CENSORSHIP OF MAIL ADDRESSED TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I rise to a question of privilege, affecting not only myself but every member of this house. On January 21 the hon. member
for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) raised a similar question. No answer, so far as I know, has been forthcoming from the government and I desire to demonstrate that the practice of which he complained is still continuing and to register my firmest and most emphatic protest against it.
I hold in my hand an air mail envelope postmarked "Wolfville, N.S."-which is in the constituency of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley)-"February 12, 1942." The end of this envelope has a label pasted over it, upon which appear the following words: "Examined by DB/C 106." This label obscures any initials which may have appeared on the envelope, but the following appears very clearly, "Hanson, Esq., M.P., Leader of the Opposition, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ont." There could have been no doubt in the mind of the censor that this letter was addressed to me as a member of parliament and as leader of the opposition. The censor none the less took upon himself to open and examine this letter.
I protest, first of all, against that. In this connection I should like to draw the attention of the house to the reply made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) on January 21 last, Hansard, page 4463, in which the hon. member asked this question:
If any criticism of a department of government has been found, has such criticism been extracted from letters and sent with the name of the writer to the department involved?
The answer of the Postmaster General was:
Such extracts are referred in confidence to the head of the department concerned, when it is considered in the public interest to do so.
In other words, if this letter from the constituency of the Minister of Finance, addressed to me as a member of parliament and as leader of the opposition, had contained critical reference to the minister's conduct of his department, shall I say, it might have been referred to the minister.
Mr. Speaker, this is an intolerable situation and one which the members of this house cannot permit to continue. This practice converts a censorship, which exists solely for the purpose of securing the safety of the state in wartime, into a petty Gestapo spying upon members of parliament and others.
May I make it very clear that my protest is not based upon any objection to the contents of this particular letter being made known to anyone. I hold it in my hand and anybody who wants to do so can read it. The letter is merely a general condemnation of the plebiscite and I would have no hesitation in reading it to the house if anybody wants to hear it. My protest is based upon a principle and that principle I enunciate
592	COMMONS
Privilege-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
as follows: Mail addressed to any member of parliament or dispatched by any member of parliament must be considered inviolate and free from interference by any servant of the crown. Unless this principle is firmly established, I do not believe it is possible for members of parliament adequately to perform their duties. If it is possible, as it is, for a letter addressed by me to, shall I say, the leader of the Conservative party in Nova Scotia, or by such leader to me, to be examined by a censor and the contents thereof communicated to the Postmaster General or even to the Prime Minister himself, I do not see how anyone can continue to carry on the duties of leader of the opposition. I do not say that this has occurred, but, under the procedure followed, it may occur.
I propose to lay on the table of the house the envelope to which I have referred. I protest against this practice with all the vigour and emphasis at my command and I ask the house to deal with this violation of privilege. Unless I have an unequivocal assurance that this practice will be stopped immediately I shall take the earliest opportunity to assert by way of a motion the rights and privileges of members of this parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to carry on one of the functions of government-perhaps in an inadequate manner but nevertheless with all the loyalty and power at my command- but if I am to be subject to this sort of espionage, I shall protest to the utmost and if I get no redress I shall carry the matter to the court of public opinion.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say first, with respect to the underlying principles that are vital in the matter to which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has just referred, that I am in entire agreement with him. May I also say that if what I have been told is correct, some of my own mail has been similarly opened by censors, against which I wish to protest just as strongly as he has done.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am in good company.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It could not be better for either of us. May I say further something with which I am sure my hon. friend will be the first to agree. It is that great difficulties present themselves to some of the officials who are discharging public duties, in the matter of carrying out the instructions given to them. The letter to which my hon. friend has referred, as well as that referred to the other day, were air-mail letters, if I am not mistaken?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And there is the further fact, I believe, that they came from areas known for certain military reasons as prohibited defence areas. I think there is a part of the district represented by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) which is a prohibited area.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Halifax is, but I did not think any part of my constituency is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that part of Halifax is. I cannot say just how far the area extends, but there are certain prohibited defence areas and certain restrictions in regard to air mail coming from those areas. I should not be surpised if that and that alone is the reason for the opening of the letter of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
I can assure him that the last thing any member of the administration would wish is to have his mail or the mail of any hon. member opened for purposes of espionage or anything of the kind. I shall take up at once with the ministers concerned with censorship the representations which have been made, and see if it is not possible to have any occurrence of this kind prevented in the future. Hon. members will realize that in a time of war of necessity there are occasions when with the utmost desire to give the fullest discretion to officials they may err. on what they regard as the side of strict compliance with instructions. I am sure the present instance is one of that kind only.


Mr. HANSON (York-Suntbury):: I should like to add this: I realize that from a proclaimed defence area such as Halifax a good deal more care has to be taken than from an area which is not a defence area. But Wolf-ville is not a defence area. An air mail letter is mailed at Wolfville; I assume it goes to Halifax and takes the plane there. But it does not originate in Halifax. I think we ought to know what instructions are given to the censors. A letter directed by a citizen of this country to a member of parliament should not be opened even if it does take the plane at Halifax. I should like to know what the rules are.
In the early part of the war I was in Florida, and my family was living at Halifax, and all our mail was censored. I expected that; there was the element, an important one, of possible contravention of the regulations of the foreign exchange control board. Such mail was international in character. People have sought to send securities out of the country by mail, and the foreign exchange control board exercise some control over that through the censorship. That is quite proper. But mail from Wolfville to Ottawa surely should

Fall oj Singapore
never be opened. I cannot see on what principle they are opened. I suppose it is charitable to think that probably it is due to some too officious official. But that is not enough; we ought to know what the rules are.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall try to get for my hon. friend the information he has requested. I would only wish to substitute the word "conscientious" for "officious".


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I think it is officious.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: May I add a word in this connection, as I happened to bring this subject to the attention of the Postmaster General? The Prime Minister has said that he thought this opening of letters by the censors would apply only to air mail letters. In one case a letter was opened, an ordinary letter, mailed to my wife from Montreal. It happened to contain a Christmas card. It seems extraordinary that that should happen. I have been informed that on other occasions photostatic copies have been made of extracts from letters and these have been sent to the departments of government concerned when there has been criticism.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the last statement of my hon. friend is one on which the government should have a little more information. If he can advise me of any instance in which photostatic prints have been made from letters and sent to the government, I should like to have particulars.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Postmaster General said it was done.



THE WAR IN THE FAR EAST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. members will I assume be anxious to know whether the government has received any information with regard to the critical situation in the far east which it is in a position to impart, beyond the momentous announcement made yesterday by the prime minister of Great Britain (Mr. Churchill) in the course of his world-wide broadcast that Singapore has fallen. Hon. members will I am sure appreciate the fact that such information as our government receives with respect to matters in the far east comes to us for the most part from London. There are very few connections between Canada and the far east if we except
the direct communications we have with Australia and New Zealand. So far as London itself is concerned the sources that may be regarded as reliable with respect to events and happenings in the far east are becoming increasingly limited, and in Britain the government itself is obliged to take additional precautions by way of investigating the reliability of information before sending it out.
We have thus far received no information that would throw additional light upon the situation in the far east, beyond the announcement that was made by the Prime Minister yesterday.
I am sure, however, that hon. members would not wish this fateful hour to pass without some recognition on the part of the parliament and the people of Canada of the heroic resistance of the defenders of Singapore, a resistance which will be recalled throughout time as comparable to any recorded chapter of valour and endurance. The position of the defenders of Singapore has deeply stirred the hearts of the Canadian people. It has made us more determined than ever to resist with all our might onslaughts of the enemy where-ever we can assist to that end, and to devote the utmost of our strength to the defence of freedom. This major reverse should not be allowed to become an excuse for undue pessimism, or undue recriminations. I should like to re-echo the words of the Prime Minister of Great Britain that as a people we must steel ourselves against "many misfortunes, severe and torturing losses, remorseless and gnawing anxieties." At the same time we must, with a faith that is stronger than ever, believe, again to quote Mr. Churchill, that the same qualities which brought the British people through the awful jeopardy of the summer of 1940 will bring all through this new ordeal.
Let me add, too, that with the Prime Minister of Great Britain I believe nothing could be more harmful at the present or any time than a lack of unity within our nation, or between the nations that to-day are united in seeking to preserve the liberties of mankind. We must stand together as never before in preserving our national unity and the unity of the united nations. For Canada the fall of Singapore should emphasize the gravity of the whole world situation. Coming, on the eve of the victory loan campaign, it should serve to bring forth from the people of Canada a full and immediate response to the loan as an essential factor in the war effort of our country.
Secret Session



SECRET SESSION OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) whether any decision has been reached by the government concerning the suggestion that there should be a secret session of the house to consider the question of the defence of the Pacific coast, or of both coasts. The fall of Singapore may mean that Canada has only a limited time in which to prepare.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has had in mind the suggestion advanced that a secret session of the house should be held. Thus far we have had the intention of holding that session at a date which, all factors considered, we believed would be most advisable. We had felt that the debate on the address should be concluded before a secret session was held, unless there were some special reason to the contrary. We have also felt that if the plebiscite bill could be passed and sent to the other house as speedily as possible, that would be desirable. We would then make the plebiscite the next measure to be considered, and immediately thereafter have the secret session which has been requested. If, however, there should be a general feeling that it would be desirable to have a secret session earlier than that, the government will seek to meet that desire. 1 am inclined to believe that if the secret session could be held at about the time I have indicated it would perhaps serve the purpose my hon. friends have in view.


Howard Charles Green: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that time is precious these days, and that he consider whether or not the secret session should be held before the plebiscite bill is under discussion, because that discussion may last for some time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of course it is the emphasis that has been placed upon time being precious that makes us wish to get the plebiscite bill through as soon as possible. My colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) mentions to me that members of the staff of his department have certain steps in view which might obviate the necessity of having an immediate discussion on the Pacific situation. He feels that matters might be put in such shape that the house might be more fully informed if the steps that are now being taken could be taken before the secret session is held.


Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I rose to say something similar, except that I think the secret session should be held immediately, and that even this debate should be suspended in view of the general situation which is developing. And I do not believe any secret session should be concerned only with Pacific coast defences. It should deal with the whole of our defence effort and with our production; that is to say, there should be a complete inquiry into the situation as it now exists. Members of this house know very little more than the general public. It is about time we assumed our responsibilities and went into this thing very thoroughly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, that if the feeling is as he has expressed it, namely that the secret session should be held immediately, then we might agree at once to have the session held as soon as the debate on the address has been concluded. I believe there is a general understanding that this may take place to-morrow night.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we should get this debate concluded, and then we might get together and decide on a date for a secret session and what should be discussed. I am afraid that if we undertook in secret session to cover the whole gamut of government operations and responsibilities we would have a debate lasting as long as this debate on the address. I think it is a matter on which we might get together and perhaps evolve a programme; I believe that would1 be a fair suggestion to make.


Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: May I say that the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver South Mr. Green) with respect to a secret session to discuss defence on the Pacific coast might lead one to think that we on the Atlantic coast have not the same feelings about our defence as the people on the Pacific coast. I urge that at any secret session of the house where the question of defence on the Pacific coast is taken up, the government be prepared to discuss as of equal importance and equal urgency the question of defence on the Atlantic coast.



SECOND VICTORY LOAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: In view of the fact that the cost of raising the last victory loan was reported to be over

Armed Forces-Lack oj Proper Clothing
$8,000,000, will the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) inform the house what measures he has taken to curtail the expense of raising the present victory loan?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The proposed expenditures have been carefully budgeted1 for. Preparations for the loan have been made over a long period of time, covering several weeks and months. Naturally we wish to keep expenditures down to the absolute minimum, but apart from that I do not know that there is anything that I can say to my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I believe there is a question on the order paper by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) having to do with the cost of the last victory loan. I have heard a good deal of criticism of the cost of that loan. I do not know whether or not that criticism is justified, but I do think the Canadian people are entitled to a breakdown of the cost of the last loan. If that would prejudice the success of the present loan I would put it in the waste paper basket at once, because nothing must be allowed to prejudice this loan. I am going to have something more to say about that, perhaps tomorrow; but there is a feeling that the cost of the last loan was pretty high.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): My attention has deen directed to a dispatch appearing in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Friday, February 13, containing a statement attributed to the premier of Ontario, as follows:
"He said 45,000 men had been discharged from the armed forces mostly because they developed colds and tuberculosis from lack of proper clothing."
Every implication of this grossly alarmist statement is totally unjustified. Out of more than 400,000 enlistments up to the end of December the total number discharged as medically unfit was only 27,153. The number
45,000	represents the number struck off the strength for all reasons, including among others the following: misconduct; false attestation; over and under age; compassionate grounds; unlikely to become efficient soldiers; returned to civil employment in which they had special skill. The number discharged as medically unfit, I repeat, was 27,153, which is approximately 6-75 per cent of enlistments.
A statistical analysis of the conditions leading to discharge is complete with respect to
21,000	cases dealt with prior to November 1. To suggest that tuberculosis is a major condition is utterly and entirely untrue. Up to the first of the year the number of the members of the forces discharged for physical unfitness, including wounds, was less than 7 per cent of total enlistments. For more detailed statistics, I have to go back to November 1.
Since the outbreak of war it has been an automatic procedure that the file of every member of the forces discharged as medically unfit shall be referred immediately to the Canadian pension commission for a ruling. The number of cases upon which rulings had been given on November 1 amounted to 20,982. The number of cases of tuberculosis among these were 1,320. At that time the number of enlistments in all three services was around
360,000.
The total number of cases of tuberculosis was, therefore, only one-third of one per cent of the whole of our Canadian forces in the present war. This figure includes a very large number of non-active cases-that is, of men who were found to have spots on their lungs, which made it unwise for them to continue in military service for fear of some later breakdown, but who at the time were quite well and able to carry on in ordinary civil life.
Every man enlisting in the Canadian forces in this war is given a careful X-ray examination for the purpose of detecting chest conditions which may escape attention at tlie ordinary clinical examination.
Richard Burpee Hanson: When did that practice begin?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I am just going to refer to that. Ip the early months of the war this X-ray was not taken until perhaps three or four months after enlistment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Now, in most cases, it is taken at the time of enlistment, often before attestation has been completed. The Canadian Tuberculosis Association has kept a careful record of the results of these X-ray examinations and I am advised that of all the cases of tuberculosis detected in these examinations only 40 per cent were active. The remainder were inactive or quiescent.
The vast majority of these non-active cases were detected within a very short time after enlistment, indicating (1) that the condition had arisen prior to enlistment, (2) that it had
596	COMMONS
Armed Forces-Lack of Proper Clothing
not been aggravated by the man's short experience in the army, and (3) that -the precautions taken by the government have probably saved young men's lives; since a man with this weakness, if subjected to the rigours of military life for a prolonged period, would undoubtedly break down.
The foregoing figures clearly indicate that of the small number of cases of tuberculosis detected in the armed forces, the vast majority existed before enlistment. Our law provides that if a condition such as tuberculosis is found to have been caused by service, or to have been aggravated by service, the man is pensionable. I have already shown that among the 21,000 men discharged as physically unfit prior to November 1, the Canadian Pension commission had found 1,320 cases of tuberculosis. These cases include the men who have been attested for only a few days, and then discharged. The extent to which tuberculosis has been caused by or aggravated by military service is reflected in the number of pension awards made. That number, up to November 1, was 39-for tuberculosis, in all our forces. That is, out of 360,000 men enlisted by November 1, we have the following facts:
Fewer than 7 per cent were discharged as physically unfit, and this 7 per cent includes a large number in whom weaknesses of preenlistment origin were detected by X-ray within a few days or weeks of enlistment. It includes only 1,320 cases of tuberculosis, the vast majority of which were non-active. The tqtal number of cases of tuberculosis found in the armed forces represents only one-third of one per cent of the men enlisted. The number of tuberculosis cases due to, or aggravated by service, was 39, all told-a number too small to be expressed in any percentage figures.
The fact that we have 1,320 cases of tuberculosis recorded indicates not that the provision for the health of the troops is inadequate, but that the efficiency of our medical services has saved a large number of men with lung weaknesses from undergoing the rigours of military training.
Instead of conditions in the armed services having brought about large numbers of cases of tuberculosis, as so recklessly implied by the premier of Ontario, the efficiency of our medical examinations has actually saved hundreds of lives, and revealed to many young civilians the existence of unsuspected lung weaknesses, which they can now intelligently protect.
The irresponsible and unfounded statement by the premier of Ontario may have several consequences. First, it may needlessly alarm tens of thousands of mothers and wives as to

the care their boys are receiving in the armed services of Canada. Such a statement is therefore entirely improper and thoroughly indefensible. Second, it may give comfort to the enemy by belittling the efficiency of our fighting forces. There is only one word in the English language to describe such conduct- and I shall not use it here. In the third place it may shake public confidence in the government of our country. That, of course, the premier of Ontario regards as fair game in these grim, dark days of war, as well as in the more pleasant days of peace.
I leave this whole unhappy affair to two tribunals, one being indefinite and uncertain, the elastic conscience of the man who pronounced the libel, the other very definite and certain and purposeful, the free and unfettered judgment of hon. members of this house. In my own opinion the statement was thoroughly contemptible.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister consider using paragraph 39 (b) of the defence of Canada regulations empowering the government to intern any person making statements likely to interfere with recruiting?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, following what my colleague has said, I should like to place on record the figures for the Canadian army. It will be remembered that Premier Hepburn's statement was that 45,000 men had been discharged from the armed1 forces, mostly because they had developed colds and tuberculosis because of lack of proper clothing.
As I understand it, the 45,000 is a rough figure arrived at for all discharges from all causes. The number found medically unfit after they enlisted in the army was 29,476. That is the number for two and a third years, stretching from September 1, 1939 to December 31, 1941. That is, 29,476 of those who had enlisted were subsequently found medically unfit.
Premier Hepburn's statement is that the discharges were "mostly because they developed' colds and tuberculosis from lack of proper clothing". Of the 29,476 found unfit, only 1,499, or 5-1 per cent, were found unfit on account of tuberculosis. And only 55 of these men who were found unfit from this cause were so found after they had gone overseas. That is to say, there were 55 cases of discharge for tuberculosis, out of over
130.000	men overseas. It should be remembered also that the total of 1,499 men who were found unfit on account of tuberculosis is out of an aggregate enlistment in the Canadian army for this same period of nearly
300.000	men.

