of the legion's call was himself a Liberal of long standing. The legislature of Manitoba, headed at the present time by a non-partisan government, can hardly be called just a pressure group. This body supported the legion; and the lead was given to the legislature in large part by an outstanding Liberal, Mr. Rhodes Smith, of the city of Winnipeg. He was supported by Mr. McDiarmid, provincial minister of mines and natural resources and a former Liberal member of this house for Winnipeg South; by Mr. Schultz, provincial minister of education, a Liberal of long standing and by Mr. Garson, provincial treasurer, also a Liberal; and I do not think there was a dissenting voice in that assembly. Then the union of municipalities of the province supported it, together with the organization of school trustees covering the province.
I mention these facts only because I believe that to attempt to fob off such organizations by calling them pressure groups is as foolish as it is wrong. Of course I am well aware that when the Canadian Legion had, without very much trouble, worked up considerable support for its proposals, then for reasons political, financial or otherwise selfish, others came running forward in an endeavour to ride the crest of the wave. Just as vultures will smell out a fight and fly to the spot to get a meal, so, unfortunately, when contro-

versies arise in a country, there are some who will endeavour to attach themselves to one side or the other, having no interest in the particular matter about which the dispute arises, but only hoping for some material benefit to themselves.
This is a sad fact of life, but -we shall be mistaken, if we allow ourselves to believe that such people are in the majority or anywhere near it.
Of similar cloth is the extravagant condemnation of this government, of its war work, which is expressed or implied by many speakers. Sober reflection should show' people that they are mistaken in that sort of condemnation. I am one of those who believe that it will be necessary to get away from the voluntary principle in carrying on the war; but in honesty you cannot say that up to now-and I emphasize those words, "up to now"-the voluntary system of getting men into the armed forces has been a failure. I do not see how any reasonable person can make that assertion about the situation up to now, with something in the neighbourhood of four hundred thousand persons in the armed forces. And again, it is only one who is purblind or ill-intentioned who can minimize the solid achievements of Canada in the war. Churchill, standing here, called them magnificent. Some think that was a mere rhetorical flourish, but it seems to me that upon a cold examination of what has been done it is more reasonable to conclude that it wTas not a rhetorical flourish but something that he deeply believed and sincerely meant. Only a short time ago, on November 8 of last year to be exact, The Economist of London, England, appraised Canada's wrar effort, and the opening paragraph of the statement was as follows:
To the student of war economics, Canada presents a puzzle. By all the statistical tests, the -war effort of the dominion is very large. Perhaps it could hardly be expected that a country more than three thousand miles away from the aggressor could bring its mobilization for war to quite the pitch of intensity that a beleaguered island can achieve, and the comparison with Great Britain is, for that reason, hardly a realistic one. But, by any test, Canada has done more than any other overseas member of the democratic alliance.
I wdsh to repeat that:
But, by any test, Canada has done more than any other overseas member of the democratic alliance.
I continue the quotation:
Her output of munitions of war is wide in range and large in volume. Proportionately, she has something like twice as many men under arms as the United States, and her Minister of Finance has stated that the expenditures of the dominion government, including the

The Address-Mr. Maybank
assistance given to the United Kingdom, but excluding all provincial and municipal expenditures, will this year amount to nearly 50 per cent of the national income.
The whole article is a cold appraisal of the situation, such as one would expect to find in an economic journal, and it is all in tune with the opening paragraph. 1 might add that the explanation given of the first sentence, in which the writer remarks that the position of Canada is in the nature of a puzzle, is this: he observes from the statistical record a tremendous amount of work being done: in going through Canada he observes that it has not affected Canadian life to anything like the extent one might have expected: and he comes to the conclusion that we may be understating the total of our national income. That is the reason why I draw particular attention to the opening words.
The only purpose of my remarks this far, Mr. Speaker, is the discouragement of intemperate and inaccurate criticism of policies and works; nothing less and nothing more than that. In other words, surely we can disagree without being disagreeable. I think every person knows that I do not fully favour the present course; yet, as circumstances have developed, I feel it is the only course now open to us. I do not like the plebiscite procedure. I do not like it because of the delay of action that it entails. I do not like it because of its cost. A large sum of money is involved, variously estimated at from half a million to two million dollars. Certainly the expenditure of a sum of money of those dimensions, when we are straining every effort to pay for tanks, Spitfires and shells, is not likely to commend itself to the people, and it does not commend itself to me. It has raised all manner of criticism in the country, with a consequent lowering of the spirit of the country; and the sooner we can get over that the better. I consider, however, that as matters have developed, it is the only course open to us. One has to be practical; one has to make allowance for the views of other people. There is one other difficulty with relation to the plebiscite. It is the somewhat less than clear attitude of the government. That is something I believe will be taken care of by official statements that will subsequently be made in urging an affirmative vote on the ballot.
While there is much about the policy that I do not like, certainly I shall vote for the main resolution before the house at the present time. I could not, under any circumstances, vote for the Conservative amendment. It really has nothing whatever to commend it.
It is the usual political amendment. Its prototype can be found, I think, in the opening days of every session of parliament from confederation down to the present time.
I feel that it has been proposed, not for the simple purpose of advocating or condemning a policy, but rather, it has been proposed, because of its quotability on future political platforms. In addition to asking that the government should proceed some other way than by plebiscite, it says that the government has not done anything for agriculture or has not done what it should do, and has not worked out a post-war programme. I could not vote for that amendment, both for the reasons given and because it is an amendment of general no confidence, a condition of mind which is very remote indeed from my condition of mind.
This reminds me to say just a word about the position of the Conservative house leader. In my opinion it does not lie in his mouth to criticize action or lack of action on the part of the government. He must take some responsibility for the situation that exists to-day. It is only in recent times that he or any member of his party became vocal in favour of a change in recruiting methods. During his tour of the country his speeches were models of how to avoid making any pronouncement on anything. In my opinion the best description of his speeches would be that they were woefully wary.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I said I
was listening, not making pronouncements.


Ralph Maybank: Then we are both agreed that the hon. gentleman was not making pronouncements.
As to the second amendment moved by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, I should like to point out that one of the difficulties about this plebiscite policy is that the public seem to be somewhat confused. Everywhere you hear complaints, the burden of which is that the position is not clear. This second amendment proposes that the government should, in addition to asking a release from its pledges, also invite the people to direct parliament to conscript wealth. The effect of this amendment is not to clarify, but to becloud. It is a confounding of confusion. By introducing additional matter into the submission to the people, the tendency is to cut down the chances of an affirmative vote. The government seeks an affirmative vote. I want to see an affirmative vote. I have much sympathy with some parts of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation amendment, some of the preamble I might call it, but since the
The Address-Mr. Maybank

amendment lessens the likelihood of removing restraint upon action, it seems to me that it should be voted down.
In all the circumstances, my view is that the most important thing before us at the present time is to get the plebiscite under way and make sure by all honest means that the ballots show a large favourable vote. I wish to appeal to all members of the house to cast aside all differences of opinion as to which was the right course to follow up to the present time and to exert their united efforts toward wiping out any vestige of restraint upon governmental action.
Unfortunately there is a class in the community to whom words of appeal are useless. There are some who, to gain their own private ends, will go to any length to hamper the war effort of this country. These are they who would hope by defeating this plebiscite to induce a situation which might conceivably be so confused that they might perchance be called in as doctors to remedy the situation. Of course with moral derelicts of this kind appeals are useless, and no self-respecting person *would waste his time or breath in appealing to them. It might, however, not be out of place to issue a warning to them that if this sort of thing is attempted in Canada at the present time, they will not be able to direct their efforts from behind closed doors.
I appeal particularly to members of the Conservative party who have expressed the liveliest dissatisfaction with the government's course. If members of that party think, or if any hon. member thinks the government is hiding behind a subterfuge or using past pledges as an alibi, all he has to do is to effect the knockout of the "subterfuge" in the voting booth. The "alibi" can be destroyed.
I should like to point out to them also that there is a danger of carrying expressions of dissatisfaction too far. They may be creating such a dissatisfaction in the minds of the electorate that the vote in the ridings which they represent will be less in the affirmative than it is desired that it should be. I say to them that they must be careful not to represent to their people that an affirmative vote is a vote of confidence in the government and, as a consequence of this sort of representation, urge the people to vote in the negative.
Let us remember that if this vote does not carry, there will be chaotic conditions in this dominion which have not hitherto existed. Thanks to a generally wise policy, the government has kept this country marching along pretty well united, and a great many telling blows have been delivered against the foe by

Canada. As I say, if this vote does not carry we may expect to have a more or less chaotic condition in this country. It behooves all of us, by such advice and counsel as we can give, to see that restraint upon action is removed1; in short, that an affirmative answer is recorded upon the ballots in this plebiscite.
It may be tempting to try to seize political advantage, but I do not think the Conservative party will do that at the present time. At any rate, I urge them not to do it. In the main, since 1939, the members of this house have acted reasonably well together in an atmosphere of mutual trust and forbearance. There have been clashes from time to time, but we have got along fairly well together because W'e have all known that while we might differ sharply as to methods, we all aimed at the same target, defeat of a barbarous foe. We should forget our differences as to what was the right course up to now and make sure that all restraint upon action is removed.
At the commencement of my remarks I said that I hoped to be brief. In closing, I should like to say that apparently there was some mix-up betwen the whips as to who would follow whom upon the Speaker's list to-day. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) understood that he would follow the hon. member who took his seat just before I rose. There was an exchange of notes back and forth, and I went to see the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) telling him that I had understood that I was to be the second speaker. Although the hon. member counted upon speaking then, he promptly and very generously gave way to me. He is a man senior to me in this house and, in a former parliament, graced the chair in which you now sit, Mr. Speaker. I should not care to close my remarks without expressing my thanks to him and to the whips of both parties for their cooperation in working out, another of these numerous tangles that, from time to time, occur.


George Black: Mr. Speaker, those of us who have had many years of parliamentary experience will, I think, agree that many speeches from the throne that have been made to the houses of parliament have been more noted for what they do not contain than for what they do contain as indicating what may be the policy of the government at the then session of parliament, but that cannot so correctly be said of the speech from the throne that we are now considering.
After careful consideration of especially that part of the speech which states that the

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
government is of opinion that it should have complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they arise in this gravest crisis of the world's history, and that the government will seek that freedom by submitting the question of its release from former commitments to the people by a plebiscite, I feel that I should add something to what has already been said on that subject.
The words of the speech from the throne make it apparent that the government appreciates, as we all do, the gravity of the crisis we are facing, and I think it is fair to infer from the words of that speech that the government feels that Canada should be doing more and wishes more to be done than we have done and are doing to face that crisis, and so, appreciating the danger of continuing to follow its policy as announced during the general election of March, 1940, and since, wishes to be freed from those commitments.
Let me quote briefly from the speech from the throne:
The government is of the opinion that, at this time of gravest crisis in the world's history, the administration, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, should in this connection and irrespective of any previous commitments, possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise.
Why should not parliament accept the responsibility of giving to the government the necessary authority to act in this crisis in accordance with its judgment? The members of parliament are the representatives of the people of Canada. Let those representatives, let us as those representatives, speak and act for the people. That is what we are here for.
I am happy to say, to repeat, that during the election campaign of 1940 I did not make any such bid for support. May I quote from what I said in this house on the 2nd day of June last, as reported at page 3398 of Hansard:
The word "conscription," meaning compulsory military service, is taboo. Why? Every member of this house knows why. It is for political reasons and nothing else. Leaders of both great Canadian political parties in the last election pledged those parties against conscription; but notwithstanding the fact that the leader of the party I have supported took that attitude, I did not hesitate during that campaign to say publicly, as I say now, that in my opinion the only fair and just way to raise an army is by compulsion. Capital owes a debt to the state. It is compelled by law to contribute the sinews of war; it is compelled by taxation. It would be as reasonable to say that only those who volunteer to do so should pay income tax. The payment of income tax, the payment of any tax, is the performance of a duty to the state, the payment of a debt to the state. All fit young
men in Canada owe to the state a debt which can be paid only by their entry into the fighting forces. If they join voluntarily, so much the better; all honour to them for it. But if they fail in that duty, if they fail to pay that debt which they owe their country, they like the taxpayer should be made to pay. It is manifestly unfair to carry on recruiting in any other way.
What I said then, nearly a year ago, I repeat and stand by to-day. It is even more appropriate to the conditions of to-day than it was then.	.
Let us face the situation as it is to-day. The Militia Act of Canada, assented to May 22, 1868, provides by section 61 as follows:
Her Majesty may call out the militia or any part thereof for actual service, either within or without the dominion, at any time, whenever it appears advisable so to do by reason of war, invasion or insurrection, or danger of any of them; and the militiamen, when so called out for actual service, shall continue to serve for at least one year from the date of their being called out for actual service, if required so to do, or for any longer period which Her Majesty may appoint.
What did the Militia Act define the militia to mean? The definition is as follows:
The militia shall consist of all the male inhabitants of Canada, of the age of eighteen years and upwards, and under sixty-not exempted or disqualified by law, and being British subjects by birth or naturalization; but Her Majesty may require all the male inhabitants of the dominion-
All the male inhabitants-not just necessarily citizens:
[DOT]-capable of bearing arms, to serve in case of a levee en masse.
Under that Militia Act, even foreigners could be called up to serve in our armed forces.
The National Resources Mobilization Act, enacted by this parliament in June, 1940, in effect nullified the provisions of the Militia Act which I have quoted, and by that act of 1940 the government willingly surrendered and limited the powers and authority had by the government of Canada practically ever since confederation. The nullifying and limiting sections of the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940 are sections 2 and 3, which provide:
2. Subjeet to the provision of section three 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 in the right of Canada, as may be deemed necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of Canada, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of the community.

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
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.
Having willingly passed that legislation so limiting itself, the government now refuses to pass legislation freeing itself from those limitations, which it could do, and leaves it for the country to say whether it should or should not be freed.
Will the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston)-I dislike that word "defence"; I prefer "attack" and suggest that the title should properly be Minister for War-tell the house and the country whether or not voluntary enlistment, under the law as it is since the amendment I have quoted has been in force, is providing for the army enough men to enable Canada to take the part she should take in this empire's battle for existence; enough men to man the fighting fronts, which fighting fronts are, and have been since Canada declared war, our fighting fronts; enough men to be trained and equipped to fight this war as war is fought to-day; enough men to be trained and equipped to become a sufficient patt of that vast army which the empire will need before this war is won?
If the British commonwealth of nations and our allies are to win this war-and to lose it is unthinkable-our armies must be strong enough to be sent into Europe, into Japan, to defeat the murdering Germans, Italians and Japanese, to defeat them, to crush them, so to deal with them that they must and will keep the peace for all time.
Possibly Canada has already enlisted, trained, equipped and sent over enough men to aid in the successful defence of the British isles, where, as yet, few army casualties have been suffered, but possibly not enough men and engines of war to replace those who will fall, are bound to fall and be destroyed if those islands are invaded by the enemy.
To win, the enemy must invade Britain, just as to win we must invade the countries of our enemies. We cannot win by defence. We must attack to conquer. We should have here in Canada continually enough fully-trained, prepared and equipped fighting men to replace and reinforce those who are now there, as and when such reinforcements are needed.
As I see it, we in Canada need an army of at least 600.000 men, fully trained, fully equipped with all the up-to-date engines of war, so that they may go with the great armies that the commonwealth of nations, Russia, the United States of America and