Hong Kong Atrocities
Premier Hepburn also includes colds as reasons for discharge. I think it ought to be known that ordinary colds are not a cause for discharge. Discharges are made where there is a chronic or serious cause of affection of the respiratory system, such as in the case of asthma, bronchitis and things of that kind. I have had these looked up as well. The total number of men who have enlisted in the army and who have later been found unfit on account of an affection of the respiratory system is 3,015 out of total found unfit of 29,476, or 10-2 per cent. Again, this number of 3,015 is out of a total enlistment of nearly
300,000.
To sum up, Premier Hepburn says that "45,000 men had been discharged from the armed forces mostly because they developed colds and tuberculosis from lack of proper clothing." The facts are that out of 29,476 found medically unfit after enlistment, only 5-1 per cent were found medically unfit on account of tuberculosis-as a matter of fact, about 40 per cent of those were non-active. And about ten per cent of those found medically unfit were cases of affection of the respiratory system. In other words, taking the total number discharged for tuberculosis, asthma, bronchitis or any other disease of the respiratory system, which might include chronic or serious colds, the total discharges were 4,514 out of 29,476, or a little over 15 per cent of those actually found unfit, and that 4,514 was out of a total number actually enlisted of nearly 300,000.
I think these facts speak for themselves without any embellishment from me.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: With respect to the Royal Canadian Air Force, I have before me an itemized list of discharges and retirements for medical reasons, September, 1939, to January 31, 1942. I would point out that discharges for medical reasons only total 2,270. Discharges for tuberculosis total 136, and for respiratory diseases, as explained by my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), 141.
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Mr. Speaker, to complete the story with regard to discharges from the armed forces, I should like to say that so far as the Royal Canadian Navy is concerned the total number of discharges for medical reasons from the beginning of the war up to January 31, 1942, was 954. Of that number 53 discharges were because of tuberculosis and 56 were for other diseases of the respiratory system.



HONG KONG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister based upon two news items, one of which appeared on page 3 of the Ottawa Citizen of February 13 and the other on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen of this morning. These articles describe barbarities and atrocities that are alleged to have been perpetrated upon Canadian troops captured in Hong Kong. The latter dispatch carried a footnote to the effect that the Department of External Affairs is taking immediate action to check the truthfulness of these reports. In view of the harrowing effects which news of this nature is bound to have upon the relatives and loved ones of these men, will the government consider withholding news items of this sort until their contents have been verified?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would say to my hon. friend that the government of Great Britain has informed us that they have received certain information. It is from sources the reliability of which they wish to investigate before making a definite statement. As soon as reliable information is available it will be furnished to our government. I make that preliminary statement, as the only statement that I think can be taken at its face value with reference to certain rumours appearing in the press or circulated! from other sources as to conditions in Hong Kong and indeed in other parts of the far east. I have not before me the communications to which my hon. friend has referred, but I gather that they are dispatches that have come from abroad, either from Chungking or London. As news dispatches they are in no sense of the word to be regarded as communications from the British government. My hon. friend referred to certain atrocities which are alleged to have been perpetrated upon Canadian troops captured at Hong Kong. I do not think that there has been any communication which referred particularly to Canadian troops.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The one this morning did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I 'have not seen it. At any rate such communications as the government has had from the British government have made no specific reference to any atrocities committed upon Canadians as distinguished from troops generally that might be at Hong Kong. I wish to assure my hon. friend at once that the British government are themselves investigating the rumours to which
59S
Pacific Council

he has referred and that up to the present they should not be regarded as belonging to any category other than the one in which I have placed them.
As to my hon. friend's suggestion that the government should seek to censor communications of the kind, I must say that personally I share his views and feelings on the matter. There is an element of unnecessary pain caused to many by rumours that occasion alarm and distress, particularly where rumours may be without foundation or are without verification. But the government is in this very difficult position. The moment we take steps to censor any rumours as to the condition of our troops in any part of the world, we may be accused of withholding information which the Canadian public would wish to have at the earliest moment. I know that such is the criticism that would arise if the government withheld any information that was reliable and which would throw light upon existing conditions. In so far as we receive information that we have reason to believe is authentic and reliable, if it is in the public interest that it should be given out, it will be given out. In the meantime I hope that the public of Canada will not assume as reliable, communications that are not authenticated by the government itself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I may be permitted, I should like to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. The statement with respect to Canadian troops which appears in this morning's press was broadcast over CBC last night. I am not asking the Prime Minister to indulge in censorship, but I would ask that he consider making an appeal both to the press and to the radio not to announce and repeat such heart-rending stories about these men until the government itself has been able to verify their authenticity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand 'n connection with this particular matter that the officials of the Department of External Affairs believed that the communication to which my hon. friend has referred would come to Canada from the United States. If it were censored in the press, it might be heard over the radio nevertheless. However, what I have said stands. In so far as the government may feel justified in seeking to circumvent unverified rumours, I take it the house will be agreeable to our so doing.



PACIFIC COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to reply to a 
question asked by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) with respect to Canadian representation on the Pacific council. This question was asked on February 10 and the hon. member's remarks will be found on pages 444 and 445 of Hansard:
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in a speech in the. House of Commons at Westminster on January 27, which was quoted in this house in reply to a question from the member from Vancouver South (Mr. Green) on the following day, announced that it was proposed to set up in London a Pacific council, comprising Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands, which would be able to transmit their united views to the combined chiefs of staff committee sitting at Washington. Definite arrangements had not at that time been made for the establishment and location of the council and, as members of the house will be aware, suggestions were put forward in certain quarters that it should meet in Washington rather than in London. It has now been settled that it will meet in London, and the following official announcement of its constitution has been made public:
A Pacific council has been set up on a ministerial plane. Australia, Great Britain, the Netherlands and New Zealand will have representation on the council. Other ministers and advisers will attend as necessary.
At the first meeting of the council, held on February 10, the government of India was represented in addition to the governments named in the official announcement.
Since the question of Canadian representation in the Pacific council was raised in this house I have been again in communication with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on the matter. The council's functions and responsibility are not quite as wide as its name might suggest. The Prime Minister has stressed the fact that as present constituted its duties are directly related to questions of regional defence of the areas in the southwest Pacific and southeastern Asia against which Japanese offensive action is now directed. The countries participating in it are those actually in the zone of hostilities.
It may be, however, that future strategic requirements will make it desirable to .enlarge the scope of the Pacific council to include the whole Pacific area, in which case Canada will certainly be represented on the council.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couaita):	Mr. Speaker, as a private Liberal
member of this hon. house, may I ask the

Canadians at Singapore
government if the Canadian people, following the deplorable fall of Singapore and the notorious escape of a German naval squadron from Brest, can secure a definite guarantee that this country will not be invaded before the end of the war; and if so, what is it? If not, is it the policy of the government to create a large number of mobile units and to improve at once all means and ways of communication throughout this country?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on these
questions of strategy and war policy, questions that affect other parts of the world as well as Canada and other nations as well as our own, I do not think any question should either be asked in a form which is likely to cause embarrassment, or answered, or attempted to be answered, if there is the slightest possibility of either the question or the answer being misunderstood in any part of the world. I am afraid that my hon. friend's question has been asked on the spur of the moment, and I for one would certainly not wish to reply without due consideration.



TAXATION CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) asked on the orders of the day whether it was 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".
The hon. member is apparently referring to the meeting with representatives of the provincial governments which took place on December 18 and 19 to discuss the proposed draft agreements to implement the offer made to provinces in the last dominion budget. This was not a formal interprovincial conference in the ordinary sense. For the convenience of representatives of the various governments, a shorthand record of the discussions was kept. The meeting, however, agreed that the record should be confidential, and I think hon. members will understand that in a meeting of this sort between governments in which certain aspects of the financial affairs and position of the various governments were discussed, freedom of discussion would have been seriously impeded if any other decision had been reached. It is, therefore, not the intention of the government to -table the "report" of the meeting or make it public in any other way, although as the house is
aware, I have already tabled copies of the tentative draft agreements which were, if I may put it this way, the basis and the result of our discussions.
The hon. member also asked whether any member of the government informed the provincial representatives attending this conference that there were Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen at Singapore as well as at Hong Kong. As I have already explained, the meeting was for the purpose of discussing tax matters arising out of the offer made to the provinces in the last dominion budget and' no reference was made by myself or, to my knowledge, by any other member of the government to members of the Canadian armed forces serving at Singapore or anywhere else.
My colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has already replied to a third question asked on the same occasion by the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Mr. ROSS (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken very often in this house but as an old soldier I should like to say a word with regard to the present situation. We do not have to worry. We know that everything is going to come out all right. We know that-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Is the hon. member asking a question of the government?



PRIVILEGE-MR. BRUCE

[Stage Direction]
REFERENCE TO STATEMENT IN DEBATE AS TO "COUNTRY OF adoption"
Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to draw attention to page 527 of Hansard, where the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Dubois) is reported to have said, amongst other complimentary remarks he made about me, that Canada was "my country of adoption." As I happen to have been born in Canada I assume he would wish to have these words expunged from the records of the house.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 13, 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 (Y-ork-Sunbury), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. R. T. GRAHAM (Swift Current):: of the speech from the throne which dealt with the proposed plebiscite. If that were the sole matter I proposed to discuss I doubt very much if I would have taken part in this debate to-day. The very excellent contributions to the debate made by the mover (Mr. Fournier) and the seconder (Mr. Macdonald) of the address in reply, the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and by other ministers and the many able contributions made by other members of the house, seem to me to have reasonably served the purpose of the debate and there is very little of value left for me to say. However, having in mind that I propose to speak on another phase of the speech from the throne, I decided that if I remained silent my attitude might be misinterpreted- as in opposition or at least lukewarmness to the policy of the government. Such a supposition would be wholly incorrect. I can say, as one member said, that both my mind and my conscience are in agreement in supporting the government in the matter of the plebiscite. I consider that the Prime Minister oould do no other than he has done in observing the pledge he gave the people of Canada in the election of 1940. Once you accept that premise, it seems to me there is only one alternative to the plebiscite, and that would be a general election. I believe we would all be in agreement, both in this house and outside, that in the present crisis that course is one that no one would wisely or properly consider. Moreover, ever since this government has been elected, and since I have had the privilege of being a member of this house, I have followed with all the attention I could the policies adopted, and 1 think that the war leadership displayed by the Prime Minister and his colleagues has been magnificent, to borrow a word used by a much more eminent person than myself, Mr. Churchill. I am assisted in coming to that conclusion by the statement that was made to the Canadian troops, in England by General McNaughton, the commander of our Canadian forces, a man who possesses the confidence of every section of the Canadian people, and, may I suggest, of every party in this house. It is true that General McNaughton in the position he holds might not comment at all upon the war programme of this country; but I think the fact that he did not remain silent but saw fit to give expression to his own views on the men, munitions and food that were going from Canada to England, is indeed, coming from one who is in the best position to know and to pass judgment on our war effort, a very warm recommendation for the Prime Minister and the cabinet.

Personally, after listening to the statement given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) as to the success of the voluntary recruiting method, and having the assurance that neither at present nor in the near forseeable future will the system of voluntary recruiting occasion any shortcomings in our war effort, I think it would be unwise and inadvisable at this moment to attempt to put into operation the conscription of man-power for overseas service. I realize of course that it is wise for this government, while there is yet time, and in the light of the terrible events elsewhere, to secure from the people to whom they gave the pledge a complete release, so that under any circumstances and in any event their freedom of action to advise this parliament of the course that should be pursued shall be untrammelled and unfettered.
In my opinion, therefore, not only was it right for the Prime Minister to keep his pledge, but the method adopted of submitting to the people by way of a plebiscite the question which it is proposed to submit to them, is the wisest and best under all the circumstances. So far as the plebiscite is concerned, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, the conscription of man-power for overseas service is not an issue. I propose therefore to reserve to myself the right to discuss when the time comes, if it ever does come, the question of conscription for overseas service, and only when that question is properly before the house and becomes a matter which parliament is called upon to decide.
The subject that prompted me to take part in this debate arises out of a much more important section of the speech from the throne than that dealing with the plebiscite, because after all the plebiscite is merely a method of procedure. The part of the speech from the throne which I propose to read to the house is a part which actually deals with the attitude of the government to our war effort. Let me read that paragraph:
In accordance with the government's policy of a total national effort for total war, you will he asked to approve a balanced programme for further increases in the armed forces and in the production of munitions of war and of foodstuffs.
I wish to call the attention of the house particularly to that word "balanced". I think it is most essential to apply it to our war effort. I should like also in that connection to call the attention of the house to a sentence from the speech made by the Minister of National Defence the other day in the house, in which he said at page 448.
Total war requires a country to plan its pattern for war according to its resources, and,

The Address-Mr. Graham
more than that, according to the needs and abilities of other countries with which it is allied.
That, too, is a statement of significance, indicating the duty we have to discharge in the direction of the war effort of Canada. We should never let it escape our attention. The portion of that particular section of the speech from the throne which I wish to discuss to-day is that dealing with our programme in the production and supply of foodstuffs. I am convinced that the events of the last few weeks make it necessary for this government and for us all to completely resurvey and reappraise the position of Canada in its relationship with the United States, particularly in this matter of the production and supply of foodstuffs.
What is the situation? I think I can briefly review it, and this may be of some value to the house. It will be recalled that soon after the outbreak of war the part of Europe that had supplied great quantities of foodstuffs to Great Britain was closed to her. I need only point to Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, the Danube basin, and other Eurpoean countries, which had all played their part in supplying Great Britain with the foodstuffs that were so solely needed. It is true that even after that disaster, after these sources of supply had been cut off, there was still a considerable portion of the world available to supply that vital war necessity-food. But the events of the last few weeks have completely changed that picture. Singapore has fallen, the Malay peninsula is gone, and no' one in this house can be blind to the possibilities that may flow from the victories of Japan in the far east.
What does it mean in actual terms of foodstuffs? For example, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) has often informed this house of the great quantities of edible oil that had been furnished to Canada from that area. The United States, too, commensurately with its population, imported large quantities of that commodity; and because of her peculiar position, England, in proportion to her population, imported from that source quantities out of all ratio to those imported by the United States and Canada. Is it not clear also, now that Singapore has fallen, that the sea routes to and from Australia, New Zealand and even India, may be denied to the ships of Britain and her allies? What effect must that have in the necessity of taking care of the food problem of Britain? It seems to me it can have only one effect, that is, to place upon Canada and the United States and the other American nations which are able and willing to assume it the task of making up this tremendous deficiency in food supply resulting from the events of the last few weeks. We would be blind indeed if we did not recognize the immediate necessity of reshaping our food
policy to take care of the additional needs of our allies arising out of the situation in the far east.
It seems to me that despite the difficulty of keeping the Atlantic sea lanes open, Canada and the United States are the only countries that can possibly take up the slack caused by Britain being cut off from those countries as sources of supply. Keeping that route open will be a most difficult task, but it would appear to be the only continuous sea lane that we can hope to maintain. Australia and New Zealand, as everyone knows, have supplied great quantities of wheat, beef, mutton, butter, cheese and, as a by-product of the food supply, wool, to Great Britain, Canada and the United States.
I would point out that not only must we make up the deficiency in the supply to Britain and our own armed forces and the armed forces of our allies there, but it will be necessary to make up the deficiency that we ourselves shall feel as a result of the cutting off of those things that formerly came from the far east.
We should also have in mind that not only may it be necessary lor us to take care of Britain's needs, but it may be our task to get great quantities of food to Russia and China. Both those nations are vital partners with us in this war, and if they for a moment fail through lack of food and any share of the responsibility of that were upon the shoulders of the Canadian people, we should deeply regret our failure to take due steps in due time. It is also necessary to keep in mind that in the production of either cereals or food in the shape of live stock it takes considerable time to produce a greatly increased supply. A crop of cereals cannot be grown in less than a season, and the same applies still more in regard to live stock. The growing in Canada of soya beans, which would immediately come to our mind to replace some of the edible oils, is not very feasible. But we know that in the United States there are considerable areas where that commodity has been successfully grown. It seems to me there must be further cooperation between the United States and Canada, after consultation and consideration of the joint problem, to see to it that those areas are used for that purpose. Canada can also assist indirectly by encouraging a great increase in the growth of flax. Flax produces linseed oil. We are using considerable quantities of edible oils for non-edible purposes, and we could make up that deficiency to some extent at least by producing more linseed oil.
I have already pointed out that as I see the problem it requires the closest cooperation between United States and Canada. That
The Address-Mr. Graham

cooperation exists in many fields and it should immediately be taken into account in this very vital section of our war effort. The policy adopted by this government at the present time will of necessity have to encourage the production of the foodstuffs that we most need. In the policy to be adopted this year any suggestion of encouraging the keeping of suitable agricultural land out of production should be completely eliminated.
The situation is so serious that any land properly capable of producing any form of food should be utilized to the full, in the face of the great danger that confronts us. I used the words "suitable agricultural land". I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) through his long experience will have in mind the history of the last war and the difficulties that arose through encouraging the bringing into production of vast areas of western lands that were not suited to agricultural use. We should not repeat that mistake, except under the urge of dire necessity. This year certainly the policy should be to encourage the full use for production of all land that is in shape to be used. I would point out that sooner than I or probably any lion, member of this house expected the Minister of Agriculture has been proven right in two statements he made to this house. It will be recalled that he said that what we thought to be a huge surplus of wheat would in the end prove to be not a liability but a great asset. And in 1941 he told us, in introducing the wheat policy of that year, that the wheat policy would necessarily have to be a temporary one. The events to which I have referred make it quite clear that he was correct in both those statements.
I propose to deal with the question of the wheat policy, not because I believe it is not now once more in its proper alignment with the production of other foodstuffs as a national necessity, but simply because up until now wheat, it might be said, has been treated as the orphan in the storm. I think that attitude of mind on the part of the government and ourselves must cease; we must recognize that if there are areas in this country suited only to the production of wheat, they should be used for that production. It would be far better that either our allies or ourselves should have ample food supplies in the form of wheat plus a reasonable amount of fat than to find ourselves and our allies with only a little wheat and a little fat. Every acre of suitable and properly cultivated agricultural land should now be devoted to building up reserves of foodstuffs for the inevitable day when they will be needed.