all the allied nations must send to invade and conquer Germany, Italy and Japan and keep them conquered.
Germany in the last hundred years has provoked no less than, five wars. Let us arm and prepare this time to achieve a victory that will result in permanent world peace. The people of the world, with the exception of the Germans, Italians and Japanese, want peace, love peace. Let us make that peace possible; let us restore to freedom the nations now enslaved by their brutal conquerors. Let us make the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese keep the peace.
Those of us who were with Canada's fighting forces in the last great war face the sad but indisputable fact that all we fought for, all the sacrifices made, all the lives lost, were made and lost in vain. We fought through to victory, but the good that might have resulted from that victory was literally thrown away.
Instead of making the defeated and conquered enemy keep the peace that had been won at such a cost and such a sacrifice, our government, the governments of our allies, the governments of the democracies, sat placidly by and allowed those armies to rearm, in fact supplied them with funds, with material for armament, with material with which to make and manufacture the munitions and engines of war now actually being used against us; allowed them to deliberately and1 publicly-not secretly'-plan and prepare for this war, more terrible, if that were possible, than the last war, when by taking proper precautions, and without cruelty, without unfairness to those conquered enemies, this war could so easily have been prevented.
But there is no use in threshing old straw. That has all passed and gone, as have most of those responsible for it. We must face the present crisis and carry on again to victory, seeing to it and making sure that when victory does come there will not be a repetition of the fiasco and neglect of duty that has allowed this fearful war to come upon us.
I have done all I can, and will continue to do so, in encouraging men to enlist. In proportion to its population, Yukon has done and is doing its share in enlistments, as it did in the last war. All those of my family who were fit were in Canada's fighting forces in the last war, and all who are fit are in the service now. It was easier for me to say to men, "I am going; come along" than to say now-to have to say now-"Go; I am staying at home."
If the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) says that voluntary enlistment is producing enough fighting men-and I take it

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
from his statement of yesterday to the house that it is-fighting men who, when trained and equipped to fight, will enable Canada to do her full duty* in the gigantic battles ahead of us, battles that will have to be fought and won before the enemy can be defeated, then the government does not need release from its commitments in that respect. No plebiscite is needed, and compulsory selective service-call it conscription if you will-is not needed. But if voluntary enlistment is not getting enough men to form and keep reinforced the armies we need and will need, it is the duty of the government to take them- -take them as it would take an income tax from an unwilling taxpayer, and with as little compunction. The government owes that duty to the state, just as the men who should be in the army owe that duty to the state, and if they will not voluntarily perform that duty, then they should be taken.
As I see it, the government does not need to devote the time, incur the expense, or provoke the arguments and disputes that have already arisen between loyal and disloyal people, that are bound to arise if the people are to be asked if they will allow the government to do what in its judgment it should do, what it may have to do if it is to lead Canada to victory.
As ,a Canadian, as a member of this parliament, which parliament was elected to form a government to lead and govern the people of Canada, and speaking for the people who elected me, I release the Prime Minister and his government, as I am confident they would release them, from any preelection commitments, commitments which, if adhered to, will tend to hamper the government, to weaken Canada's part in the war-this war that Canada declared and entered upon over two years ago as a part of the British empire, as a member of the British commonwealth of nations.
Bear with me while I again quote those remarkable words from the speech from the throne, which appear in Hansard of January 22, at page 1:
The government is of the opinion that, at this time of gravest crisis in the world's history, the administration, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, should in this connection and irrespective of any previous commitments, possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise.
Then I say to the government, not in a spirit of criticism, but with a sincere desire to assist and support it in its task of leading Canada to victory in this fight for freedom, that it should take that complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they arise, that it
should accept its responsibility to parliament and let parliament act for the people.
What course did the president of the great republic to the south of us, our ally in this war, say at the end of December, 1940, in a national broadcast? These are his reported words:
There is no demand for sending an American expeditionary force outside our own borders. There is no intention by any member of your government to send such a force. You can, therefore, nail any talk about sending armies to Europe as deliberate untruth.
Strong words. Conclusive words. After they were uttered that same president secured the unanimous passage through congress of a bill providing for service of United States soldiers wherever they may be needed. President Roosevelt did not ask for a plebiscite to release him from that pledge; and, faced with national peril, as we are, as Canada is, congress did not remind the president of that undertaking. The people of the United States accepted the selective draft system for overseas service as a national necessity, and did it without argument and without question, just as Canada should.
I say to this government: Accept the proposal, follow the lead given by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray), who sits to your right, Mr. Speaker, and is a loyal supporter of the government. Speaking in this house in this debate on January 27 last, the hon. gentleman said, as reported at page 76 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I submit that in this crisis the government would be justified in now-and by "now" I mean immediately-asking parliament to extend the provisions of the National Resources Mobilization Act in order to eliminate the restrictions concerning service in Canada only, in order that our armed forces both here and overseas, including reserves and reinforcements, may be maintained at the highest possible strength consistent with the maintenance of our food supply and industrial production.
I am confident that if the government submitted that proposal to this house and to this parliament, representing the people of Canada, speaking and acting for the people of Canada, it would be given the freedom which it desires and should have in order to pursue this war to victory. I for one would support it, and I am confident that my constituents would approve my action in that respect. *
What more can I say? Never yet have I been accused of timidity; but candidly I tell the government, I tell the house, that I dread the proposed plebiscite. I dread to have this government and this house take that risk, fearing what may be the result. Why do I fear the result? you may ask. My reply is that it is a foregone conclusion that the disloyal people now in Canada, if any there be,

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)
the slackers, those opposed to compulsory service, the timid ones, those who are so fearful of the safety of their loved ones that they would even see them fail to do their duty, those who wish to embarrass the government-all these I fear will give a negative answer to the question to be proposed to them in the plebiscite.
What will be the situation if they are in the majority, if the electors refuse to release the government from its election commitments? I dread to think of the unenviable position in which Canada will be placed in the eyes of the world, in the eyes of our allies in this life and death struggle for freedom; and I dread to contemplate the delight of our enemies if as a result of the proposed plebiscite the government is placed in such an impossible position.


Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle):: The mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne are entitled to our sincere congratulations. The elegance, clarity and fluency of their speeches are equalled only by the sincerity of their ideas. The moderation of their views, dictated by noble patriotism, has confirmed us in our opinion that both hon. gentlemen are worthily serving their electors and their country.
To the memory of the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe I bring affectionate tribute from the farmers, the working men and the settlers of the county of Labelle. We have all lost a great friend and a powerful protector. Like the drop of water gradually working its mark into the rock, his name has found its way into the hearts of the settlers of Labelle, leaving a deep and indelible impression. The Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), will henceforth be his successor as leader of the Quebec Liberals. Like the late Mr. Lapointe, he is devoting to the task all the energy of his patriotic Canadian heart. We highly appreciate the heroism of this man, who has given to his country the last remnants of strength and health left to him following his severe illness. He may -rely on the loyal and sincere support of the younger members in the great struggle which is forthcoming.
The speech from the throne, in my opinion, should have satisfied the proponents of a total war effort. It announces the most tremendous programme of help to the allies which has ever been submitted to the representatives of the Canadian people. Never in the history of this country have we been called upon for such a heavy contribution to the operations of war. Never have we been so brutally awakened to the reality that Canada is a belligerent nation faced with immediate danger threatening her territorial integrity.

(Translation): The world-wide extension of this conflict bringing face to face two diametrically opposed ideologies has convinced us of the futility of isolationism. *
We did not want this war, but the Master of peoples has decided otherwise. A madman, the unconscious instrument of the divine will, has let loose on -the terrestrial globe the destructive whirlwind of a Prussian militarism recognizing no law but brutal force and denying the principles of justice and collective morality on which our Christian civilization is based. In this -new order militarism, destruction, nihilism and "Mein Kampf" have replaced charity, mercy, justice, material and spiritual progress and the gospel of peace.
Of course, man's shortcomings, the deification of materialism, the thirst for money and a multiform imperialism have been the remote causes of the present conflict. But international egoism inspiring a desire for vengeance on the part of the vanquished of 1918 has accelerated the race towards the present horrible slaughter which is called the struggle of democracy against dictatorship.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne should have led the members of this hon. house to discuss each and every aspect of our war effort. It is a mistake, in my view, to concentrate on conscription during the present debate, leaving the essential questions aside.	[DOT]	*
I shall say only a few words on the question of the day-the plebiscite. The leader of the government is to be congratulated on recognizing the pledge he has given to the Canadian people. His action is -highly' appreciated by those who have retained the elementary notions of honesty in public life. Opinions may differ regarding the advisableness of holding a plebiscite, but the Prime Minister must be given credit for having the courage to keep his word. Did he not declare that he would not propose conscription for overseas service without consulting the people of Canada? On the 12fch of November, 1941, he stated in this house:
(Text) So far as I am concerned, without any consultation of the people on that subject, I do not intend to take the responsibility of supporting any -policy of conscription for service overseas. (Hansard, page 4321.)
The government of Canada thus found itself bound by a formal pledge of which, because of uncontrollable circumstances, it asks to be relieved. We recognize this sacred pledge. I do not wish to have it broken at the behest of those for w'hom contracts and pledges are but scraps of paper, at the behest of this band of profiteers who want to get their hands on war contracts, this group of two hundred pirates of high finance, unrestricted masters of great

The Address-Mr. Lalonde
properties, unscrupulous dictators holding in their nimble fingers the strings which lead the Hepburns, the Meighens, the Murdochs; frock-coated speculators who have unloosed upon the country their propaganda in favour of conscription for overseas services, which, unfortunately, has spread even to the confines of the Liberal party. I request the leader of the government to remain firm and1 not allow himself to be imposed upon by political fifth-columnists from the Tory party and parachutists from outside whose task it is to undermine the foundations of the Liberal party in order to replace it by the blackmailing regime which in 1917 gorged itself with scandalous profits while our brothers were dying in the cold mud of Flanders.
The Prime Minister has nothing to fear. He has behind him the indefectible legion of men of the people who have fought with him for the people. If there are in the Liberal party men who might differ from him on minor matters, I do not think there is a single one who, having eaten from his hand, will refuse to stand between the foe and their old leader.
Together with the Liberals I wish to remain faithful to my pledges. More than ever do I see the futility of ordering our young men to leave Canada when the flames of the Asiatic conflict are almost licking the walls of Vancouver and Seattle. I cannot understand the reasoning of men who, like the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), blame the government for not having sufficiently protected our western coast yet at the same time want to send our soldiers to far-away Europe.


Mr. GREEN:: I said we should do both.


Maurice Lalonde: Well, I accept the hon.
member's correction, but I understood him in the sense of what I have just stated. I cannot understand the reasoning of men like the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) who, while crying out for increased production of armaments, persist in demanding compulsory military service overseas, knowing as well as anyone that our plants are short of men, that our mines and shipyards are working on short time, and that our most vital industry, agriculture, cannot and must not be deserted by the farmer and his children.
(Translation) Mr. Speaker, a certain number of men called up for military service for the defence of Canada have already undergone their four months training. I am not the only one here who receives requests from young men wishing to return home for serious reasons. I have vainly tried on several occasions to bring their cases before the authorities, but there does not seem to be at present any legally constituted body authorized to receive
such requests, to consider them and to make decisions. The soldiers in camp are told to apply to their commanding officer. But, Mr. Speaker, the officer commanding a military camp is not in a position to decide whether a man is needed on the. farm. With the greatest good will he cannot carry through the investigation which is absolutely necessary to ensure a fair and just decision. Yet, in my constituency as elsewhere, there are young men who, for one reason or another, particularly in order to perform their military service in wintertime, decided to answer the call but who must return to the farm in the spring. One young man applied for permission to return home because his old father was laid up with paralysis. From office to office, from one commanding officer to another, the matter dragged1 such a long time that the cattle had to be sold, the crop was lost, and to-day this soldier is still in camp and his father's farm is idle. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to say that this is a general condition, but I particularly draw the government's attention in an official manner to this state of affairs which, I sincerely believe, should be remedied without delay.
(Text) I now come back to this question of a plebiscite. The people are to be consulted. The people will decide *whether it is advisable to release the Prime Minister from his pledges. In this regard I am quite ready to defend my position as member for the county of Labelle. I have not changed my view; I am still opposed to compulsory military service overseas. So long as my electors do not change the mandate they gave me to oppose such a measure, I cannot accept it, from whichever side of the house it may come. Is not a consultation of the people by means of a plebiscite the best way of finding out the present opinion of my people? The motives which have impelled the government to take such a step are quite clear: to be relieved of their obligations in order to be free to impose anyr other method of recruiting considered necessary in the light of existing circumstances. They do not sayr that conscription will be enacted for overseas service, for the defence of Labrador, of Newfoundland, of Alaska, and of the territory of the two Americas. But the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has said in this house that they will not have recourse to conscription if voluntary enlistment continues at the present rate.
The government could not do better than order a plebiscite, because, according to the definition of the word itself, a plebiscite is the free expression of public opinion on a given subject. As the answer to be given is left to the free determination of every citizen, it
The Address-Mr. Lalonde

follows that in approving the principle of the plebiscite we do not bind ourselves to answer either in the affirmative or in the negative. In asking for an affirmative answer the government does not seek a vote of confidence. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit that a plebiscite would not be in order, but rather a general election. Therefore in approving the calling of a plebiscite while reserving for the future the expression of our opinion on the proposed method, we are not voting nonconfidence in the government. I do not pledge myself to ask my electors, after giving them all necessary explanations, anything more than to register their votes freely and without coercion according to their own consciences. What shall be the result in any constituency time alone will tell. Should the answer be in the negative, as I think and fear it will be, I urge the government not to consider that as a mark of non-confidence. On the contrary, my electors are so anxious to have as prime minister of this country a man like Mackenzie King that they do not want to run the slightest risk of plunging him into that sea of conscription where the Tory party foundered, dragging with it such geniuses as Arthur Meighen and Mitchell Hepburn. To those who oppose conscription the very name of the Prime Minister of Canada is the best guarantee that their standpoint will prevail. This is also my view. We must keep King at the helm of this country; otherwise it would mean anarchy, disorder, national disunion, as well as the sabotaging of our war effort for the benefit of Hitler alone.
Notwithstanding some statements made in the speech from the throne which may seem far-fetched, I cannot by my vote sanction a motion of absolute want of confidence. Should the tragedy of 1911 be reenacted and King be turned down, as Laurier was, an out-and-out conscriptionist would be the next Prime Minister of Canada; conscription for overseas service -would be soon in force, and we would again witness the unfortunate scenes that, occurred in 1917 and 1918.
(Translation) The opposition to conscription of manpower for overseas service has led some of our English-speaking fellow citizens to question our loyalty to the British crown. Such opposition does not arise from purely emotional feelings. It is rather based on pure reason. Of course, I am willing to admit that we have not the same reasons as our fellow-citizens for rushing to the rescue of the commonwealth, but unbiased observers should not, in the face of historical facts, tax us with disloyalty towards our obligations. We do not have to be prodded to discharge our national duty.