Every hon. member will recall the recent visit of the four hundred farmers and others to Ottawa from Saskatchewan. I think I can safely say that they made an excellent impression on this house and, in the presentation of their submissions, on the government. Despite the criticism that was directed at the expense involved in that delegation coming to Ottawa, it is my considered opinion that they did a good job and any expenditure involved was well justified. I should also like to point out that the presentation they made to the government was most reasonable and moderate; it was made with dignity and was supported by sound arguments.
Let me give briefly the main points in that submission. They urged upon the government:
1.	That an initial pay^ment of one dollar a
bushel basis No. 1 northern at Fort William be made.
2.	Deferred payment of the balance of what they described as a parity price to be made later, this price to be determined by the bureau of statistics.
3.	The continuation of the quota system of marketing, and the taking of only the amount of wheat required for domestic consumption and export during the coming crop year.
4.	The continuation and necessary amendment of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
5.	Soil conservation and the encouragement of the production of grasses to aid in that policy.
It seems to me that this submission, in the light of the events that have taken place, merits the most favourable consideration by the government in determining the wheat policy which at present is under review. Personally I want to say that in 1941 I had no hesitation in supporting the wheat policy brought down in this house by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It served an unusually good purpose last year in my constituency, which was visited by drought conditions almost unprecedented in our history. But I am convinced that circumstances have so changed that there is no path open to us except to recognize the needs occasioned by these events and circumstances. I believe therefore we should see to it that our policy realistically appreciates the change that has taken place. I feel that for once-and I say this to every member of this house-the interests of the nation and of our war programme are fully in keeping with the encouragement of those now producing the foodstuffs that are or will be so badly needed in connection with our war effort. Therefore, not because we are in a generous mood but

The Address-Mr. Graham
because it is right and proper and because the policy is wise and sound in the light of present circumstances, I would urge the government to see to it that for once in the history of this country, the farmer, the man whom we often proclaim to be an important element in our population, should be given that measure of justice which his situation demands and deserves.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that in connection with the policy that should be pursued by this government there has been an honest difference of opinion as to the methods by which the funds taken out of the dominion treasury should be distributed among the farming class, speaking particularly of western Canada. In view of the fact that last year we had a huge surplus of wheat which apparently we did not immediately need, the course followed then was more or less justified; but in view of the circumstances that now exist I do not believe that course should be followed any longer. I do not think it would be fair to the wheat grower, or for that matter to any other producer of foodstuffs, to say at this time, "It is vital in the interests of our war effort for you to grow all the wheat you can grow, but, because of priorities in the matter of various foodstuffs, we are going to depress the price of your commodity below what would be fair and equitable, everything being considered." I think the basis of the policy should be the establishment of fair and equitable prices to all producers of foodstuffs. Then if we wish to encourage the increased production of certain most needed agricultural commodities, we should attain that objective by paying a premium on the commodities that we desire our farmers to raise.
It seems to me this is the only reasonable attitude to assume. I further submit, Mr. Speaker, that we should encourage the greater production of coarse grains and grasses, and, as I have said already, of flax; but none of these policies should be put into operation at the expense of the wheat grower. I realize that we cannot hope to have government by delegation; I would not urge upon this house that because four hundred farmers from my own province came here and submitted their views as to the agricultural policy that should be pursued this year, that in itself should be sufficient to cause this government to follow the recommendations made by this delegation. I do feel, however, that when we examine the situation as it now exists; when we find that the policy advocated by that delegation is completely in conformity with our war needs and possible future needs, then, because it is right, proper, fair and equitable, we should give effect to that submission in its
entirety. I turn particularly to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has direction over the framing of the wheat policy of this government. I address the Minister of Agriculture who, with his great experience in the production of foodstuffs, must be a close adviser of the government in connection with the adoption of any wheat policy. I hope also that my words may reach the ears of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), because I realize that in any policy affecting any part of our national life, the Minister of Finance plays an important part.
I believe the two ministers from the west will be fully aware of the necessity of taking into account the matters I have mentioned in drawing up the wheat policy for the coming year. We all know the Minister of Finance has undertaken a task unequalled in our previous history; I am sure he must sometimes consider that there is no ceiling whatever to the amount of money he must raise in order to take care of our war needs. But in all seriousness I do suggest to him that he should not forget what the Prime Minister has already told us, that the war effort of Canada will not be restricted by financial limitations but only by the physical capacity of this country to produce. If ever there was a time when that statement should be kept in mind, it is the present. That statement should be applied in all its vigour in regard to the production of foodstuffs in this country. I suggest to the Minister of Finance that posterity will forgive him, I am sure, if we should produce a surplus of foodstuffs and find ourselves left with that surplus on our hands; but I doubt whether posterity or the members of this house or the minister himself would forgive him if in the near future we should find ourselves and our allies faced with a serious shortage of the very staff of life itself.
It is for these reasons that I urge upon the government consideration of the new conditions with which we are faced in this world struggle; the awful potentialities that present themselves and the part Canada must play, particularly in connection with the production of foodstuffs and materials of war, in close harmony and cooperation with our great neighbour to the south. I leave this with the government in the hope that appreciation of the situation now facing us, together with the need for a new survey and appraisal of the position of Canada in connection with supplying foodstuffs, will have its effect in the policy that will be announced for this year.


Mr. M. E. McGARRY (Inverness-Rich-mond):: Mr. Speaker, I had decided that I would not take up any of the time of the house by participating in this debate. How-
The Address-Mr. McGarry

ever, having been exposed to what might be called the infection of intermittent fever, generated by the very heated debates that have been carried on as to conscription versus the plebiscite, my powers of resistance weakened and I fell for a slight attack of the contagion. The few remarks I shall make will reflect the symptons of that mild seizure.
Before directing my attention to the subject matter of the debate I wish to associate myself with the eloquent and complimentary tributes paid the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Sound in substance, logical, factual, devoid of partisan colouring, they were veritable masterpieces, reflecting credit alike upon the hon. members who delivered them and the constituencies they represent.
Of all the items dealt with in the speech from the throne, the one which most agitated the minds of the public, the press and hon. members, was the plebiscite. Were I to presume to give a dictionary definition of the term "plebiscite", as applied generally, I would provoke the scorn of every hon. member, because I realize full well each hon. member is capable of giving that definition himself. But concerning the word plebiscite as applied in this specific instance there seems to be some difference of meaning. One would understand from some hon. members that the plebiscite as applied in this instance is a harmful thing, and that some ulterior purposes have been concealed. I fail to see why those hon. members should take that stand. My own view is that it is the most honourable, courageous and democratic means our leader could take to ask the electorate to release him from commitments made not only by himself but, with very few exceptions, by almost every other hon. member in the house.
Those who have spoken in opposition to the plebiscite have argued that it will delay our war effort. They urge that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should peremptorily bring in a measure of conscription, and they would fain make the house and public believe that that is the only manoeuvre essential to bringing about an all-out war effort. Canada's organization for this all-out effort was well explained to the house when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) made his very excellent speech here about a week ago. I was interested to learn that Colonel 0. M. Biggar, who certainly should be recognized as an authority, agreed entirely with the order of requirements set out by the minister.
Those requirements were set out in five Basses. The first was to ensure enough service and enough supplies to maintain the physical and mental health of our population. 
The second was to provide troops to protect Canada from invasion. The third was to build as many ships and manufacture as much war equipment as our materials and facilities permit. The fourth was to send across the seas as much food and war equipment as would be required to supply the needs of our home forces, part of the British forces and part of the civilian population. The fifth, and last, was to send overseas, out of Canada, troops who would be prepared to meet and to defeat the enemy wherever found.
As Colonel Biggar pointed out, compulsory overseas service was relevant to the attainment of only one of these requirements, namely that of providing troops for overseas service. It was indicated, in fact, only for a part of one of the requirements, because, as is known, there is no lack of recruiting in our naval and air forces. All hon. members know that only a small fraction of our overseas forces have contacted the enemy. We know, too, that if troops are recruited in Canada for Canada's protection those troops can be trained here, and if the time comes when there is a change of circumstances in the process of the war, their responsibility can be altered by the voice of the Canadian people.
We must bear in mind that man-power and woman-power in Canada is limited. Nobody knows to-day how far that power can be extended, any more than do we know which of these five requirements will be the most essential. Compulsory service for overseas is applied to only one of those requirements, and that only in a limited degree. Only a small fraction of the troops mustered to-day have been utilized. In my view the delay now obtaining is a proper one; it permits the people to concentrate on the question whether or not it is proper to extend the full power to our government. For that hesitation and concentration the government is taking full responsibility.
Listening to the speeches of some hon. members opposite, and reading some press comments, one might be led to believe that the government's war effort was away below what it should be. If I may be permitted for a few moments I should like to turn over a few pages of the history of this war, and hurriedly give a brief synopsis of what the government has already done.
First of all, in this fiscal year Canada is spending more than she spent during the whole of the duration of the last war. In other words 40 per cent of our national income is being spent to-day in the war effort. Or, if we may put it in another way, we are spending at the rate of $4,000,000 a day. Five times as many people in Canada are paying

The Address-Mr. McGarry
to-day five times as much taxes, through all means of taxation. Men and women with incomes of from $3,000 to $10,000 are paying taxes increased from 4 per cent to 11 per cent. Then, 130,000 of our young men have been taught in the art of war and, since the beginning of the war, 750,000 men have been employed in connection therewith.
The British commonwealth air training plan in three years of operation has cost Canada an amount equivalent to the whole of Canada's taxation in one fiscal year. Fifteen times as many men are employed to-day in shipbuilding as were employed: before the war, and thirty-five times as many are employed in aircraft work. The total production of explosives this year in Canada will be greater than the total production during the last war. Canadian-made army vehicles are serving in every arena of war where British empire troops are participating. To-day Canada is paying more per capita to provide foodstuffs for the British empire than the British government itself is paying for the same purpose. Canada's navy has increased from 15 ships at the beginning of the war to 350 at the present time. We have an army of 265,000; our air force numbers 100,000, and we have 150,000 men serving overseas. Some of our ships are separated by 10,000 miles. They have been engaged not only in protecting our shores but in convoy duty. They have convoyed 7,000 ships overseas, carrying a total of 43,000,000 tons of cargo. The Canadian active force comprises 393,000 men, almost half of whom are serving throughout the British empire, some in England, some in the British West Indies, some in Newfoundland, and some in Gibraltar. The air training plan now has 92 schools.. Canada has built about 200,000 automotive vehicles, an average of one every three minutes. Up to date there have been manufactured in this country 9,000,000 shells, 10,000,000 cases and 150,000,000 pounds of explosives. Canada is producing every type of gun, armament or equipment used to-day in modern war.
This is a synopsis of Canada's achievement since the wTar began. But it may not be immune to criticism. It may be said that we were slow in building tanks and ships, but anyone who realizes the transpositions that were necessary to convert this country from a peaceful nation into a belligerent country will be ready to credit Canada with a wonderful achievement. Canada has a comparatively small population. Our recruiting has been satisfactory and we have a waiting list for the navy and air force. Only a small portion of our forces has been utilized, but the danger to our own shores is becoming more menacing and imminent.
I fail to see why this matter of conscription should be considered so essential to our having a balanced all-out war effort. This bogy of conscription is being urged by the press and by other people. Sometimes I am inclined to think that people who urge conscription are more concerned with bringing about disunion in this country than they are in effecting a more unified effort. God forbid that this will result in an advantage to our financial barons of Baronfield.
I consider that our leader and his government are doing a good job. They are doing first things first. They have laid particular stress upon those things which have the greatest significance. So far they have been allowed to pursue their war effort one hundred per cent, but with the passage of time it may be necessary to have their power extended. They are asking the people in an honourable, courageous and democratic way to relieve them from the restrictions of their commitments so that when the time comes they will have a free hand to act.
I should like to make a suggestion to the government. If and when the time comes that the need for conscription is indicated, if we are to maintain the balanced effort that has been achieved so successfully up to the present time regard must be given to the producers of foodstuffs. The production of foodstuffs is one of the most essential requirements of this wax. These men should be afforded all possible advantages; they should be given every facility and provided with every stimulus necessary to enable them to produce the surplus which is needed for the successful prosecution of this war. I think this government should see to it that there is no disproportion between the prices that the farmer receives for his products and what he must pay for his domestic wants and implements of production.
When the government is considering the conscripting of man-power it should be careful not to bring about a condition which will have an unbalancing effect upon our war effort. I should like to cite one case. I have a number of fishermen and farmers in my constituency who operate on a small scale. The man I have in mind was most provident. He had one son and he operated a small fishing industry. But he is now past his age of labour and his son is in the army. He has a boat and the necessary equipment to do a small amount of fishing, and now that the fishing season is coming on he has tried to have his son released from the army, but he has not been successful. This is only one of a number of cases in my constituency. This man cannot operate without the assistance of his son, and his operations are not large enough to warrant his hir-
The Address-Mr. McGarry

ing another man. Here is a man who should be a producer, but if his son is not released from the army he will probably be on relief. When this matter of conscription comes up for consideration I ask the government to see that the producers' man-power is not reduced to such a degree that they will not be able to produce the required surplus as well as their own domestic needs.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Why do they not do it inder the present act?


Moses Elijah McGarry: I could not tell you that. [ was interested in hearing what the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Macdonald) had to say the other day about the necessity of the government being vigilant in preparing facilities for ship repairs. In the light of What is happening off the Pacific coast it looks as though the day may come when the facilities he has in mind will be in great demand. In the historic town of Louisburg in my constituency there is a wonderful site for a dry dock. Nature herself laid out the site and has done most of the construction. Experts in the Department of Naval Services and the Department of Transport have visited that site, admired it, and reported back to the government. I do not know what has happened since, but in view of what is happening in the Pacific I would urge the government to look carefully into the possibility of constructing a ship repair plant at that site because there are strong indications that such a plant may be required on the Atlantic coast.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to say just one word more with regard to Canada's achievements in this war. I do not think this has been mentioned by any other speaker, and I shall take only a few minutes.
At the beginning of the war the government did not lose sight of the fact that some planning should be done for the day when the war is over. Some people disagree with that view. They say that we Should not consider postwar problems when we are in the midst of the conflict. I do not agree with this opinion. I agree, of course, that it should1 be the thought and purpose of every Canadian to prosecute this war vigorously to the very best of our ability. Nevertheless I think it is our duty to give consideration to and do some planning for the day when our soldiers come back to their civilian employment and when the work of manufacturing implements of destruction ceases-the day also when prices of commodities, which in wartime are bound to reach a higher level, recede once more to the economic levels of peacetime. I think some planning should be done to meet these events. The wartime prices and trade board has prevented the

profiteering and hoarding which obtained in the last war when we witnessed the disgraceful spectacle of individuals and corporations waxing fat on the sacrifices of the men who stood in arms against the foe. The ceiling which the board and the government have imposed upon commodity prices is a guard against inflation, and I think it will protect us in a great measure at least from a depression such as followed after the last war, and which brought suffering and privation almost equal to the horrors of war itself.
While in a democracy we have the right to engage in controversy and argue whether a certain way is right or wrong, our united purpose should now be to consider first our national responsibilities and to protect our democratic rights which are being attacked by the enemy who would, if possible, take them away from us. This is no time for bickering or carping criticism. Constructive criticism is helpful to the government and we should welcome it. AVhile we may have our controversies and arguments as to the right or wrong way of doing things, we should never forget that this is no ordinary war between nation and nation but a conflict between ideologies. On the one side we have democracy, which gives us all the rights and privileges that make life worth living. On the other side we have the totalitarian tyrants who would take away from us those rights and privileges, and who seek to destroy everything that is spiritual in man. That is the crisis we are facing and we might as well face it, realizing that we are witnessing the greatest tragedy of carnage which this world has ever seen. The ghost of that carnage is almost at our very doorstep. This is a time for us to coordinate our national efforts. Let us preserve our unity and go forward with a united' purpose and the single determination to win. If we do that, and1 if every Canadian will do his duty, we shall overthrow these tyrants who have gone absolutely mad in their desire for world domination.
I shall vote for the plebiscite. My constituency will give an affirmative answer. I trust my leader. He will not abuse the power he asks for. The people of my constituency have faith in his leadership, in war or in peace.


Mr. D. A. McNIVEN (Regina City):: Long before this, Mr. Acting Speaker, you will have concluded that every subject that can properly be debated on this motion so ably introduced by yourself as the member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), has long since been exhausted by the eloquence and logic of the members who have preceded me. Notwithstanding that, I am going to venture a few

The Address-Mr. McNiven
remarks at this time, and in case I should omit to do so at a later stage I state now that I intend to support the motion as introduced by yourself and seconded by the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald). I intend to vote against both amendments now before the house, notwithstanding that both of them may have some merit, but because undoubtedly they are a want of confidence motion in this government. Since I am fully persuaded that this government during its term of office has handled efficiently and well every situation that has arisen, I could not under the circumstances support anything that savoured of a vote of want of confidence.
Every candidate for an election, upon the acceptance of a party nomination thereby accepts the party's policy and the declarations of its leader. The policy and the declarations of the Liberal party and the declarations of our leader were well known and widely publicized throughout this country. For that reason, sir, I intend to support the plebiscite and to use every endeavour within my power to bring about a practically unanimous vote in the constituency which I represent-and I mean every section of that constituency. I am supported in the view that such will be the fact, for among the various resolutions that I have recently received was one from the German-Canadian club of our city supporting an all-out Canada war effort. I am further persuaded in that connection because of the declaration of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and various other ministers, that the taking of this plebiscite would not mean a sidgle day or hour of delay in the furthering and development of Canada's war effort.
The Prime Minister and the members of the government are capable men, sincere, honest, straightforward and loyal to both king and country; and they are the ones who, from the responsibility of their positions, are best equipped to know what is needed, what is essential in promoting a balanced, continuous war effort-balanced and continuous to the very end, no matter how long that may be. I am further convinced that the Prime Minister will sponsor and enact any and every measure that is essential to bring about ultimate victory.
In a recent issue of the magazine Liberty there appeared a biographical sketch of the Prime Minister written by Mr. Grattan O'Leary. After reviewing the events of what must be described as a colourful life, the distinguished author comments that the Prime Minister is possessed of something, a trait, a
characteristic, subtle and impossible to put into words, but which has had a genuine appeal to hundreds of thousands of people in this country over a long period of years and which his critics have been totally unable to understand or appreciate.
With deference to the distinguished author may I suggest that that subtle something ir the Prime Minister's character, which the author found so elusive, was very aptly expressed by Lord Tennyson when he penned these lines:
And, because right is right, to follow right
Were wisdom in the scorn of consequence.
This couplet expresses a whole political philosophy; it is a chart for personal guidance; and the Prime Minister's adherence to and his courage in the expression of its truth has inspired confidence in him in the minds of the Canadian people and has brought confusion to his critics and those whose standards of political life do not reach the pinnacle which he has achieved.
The publication of the census returns a few weeks ago brought some startling results in so far as we who reside in Saskatchewan are concerned, because by an alleged reduction in population that province will lose four of its representation in this house. The representation is now twenty-one, and with the realignment in Saskatchewan the membership will be reduced to seventeen. Our population in 1931 was 922,000, and for those hon. members who live in eastern Canada, may I say that our constitution provides for a quinquennial census. Because of that provision a census of the prairie provinces was taken in 1936, and in 1936 our population had shown an increase-930,893. But by June, 1941, our population had been reduced to 887,747, or a loss of approximately 43,000. Conditions following 1936, notwithstanding the catastrophe of 1937, improved from year to year. They were better in 1938; they were better again in 1939; and they showed a substantial improvement in 1940. Where and why, then, the loss? What is the answer? There can be only one answer and that is, the exigencies of war. Enlistments from our province approximate 35,000 in all the armed forces. Geography, our own economy, and the necessity of making large shipments of war materials to Britain and the European front precluded the development of war industries in Saskatchewan. But, patriotic to the core, our people have come east where war work was to be had; and I can say, from conversations with eastern industrialists, that they are glad to have the prairie dweller in their factories because of his resourcefulness and initiative.
The Address-Mr. McNiven