After the conquest, only 65,000 of our people were left in America, without religious or lay leaders to resist the tremendous power of assimilation, but nevertheless we have remained faithful to the king of England.
Until 1774 we had to submit to the affront of the Test and we did not rise in revolt.
Under the constitution of 1791 we were denied the highest positions in the magistra-ture, in the administration, and in politics. This debasing system only ended in the middle of the following century. For eighty years after the conquest, we had to withstand an offensive launched against the teaching of French, but in our distress we did not enter the cry Non possumus as oppressed people are wont to d*o. Yet, Mr. Speaker, have we not in spite of that, remained faithful subjects of the British crown? In 1812, did not the French-Canadians rise to hold this country for the British crown? In 1837, in the face of oligarchical exactions, did not a group of patriots throw off -a yoke that had become too heavy and shed their blood in order to save the last remnants of the liberties guaranteed to us by peace treaties and other agreements?
In 1S67 did we not, disregarding racial and religious prejudice, join hands with the Anglo-Saxon majority in order to establish the Canadian confederation and further by our common efforts, the greatness of our young nation? Have we not, since that time, borne the injustice of Regulation XVII and suffered the effects of the unfair Tory campaigns against the teaching of French in the schools of the Northwest? Have we not under the federative system, struggled unceasingly for the full maintenance of the federal tie in spite of the humiliating situation in which our compatriots have been placed as regards employment in the federal service, through the all too notorious civil service commission? Yet, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all that, have *we not remained faithful and loyal subjects of the British crown?
And when war came in 1914 did we not shed our blood for the maintenance of the imperial tie in spite of the shameful conscription act put forward by Messrs. Meighen and Borden against the Quebec people? And sinc'e the present tragedy has cast its gloom upon the whole world have we not given the best evidence of our loyalty in bearing our share of the heavy taxes and of the blood sacrifice that the government have demanded from the Canadian nation? Have we not also accepted the humiliation of seeing very few French-Canadians appointed as heads of the numerous war-time boards, as if we were always and in spite of everything to be

United States Navy
relegated to the rear ranks of the fighters for freedom? Yet, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are less loyal than our Anglo-Saxon fellow citizens or that we refuse to defend the ideals of the free nations of the world. To the forces of assimilation, we have only opposed our unconquerable will to survive; against attempts at conquest we have raised our staunch loyalty to our traditions. We have remained the solid block of a Christian and Latin civilization which has helped, through its modest influence, to consolidate the expansion of Anglo-Saxon capital whose all too patient servants we have been. Before the urgent necessity of ensuring the survival of Canadian unity we have sacrificed some prerogatives and privileges, and, from one concession to another, we have reached the extreme limit. I even vronder whether any other people in the world would have been willing, as we have been, to submit to the upheaval of conquest, to the collective insults of fanaticism and to the onslaughts of British imperialism while still remaining loyal subjects of His Most Excellent Majesty the King of England.
(Text) We are in this war, Mr. Speaker, and we are determined to win it. But we should not be compelled; to make the ultimate sacrifice, from which would arise confusion and disorder. Canada has voluntarily consented to enter the fight against Hitler. Voluntarily? Perhaps, but with a comparative freedom; for I realize to-day more than ever the strength of Canada's ties of dependence toward the unavoidable obligations arising from her association with the nations of the commonwealth. The world-wide character of this war makes it impossible, of course, for us to claim that we are fighting solely for just one country, but I am more than ever convinced that this is a Canadian dependence from the point of view of sacrifice.
May this war be the starting point of the economic and constitutional independence of my country, Canada, among the free nations of the world. May our sacrifices consolidate the union of the two great races in a true spirit of national cooperation.



UNITED STATES NAVY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement at this time which perhaps should have been made before the orders of the day were called. However, the matter out of which this statement arises was not drawn to my
attention until shortly before three o'clock and I wished to take some advice on the matter from my staff before dealing with it in the house.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I assume the
hon. minister has the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Thomas Vien: Granted.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: The statement upon which I should like to comment is alleged to have been made by the premier of Ontario. The premier of Ontario is reported in several Canadian papers to-day in the following words:
The premier said that on his return from a visit to Australia in 1937, Americans on the boat had scoffed at his fears of the Japanese navy, had declared it to be "a tissue-paper navy" which American forces would wipe off the seas "within a week" after a war in the Pacific was started.
"Well, you've seen what that tissue-paper navy has done", Mr. Hepburn said. "Because of Pearl Harbour the main fleet of the United States navy is in hiding, although it's true that it has carried out hit-and-run raids in the last few days."
I understand that some reference to this statement has been made over United States radio stations, and that it has been drawn to the attention of the President of the United States. Lest there should be any misapprehension in the United States, I should like to make the following comment:
1.	The statement of the premier of Ontario does not represent my view, nor the view of the department of naval services, nor the view of the government of this country.
2.	The dispositions of naval vessels are not like the movements of certain Hollywood actresses. Not always can they be made known to the world. There are usually very excellent reasons why they should not be made known. But the fact that the disposition and movements of ships are not known, is not to be taken as an indication that they are in hiding.
3.	Japanese treachery at Pearl Harbour dealt a heavy blow to the United States fleet, but, notwithstanding, it is mighty and powerful. The courage of its personnel has already been proved and will, I know, be further proved whenever the opportunity offers.
4.	This country has every reason to be eternally grateful for the moral support and the material aid that has come to us and our cause from the United States. A year and a half ago, and long before that country entered the war, she gave to the Royal Navy forty-
The Address-Mr. Veniot

three destroyers, and seven destroyers to the Canadian navy. These have proved to be of the greatest value.
Furthermore, at this very moment, ships carrying the United States flag are engaged, along with Canadian ships of war, in protecting convoys that are sailing from the American continent to the United Kingdom. They certainly are not in hiding.
It is no secret to say that vessels of the United States navy are dispersed in two great oceans, the Atlantic and the Pacific. I shall not say where these vessels are, nor in what strength they stand. But I can say this: each of these United States naval forces represents a fleet in being, and therefore each constitutes a threat against any enemy attempt to carry the war into the vicinity of the coast-line of north America. Wherever they are, they are l shield for Canada and for the United States, as well as a powerful attacking force against the enemy.
Our cause is one. For myself, I thank heaven that it is so. I thank heaven that the United States fleet and the United States army and the industrial might of that great country are with us in this war.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Alphonse Fournier for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sumbury), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. C. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I wish to present the viewpoint of one of the representatives of 225,000 Acadians who form about one-fifth of the population of the maritime provinces and who are the direct descendants of the 5,000 Acadians who were expatriated and deported by Governor Lawrence in 1755 and scattered over the uninhabited shores of the Atlantic ocean from Boston to the Mexican border. Gradually these expatriates trickled back to their farms in the land of Acadie, as the poet Longfellow calls it. They settled there and lived under great difficulties; for a century they were considered practically as a conquered people. These people to-day bear no resentment or animosity against anyone for the sufferings which they underwent during that crucial period. They are loyal subjects of the British crown and of the Dominion of Canada, just as loyal as any of their fellow citizens in the maritime provinces or anywhere else in Canada. Unlike our fellow Canadians

whose traditions and loyalties are linked up with the British empire, we Acadians have no European ties except our mother tongue. France practically abandoned us to our fate two centuries ago.
But with our historic background of persecution, expulsion and suffering, we emphasize our opposition to compulsion for overseas service during any war until we have been shown the supreme need for such a measure. We do assert our desire and our right to choose between compulsion and voluntary enlistment for overseas service. In the last war we did our full share under the voluntary system. It is true that we rebelled against conscription, but we rebelled because of the unfair and unjust way in which it was enforced in our peaceful villages. There was bloodshed in our midst, and we do not want a repetition of these atrocities.
We do recognize that the best way to defeat our enemy is to fight him outside of Canada and to prevent him from reaching our shores. To this end we are prepared to give freely of our lives and to the limit of our man-power and of our meagre means. But we want no more guns and no more bayonets tracking down our youth like wild beasts in our hills and our forests. We have open minds, but the way to convince us is not by making us guzzle conscription by ramming it down our throats.
I present the views of a man whose broad mentality is patterned on that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and on that of the man whom I have succeeded: in this chamber, who was brought up and educated among the Scotch people of Pictou county, Nova Scotia. Like him, next to my religious faith, I place my Canadian citizenship ahead of everything else this side of eternity.
The present debate revolves around two chief topics, conscription for overseas service and the proposed plebiscite. While most of the speakers heard so far, have admitted or applauded the excellence of Canada's war effort as a whole, a -certain minority persist in bitter criticisms of the methods employed by the government to raise man-power for overseas. On this particular point the country and this house are divided into two groups, those who favour voluntary enlistment and those who favour conscription for overseas service.
The advocates of the voluntary system- and they are more numerous than certain newspapers and the Gallup poll would indicate-claim that each individual has the sacred right to determine of his own volition whether or not his life should be exposed to the supreme sacrifice in overseas service outside his native land. They refuse to be

The Address-Mr. Veniot
taken by the scruff of the neck and hurled into foreign fields of battle to forfeit their lives, while the possessors of flat feet and owners of wealth are permitted to go scot-free by certain processes of exemption, as occurred in the last war. They consider themselves justified in saying: "You members of parliament may think it proper to pass legislation regimenting men for overseas service, but it will not be you armchair legislators or members of your families who will endure the hardships, who will do the fighting, who will take the risks and do the dying." Those are words I heard with my own ears not very long ago.
The supporters of voluntary enlistment claim that up to the present time all the requirements of our own forces, army, navy and air force, have been met one hundred per cent. Statements to this effect were made in the house this week by three ministers, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), and very forcefully yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Statements to this effect have been made just within the past few days by the commander in chief of the Canadian forces, by no less a person than General McNaughton, when he stated that the Canadian people have met to the hilt all the requirements so far of man-power in England.
Each year since the beginning of the war a programme of man-power has been outlined for overseas service. This programme has been set by the Department of National Defence in consultation with the highest military authorities both in England and in Canada. The extent of the requirements is established in the light of all existing circumstances at the time of the formulation of the plan, and all requirements thus far decided upon have been met to the hilt.
The programme for 1942 has just been announced by the Minister of National Defence. It involves the raising of a considerable number of men, running from 173,000 to
193,000.	This is a large programme, and at the present rate of enlistments there can be no doubt in the mind of any member of this house that we shall again meet all the requirements by voluntary enlistment. At this particular date and without knowledge of what the government further proposes in the way of plans, how can the opposition truthfully say that voluntary enlistment has failed? I need not insist upon the reports which come from the different sections of Canada. I have here reports from New Brunswick published in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal, and here is one
headline: "Surge in army recruiting." And here is a report in the Ottawa Citizen, showing that 500 recruits were signed up in the month of January in the city of Ottawa. Similar reports come from all over Canada. The Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) a few days ago stated that in the last seven months our enlistments have averaged 20,000 a month, which makes 140,000 in seven months. Why, then, the clamor that the nation's war effort is going to be delayed if not ruined by the proposed plebiscite? Must recruiting in every- part of Canada cease while the plebiscite is on? Are the different military divisions and depots to be closed down and all training suspended during that time? Why make such childish statements to an intelligent public?
It has been frequently and truthfully said in this house that raising an army for overseas service is only one part of an all-out war effort. The methods heretofore adopted for providing men, voluntary enlistment and conscription, are only means to that end. Conscription for that purpose is and will remain of debatable, doubtful value. It may be equitable in certain respects, it may be just in some ways, but it is most provocative and irritating to all elements, and charged with racial dynamite. In fact, I submit, sir, that by the odious way in which it was applied in 1917 by the arch-imperialists of this country, it was transformed into a racial issue. This is a strong statement. Nevertheless it is the bald truth, as I shall proceed to show.
I again reiterate that conscription now is, and always will be, a racial issue in Canada. It was forced into such a place in our thoughts by the unforgivable and unforgettable circumstances with which the Conservative party surrounded the birth of conscription and the way in which it was carried out in the last war, and proposed again in the present war. All of us Canadians must recognize this fact without delay before our national edifice is too far ablaze with passion.
Deep down in his heart every Canadian knows that conscription, more than ever to-day, contains the germs of strife, of division, of violent resistance, and possibly of bloodshed as in the last war. We never shall win this war while w-e are divided by a racial issue, and just now, with passions burning to white heat in certain sections of the country, we are headed for catastrophe.
Unity cannot be maintained by such fiery statements as those of Premier Hepburn when he charged the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with deliberately trying to set the French against the British through his lieutenant, Mr. Godbout. I do not know the

The Address-Mr. Veniot

nature of the evil spirits which move the premier of Ontario to speak in such a way and make other firebrand statements against the Prime Minister of the nation. None of his violent utterances are in harmony with the fundamental principles of confederation which brought together two peoples of different tongues, different race and different religion.
Any fair-minded person who has studied the history of Canada since its conquest by the British, and who has a knowledge of the background of strife and struggle which took place between these two racial groups during a century of adjustment, realizes what a tremendous undertaking confederation was, and still is. Why does French Canada feel as it does toward conscription?
All of us need in the worst way to dig into history, to learn the facts, to recall the fundamental principles of bonne entente, and review the problem of the relations of French Canada to the rest of the dominion. May I be permitted merely to enumerate a few points in history which all of us should study with the deepest concern.
First, one which I have already mentioned, and which still lingers in the heart and. soul of every Acadian in the maritime provinces, and which is handed down as a tradition from mother to child on her knees-the expulsion of the Acadians in 1755. Has anything ever been done to rehabilitate and to compensate these innocent victims of the racial hate which existed at that time? No further comments are necessary.
Second, the Quebec Act of 1774.
Third, the Constitutional Act of 1791, by which Canada was divided into Upper and Lower Canada.
Fourth, the war of 1812, when French Canada stuck to England and saved this colony for the British.
Fifth, the rebellion of 1837.
Sixth, the union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1841, by which Lord Durham hoped that the French-Canadians could be manipulated into adopting the language and the customs of the English and assimilated by them. These words are related in history verbatim.
Seventh, the Confederation Act of 1867, by which English- and French-speaking Canadians shook hands and agreed to forget their past differences in order to make Canada one of the greatest countries in the world.
Eighth, the War-time Elections Act and the Military Service Act of 1917, of which I shall say more later.
Ninth, the statute of Westminster.
Tenth, the school acts in eight provinces where French-Canadians are a minority group.