I protest most vigorously at any reduction in the membership of this house from the province of Saskatchewan, particularly at this time, and owing to the causes which I have already indicated. Prior to 1930 Saskatchewan was the third province in the dominion, and for the following five or six years that province experienced every kind of agricultural disaster that was ever conceived by the mind of man. Saskatchewan, however, is emerging from the effects and consequences of that disaster. While it is true that in that period the accumulated savings of bygone years have been swept away, two things stand out like a neon light in a black-out, that the fertility of our soil is unimpaired, and that the courage and spirit of our people remain unbroken. Our people look forward with confidence, faith and hope to the day when Saskatchewan will again occupy the proud position she once occupied in the galaxy of Canadian provinces. Saskatchewan will play a prominent part in the settlement of post-war problems; our wide open spaces, our resources, offer ample scope and opportunity for the industry of many millions. I appeal to hon. members, with their genius, their initiative, to find some means of avoiding the infliction of this penalty to which I have referred, upon a patriotic people at this time. What has been done before can be done again. In 1915, on the petition of this parliament, the British parliament amended the British North America Act in these terms:
51A. Notwithstanding anything in this act a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province.
I am not familiar with all the reasons which occasioned that amendment, but I would point out that it was made in war time and it had the effect of stabilizing the membership of this house in so far as certain provinces are concerned. I will not develop the point further at this time except to urge that, if our constitution as it stands at present makes imperative an adjustment or realignment of the membership of this house, we immediately initiate proceedings to amend our constitution so that we can postpone this until after the war when conditions have again become settled, and that the membership of this house remain as it now is.
By that same amendment the senatorial representation of Canada was fixed. Canada was divided into four divisions, the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and the west, each with a senatorial representation of twenty-four. I am not going to suggest that the senatorial representation of any area should be cut down, but I do' say that the prairie provinces and 
British Columbia now have a population of nearly 3,300,000, almost equal to that of Ontario, and three times as great as that of the maritime provinces. Notwithstanding this, there has been no demand from the west for increased senatorial representation; that is due to our characteristic modesty. But I can say, sir, that the demand will become vocal and more and more insistent should this reduction of membership be forced upon us at this time. I think all will agree that that august body would be invigorated by the infusion of a little prairie vim, a little more prairie vigour, versatility and resourcefulness.
I would repeat now a statement which I made in the presence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) at Regina; there are far too many people in Ottawa occupying repon-sible positions who think that nothing good can be done outside this city. While this statement has particular reference to the Minister of Finance, it is not a criticism of one for whom I have a very high regard, and who has steadily grown in the estimation of the people of this country. But, sir, a constant appeal is being made for the purchase of war savings certificates and stamps. The individual who purchases these certificates must send to Ottawa and submit to weeks of delay before his certificate comes along. Why should these certificates not be sold in our banks and post offices, under such limitations as you will, so that the purchaser may have immediate concrete evidence of his patriotic impulse? Shortly afterwards, I heard over the radio an announcement by the United States authorities that war savings certificates could1 be purchased from the banks, from the post offices, and even from the letter carriers as they go from door to door. I therefore suggest that a similar practice be adopted in this country to encourage the sale of war savings certificates.
When the price ceiling was introduced, licences were required, and over 300,000 licences were issued to wholesalers and' retailers. They were all issued from Ottawa. The regional directors sat idly in their offices, impotent, unable to give information to the merchants who 'besieged them for it. When the army called for women recruits, it was announced in the press that applications would be received at military district headquarters. Later that was cancelled, and then it was to be at national registration headquarters. That was cancelled, and every woman in this country who desired to enlist in the army was required to send her application to Ottawa.
These are just a few examples of what I mean by centralization of everything in Ottawa.
I do not blame the ministers; they cannot know everything that goes on. But these are

The Address-Mr. McNiven
examples of the conduct, the intention and the desire of bureaucrats in responsible positions to extend their authority and expand their position, irrespective of the inconvenience caused to the general public. Washington is rapidly becoming the nerve centre of the war, and almost every day we 'hear announced in the press that non-war departments and those having to do with civilian life are being moved to New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and other centres in the United States. May I suggest to the government that a similar practice be followed here, that civilian departments be moved out from Ottawa to centres in other parts of Canada. This would obviate the necessity for continued temporary office construction in the capital and at the same time greatly relieve the Ottawa housing situation.
I mentioned a moment ago that certain facts, our geography, our economy and the necessities of war, had precluded our participation in the war industries up to the present time. However, the outbreak of war in the Pacific and the presence of U-boats on the Atlantic, in American waters, have substantially changed this picture. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) is efficiently energetic and is surrounded by capable men who doubtless have a full appreciation of this problem. They will have realized that of all Canada, the prairies are least vulnerable; and that of the prairies, Saskatchewan is in a favoured positiop in this regard. Our anxiety over the Pacific coast extends to the industries that have been established there, and immediately suggests that any additions or extensions or new industries should be established where they will be safe from possible attack; and that place, I submit, is on the prairies. In adopting such a policy we would be following what has been done in the United States, where already they have established many of their key industries in the middle west, in that part of their territory which corresponds to the province of Saskatchewan. The westward flow of materials made neeesssary by the outbreak of war in the Pacific again suggests the necessity and advisability of establishing industries on the prairies.
I make this suggestion, not from a monetary point of view, but from the innate desire of our people to have a larger place in the war picture and to use their experience, energy, inclination and training in order that they may be of assistance at this time. Just here I want to thank the Minister of Munitions and Supply for establishing Regina Industries for the manufacture of gun carriages for antitank guns. That plant is not yet in production, but I fully understand why that is so.
They advertised for labour and received over five hundred applications from men on the prairies who had machine-shop experience. Many of them, it is true, were rusty, but they soon acquired skill and speed. Industry in the east has drawn heavily upon our population, but I submit that as a principle it is still preferable to move industry to labour rather than to take labour to industry.
The big industrialist who has been favoured with large war contracts has not farmed out the manufacture of component parts as he was expected and instructed to do. As a result, there is still a wealth of equipment and skill in the prairie regions which have not been used. A similar condition obtains in the United States, and only recently I heard over the radio that the small munition plants and small machine-shops were making a united, vigorous protest to the United States congress, urging that the policy of centralizing industry had brought them to the point of bankruptcy and was militating against the American war effort. Industrial development in Canada has reached astronomical proportions, running into billions of dollars. Notwithstanding that, I fear hon. members will doubt my word when I say that the only contracts awarded in the province of Saskatchewan have been as follow's: John East, of Saskatoon, $65,000, being a sub-contract from Manitoba Bridge; Richardson Road Machinery, $150,000 for trailers; Northwest Iron Works, $70,000 for steel rollers; Northwest Iron Works, $4,800, being a sub-contract from the Ogden Shops, Calgary; and G. and G. of Prince Albert, who have had a few small contracts from Canada Car and Foundry at Fort William. I do not include in this list Regina Industries, but I do say that full use is not being made of the inclination, the training, the ability and the resources of our province.
About two weeks ago parliament played host tc- a representative group of Saskatchewan citizens who made a submission to the government with regard to agriculture. It was one of the largest delegations to visit Ottawa in recent years. The presentation was carefully prepared, logically arranged, and cogently presented. It was an unfolding of the democratic system; and in this time of stress and strain it is good to know that there are still countries where the people can approach their government without personal danger. The representations of this delegation were courteously received by the government, and from conversations I had with delegates I would judge that they departed for their homes with a new conception of the many problems confronting a government in a rapidly changing

The Address-Mr. McNiven

world. This is characteristic of that sweet sense of reasonableness which always actuates the western mind.
Prairie dwellers know that western wheat is the best food product in the world. They know, too, that the time will oome when that food product will be needed by our allies, as it will be needed in the postwar period. We know the important part played by wheat in the last war. Sir George Paish, the eminent British economist, told a number of us here in 1938 that if it had not been for the productivity of the western plains and the ability of the British navy to transport our wheat to England, that country would have been starved into submission in 1916 and again in 1917. Wheat was the only commodity that was commandeered in the last war. The United States farmer received from $1 to $1.50 a bushel more for his wheat than the western agriculturist received, but the prairie farmer smilingly accepted that reduction in price as his opportunity to render national service. Wheat is temporarily a drug on the market, and that being so, the farmer does not ask for that parity of price which is enjoyed by Canadian labour and industry. He asks merely for a price that will enable him to continue as a productive unit until such time as his commodity is again in universal demand. Such a plea, presented on national grounds and from patriotic motives, must not remain) unanswered, and I am sure the Canadian people generally will approve the granting of the request presented by this delegation.
Ouirs is a peculiar situation. We are still subject to recurring periods of drought over wide areas. Every farmer, every farm, is a national asset. He produces what is required to maintain the body and fertilize the mind, and for that reason must be maintained as a national resource.
For this reason, sir, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has become the magna oharta of western agriculture, serving and fulfilling a long-felt want. The loss of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act would create consternation and dismay on the prairie farm. Of all the innovations and policies developed by the dynamic Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to stabilize agriculture, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act still holds the spotlight as accomplishing the greatest good for the greatest number.


Mr. MacNICOL:: That is something for which Mr. Bennett can take credit.


Donald Alexander McNiven: The Prairie Farm Assistance Act was passed in 1939. I know the hon. member would not wish Mr. Bennett to receive any credit for something entirely due to the Minister of Agriculture.

The government is to be commended for the construction of the chain of airports between Edmonton and Alaska. The purpose is obvious, and that purpose was confirmed by what happened on December 7. Supplies will be needed in the far north, and the integrated purpose of the Canadian and United States governments make imperative the immediate construction of a highway connecting the centres of production in the middle western states with Canada's and America's vulnerable hinterland. That construction is a mammoth undertaking and, in the light of existing events, has become an imperative necessity.
May I suggest to the government that, in the choice of a route, scenic and tourist possibilities be overlooked. This is no tourist expedition, and the ambitions and animosities of local areas should not be considered. The route to be constructed should be the one which is capable of quick, easy, speedy construction, and will demand the smallest part of the taxpayers' dollar. As fulfilling all those specifications, I suggest to the government the prairie route as being best calculated to serve the demand.
As residents of the prairies, we share the anxieties of the people in British Columbia with regard to their Japanese problem. The revelations respecting Pearl Harbour have justified that anxiety, an anxiety which I may say to you, sir, is most real, and not imaginary.
I would urge-the government that it ought not to hesitate to remove the Japanese from points of danger in British Columbia, and, if necessary, a safe place can and will be found for them on the prairies. Consequences of delay are hard to visualize. I can best repeat the words used on one occasion by Mr. Churchill-"There is not a week, nor a day nor an hour to be lost."
A cloud no bigger than a man's hand has recently appeared on the political horizon, a cloud reminiscent of the most sinister political alliance that ever darkened the pages of Canadian history. The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) scented its presence the other afternoon, and with his keen analytical	mind depicted some of its
possibilities. In 1911, in Quebec the Nationalist cry was anti-imperialism, and in Ontario the Tory slogan was, "No truck or trade with the Yankees." Following 1911, these antagonistic doctrines found common ground. Messrs. Bourassa and LaVergne refused appointment in Sir Robert Borden's cabinet. They were allowed to select and they chose Pelletier, Nantel and Blondin, all Nationalists, and later, in 1916, Mr. Albert Sevigny, an outstanding Nationalist, was named Speaker of the house.

The Address-Mr. McNiven
In September, 1914, after the outbreak of the last war, Mr. Bourassa said in his paper, Le Devoir, that it was-
1-Canada's national duty to contribute according to her resources, and by fitting means of action to the triumph and especially to the endurance of the combined efforts of France and England. I have not written and will not write one line, one word to condemn the sending of Canadian troops to Europe.
Estimable, indeed! His conversion, however, was Short-lived, for from 1915 on, both in the press and on the platform we find him in unmeasured terms condemning Canada's participation in any of Britain's wars. His shafts of criticism were levelled at Sir Wilfrid, and reached their climax in September, 1916, when he declared:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier is the most nefarious man in the province of Quebec, yes, in the whole of Canada.
On Wednesday last this same Mr. Bourassa emerged from retirement, rose from a sickbed, and with something of his old time vigour, combined in a single address both the arguments which in 1911 were used to undermine Sir Wilfrid in Ontario, and again in Quebec. What did Bourassa say on this occasion? As reported in a boxed position on the centre of the front page of the Montreal Gazette, he said:
Canada will be annexed by the United States within ten years.
The present policy of the Canadian government is not dictated by London, but by Washington.
Borden and Meighen were both more honest than the present government leaders.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Hear, hear.


Mr.   McNWEN@: "Hear, hear", someone says. He is just a little too early; I shall deal with that later.
Living in the past, this crafty old campaigner made a double-barrelled appeal to the anti-imperialists of Quebec, and to the British whose roots are deep m British traditions, by sowing seeds of distrust of our American neighbour. He likewise endeavoured to undermine the confidence of the Canadian people in the honesty of members of the administration, and his thought in that direction was similar to the invective he employed against Sir Wilfrid in 1916.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why was such prominence given to these thoughts in the Montreal Gazette? Did that newspaper have an objective similar to that which brought Bourassa out into the limelight once again? In its editorial page, on the following day, it is true that they acclaimed those portions in which he tendered sage advice to some of his compatriots. But it is equally true that
44561-39J
they registered only mild disagreement with the more insidious part of the address.
Commenting on the same speech, the Globe and Mail said editorially:
What will cause special anguish at Ottawa was the declaration of his belief that Sir Robert Borden and Arthur Meighen were more honest in their attitudes than our present ministers.
I wonder what standard Bourassa had in mind when he used that language? I wonder what was passing through the mind of the editor of the Globe and Mail when he quoted it with such gleeful approval? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, was it the War-time Elections Act of 1917? On the other hand, was it the famous Hamilton speech, or was it the speech delivered by the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen in the Quebec by-election in 1926? Perchance was it the famous "last gasp" speech delivered by the right bon. gentleman on January 27, 1942? Or possibly it was that amazing contradiction of past performances and past utterances delivered by the right hon. gentleman on February 3, 1942. Mr. Speaker, I leave the answer and the comparison of standards to you and to other members of this house. Again I ask you: What is the purpose and objective of this mentality which has in the past created so much trouble for this government and indirectly hindered the war effort?
I shall call another witness who has been motivated by similar ideas. Premier Hep-bum must have known or should have known that his declarations against the United States navy would cause anxiety and distrust in the minds of Canadians with regard to our great ally and would create antagonisms on the other side of the line. The Winnipeg Free Press, commenting upon his action in that connection, made the following statement:
The harm done by Mr. Hepburn will outlive and outlast any amends offered by Canada.
On page 2 of the Montreal Gazette of this morning I find the following in "Lights and Shadows" by L. S. B. Shapiro:
Mr. Hepburn's feat: It would be nice if Mr. Hepburn's bright little escapade of last week could be laughed off and dismissed merely as part of the price we have to pay for having an aggressive prankster in a responsible position. In trying to be as lively as possible on all occasions, Sir. Hepburn has provided the dominion with a few guffaws and not a few headaches, the most violent of which is his current criticism of the United States navy.
I fear, however, that this one is not to be laughed off so easily. A lot of people I know in Rew York and Washington are laughing very bitterly and they show no sign of stopping.
And again:
More important than these examples of ruffled feeling is the comment of Fletcher Pratt, the
The Address-Mr. McNiven

noted American military expert. Mr. Pratt observes the U.S. navy has not attacked the main Japanese fleet for precisely the same reason that the Canadian army in Britain has not attacked the Germans who are only fifty miles distant from some of the Canadian encampments.
Thus we begin to find ourselves in a battle of recrimination over our beautiful, undefended border while we are still losing the war to the axis. A Hitler agent couldn't have done as well in a year of trying.
I mentioned a moment ago that a cloud no bigger than a man's hand had appeared on the political horizon. Knowing that the friendly relations between Canada and the United States is primarily the accomplishment of the Prime Minister, as was abundantly attested to last evening by the President of the United States, I ask you, Mr. Speaker: Are the critics of the Prime Minister developing a new line of attack regardless of its effect upon our war effort and our friendly relations with our greatest ally, the United States? I cannot believe that the retention of the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen as leader, the reappearance of Bourassa in the limelight and Hepburn's recent outbursts are mere coincidence. Rather would I believe that the opponents of this government, having failed to stampede the people on the plebiscite and conscription issues, are now trying the old game of 1911 by bringing about the unity of the Nationalist group in Quebec and the narrow-minded persons who always look askance at the United States because of the fact that a close association with that country might infringe upon the monopolies which they enjoy. Truly it is a strange alliance- the imperialistic Mr. Meighen-the anti-war Mr. Bourassa!


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
nonsense 1


Donald Alexander McNiven: Not quite so nonsensical as the house leader of the Conservatives seems to think.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the hon. member readying a quotation or what?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is just innuendo.


Donald Alexander McNiven: We have heard Bourassa praise Mr. Meighen. What has Mr. Meighen to say about Mr. Bourassa and his summary of United States designs upon this country? Do Mr. Meighen and the Conservative party expect Bourassa's support, and with it the Nationalist party of Quebec, whose campaign has been entirely anti-war, as it was in 1911? I find it hard to believe in this grave hour, accentuated as it was yesterday afternoon by Mr. Churchill in the most sombre tones, that the great Conservative party will countenance such a move. Unless, however, Mr. Meighen

denounces it, dissociates his party from the statements that have been made by Mr. Bourassa and condemns his latest friend and ally, Premier Hepburn, for his recent utterances reflecting upon the navy of the United States, I for one feel justified in concluding that the group of men who are using the Meighen-Hepburn-Drew combination as a means to power will go to any length. I am quite certain that the house leader of the Conservative party will be glad to use the earliest opportunity to make such an avowal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member is simply putting up a straw-man to knock down.