Contrast these with the treatment accorded the English minority in the province of Quebec.
The defenders of conscription are loud in their vociferations for equality of sacrifice. Equality of sacrifice in my estimation naturally presupposes equality of citizenship. I ask this house, is there equality of citizenship for the three-quarters of a million French-Canadians who live outside Quebec and who are denied the right of separate schools for the education of their children in their mother tongue?
These are a few of the historical facts. Let us now confront them with certain other facts.
First, practically all Canadians who support conscription for overseas are of British descent.
Second, there is a very large number of Canadians, also of British descent, who oppose conscription, some because it is their intimate conviction; others because, although favouring conscription as a means of raising troops for overseas service, they view it as a racial issue which nearly wrecked Canada in the last war.
Third, practically every Canadian of French descent is irrevocably opposed to conscription; he holds these views as sacred to him as his religion and his mother tongue. May I recall that there are over three and a half million French-Canadians in Canada, of whom, as I have already said, three-quarters of a million reside outside Quebec.
I ask my bon. friends to recall these facts and figures in their moments of calm reflection.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1917 recognized the racial implications of conscription and the dangers which it contained. Since that time, Mackenzie King, Lapointe and their followers have all been of the same opinion. In the session of 1939, the then leader of the opposition, Doctor Manion, was shrewd enough to perceive it, and in 1940 during the election campaign he repeated from one end of the country to the other the statements he had made in the house. I concede to him in all fairness that he was expressing this opinion not as a bait for vote-catching, but because deep down in his soul he knew the implications of conscription as a racial issue and a danger for Canada. The trouble with us all is that up to the present time none of us has had the courage frankly to put this view before the public in its true light. We have avoided the issue. We have neglected to place before the public the true perspective, to call a spade a spade, to derive from it the only logical conclusion to which this fact leads, namely that during a world war crisis such as we are facing to-day the English

The Address-Mr. Veniot
and French elements of our population must come together without delay and arrive at a reasoned understanding on this vital question.
Unfortunately, extremists of both major political parties in this house beclouded the issue when each accused the other of using conscription as a vote-getter in and out of the province of Quebec. I cannot see how the continuance of violent public statements during an election campaign, such as those of the premier of Ontario, which I have already mentioned, are going to help to bridge the gap between the two races. Equally violent utterances in the opposite direction come from the province of Quebec, and will not span the breach. Nor can I see how the presence of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen in this house could have helped in any way to bring about unity of purpose, when all French Canada recalls his share in the framing and execution of the conscription act in the last war. And what an execution that was!
Here may I be permitted to quote words uttered by Hon. II. C. Nixon a few days ago in this connection. Said he:
I believe it would be a national calamity if Arthur Meighen were returned to public life by South York on Monday.
I recall how Canada was divided in 1917 and 1918 by the War-time Elections Act and the Military Service Act, and which were applied in such an iniquitous way that millions of people still see red when they think of it, and not in Quebec alone either. For this condition no man living to-day is more responsible than Mr. Meighen.
There are certain amenities, Mr. Speaker, which peoples as well as gentlemen owe one another, and the things just mentioned are not of the proper taste nor are they suitable to men occupying such high responsibility in a dual nation like ours, where susceptibilities are always so keen. Fortunately there always exists a great measure of tolerance and fair-mindedness in this country. I have discussed this thorny question of conscription with many of my numerous friends of British origin. Here are the views of a distinguished gentleman, a non-Catholic clergyman with whom I had the pleasure of travelling on the train when returning from the funeral of the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. He told me that personally he considered the conscription of all man-power the most equitable way of raising troops for overseas if it could be harmoniously carried out. With his knowledge of the historical background of Canada's different peoples he could not conceive of the possibility of any such utopia, and he opposes conscription in the interests of Canadian unity 44561-334
because he regards it essentially as a racial issue fraught with extreme danger to the solidarity of the nation. Never before had it entered my mind that conscription could have such an implication and it was the expression of this thought that made it enter my mind, namely, that conscription in Canada at the present time has become a racial issue. In his estimation, to force conscription would split the nation asunder and ruin our otherwise splendid war effort.
In further discussion he expressed other opinions. Here are some of them. Conscription, according to him, would never be thought of as a method of raising troops in south Africa. Why? Because there also it would be a racial issue between the Boers and the British. In Ireland it would be a religious issue between the north and the south. In Australia, where the population is 97 per cent of British origin, Prime Minister Hughes on two different occasions in the last war called a referendum on this question; on both occasions the measure was thrown out, and the feeling against the prime minister at that time for his conscriptionist view was so strong that, as you know, he had to resign his position as prime_ minister.
At the present date there is no conscription for overseas service in Australia. Are we Canadians any the less British or any the less patriotic than the Australians? In the United States there is no racial cleavage. There, conscription, such as they are imposing it, is purely a matter of policy or expediency. In line with these thoughts, I should like to call the attention of the house to a little book which appeared some time ago entitled "Canadian Peoples," by Mr. B. K. Sandwell, in which he shows the entire historical background of some of the thoughts I have been expressing in this house. The views of this man are those of many broad-minded and informed English-speaking Canadians with whom I have discussed this thorn in the side of our nation.
Conscription as enforced in the last war was recognized as a national blunder and failure as a man-power-producing measure, by the leaders of all political parties, immediately before and during the last election. All Liberal supporters have always proclaimed its failure from the very beginning. The then National Conservative leader, Doctor Manion, as I said, spoke in the house against conscription and, as I have already mentioned, repeated the same speech from coast to coast
The futility of conscription for producing men in numbers is demonstrated by the following figures, some of which were given last week by the Minister of Pensions and
The Address-Mr. Veniot

National Health. The first class of unmarried men from 20 to 34 years of age, registered in 1917, numbered 404,000. Of these, there were 380,000 exemptions claimed for one reason or another, leaving only a difference of 24,000 men to come under arms. By the end of March, 1918, in Ontario, 118,000 claimed exemption and 104,000 exemptions were approved. In Quebec, 108,000 out of 115,000 called received exemption. By the end of March, 1918, in the whole dominion, 31,000 men had been called up of whom 5,000 had defaulted. At the end of the war, as the Minister of Pensions and National Health pointed out a few days ago, only 83,000 men were enrolled under the act, but there was something which the minister did not say. Of this number 22,000 were released on farm leave or on compassionate leave. In the final analysis, 61,000 men formed the total contribution of conscription to the last war effort.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this an effort that is worth while, produced by a measure which certain interests are seeking to impose upon Canada to-day? Yet, in spite of this evident failure, in spite of the futility which I have just shown; in spite of the disruption which it caused to national unity; in spite of the hatred which it engendered, the spectre of conscription hovers over this house again to-day as the battlecry of the Conservative party and the ultimate and only means of saving this nation. To cap the climax, the same party calls in as the standard-bearer of conscription the one man in Canada whose very name is anathema to the province of Quebec and wherever there exists in Canada a group of Canadians of French descent-the very man who in 1917 framed the War-time Elections Act and the Military Service Act and saw to their application in the province of Quebec in the odious and provocative manner which all of us recall so well and so sorrowfully.
That wound still bleeds in Quebec. Can members of the Conservative party sincerely believe that their choice of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen last fall as their leader was a tactful one in these difficult times when unity of purpose and harmony and unstinted cooperation of al! classes and creeds and races are more important than gold and guns? Do hon. members opposite honestly think that they can heal Quebec's wounds and many other injuries of the last war by selecting as their chief the very man who inflicted those wounds and who is regarded as the personification of intolerance?
I say that the choice of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen at that time was a direct challenge to the province of Quebec-


Jean-François Pouliot: A blunder.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I submit that this choice at such a time, when spirits were aready heated up, was the greatest political strategic error since confederation, which may lead even yet, although the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen was defeated, to dire consequences for the nation. Shortly after the selection of the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen as leader of his party was announced, one of my Conservative friends said to me, "Bennett wrecked the Conservative party by his autocracy, and now Meighen comes to bury it."
As I view the deliberate, gradually worked up conscription agitation, the main object of it seems to be to pit the province of Quebec against the rest of the nation, as a political move the sinister objective of which is to wreck the Liberal party. Only last Thursday the Otthwa Citizen seemed to gloat already over its victim in an editorial saying:
Collapse is bound to come on parliament hill. The signs of disintegration are already to be seen. While the ship of state is being attacked from without by the most terrible forces of barbarism, Canada is being scuttled internally by party politics.
The evil spirits which inspire and guide the backers of conscription at the present time seoin to say weirdly: "If we can create a clamour sufficiently strong to stampede a certain number of English-speaking Liberals into supporting conscription, and thus split the Liberal fold, potential victory and power is ours. Perish unity, perish the nation, so long as the Liberal party and King are destroyed 1"
If this allegation be denied, and no doubt it will be-I do not -blame my friends of the opposition for denying it, because it is a terrible indictment-then I would ask my hon. friends to prove their honesty and sincerity, their love of country, their desire for peace and unity, by considering the generous suggestion made in this house on January 29 by one of their own party, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) when he proposed to exclude Quebec from the operation of compulsory selective service. The same thought was expressed on February 9 by the hon. member for Oomox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) when he said, as reported on page 40S of Hansard:
If necessary, I would agree to conscription which would leave out sections where the feeling was anti-conseriptionist. That was done in Ireland twice, during the great war and in this war. No trouble resulted, no ill feeling, and no discrimination. Possibly it would be a good idea here.
As I previously remarked, nearly one-third of the dominion's population is made up of Canadians of French descent, and three-quarters of a million of these reside outside

The Address-Mr. Veniot
of the province of Quebec. I presume that the magnanimous suggestion of the hon. member for Parkdale would include these latter in the scope of his intentions, for to a man, this part of the population is opposed to conscription for overseas service. On every other single point of any all-out total war effort every French-Canadian in this country is in complete harmony with his fellow citizens, as Premier Godbout proclaimed some time ago, and is prepared to go to the very limits of sacrifice in order to win this war.
On the other hand, as I have already pointed out, the absolute totality of the advocates for conscription are of British origin. Upon these, then, I presume the hon. member for Parkdale would impose conscription for overseas service, preserving the system of voluntary enlistment for all Canadians of French descent. May I congratulate the hon. member for having had such a brilliant thought and making such a magnanimous gesture of friendship. It certainly is one of the finest statements I ever heard in this parliament or outside of it, and he has the unqualified blessing of every mother's heart in French Canada.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, give the French-Canadians more of their own commanding officers whose language they understand, more of their own training centres, where they can be taught the intricacies of military technique in their own mother tongue. Can you see the leader of the opposition training in a military school where French is the only language in use? Give them, I say, their own regiments, their own battalions under the voluntary system, and you will see the old French spirit of valour and chivalry showing this nation and the whole world that French-Canadians are not slackers-as I have heard it said within the very walls of this building. They will show that they can repeat many times over the numbers and the valiant deeds of the crack Royal 22nd French-Canadian regiment. They will show that their love of Canada is equal to, if not greater than, that of any other group of Canadians in this country.
We do not seek to shirk our obligations, but we demand respect for the convictions that we hold as deeply rooted in our souls as our religious faith. Barring this one point of conscription for overseas service, we are ready for any sacrifice. Aye, we welcome it, and there is no limit to our possibilities.
I challenge the opposition to support their fellow member in his suggestion. If this were done I should like to see side by side battalions composed of conscripts and of volunteers from the province of Quebec.
I quote the following passage from the Montreal Standard of January 24:
The basis of Canadian confederation, the union of two peoples of different tongue is compromise; the art of effecting compromises that will preserve the unity of Canada has become the chief measurement of Canadian statesmanship. Without the spirit of compromise, the historians of the future will likely find the mixed federation of peoples and institutions that are bound together in the Dominion of Canada would dissolve.
This, Mr. Speaker, explains Baldwin and Lafontaine, Macdonald and Cartier, Laurier and Fielding, King and Lapointe. Such compromise establishes the law of fair exchange in mutual friendship, mutual understanding and agreement, without which this country cannot continue to exist, upon which the survival of the nation is based.
Will some wise man tell the country why such dual leadership has ceased to exist in the Conservative party since the last war? Will someone name the French associates of Borden, Bennett, Meighen, comparable to those of their predecessors, and say why there is not one single Conservative of French extraction in the present parliament, and why there was only one in the last? The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) found the atmosphere bitterly cold during the short time he sat on the Conservative benches. Why has French Canada no outstanding representative in the Tory party to-day? Because this party in the last war and since that time ignored the lesson of true statesmanship, given heretofore by the leaders of both major political parties, former leaders whose names will- go down in history as the foster-fathers of union and harmony between the two great races of Canada, while Borden, Meighen and Bennett will be relegated to the background because they ignored the important fact that by their own machinations conscription in Canada will always remain a race issue, whatever their views to the contrary now may be.
Personally, I am prepared to support the proposed plebiscite, and to ask my people to back it up one hundred per cent; not that I favour conscription, but because I feel that a middle course can be worked out which will be just and equitable and less disruptive than conscription as it was and is still conceived by the Conservative party; because I have the utmost confidence in my chief and in his government; because I know that their judgment will be exercised with the utmost caution in the light of all existing circumstances-war conditions, economic conditions and racial difficulties-if and when the moment, of supreme danger arises for the safety of our country and of our allies.
If conscription ever did become a supreme necessity and I could be persuaded of this necessity I would rather see its enforcement
The Address-Mr. Veniot

in the hands of the Prime Minister, noted for his moderation and his broadness of views, and the men surrounding him, than in the hands of the men who made conscription such a flop by the odious way it was enforced in Quebec during the last war.
I submit that there can and must be found some middle course between the two extreme views which now split the country on the issue of conscription. Men of moderate views from aW parties and from both racial groups must get together somehow and calmly study the situation from its every angle. The handwriting of disaster is all too plainly emblazoned on the ceiling over our heads. A truce must be called on the question. The nation's interest is greater than that of the Liberal, the Conservative or any other party at the present time; for if conscription in its 1917 form is put into effect, even at the hour of supreme danger, even as remotely as a year or two hence, I dare not say what will take place in my county and in other sections of the country, unless other means than those of the past are used to persuade the people.
These are terrific things to say, but no sane man can ignore any longer the rumblings that reach us from the cities as well as from the back settlements in opposition to conscription, since Meighen relaunched it as his supreme war cry on November 13 last. Let me quote, in conclusion, a paragraph by Leslie Roberts in a recent issue of Saturday Night-.
It can be said that war in the Pacific rather than tending to change French Canada's attitude to conscription, has stiffened Quebec's determination to have nothing to do with the idea. There continues to be a complete lack of comprehension in hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of English-Canadians' minds as to the root cause of this opposition. Basically, it must be charged to the poorest piece of political and journalistic salesmanship in our history, coupled with a determination on the part of a few editors and orators to cram conscription down Quebec's throat no matter what happens. You do not change the opinions of a democratic minority that way. You merely stiffen their determination not to be browbeaten, and sooner or later, if the process continues, Donnybrook ensues.
Fortunately there are many English-Canadians of this writer's type, educated Canadians who have studied the fundamentals of racial, ethnical economics, who do not let themselves be carried away by passion, whose reasoned outlook on the present situation will help to preserve unity and harmony among our peoples.
May divine providence enlighten a greater number of such minds, chasten our hearts of the bitterness which has welled up during the past three months, and infuse into our souls the kindly balm of mutual tolerance.

On motion of Mr. Douglas (Weyburn) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Thursday, February 12, 1942