Donald Alexander McNiven: I see that my time is up, so I will conclude with the statement that such a declaration from the present leader of the Conservative party is now overdue.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say at the very outset of my speech that if Canada is not one hundred per cent in the war to-day, it is the duty of this parliament to remove impediments and close the gaps immediately, for in the words of Prime Minister Churchill there is not a week nor a day nor an hour to be lost. If we hesitate, if we delay, if we try to conserve our resources, and if likewise our allies should employ less than their maximum in this struggle, who is to say that we shall not be driven out of the Orient, out of Africa, yea, even out of Europe? Contemplating now such a situation, is it not imperative for our survival that we throw the entire strength of the nation immediately into this struggle? In war there is no second heat, no return game, no second chance.
The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght), speaking in this debate on February 12, referred to the speech from the throne in 1936 in which was forecast a bill to create parliamentary secretaryships. I have pressed for this enlarged representation and participation by members on so many occasions in this parliament and elsewhere that I do not propose at this time to repeat what I have said. But the reference calls to mind the statement that I made in the auditorium of the city hall in Guelph when I was a candidate in the 1925 election. I was advocating the return of the Liberal government on a platform of which one plank was senate reform. During the course of preparing my speech to-day I was

The Address-Mr. Gladstone
seeking for confirmation of that plank, and I found it in Hansard of January 12, 1926, at page 105, in a speech delivered by Mr. C. W. Bell, then member for Hamilton West. Mr. Bell referred to a speech that had been made by the then Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in a hockey arena in London, Ontario, on October 16, 1925, during the election campaign. The words of the Prime Minister, as quoted by Mr. Bell, were as follows:
Only a few days ago a number of senators were appointed. Every one has given me his pledged word he will be prepared, once a measure passes the Commons, to give it his support. Subsequent senators will be appointed with that understanding, and as Providence takes away a few of the older members, you will have a Senate pledged to bring about the reforms for which the administration stands.
I have the utmost confidence that this is a matter which will be receiving the attention of the Prime Minister in due time.
I sometimes wonder whether it is an evidence of strength or of weakness in our cabinet make-up that we do not have family rows and resignations. Shake-ups are common in the British cabinet. I sometimes wonder whether we are not too hesitant about creating occasions for by-elections. Who will say that the recent by-elections were not without profit right across Canada in bringing all the diversified factors of our war effort into the open for discussion and decision? Boldness of policy in this respect should strengthen any government. Our democracy will be more secure as we trust the people more. Therefore I would suggest to the Prime Minister, as a humble supporter of his, that the undoubted confidence in which he is presently held by the electors will be heightened if he will more often furnish occasions on which the electors can pass judgment on the record of his government.
There is opportunity now for the rejuvenation of the cabinet, with so many senate vacancies inviting it. Whose move is it? Don't too many speak at once-make it easy for the Prime Minister. Seriously, however, these days call for forceful and resourceful men, the type that, unflinching before Hitler and his gang, would spring at them and smash them a black-out.
The two great instruments for moulding public opinion and maintaining and uplifting the morale of the nation in this time of stress and during occasional dark days of near panic are the press and the radio. Canada has been blessed over the years in having finely conducted newspapers. Readers have been able to place reliance on the news reports of events, local, national and world-wide. But one wonders sometimes whether the merging of ownerships for exclusiveness of newspaper field has
not given rise to some catering to interests and the use of the newspaper columns to promote interests and to promote the views of powerful and influential groups.
More explicitly what I have in mind is the colouring of news, over-emphasizing certain features and suppressing or merging other features, depending upon some possible objective to be attained. Perhaps I should give some instances of what I have in mind.
Take (1) the speech by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). One paper refers to his speech as a burlesque, accompanied by prolonged applause and deskthumping. As a matter of fact, the deskthumping coincided with a statement which was not mentioned at all in the editorial, namely, that some persons would conscript youth to fight for their dollars.
(2)	A most capable member, of undoubted sincerity, in his speech dealt with a tendency of some papers to belittle members of parliament. His was a considered and reasoned argument. One paper has an isolated comment, quoting only the following of his words: "We may be a mediocre lot. God help us, I know we are."
(3)	Two morning newspapers reporting the speeches in parliament of the preceding day, used the following front page headlines respectively: (a) "More Liberals from Quebec tell Commons they oppose conscription for overseas"; (b) "Five Quebec members back plebiscite plan-three others express opposition in Commons debate."
It is to be regretted if there is any trend towards colouring the news in Canada, even in isolated places; and should the colouring of news be employed to the extent of possibly undermining the nation during war time, it ought to become a matter for government attention, looking, for instance, to an amendment to the libel section of the criminal code. Not being a lawyer, I would not assume any competence to pass on legal questions, but as a layman I simply suggest that persistent colouring of news in a way that is detrimental to the morale of the nation in time of war ought not to be permitted regardless of the long-accepted principle of the freedom of the press. Defamatory libel is defined in section 317 of the criminal code in these words:
A defamatory libel is matter published, without legal justification or excuse, likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.
Provided that the scope of this definition could be and were enlarged to include the national safety, then the colouring of the reports of the proceedings of parliament would
The Address-Mr. Gladstone

be an offence under section 322 of the criminal code which reads:
No one commits an offence by publishing in good faith, for the information of the public, a fair report of the proceedings of the Senate or House of Commons, or any committee thereof, or of any council or assembly aforesaid, or any committee thereof, or of the public proceedings, preliminary or final, heard before any court exercising judicial authority, nor by publishing, in good faith, any fair comment upon any such proceedings.
I would wish this allusion to the press to be regarded as of a more or less hypothetical nature and most certainly as in no way critical of those men and women who are in the press gallery of parliament, but nevertheless as a warning to their editors that theirs is the high mission of maintaining and upbuilding the morale of the nation during the war years.
Mr. Speaker, the true implication of certain portions of the speech of the hon. member for Northumberland, as reported at page 331 of Hansard were not grasped, or were ignored in some press reports. I wish to quote one paragraph of this speech; but before doing so, let me explain, for any one who may not know, the meaning or significance of two of the terms he used. "Who's Who" contains a list of directors, industrialists and financiers in Canada, showing the company or companies with which each is associated; and where he used the word "empire" he referred to investments or dollars, if you will. He said:
Let me go further and say to them, that if I owned an empire such as "Who's Who" says they own, I would want to conscript everybody in Canada to defend it. And, Mr. Speaker, if 1 had their mentality not only would I wish to conscript-insist upon conscripting-every man in Canada to defend that empire, but I would go farther and spend every dollar I could to create in this country in the minds of the people a situation which would delude and deceive them into conscripting people to defend my empire.
My purpose in referring to the speech of the hon. member for Northumberland is to lay the groundwork for my wholehearted support of any sound proposal for higher pay for the men who go forth to risk their lives for us all. Such a proposal was so splendidly set out in a speech by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), as reported in Hansard at page 387, that I cannot do better than quote what he said:
Right here I should like to make a suggestion in regard to the armed forces. Many of those who have stayed at home have earned good wages. Some have spent them; others-many- have accumulated savings. I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that a savings fund should be set up for the armed forces. I would urge that every member of our armed forces while serving in Canada, should receive an additional $1 per day, and, while in active service overseas, an addi-

tional $2 per day. These savings should not be paid now, but at the end of the war. When the boys return, some will want to complete their education. Many of them will marry. Certainly all of them will find it difficult to get back into civilian life. None of the money would have to be paid now. This would not detract from the war effort. It would be no hardship to continue war-time taxation for a few years after the war. There is another feature about this. The proposed payments would establish a tremendous reservoir of consumer demand for goods at a time when this country will badly need a consumer demand for goods to start its industries going again in peace-time operations, turning over from wartime operations.
We have a study underway. It will be a progressive study of means of assisting men, both of the armed forces and of those who have been diverted to war activities, back to a normal civilian life. Here is the place to apply the suggestion of the hon. member for Parry Sound as to the creation of parliamentary secretaryships. The study is being made under the direction of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), in whose ability we have the utmost confidence, and he is supported by an able committee of civil servant experts. There might, however, be some worth-while advantage in bringing to the assistance of this committee a few of the elected representatives of the people, men who at the next election will have to go back and account to the people for what they have done in the direction of providing for a speedy and decent rehabilitation of our returned men.
To turn next to agriculture, the condition of our great industry of agriculture is one which demands tackling by methods which so far have not been employed. Speaking of Ontario agriculture, I would say that prices being realized to-day are at a fairly reason. able level having regard to what the working man supporting a family can afford to pay. But where is the margin to the farmer to erect a new bam or even to reroof the old barn, or to replace worn-out implements, or to instal modern equipment, or to do the many things that would be profitable to our industries in supplying needed materials? Men are leaving the farms for the one and only reason that it is not possible for them to maintain those farms as their fathers and their grandfathers were able to maintain them, progressively, making farming in reality a way of life. I submit, therefore, that in relation to agriculture we must face the perplexing situation where the working man can hardly afford to pay more and the farmer cannot make ends meet at present prices for the food products of Ontario mixed farming.
Seemingly the experts in economics have not yet arrived at a solution of this problem,

The Address-Mr. Gladstone
unless perhaps they are unwilling to do so. Here, again, I see an opportunity for the application of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Pariy Sound as to the creation of parliamentary secretaryships looking to representation in the administration for eastern agriculture. We have a most capable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), but I think he will admit that the problem of the western wheat surplus, coupled with the destitution of western farmers in drought areas, has made very heavy demands upon his time. I am not informed as to what use is being made of the Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph, the most outstanding college of its kind in the world, towards meeting the economic situation of the eastern agriculturists; but I will say that if the services of the president and staff, who are all trained in agricultural economics, are not being used to the fullest extent possible, they should be.
For the sake of the farmer, some means must be found to make his dollar go further. For the sake of the working man in our factory, the farmer must be put in a position to buy more freely the implements, the equipment and the materials the making of which gives employment in our towns and cities. We ought never to forget the old saying that whenever the farmer prospers, everyone prospers.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), speaking in this debate on January 26, as reported at page 25 of Hansard used these words:
When the Union army of volunteers was in desperate condition, President Lincoln is reported to have said:	.
Voluntarism is the unprincipled dodge of cowardly politicians. It has ground up the choicest seed of the nation. It has consumed the young, the generous, the patriotic, the intelligent, and the brave, and it has wasted the best moral, social, and political elements of the republic, and left the cowards, the shirkers, and the money makers to stay at home and procreate their kind.
A rather extensive search has been made in the library of parliament at Ottawa, in the library of congress at Washington and by noted authorities on Lincoln such as Mr. Grant Dexter of the Winnipeg Free Press and Mr. Dave Elman of the Hobby Lobby programme, Radio City, New York, but without success so far in confirming that these words were used in a speech by Lincoln. Be that as it may, however, I am sure that many of my electors of Wellington South would feel that there is more truth than fiction in these words as applicable to the present war.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), speaking here on February 10, gave a most comprehensive review of Canada's contribution to date in all our fields of service. It is to be hoped that his speech has been read by very many Canadians. It reveals a marvellous undertaking and accomplishment to date by Canada, and1 gives proof of greater momentum for growing achievement in the future in all spheres of our planned service. Every hon. member has, I am sure, been impressed by the sincerity, strength and determination of our Minister of National Defence. Following a most thorough review of the results of voluntary enlistment, and after urging support of the plebiscite to give the government a free hand for whatever changes may become necessary, the minister said, as reported at page 455 of Hansard:
I prefer the voluntary method if it works, and I shall do all I can to make it work. At the same time, we cannot know what is ahead and I feel impelled to say-here I can speak only for myself-that if the voluntary system does not meet the needs of the fateful days before us, then I shall feel it my duty as part of my responsibility to advocate the adoption of the other method.
For myself, I wish to subscribe to the view stated and the position taken by the Minister of National Defence. I hold a decided preference for the system of draft followed1 in the United States, where some of more mature years are called to the service before exhausting entirely the cream of the youth. We are suffering to-day from discouraging methods of recruiting followed during the earlier days of the war. Many fine young men were turned back for reasons which appeared unjustifiable, and having gone to some other war service or to preparation where still higher skill is involved, they are loath to offer themselves again immediately. Some badge of recognitioh is certainly due to them to lift from them the stigma attaching to slackers. Many such are waiting to be told where they can best serve. Pushing men around is something more easily said than done on a national scale. Something more definite and intensive is required in the way of system in directing them where their duty lies, whether on the farm, in the factory or in some branch of the armed services.
I come now to a phase of the discussion which carries a risk of misunderstanding, but inasmuch as some of my electors have not the opportunity I have of knowing the situation, I feel that I owe it to them to be frank for the good of all Canada. Preliminary to a discussion of our Canadian partnership let
The Address-Mr. Gladstone

me repeat in effect the words of a great Canadian of the present day of French ancestry: "Your attitude towards the war outside of Canada is motivated partly by sentiment whereas our attitude comes more through judgment." While no doubt he is largely correct, I would say that there are strong evidences of a good deal of sentiment for the old land in the French-speaking parts of Canada since the king and1 queen visited Quebec and the queen spoke to the cheering crowds in French. Yes, I stand for a one hundred per cent participation by Canada in this world struggle. We must trust our government and our high military officials as to methods and progressive development, for they alone can know the secret plans of allied strategy. Decisions cannot be based alone on the view of the member for Wellington South, or the views of the electors of Wellington county, or of the province of Ontario, or of the province of Quebec, or of any other province. Total war requires total harmonization of objective and effort within Canada, plus careful coordination with the plans of the supreme command of the allies. Total war cannot be achieved amidst discord, passive resistance or indifference. War to be efficient can give no place for appeasement, because appeasement lulls, quiets and reduces striking force. I am certain that the electors I have the honour to represent have no use for any policy or attitude of appeasement. I am equally certain that they will approve all reasonable means to bring every province and all persons of whatever race into cooperation for the fullest possible use of Canada's entire resources of wealth, materials, man-power and woman-power. Firm believers in democracy and democractic government are fond of saying, "Trust the people." But in war time when so much relating to military preparations and operations must be kept secret, it is equally true that the people must .more than at other times trust the government. For this very reason of secrecy many facts concerning the war programme cannot be made known, even to private members of parliament. We as members have trusted the Prime Minister and his cabinet, and in turn we are grateful that our constituents have trusted us.
I have spoken of the need for cooperation. There cannot and must not be any varying degrees of cooperation by the provinces. Canada must be a unit in this struggle to preserve freedom, liberty and justice as these have been vouchsafed wherever the British flag has flown. This war must be won. Canada must do her full part, and we hope and pray that she will do so with the fullest cooperation of all her people.

The plebiscite is designed surely to achieve that united effort. Count not the expense if Canadians everywhere, English-speaking and French-speaking alike, will by their votes remove any hindrance to total war. And total war demands total participation of all Canadians, whether in Guelph, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, Vancouver or elsewhere. There are, I fear, those in Ontario who misjudge Quebec because they do not understand Quebec. They have not the opportunity that members of parliament have of mingling in a social way and in conference on affairs of state with many of the altogether likable, fine and most capable members from that province, whose mother tongue is French but who for the most part speak English almost as fluently as we of Anglo-Saxon ancestry. It would seem appropriate here to quote from the British North America Act. section 133:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec. . . .
The memories of the War-time Elections Act of 1917, and of the methods employed by the Union government in 1917 and 1918 to enforce the Military Service Act still rankle the French-Canadians. Knowing of the unhealed wounds from those days the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe felt compelled to define and limit Quebec's participation when war was declared on Germany in 1939. As recorded on September 9 at page 68 of Hansard of the second session of that year, he said:
The whole province of Quebec-and I speak with all the responsibility and all the solemnity I can give to my words-will never agree to accept compulsory service or conscription outside Canada. I will go farther than that: when X say the whole province of Quebec, I mean that I personally agree with them. I am authorized by my colleagues in the cabinet from the province of Quebec-the veteran leader of the Senate, my good friend and colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), my friend and fellow townsman and colleague, the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power)-to say that we will never agree to conscription and will never be members or supporters of a government that will try to enforce it. Is that clear enough?
A few months later, in March, 1940, a general election was held. I have before me now two important pieces of advertising used in the constituency of Wellington South during that campaign. One was issued in my behalf, as Liberal candidate, while the other was issued in behalf of my opponent, the National Government candidate. Each carries in bold type the words "Without conscription." It is a truism, I believe, that the giving of this pledge by the two national leaders was due entirely to the fact that

The Address-Mr. Gladstone
Canada is a partnership of the two great races. More accurately, perhaps, the pledge was due directly to the ill-feeling engendered by the roughshod methods employed to enforce conscription in Quebec during the last great war. I realize that many electors in Wellington South are of the opinion that the government should not be bound by its "no conscription" pledge at a time when the very existence of freedom is at stake. Other electors hold strongly to the opposite opinion. The cabinet is unanimous that nothing should limit Canada's part in the war, and accordingly they are asking the electors, by means of a plebiscite, to cancel the election pledge of "no conscription" and thereby give them a free hand in whatever direction may become necessary in future to maintain a total war effort. After all, does not total war for Canada resolve itself down to a means of enlisting, not compelling, the cooperation of the two great races of this nation?
I have spoken of the lasting resentment in Quebec against the methods employed to enforce conscription in the last war. I have quoted from the speech of the late Minister of Justice, made at the outbreak of the present war, in which he declared most emphatically, "We will never agree to conscription." Today we who are in intimate contact with hon. members from Quebec are heartened by evidence of a changed attitude in Quebec. We have growing confidence that if we employ methods acceptable to her people, Quebec will stand shoulder to shoulder with Englishspeaking Canada for whatever service and wherever Canadians are called in this grim struggle. This changed attitude is reflected in the speech recently made in the house by a French-speaking member, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot), who, as reported at page 512 of Hansard said:
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 hacking 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 it, by ramming conscription down our throats.
I cannot leave this section of my speech, Mr. Speaker, without paying the highest possible tribute to the memory of a great Canadian who is with us no more, the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. The quotation I have read from his speech on the declaration of war ought, in all fairness, not to be read apart from the whole argument of that speech. Knowing the people of his province better than any other person in or out of 44561-40
parliament; knowing the discord that had been aroused by the endeavour to force conscription upon Quebec in 1917 and 1918, he stood adamant against a revival of such circumstances. His very soul spoke in a plea for methods in this war that would line up his compatriots with English-speaking Canada unitedly in this struggle. So I wish to leave with you some other words of this great Canadian, as they appear at page 69 of Hansard for 1939, second session:
God give Canadians the light which will indicate to them where their duty lies in this hour of trial so that our children and our children's children may inherit a land where freedom and peace shall prevail, where our social, political and religious institutions may be secure and from which the tyrannical doctrines of nazism and communism are forever banished. Yes, God bless Canada. God bless our queen. God bless our king.
I notice that my allotted time in this debate has almost elapsed, but if the house will bear with me for a few minutes I shall mention, without much elaboration, some other relevant factors in this debate on total war.
The word " communism " appears in a quotation I used a few moments ago. That reference, no doubt, has to do with the insidious propaganda that was waged over the world a few years back. All that can be and is forgotten to-day in our acclaim for the marvellous defence of Russian soil against the German war machine. That defence surely demonstrates to the world that Russia was not lying dormant. It is irrefutable evidence of what was taking place within her own borders, scientifically, industrially and in a disciplinary way.
In wars of other days a $20 suit, a $30 gun and a little "forming fours" made a man a soldier. To-day it is entirely different. War to-day requires a man of high intelligence to operate a Bren gun or a 50-ton tank, or to pilot a $100,000 bomber. I ask the armchair critics to contemplate just what modern warfare means in ships, guns, tanks, explosives, bombers, fighters; in training, and in all the organization and facilities for production. I ask them to inform themselves reliably of what Canada has done to date and what we are committed to do in the programme mapped out now for the period ending March, 1943, as to both men and materials. I ask them to remember that all our reverses to date in this war have been due to a shortage of munitions, not to a shortage of man-power. I ask them not to overlook the fact that Canada has been supplying munitions in huge quantities to the British isles, Russia, Africa, and the far east, even to the extent of leaving ourselves short. I ask them to note that there has been an upsurge in recruiting during recent

The Address-Mr. Gladstone

weeks, in excess of our facilities to train men. The winter-fair building at Guelph has had to be reopened during recent weeks as a training centre to accommodate the overflow from the Chatham and Kitchener camps.
This week every person who has means will enter the war in the victory loan campaign. At Guelph the whole strength of my riding is being organized under the able leadership of an outstanding citizen, Mr. W. P. Gamble, and they will by hard work go over the top. Here I would give the highest praise to the Globe and Mail for the tremendous boost it has given the campaign to-day in the striking display occupying the entire front page of its paper. The press is powerful, so powerful that, if so inclined, it can in a week lift the morale of the people one hundred per cent. That would go a long way toward maintaining a one hundred per cent war effort in Canada. Our hearts are saddened when we know that many fine young Canadians already have made the supreme sacrifice. Their places must and will be filled over there, and additional units to Canada's maximum will be sent. We must and will have reinforcements for every emergency. May God guide us and keep us faithful through the dark days, as we struggle on toward victory and the preservation of our right to live as free people.


Mr. D. F. McCUAIG (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, it is almost four weeks since this debate began, and I hesitate to take the time of t'he house to speak, particularly when I realize that a great deal of important legislation is pending. I have, however, been asked from time to time why there is such delay in taking the vote on the plebiscite. Probably few people realize that it is first necessary to dispose of the motion we are now discussing before the government is in a position to introduce legislation making provision for the vote.
My observations with reference to the plebiscite itself will be very brief. When it was first mentioned there was a great deal of discussion and1 opposition, but I feel that as the weeks and days pass, that opposition diminishes, and11 am sure when the vote comes it will be accepted by a heavy affirmative vote. I know I shall do all in my power toward that end.
I do not believe conscription was mentioned during the last campaign in my constituency. I know I did not mention it, and I believe I can say the same for my opponent. Therefore conscription was not an issue, except as it was made one by the platforms of both parties. Each member is bound by the pledges made by his party, irrespective of whether he raises the question or not.

We are also told that the vote on the plebiscite will cost a large amount of money. It is true that the vote will cost about fifteen cents or twenty cents per person. Will any of those people who have been so provocative in their language respecting the cost of the plebiscite say that it is not worth twenty cents to them to know that a pledge given by a public man, not on a minor but on a major issue involving life itself, will not be broken without first appealing to the people to whom that pledge was given? Anyone who has studied the life of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will agree with me that he has always been prepared to trust the people. I believe this is a question where we should not be guided in our decision by the request of othdrs; it is a question where our consciences should be our guide. If we permit our consciences to be our guide in respect of this question, I am sure none of us will look back and regret any action he has taken.
The following words from Shakespeare's "Hamlet" are a good guide to all of us in deciding questions of this kind:
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
The people I represent are satisfied with nothing less than a total effort. I believe there may be some difference of opinion as to how that objective is to be attained. A demand is raised in many parts, particularly in the urban area, that we should have a greater effort, including the conscription of man-power. If we listened to those who volunteer information, and those who tell us what they think we should do, we might consider that that is the predominant opinion. But when we make personal inquiries and investigate for ourselves we find quite often that that feeling is not so intense.
In fact, after making a survey of my constituency, I am doubtful if a vote on conscription, without including the conscription of wealth, would receive a favourable reply. If is interesting to study the response in the various parts of the province with respect to the advertisement carried in the Globe and Mail. This advertisement was carried in five local papers in my constituency of Simcoe North. My estimation is that in my constituency the advertisement in question went into approximately 6,000 homes. Hon. members will probably be surprised to learn that while those 6,000 homes were asked to write their federal member requesting him to do certain things, I received only thirty-four newspaper clippings. In addition, I received about twelve letters, but some of those were opposed to the advertisement, and others

The Address-Mr. McCuaig
agreed with it only if conscription of wealth were included.
I believe it is the duty of every hon. member as best he can to ascertain the wishes of his constituents. But he should also be guided by the information he receives from those charged with the responsibility of carrying on our war effort. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has made it clear that up to the present time we are obtaining by the voluntary system all the men we require. He has added that he prefers the voluntary system, if it works, and that he will do all he can to see that it does work. Although acknowledging the need for men, he emphasized the need for the production of food and weapons of war, as our contribution as one of the members of a team of united nations.
The message that General McNaughton gave to the soldiers at Christmas has already been put on Hansard. In that message he praised the Canadian soldier and stated that new units and formations and reserves would arrive as quickly as ships could be found to bring them. I should like to place upon Hansard an editorial which appeared in the Windsor Daily Star of February 10 as follows:
If anyone knows what is needed to win this war, it is Lieutenant-General A. G. L. McNaughton, general officer commanding the Canadian corps. The fact that one of his first acts after returning to Canada on furlough was to visit industrial plants turning out military equipment, coupled with his comments on this phase of our war effort, indicate the important place in his mind which armaments occupy. He has borne out what those closely in touch with the war situation have been saying all along. What our men need is equipment and more equipment. He does not suggest, of course, that there is not a need for more men but the machines come first.
There is also the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. llsley) with reference to the voluntary system, which appears on page 310 of Hansard:
I wish to say that neither as a member of the government nor as a member of the war committee of the cabinet, nor otherwise, have I been able to find any evidence that the abandonment of the voluntary system and the substitution of the compulsory system in respect to that part of our war effort represented by overseas army service would help at this moment in our war effort.
It is my opinion that we should be guided by our desire to serve, not only the people in our own ridings but the people of Canada as a whole. We are not being true to our duty if we sponsor legislation which might lead to disunity in this country even though such legislation might meet with the approval of our own people. Lord Tweedsmuir, speaking at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island in September, 1937, and referring to the loyalty 44561-40t
of the Scottish people, not only to the land of their adoption but also to the land of their origin, said:
That is as it should be, for a man can never have too many loyalties. Therefore I want to see in the citizens of Canada strong and continuing love of the district to which they belong, but at the same time a strong and continuing interest in the dominion of which they are a part, the whole Canadian nation.
It is important that we should not become hysterical at a time such as this when we are faced with reverses. Reverses are inevitable in a war which is being fought on many fronts. I should like to quote from an editorial in the Globe and Mail of to-day. This refers to Prime Minister Churchill's reference to the difficulties we are facing and might expect to face in the future, and it says:
But these blows need not be mortal blows if we keep our heads and pursue our purpose relentlessly and with grim determination. That purpose is to convert our enormous potential power into an actual fighting force as rapidly as possible. We must build ships; produce aircraft; make guns; send the tanks rolling off the end of the production lines; and train men to operate these deadly engines.
Although we may be satisfied with our voluntary system as it is at the present time, and we have reason to be if we listen to those who are in charge, this attitude may change. I think it will change if the present system does not meet the emergencies that may arise. Should the system change, I am afraid there will be many difficulties in administration. We provide for compulsory service under the National Resources Mobilization Act, and even though this is confined to service in Canada, we have experienced many difficulties.
I believe hon. members who represent rural ridings will agree with me when I say that the majority of the requests received when we go home for week-ends are received from farmers' sons who are urging postponement of their military service. It is true that farmers have the privilege of asking for postponement, but I know of many cases where men have been taken away from large farms and no one left to operate them. I do not think postponement is sufficient. A farmer must plan, not only for months ahead but for years ahead. He must not be uncertain as to what he can do. He cannot plan if he knows that at any time he may be called into service and have to sell his farm and his stock. As I say, I think they should have more than postponement; they should have exemption in order that they can go ahead and plan for future operations.
There is some dissatisfaction with the procedure. If this is so in my constituency where the greatest distance from the district registrar
The Address-Mr. McCuaig

is only 100 miles, how much more is it so in areas where men are as far as 1,000 miles away from the divisional registrar? This is so in northern Ontario where the nearest registrar is in Toronto. There has been a dlemand that agriculture should be represented on these boards. Up to a short time ago the boards were made up of representatives of the Department of National Defence and the national labour supply council. This condition has been improved by the order in council passed on the seventh instant which provides that at the hearing of applications made to the board there shall also be a representative of agriculture in order that the interests of agriculture may be represented.
There also has been a demand for local boards which would ibe more familiar with the needs of the locality concerned. The argument against such boards is that there would be a danger that they might be influenced by representations made by people in the locality. If that argument is sound, then I suggest to the government that local committees be formed. These would not have administrative powers but would act merely as fact-finding bodies. These committees could be set up in each county or district, and they could forward the facts to the central board which would administer and deal with the application. In that way a committee need not be influenced because it could be said that they were merely a fact-finding body and were forwarding the facts to the board which was in charge of administration.
It is urged also that selective service should be extended to ail branches of our war effort, including the factory, the farm, as well as military service. I know the government is dealing with this problem, but we can readily see the difficulties in the way. This was brought out quite vividly on the tenth instant when the Minister of National Defence was speaking. He was referring to the policy of the government, and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) interrupted, as reported on page 452 of Hansard:	*
.	.	. is it anticipated that the government
intends to say to a man: "You shall work here and not there"? The Prime Minister has not made that clear. I do not think you can say to a man: "You must work here and not there". You might not get results.
Then, when the minister stated that this is receiving a great deal of examination and consideration in England as well as here, the leader of the opposition replied:
I am not sure that you can make a man work.
I would ask the government to give this policy their best consideration in the hope that some satisfactory arrangement may be made

in order to assure adequate help on the farm as well as in the factory. This might be accomplished by doing it indirectly, as is being done to a certain extent in the civil service, by refusing to hire a man in any industry if he is eligible for service or is better fitted for some other employment. In this regard some consideration must be given to the farmer as well as to those employed on the farm. A farmer under present market conditions cannot afford to pay' the wages received by those employed in industry and, on the other hand, it is not fair to the farm labourer to be compelled to work on the farm for wages much lower than he could receive were he allowed to work in industry. This problem, I am afraid, cannot be met in any way except by allowing the farmer to receive a higher reward for the commodities he produces.
Although there may be a difference of opinion as to the method by which the war is to be waged, I can assure the members of this house that my people are insistent that we should continue to prosecute the war to our utmost ability. I know the Minister of National Defence was speaking one hundred per cent for the people I represent when he said, as reported at page 448 of Hansard:
No person can doubt that Canada is committed to total war. We are committed to it not only for the survival of freedom generally but for our own survival and for the survival of this nation, and for the security of our own homes and families. To wage total war is the stated policy of the government and I believe, indeed I am sure, that it is the determined purpose of the Canadian people.
I will do all I can to urge the government to use every means at their disposal, including the conscription of wealth, if necessary, in order to wage total war, and I assure them that the people I represent are prepared to undergo any sacrifice requested of them. Let us all get behind the government in any move to increase the war effort, prod them on, if necessary, and show them the way by doing all we can to assist in the war loan, recruiting, the salvage campaign and the advancement of all organizations connected with our war effort; and, above all, let us remain united that we may hold this nation together in our struggle against the common foe.
Let me conclude with a quotation from the speech given by Prime Minister Churchill yesterday, when he said:
In the English-speaking world we rejoice in free institutions. We have free parliaments and a free press. This is the way of life we have been used to. This is the way of life we are fighting to defend.

The Address-Mr. Cloutier


Mr. ARMAND CLOUTIER (Drummond-Arthabaska) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot conceal the emotion I feel on rising for the first time in this chamber to speak on behalf of the electors of Drummond-Arthabaska whom I have the honour to represent in the House of Commons since 1940. Though this emotion proceeds from various causes, I attribute it in great measure to the fact that Drummond-Arthabaska has been represented in the past by men of the first rank, and I wish I possessed the eloquence of Laurier, of Lavergne, of Dorion, or of Girouard, in order to give to the voice of my constituency the authority and competence it formerly had. Only a poet could do justice to my constituency, for Drummond-Arthabaska is certainly not an ordinary district. It is privileged in many respects. The soul of our national life is daily in evidence there, harmony reigns between the two races as among the various classes of society. Our farmers are performing real miracles on the land, and our workmen have not known even the shadow of the depression which has so seriously affected most urban centres.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, Drummond-Arthabaska has always been famous. This section of the country which is so dear to me has given great men to the nation, in the arts as well as in public life. Filled with national pride, my county has played a large part in the national war effort. At this moment my thoughts go to the brave defenders of Hong Kong, among whom many young heroes represent the contribution of Drummond-Arthabaska to the glorious Canadian army. Their sacrifice, like that of Dollard des Ormeaux and his valiant companions, will not have been in vain, and their glorious defeat is already worth more than a mere aureole of victory. They have displayed the tenacity of the Canadian soldier, his will to victory, his heroism. They are the symbol of a people which prizes freedom above all else and is ready to give everything, even life itself, to defend freedom until final victory.
I have every reason to be proud of my district, Mr. Speaker. It is admired by those who visit it and loved by those who live in it. With its vast plains recalling the western prairies, its delightful valleys, its poetic streams, its mountains characterized by beauty rather than loftiness, it is a miniature of Canada. Adolphe Poisson, whom Drummond-Arthabaska gave to French-Canadian literature, has sung the praises of this section of Canada in his immortal works, "Les heures perdues" and "Sous les pins." Inspired by the natural beauties of his native
district, he expressed sublime thoughts in harmonious verse.
And when admiring the illustrious works of the great sculptors Alfred Laliberte and Suzor Cote, we understand the scruples their chisels must have felt at hewing out masterpieces worthy of the grandeur and beauty of this bit of homeland.
And who is unaware of the renown of the enfant terrible of Drummond-Arthabaska, Erick Dorion, who brought to the politics of his time a note so ardent that even the enfant terrible of Temiscouata can hardly equal him to-day. I hope the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) will not mind this presumption on my part, for I shall tell him frankly, that, just as my electors, the men and women of Drummond-Arthabaska, I hold him in high admiration and consider him a great Canadian and an ardent patriot.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay a tribute to the memory of a man the centenary of whose birth was celebrated just a few months ago, the great statesman who was the pride of French Canada and the glory of the entire country, the man whom gracious Queen Victoria called "silver-tongued", Sir Wilfrid Laurier. We cherish with veneration numerous mementos of this great statesman who spent several of his finest years in the pleasant little town of Arthabaska and the village of l'Avenir, the home of Dorion, where he published a small newspaper which had considerable fame in its day. Drummond-Arthabaska will ever be proud of having had in its midst this great Canadian and illustrious patriot, a symbol of unity and an example of straightforwardness and justice towards all the races and' classes making up our beautiful country.
May I also, Mr. Speaker, associate myself with my fellow-members in paying a tender tribute to the memory of another great French Canadian, too early taken from our midst.
The people of Drummond-Arthabaska desire to pay a respectful tribute of admiration to the memory of the great patriot Ernest Lapointe. I feel that we shall miss him more and more in these troubled times. He was a man to whom we could turn in any emergency, and especially in time of peril. I hope that the policies of Laurier and of his successor Ernest Lapointe will ever be preserved by the Liberal party and that the life of those great statesmen will be an inspiration to all young Canadians. They embodied Canadian loyalty and patriotism.
I wish to tender my sincere * congratulations to the proposer (Mr. Fournier, Hull) and the seconder (Mr. Macdonald, Brantford City) of

The Address-Mr. Cloutier
the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have discharged their task with dignity and expressed their views with courage.
I listened to their speeches with great interest and I admired the sincerity of their language.
I shall now discuss the six main points of the speech from the throne, considering them as much as possible from various angles. The first point is the proposed plebiscite concerning the use of our man-power. Mr. Speaker,
I understand that through such a plebiscite the government will request the people to release them from their past commitments as regards overseas military service. In my opinion it would have been preferable for the government to put directly to the electors the following question: "Are you for or against conscription for overseas service?" But since the government is asking the people whether they are in favour of releasing it from its pledge, I take both questions as being synonymous, even though the one that was selected may seem more ambiguous. I believe that such is the view of the people about the question of the plebiscite and they know that the future stand of the government will be either a wise one, in acordance with the policy they have followed so far, or a desperate, dangerous and useless course, according as the people reply in the negative or the affirmative to the question of the plebiscite.
The government was no doubt prompted by very grave reasons in deciding to consult the people. Besides, they promised, as I did myself in my constituency, that no momentous decision would be taken with regard to conscription without a plebiscite. For those reasons, I shall vote for the holding of a plebiscite, because I am a fervent Liberal and have the utmost confidence in my leaders.
But upholding as I do the policy inspired by Laurier and Lapointe, as well as by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) whom I greatly admire, I say once again that I am strongly opposed to conscription, and that I shall ever oppose with all my strength any compulsion for overseas service.
Nothing can justify such a policy, Mr. Speaker; of this I am convinced more than I could ever say. The voluntary system has given results of which Canada can be .proud. We have already supplied more troops than are needed by our allies. What is expected from us is first and above all material assistance. Ever since the beginning of the war, Canada has many times been referred to as the empire's arsenal. Our factories are work-

ing full time and they are supplying this country and our allies with weapons and munitions which may be a great contribution to final victory. Besides, we cannot as we did in 1914-18, be solely concerned with the defence of England and her possessions. Our shores are directly menaced by enemies who are drawing closer and closer to them. We are threatened with invasion from two directions. Our duty to Canada compels us to direct our energies, over and above all toward the defence of our own territory.
It would be the height of folly for us to carry our	friendship-undoubtedly	quite
legitimate-for England to the point of giving up too considerable a part of our armed forces. If we are to be attacked, a contingency which is considered possible and even probable, the assault will come as part of a general onslaught by our enemies, and on the same occasion England and the United States will have to oppose a fierce resistance against perfectly equipped enemies. We can only expect a rather -weak support from those allies, and to my mind it would be a mistake to believe that we can put all our strength into the defence of the empire while relying on help from our neighbours in a crisis. The most elementary prudence makes it imperative for us to attend first and above all to the defence of our own territory.
The tragic example of Australia should open our eyes. The Australians are now facing the terrible threat of an invasion by the Japanese and their army is no longer strong enough to withstand the attack easily.
The expected help is not forthcoming and not without emotion have we read their government's appeal and the words uttered by the venerable archbishop of Melbourne. Taking a leaf from such experience, I may say that if Britain, with its forty million people, cannot be everywhere at the same time and on every front, how can one expect Canada, with a population of eleven million, to set up a gigantic war production, supply large expeditionary forces and provide for its home defence at one and the same time? So. that, while I support the government on the plebiscite, I intend leaving my constituents perfectly free to cast their vote as they wish, without bringing any pressure to bear wrhatsoever, and as their conscience dictates. What result can we expect? Time will tell. If the answer is in the negative, I will ask the government not to interpret this as any lack of confidence. Quite the contrary, my constituents ardently wish to retain such a man as the Right Hon. Prime Minister at the head of affairs.

The Address-Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce)
I still favour expeditionary forces raised on the basis of voluntary enlistment, but here again do I urge the wisdom of attending with greater care than ever to the maintenance of a sufficiently strong home force to meet such tragic and imminent dangers as now threaten our coasts. I am in accord with the government policy as regards the sending of arms and munitions to Britain. This constitutes the most valuable contribution we can offer and we must be generous in our aid to Great Britain that she may set up a military machine capable of ensuring the final overthrow of the axis' own machine.
I now come to the fourth outstanding feature of the speech from the throne: the extension of the government's policy of selective service and mobilization of our material and human resources to increase the national war effort. I have already stated my views on one aspect of mobilization. I must add here that the government's action in this domain should be dictated by the greatest prudence. I do wish the government would wholly share my views regarding agriculture and labour whose first duty is production to meet the nation's needs. Exemption from military service should apply to all farmers, farmers' sons and every one engaged in industrial pursuits related to agriculture, so as to provide our army and our population with all the necessaiy food. Exemption from military service should also be applied to those who are employed in munition plants and factories producing war supplies.
I agree that the largest possible number of Canadian citizens should be in a position to take up arms for the defence of the country in case of attack. Could1 we not, Mr. Speaker, organize in our towns and villages courses of preliminary training which farm and factory workers could attend without interfering with their productive tasks? By that I mean elementary military training given to farmers and factory workers after their working hours and in each locality. Uniforms would not be needed. It would simply be a matter of giving the elements of military training with a view to accustoming our people to handling arms, and to forming reserve battalions or guerilla troops for use in case of attack or invasion of the country.
Our worthy people would no doubt willingly devote a few hours a week to receiving an elementary training which might prove useful in the dark days this country may yet see.
I now come to the last point of the speech from the throne-the financing of the war. I am happy to note that Drummond^Arthabaska has done more than was asked of it in that domain. It is all to the credit of my electors,
and I am sure that Drummond-Arthabaska will continue in that patriotic path until the end of the conflict. My people want to purchase victory and I am sure such is the desire of all the citizens of Canada. In the face of the present danger it would be tragic and criminal parsimoniousness to count the dollars -that will bring victory. No matter how heavy the sacrifice, the people will respond generously to the call. Of that I am certain.
I shall be glad to vote with the government in favour of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, because it reflects above all the government's ardent desire to collaborate in a large way to the final victory of our arms.
In joyfully accepting all these sacrifices in a true spirit of national cooperation, we shall contribute to cementing the union of the two great races which compose our fair land and to make of Canada a country of two languages but a single heart.


Mr. W. E. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):: The address in reply to the speech from the throne has been very ably moved and seconded by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald). Since that time there have been many very good speeches and much has been said; in fact little is left to be said. But on behalf of the riding I have the honour to represent I feel called upon to make a few remarks. It is customary, I believe, in the circumstances under which I rise also to say a few words about the riding itself.
Grey-Bruce is two-thirds rural. The urban part consists of towns and villages, none of which has a population of more than four thousand. The rural part is given over to mixed farming, particularly the raising of cattle, hogs and sheep and the production of butter. The counties of Grey and Bruce were first and third respectively in Ontario last year in the sale of butter, and they were among the first four in the sale of cattle, hogs and sheep. The urban part is mainly concerned with providing services for the farming communities and also with the manufacturing of furniture and similar wood products.
The people in the riding are almost entirely the descendants of the original settlers who came there between 1840 and 1880, and are from two main stocks, Anglo-Saxon and German. We have been very ably represented in public life; one of my predecessors from my home town distinguished himself in the chair which the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) now so graciously adorns and for whom the hon. member for Hull is at present an acceptable substitute. I might also add that in this house, in addition to the hon. member for
[	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Grey North (Mr. Telford), and the humble representative for Grey-Bruce, there are the following members who were born in the counties of Grey and Bruce: the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon), the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward), the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven), the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the charming and hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman).
In this war the counties of Grey and Bruce are represented by three units: the 97th battery, mobilized in Walkerton in 1939, the 98th anti-tank battery mobilized July, 1940, in Port Elgin, and my own unit, the Grey and Simcoe Foresters, mobilized in June, 1940, as an infantry battalion as part of the 4th division.
All these units were raised with the minimum of delay, and enlistments have since been quite steady in the two counties. I cannot speak for the two batteries; but as far as my own unit is concerned, on those few occasions when by reason of medical discharges we went under strength there was no delay at all in getting recruits, they came almost overnight, as indeed they did on one occasion. Since that time, of course, there have been many enlistments in other branches of the army, in the navy and in the air force, and more recently there is recruiting going on for the two auxiliary women's organizations. In my unit, and in all the others, particularly perhaps the 97th battery, there is a large percentage of recruits from those areas which were settled by the original German immigrants. The young men of German racial origin in my counties have enlisted in quite as good percentage as the Anglo-Saxons.
The problems of the riding are naturally connected only with the war effort at the moment, and I should like to make a brief reference to the army, the navy and the air force.	.
The Canadian army which will be in existence at the end of this year, according to the plans of the government, will consist of whatever is overseas at the moment, plus the 4th division which in the meantime will have become armoured. The Canadian army will then consist of two corps: the first, of three infantry divisions with two army tank brigades attached; and the second, of two armoured divisions. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) was, I thought, rather modest when he referred to the Canadian army as it will be; he said it would be at least equal to anything in the armed forces of the empire, as I recall the phrase. But I should like to point out that Germany is popularly supposed to have invaded France

with eleven armoured divisions out of sixty, and to have invaded Russia with twenty armoured divisions out of one hundred or one hundred and twenty. In neither case was the percentage of armoured units equal to the two out of five which the Canadian army will have on completion of this year's plan.
I might say that the feeling of the riding is not only commendation of the fact that the Canadian army will be self-contained and self-directed, but it is considered essential that that should be so.
With respect to the navy, we have had enlistments from our counties, and unfortunately there have been losses, which we all regret. Nevertheless the work of the navy was rather remote from the people of my riding until my battalion went east last spring, and the members of the unit began to see the navy in action and to see the difficulties with which it contends.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that the Canadian navy has grown from 15 to 350 ships and now has a personnel of
27,000	is not only commendable but laudable; yet, knowing the battle of the Atlantic and of Great Britain as we do now, and in view of the situation which has resulted from the withdrawal of at least part of the United States navy to the Pacific, in my opinion it must be the first duty of this government not only to continue the shipbuilding programme which has brought about that great increase, but to extend it and to continue to extend it for many months to come. The battle of the Atlantic has not even been won at the moment, though it has not been lost; and until our production of ships has run away ahead of our losses for some time, we cannot afford to take any risks on the danger with which we have been faced during the past two years..
With respect to the air force, of course we are familiar with that because of the large number of enlistments from my riding, and the fact that the Canadian government will spend something like 8800,000,000 on the British commonwealth air training plan shows the importance of this project. But here again, in my opinion, the plan, while a great one, is not yet sufficient for the needs of the Dominion of Canada. It is heartening, of course, to learn that the number of recruits entering the training centres of the air force monthly has been quite sufficient, but that is sufficient according to the yardstick which we followed some months ago. Surely it is evident to every one in this house that in no engagement so far in this war has t'he side without air strength succeeded in winning. Therefore not only should the number of

The Address-Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce)
recruits be increased, but the plan itself should be broadened so that in the near future planes and pilots will be available in much greater numbers than we now have them.
I suppose the house would expect me to make some reference to the munitions programme. I must confess that the figures as to contracts granted and amounts of money involved are beyond my comprehension. But the figures of production do mean something to me, and I wonder whether we are not under a misapprehension about them. I do not say that in an endeavour to reflect in any manner upon the government, but some hon. members and some speakers are prone to make reference to the percentage of our production now in comparison with what it was in our first, unprepared condition. I hope that in making its plans for this year the government will bear in mind not what we did last year, but what Hitler and his allies are doing this year. Our production should be aimed to overtake that production, and no other yardstick should be used.
When we met some twenty months ago, all hon. members were acutely aware of our shortage of war equipment, and we had a rather gloomy outlook. But I am afraid we have forgotten that, to the extent that we have overlooked not only the production which Hitler had on hand at that time, but what he has been able to accumulate since. He has had the productive capacity of Europe, with the exception of Russia and Great Britain, since that time. However, 1941 did give us one very considerable stroke of good luck, shall I say. Hitler attacked Russia, and since then he has lost a large number of men and a large amount of equipment, while on our side we have gained a large number of men and a large amount of equipment from Russia. Similarly, we have lost the manpower and the productive capacity of Japan, but we have gained those of the United States. With all this, however, it is my opinion, as I think it is the opinion of my riding, that the production of this country should be greatly expanded before we undertake any great expansion of our armed forces. I understand, from figures given the other night by the Minister of National Defence, that at present there are 600,000 people in the dominion engaged directly or indirectly in the production of munitions and war equipment, and that another 100,000 will be added this year. I must say this is a large number. Yet it is not anything like what we can have and what we should have as the facilities increase.
As I pointed out a short time ago, in my county there have been many enlistments in
all branches of the armed services. This has brought about a shortage of farm labour; and while the farmer himself is as willing as anyone to suffer inconvenience and loss in the prosecution of the war, he knows that food is necessary in Great Britain to-day; he knows that it will be necessary next year, and he knows that at the end of the war we should have a surplus on hand for the purpose of feeding the millions who will be starving in Europe at that time. Having all this in mind, he finds it hard to understand, in some cases at least, the drain on labour from the farm, not only into the armed forces but into munition factories and other more gainful employment in the cities. In my opinion this situation should be corrected this year, and I was glad to see that in his speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made reference to it, which reference I shall give in a few moments.
In addition to the farmers, other civilians in my riding have been under the impression that they have not yet done anything like what they could and should do in the prosecution of the war. They have engaged in successful salvage campaigns; they have participated in the war loans; they have bought war savings certificates and stamps; they have engaged in Red Cross and similar activities, but at the same time they still think they could do a great deal more. They agree that the changeover from a peaceful nation into one with a war economy cannot be done overnight. They agree also that the government, with all due respect to some hon. members opposite, has laid a very good foundation for our war effort, and they agree that the future will see an orderly and effective advance to an all-out effort. But with all that, they do feel that now, the foundation having been laid, something more could be done by them and, further, they believe it is the duty of the government to provide that opportunity. I am glad to say that the Prime Minister has been ahead of me in this also, and in his speech made some reference to it. With the permission of the house I shall read these references now, because they apply to both farmers and civilians. Those words appear at pages 45 and 46 of Hansard for Monday, January 26:
The government now proposes to apply the compulsory powers of national selective service to other aspects of the war effort as well as to military service. These powers will be applied selectively and progressively to those activities where it is considered by the government that their application will contribute to the goal of a total effort. ...
I shall not attempt at this time to outline the measures which are contemplated in order to extend the scope of national selective service. I shall confine myself to saying that the extended policy of selective service will com-
626	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce)
prebend measures to increase the supply of man-power available for war industry and for the armed forces; also measures to safeguard and, where necessary, to assist in providing agricultural labour required to expand war production on the farm. These objects it is proposed to achieve by positive action to increase the mobility of available man-power, to add to the number of women available for employment, and to facilitate the transfer of labour from non-essential occupations to direct employment in the furtherance of the war effort.
I am naturally concerned with the present and future condition of the soldier, sailor and airman, to whom I shall refer hereafter only as soldiers. I was not satisfied that the condition of soldiers' dependents last year was what it should be, in view of the increased incomes of the civilian population, particularly in Ontario, and probably other parts of the dominion. To the soldier who went home on week-end leave it was quite evident that the civilian population were spending large sums of money on pleasures, and with respect to other matters which, at best, were luxuries. It was unfortunate for that soldier to meet the person-the young man or the young lady -who took his particular position in civilian life, because the civilian occupying the position vacated by the soldier was in all cases found to be earning considerably higher than had the soldier at the time of enlistment. In view of this I was in favour of increasing the allowance for the dependents of soldiers, and of increasing soldiers' pay, up to and including the rank of warrant officer. I hope the house will understand that neither my wife nor my children are in receipt of allowances, so that anything I may say is quite unbiased in that respect.
Nevertheless the government decided to institute trustee boards to which applications could be made by dependents, to show that they had special cases where greater allowance was required. I do not agree with this system, may I say with all respect to those who brought it about. The cost of living mounted very sharply in Ontario, at least during the twelve months of 1941, and cost of living bonuses were provided for many types of wage-earners. They were not, however, provided for soldiers. The price ceiling was placed upon nearly everything, if not everything, and the cost of living since that time has remained relatively constant. Therefore I now suggest to the government that with the cost of living well under control, the dependents' allowance might be increased by a flat rate, and that such action would not require the assistance of the trustee boards which have been set up. However competent they may be, they will make mistakes. And there will be some cost 
in connection with the machinery, no matter how much it is kept down by the government itself, and by those individuals who are willing to serve on it.
The disparity between the earning power of the soldier and the civilian is common to all wars, and I do not suppose it can be adjusted adequately to suit the soldier. At the same time there are benefits received by the soldier upon his return, and I believe I should place them on record. If the soldier is discharged for medical reasons, he receives free hospitalization; and if he is in a civilian hospital, he and his dependents receive some allowance while he is there. If he is discharged for other reasons at the conclusion of the war, and if he has been in the army for a period of six months, he receives, in addition to the clothing allowance, one month's pay and allowance, and he also receives free treatment in the department's hospitals for twelve months for anything which may occur during that time.
In addition to this, he receives his old job back, if he wishes to have it. I am pleased' to say the government is changing this provision from the order in council which has existed for some months, into a bill already before the house. If, however, he was not employed when he enlisted, or if for any reason he does not wish his old job back, if single he receives S9 a week and, if married, $13 a week, for a limited period' of time while seeking employment. He also receives training in some type of employment he may choose and, in addition, he is in receipt of the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act. If, as happens so often, he leaves his education uncompleted in order to join the army, he receives free tuition, and' a modest living allowance while he completes his course. These are substantial benefits, and go a long way toward placing a soldier back where he started when he enlisted.
However, from my slight experience in the army-and this is a point which, I am sure, is appreciated by all hon. members who are returned men-I believe that nothing which can be done by the house can place the soldier back in the position he was in when he enlisted, whether his service in the army has been for only three or four months, or for two or three years. Therefore any consideration given by hon. members to provision for veterans of this war as well as those of the last will, I hope, be given with that point in mind. Nothing we can do will adjust those men completely to their previous civil status.
After what happened a week ago, I should not think it necessary to make any reference to the plebiscite. My silence might, how-

The Address-Mr. Blanchette
ever, be misconstrued, ar>d perhaps I ought to make some brief observations. I am quite in favour of holding the plebiscite, partly because I believe it the right thing to do in any event, and partly for personal reasons. In my own riding 'I stated the policy of the Liberal party, as I understood it, in these words:
The Liberal party is opposed to conscription for overseas service, but we are pledged to prosecuting the war with the utmost vigour, short of that.
Those are the words which I used., and which were reported in the local press. Under those circumstances I would find it quite impossible to come to the house and discuss the question; I would 'be limited to my promise made during the election campaign. Since it seems that conscription will be discussed, probably debated at length in the house in coming months, I would wish to be free so that 'I might take my part in that discussion.
It seems to me that there will be three classes of persons who will vote on the plebiscite. First there will be the person in favour of conscription for overseas service; he will vote in the affirmative. Then there is the person opposed under all circumstances to conscription for overseas service; he will vote in the negative. Then there will be the third person-and in my view this will be the largest group-who has no settled conviction one way or another, but who is willing to vote "yes", and leave the decision to the .government which so far has guided the country successfully through two years of -war. I am pleased that the plebiscite is being taken, and1 that the government has said that with the utmost vigour it would see that the question is fairly put to the people, and that an affirmative answer will be requested of the electorate.
In conclusion, perhaps I may be permitted to make a few observations respecting the soldiers with whom I have been associated for twenty months. I would remind hon. members that Hitler has said he is fighting against democracy. We tell our soldiers we are fighting for democracy. To a member of the armed forces democracy is not an abstract thing, nor is it necessarily the best form of government. Many of our men have no opinion on the point at all-nor could they be expected to have. But democracy to them is that form of government we have in Canada, the form we are fighting to maintain. We fight for it because it is our choice, and for no other reason. Under these circumstances, while democracy in the abstract may mean nothing to the soldier, the deliberations -of this house do mean something. They are
reported in the newspapers and are familiar to all ranks. The standard of our public life should be maintained with that in mind. I ask the house to remember that in this session and in all sessions until the war is over it is essential, not only that everything that happens here should be directed to winning the war, but that nothing be said in this house to detract from the symbol for which the armed forces are fighting.
Persons in and outside the house have at times made references to persons in the house and in authority, and to others who enjoy the confidence of the electorate which go a long way toward destroying the honour which is due to this house and to the members of it. We are expecting the armed forces to fight for us as an institution. They are willing to do that, but they expect that this house will conduct itself in a manner befitting the sacrifice they are making. I do not intend to say anything more along this line.
In all probability some time during this year, or next year, the Canadian army will proceed to the scene of conflict. They will be convoyed in British and Canadian ships, manned by Canadian sailors, guarded overhead by the Canadian air force. When that time comes we must see, not only that our soldier is well trained but that his equipment is adequate and superior in quality and quantity to the enemy's; we must be able to assure him that behind him there is a civilian population whose morale is as good as his, so that when he faces the greatest task he will be able to meet the Germans and their allies and defeat them.


Mr. J. A. BLANCHETTE (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I desire to add my congratulations to those expressed already to the mover (Mr. Fournier, Hull), and the seconder (Mr. Macdonald, Brantford City) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I desire also, on behalf of the county of Compton, to congratulate the Minister of Justice, Mr. St. Laurent. The minister was born in the county of Compton in the eastern townships, where, as he himself has stated, he learned to speak French to his father and English to his mother. In many respects he thus became a true exponent of the eastern townships.
At this late stage of the debate it would be imposing upon the indulgence of this hon. house were I to bring up again what has been said already by hon. members on the subjects of conscription and the plebiscite. In my remarks this evening my intention is not to go into the various details of the matter under discussion but rather to treat both these subjects in a general way, based

The Address-Mr. Blanchette
upon what has been advanced in this house as well as out of it. I intend to mention the Hong Kong matter and to speak briefly on social legislation.
On September 8, 1939, when I had the honour of seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I stated, as reported on page 12 of Hansard:
I wish to state, without the slightest hesitation and without any mental reservation, that I am fully opposed to conscription. I am completely against a system so inconsistent with our Canadian turn of mind. Experience has shown moreover that it is not effective, for, without having given the desired results, it has, in the past, fostered trouble and unsettled our national life.
In order, therefore, that none may falsely construe my attitude in the matter, I repeat that I am completely opposed to conscription.
During the election in the following year, 1940, I repeated that assertion throughout the length and breadth of my constituency. The result was that the majority I received at that time was greater by one hundred per cent than the largest majority ever given any candidate in the history of the constituency of Compton. In making this statement I attribute no credit to myself. It is due rather to the present leader of the government whose programme was endorsed by the electors of my constituency. My conviction upon the subject of conscription is still the same. I feel that conscription is unnecessary, that it would undermine our national unity and that in having recourse to it we would defeat the very aim we have in view, that is, a total war effort. Since the declaration of war by this country, we have had practically at all times a sufficient number of volunteers whom we could clothe and equip and train. Recently we had figures from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) to the effect that total voluntary enlistments in January of this year were 18,285, broken down as follows:
Navy	 800
Army	 11,713
Air force	   5,772
I should like to quote the words of the Minister of National Defence, to be found on page 455 of Hansard of this year, as follows:
You can hardly say, Mr. Speaker, that the voluntary system has failed. Let us not forget that these enlistments have come not under the patriotic fervour which casualties produces, but at a time when because of comparative inactivity it was naturally harder to convince our people that the army needed men. We at national defence headquarters are going right on, and I ask most sincerely for the active interest of the members of this house and of the citizens generally to back up our efforts.
In his address to his men General McNaughton stated that this government had

done all that it possibly could do in the way of an efficient effort in the war. Prime Minister Churchill, Lord Beaverbrook and others who have visited us from Great Britain have declared that our effort is magnificent. With Great Britain attacked as she has been I feel that it would have been treason on their part to assert this if they were not convinced it was the truth. I feel that these testimonials from responsible persons who ought to know should take precedence over the wails, lamentations and deprecations of our backseat driving, shall I say, journalistic or paper generals. I feel that if these generals would only spend as much of their time in giving an impulse to voluntary enlistments as they have done and are doing for conscription, there never would be any doubt as to the results obtained in the future with our voluntary system of enlistment. In so doing they will be logical and sincere in the aim which they assume, namely, the supplying of all the men that are needed for an all-out war effort.
Let us not lose sight of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that our population consists of only eleven and a half million people, and that up to the end of 1941 we had already in the Canadian service over 500,000 men, of whom
422.000	have volunteered. In addition, according to plans laid out by the Department of National Defence, as set out at page 450 of Hansard, with additional recruits this year of from 173,000 to 193,000, we shall have over
700.000	under military arms. That is more than six per cent of our total population, which would represent, according to population, armies of the following size for some of our allied countries:
Russia	 10,800,000
United States	 7,800,000
United Kingdom	 3,000,000
Union of South Africa	 600,000
Australia and New Zealand....	600.000
British empire in Africa	 2,700,000
British empire in Asia	 24,000,000
Netherlands in East Indies		4.200,000
China	 27,000,000
The New York Times in its issue of yesterday, February 15, states in its editorial:
An armed force of 7,000,000 (for the United States) is within reason. There can hardly be more than that number if we take official estimates of 15 or 20 civilian workers for each man under arms.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the United States with its population of 130 millions and its mass production recognizes officially that not more than six per cent should be placed under arms, can we outdo and outbid the United States in our efforts to enlist manpower?
I am one of those who firmly believe that our voluntary system has worked well in the

The Address-Mr. Blanchette
recruiting of our man-power, and I feel that the government would be egregiously wrong in resorting to some other method.
That conscription would have a disquieting effect upon this country is plain to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. In spite of the opinions which we might have to the contrary, the experience of the last war is there to prove it.
I know that there are some who make light of this term, "national unity," calling it a red herring, a bogy. We have heard those very terms and qualifications used in this house, and as a rule those who make the most pronounced charges in that sense show at present, as they have shown in the past, that, to say the best, their actions do not always tend toward national unity. Incidentally I might state that the Conservative party by its conscription propaganda has forced out of its ranks the only representative it had from the province of Quebec. No, Mr. Speaker, the success of our war effort, spoken of in such laudable terms by those outside Canada, but detracted from, to put it mildly, by a certain stentorian group in this country, has been possible only because of the success in maintaining national unity; and the moment that unity is scuttled, arrested or defeated, I shall fear for our total war effort in this war, as I would fear also for our peace effort after the war. Surely, if the fathers of confederation were able to adjust their differences in their day to make us a united nation, can it be thought that we, the sons of confederation, have so retrogressed in the realm of love of country and all that it means to us, have moved so far back to pre-confederation years, that we can no longer maintain united this young nation of ours? Unity is the result of adjusted differences; disunity represents uncompromised differences.
Everyone in this country has the same end in view, the winning of the war. The difference is only one of means to attain that end. I confess that the case might be hopeless if the end to be arrived at were disputed by anyone in this country, which it is not; and surely we can agree on the means to arrive at our objective. The war front is only as strong and as effective as the home front; the one is the necessary complement of the other. In war neither one of these fronts can continue alone if one is impaired in unity and efficiency.
What we have accomplished to date in finance, in the enlistment of man-power and in production has been done for the most part, be it noted, by voluntary methods. These, Mr. Speaker, are my humble views upon conscription, which I believe is unnecessary and would disunite this country and defeat our efforts to attain the very goal at which we are aiming.
But equally as contentious as conscription is the plebiscite proposal in the speech from the throne. This popular consultation, as I see it, represents, to me at least, the quintessence of democracy. I am one of those who have faith in the people. I believe they will pronounce according to the dictates of their mind and conscience in the matter; and is not the free expression of the people, according to their dictates, exactly what this country and all the other democracies are fighting for to-day

freedom of mind in the affairs of religion, freedom of expression in the affairs of state, all of which are advance posts of democracy?
The plebiscite is not a pronouncement on conscription. It is a release from the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as well as by practically seventy-five per cent of the members of this house who were elected at the last election, a promise made by both leaders of the two major parties at the last election. But there is this to be noted, that whereas the Prime Minister asked for release from his promise, and that from the whole people of Canada, the new leader of the Conservative party, in spite of the promise in the same sense that was made by his party at the last election, relegated that promise to the four winds immediately upon -I shall not say his election or choice by the Tory party-but rather upon his appointment by a certain group in the country. Is it not more democratic to follow the course our Prime Minister has taken and have recourse to the popular will rather than to decide arbitrarily of one's own accord that an engagement shall be broken and that in spite of the promises made by Mr. Meighen in 1925, which he made first in Ontario when he stated at Hamilton:
I have myself not the slightest fear but that, if danger threatened Canada again, this country would respond as it responded in 1914; but I believe that in future it will be best for all that before a government takes a step so momentous as the dispatch of troops, the will of the people should be known.
Again, a few days later, in Acton Vale, Quebec, during the course of a by-election in the county of Bagot, the new leader of the Tory party spoke as follows:
If a crisis should occur in which our country's peace would be threatened, I declare, so long as the reins of power are in my hands-I declare this country will not send a man out of Canada without the country being consulted.
In other words, the present leader of the Conservative party believes in popular consultation on the subject when he is in power,
The Address-Mr. Blanchette

but is totally against it when not in power. I feel that we can exact, and we must exact, of our public men precisely the same standard of integrity, honesty and probity in the pledged word as we expect in our common daily relations with our fellow men.
Once again, I am of opinion that the plebiscite is a democratic measure, and I do not feel that the severe criticism upon this measure is justified. I am glad to note that during the debate which has been progressing there is at least one point upon which we all seem to be unanimous, and that is the common assertion that the Department of National War Services should do all within its power, by its different boards throughout the country, to enable agriculture to carry on, in the adjournments of military training for farmers' sons. We have had instances of that this evening. Practically every member who spoke made recommendations in that sense-the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. McCuaig), the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone), the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris), the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Cloutier), for instance; and I am only too glad to associate myself with the sentiments which they have expressed in that regard.
In many instances the call of farmers' sons for military training puts in danger the continuation of the farm, and I would suggest that all possible consideration be accorded such demands. In expressing this view I am only conveying to the house the text of many petitions which I have received, and which all hon. members have received, in that connection. The carrying on of agriculture on a larger scale than ever is of equal importance with the making of munitions and equipment, and I am of opinion that everything should be done to exempt farmers' sons from military training.
There is, however, one point to which I would call the attention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), and that is the case of farmers' sons who are at present doing military training in camps-this because the recruit did not make his representations in time, or for other exceptional reasons, the result being that he is called anyway. There are a number of such cases in my constituency, and I find that the procedure is unreasonably slow to get such men out of the training camps and to bring them back to the farms, where they are more useful to the country and to our allies.
I sincerely endorse the decision of the government to have an immediate inquiry into the disaster of Hong Kong, with a view to imposing the necessary sanction upon those

responsible for this calamity, in order that this inquiry may serve as a lesson to anyone in high command who unnecessarily takes an unsound and unreasonable attitude toward the lives of the men. I do not believe any *county in the eastern townships has furnished more men for the Hong Kong organization than did Compton, where men were recruited in large numbers from such centres as Bury, Scotstown, Cookshire, Sawyerville, Island Brook, East Angus, Lake Megantic and other localities of the riding.
Needless to say, the news of the fall of Hong Kong brought a great deal of sorrow to a very large portion of my constituents, and I know the sympathy of the country goes out to them and to their fallen heroes. With *bowed heads at all times, let us always remember their deeds of valour and their supreme sacrifice.
I would not be true to the convictions which I hold did I not say a word on this occasion with regard to social legislation, too little of which we have heard for a number of years past, compared with European countries. I have already introduced in this house a measure for subsidizing large families; and although I do not believe that this measure, if put into effect, would result in an increase in the size of our families, I feel that such a step would greatly assist such families in the proper bringing up of their children from the *point of view of proper nourishment and health, among many other advantages that would result. Had we had this legislation in the past, who is there that can deny that we might have to-day two or three hundred thousand more hands to turn the wheels of industry and to carry on our farms, as well as men in our training camps-a wealth of which we have been deprived by premature deaths or undernourishment among those who fill our hospitals to-day as a result of lack of assistance given this human capital?
The eminent sociologist, Doctor Eleanor E. Rathbone, has truly said that children are not simply a private luxury; they are an asset to the community, and the community can no longer afford to leave provision for their welfare solely to the accident of individual incomes. The Right Rev. Dean Williams, Archbishop of Huron, speaking on this subject said that the best way to populate the vacant spaces of Canada is to populate them with the children of Canada; and the fallowing words are from Mr. Justice Powers, President of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court of Australia:
Family allowances will, if adopted, remove
the greatest cause of industrial discontentment and misery, namely, the inability of many

The Address-Mr. Mills
workers to feed their children properly and clothe them decently, however hard they work for their basic wage.
In a radio broadcast address the Rev. Father S. J. Lebel, S.J., the eminent sociologist, truly stated:
All governments have a duty to make a very serious study of family allocation. It is one of the most pressing questions of the hour. Upon its solution is dependent in large measure that true social peace and the real prosperity of the dominion.
There exists a common relation between the family and the state, a relation such that whatever contributes to the welfare and strength of the family, also contributes to the welfare and strength of the state. All that is indispensable to the family is also indispensable to the state. In spite of the seriousness of the hour, with its pain and suffering, Great Britain has already been seized with the importance of this legislation and has already submitted to its parliament a study of this important question of family allocation. I cannot too strongly urge the present government to take a step in the same direction in order that the proper orientation be given to this legislation as something that will greatly help this country and add to its- war strength, at the same time granting the blessings of distributive justice. We speak of a new order to follow the war; let us not believe that this new order will arrive with the break of day some fine morning; we must begin to break the shackles of the old if we wish to prepare for the new. By all means let us slave and save and sacrifice to win the war, but let us sacrifice and save and slave also to win social peace after the war.


Mr. W. H. MILLS (Elgin):: In rising to add a word in this debate on the address, I am not going to repeat what has already been said by handing bouquets to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, who both did justice to the honour assigned to them.
I have the honour to represent the pioneer county of Elgin, Ontario, noted and outstanding in many ways. The county is ideally located on the north shore of lake Erie; St. Thomas, my county town, is midway between Fort Erie and Windsor on No. 3 highway, a shortcut for United States travellers across Ontario. St. Thomas is the Canadian terminal for three great railways; the New York Central, the Wabash and the Pere Marquette. The shops of the New York Central are located there, and the Pere Marquette have new shops almost completed. We also have the Canadian Pacific, the Canadian National and the London and Port Stanley railways, the latter, I believe, being the last remaining
electric road running across country. Therefore St. Thomas is rightly called the railway city.
St. Thomas has also the most outstanding, up-to-the-minute daily newspaper in Canada. The editor of that paper, after reading the speech from the throne, gave St. Thomas world-wide publicity by cabling to the Right Hon. Winston Churchill and telegraphing President Roosevelt and headlining on the front page the following message:
Canadians feel humiliated and apologize for action of their premier in proposing plebiscite on military service, believing it falsely represents them as failing to realize gravity of situation and necessity of all-out effort to save themselves and empire. Believe unparalleled circumstances require that you should create precedent and advise Mackenzie King to abandon idea and take only step possible for utmost prosecution of war without delay.
I have been following the paper looking for a reply, but so far the only reply I have seen is where in the British parliament Prime Minister Churchill gave an account of the great contribution Canada has made to the war and the great applause his statement received.
Elgin is a great agricultural county, producing great quantities of 'hogs, beans, beef cattle, tobacco, small fruits, milk and, of course hon. members all know, the finest apples in the world.
The government, of which I am proud to be a supporter, has located in Elgin county several airports in connection with the commonwealth air training plan. Three miles south of St. Thomas was the great new Ontario mental hospital. The provincial government immediately on the outbreak of the war, turned that hospital over to the Department of National Defence. The technical training school in connection with the air training plan is now located in Elgin county, and between 5,000 and 6,000 men are stationed there all the time. Then we have the Fingal bombing and gunnery school with a personnel of 1,200 to 1,500, also Aylmer air school for pilots with about the same personnel. They have almost completed an emergency landing field five miles east of St. Thomas and needless to say, St. Thomas and Elgin county have been stimulated to great activity by reason of these training centres. We are grateful to the government for locating them there. Then we have at Port Stanley the finest harbour on the north shore of lake Erie, being the lake port for St. Thomas and London and also the home of a great fishing industry.
Last, but not least, Elgin county is the 'home of the best known provincial premier in Canada, in the person of Hon. Mitchell Hepburn. Mitchell is always putting Elgin county
The Address-Mr. Mills

on the map. Our friendship dates back to long before either of us entered public life. We have a standing agreement; Mitch grows my onions and I grow his apples. Mitch has always given me his loyal support, and I shall always do likewise any time he appeals to the electors of Elgin county.
As to the government, one might write a book on their accomplishments in the last seven years. I have not time to dwell at any length on them, but in passing let me say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is the only outstanding statesman and leader in Canada to-day. He is surrounded by the best ministers it is possible to get. Where in Canada could you better our three ministers of national defence? Where in Canada could you better our Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe)? Who has any fault to find with any of them? We have the most representative national government possible, a government representing more parts of Canada than any government since confederation.
I have no time to go into the benefits and accomplishments of this government since it came into power, but let me just touch on the Prime Minister's ability. For example, immediately after he was elected he negotiated a trade treaty with the United States. I shall mention just one benefit from this trade agreement, in reference to cattle. We have in our stables a great many beef cattle, and therefore I know something about what I am saying. We are allowed a quota of about 52,000 head of cattle over 700 pounds each, entering the United States every three months, at one and a half cents a pound duty. The quota which started in January was filled in about six weeks. This makes a grand market for our cattle. What would our cattle market be like at the present time, with no export to Britain, if it were not for this agreement, which Lord Bennett, as he now is, tried three years to negotiate but without success?
A great deal is owing to our Prime Minister for the great cooperation between Great Britain, the United States and Canada to-day. My. opponent, speaking in St. Thomas on February 14, 1940, at the last election, six months after war was declared, was criticizing a Liberal poster which read1: "Forward with Mackenzie King". He said, "Forward; where to?" Answering his own question he said, "To closer relationships with the United States." I wonder whether he would make such a statement to-day. I doubt if our Conservative friends will ever again choose as an election slogan, "No truck or trade with the Yankees." I have always advocated close relationships with the United States. Why not? Many of our sons and daughters are permanently settled1 there.
 '
Canada's war effort has been fully explained by previous speakers, so there is no need for me to repeat what has been said. But let me refer to an editorial in the New York Times, which said that Canada's contribution is one of the miracles of the war, according to her population.
As I see it, the situation is that, as time goes on, Canada will almost become the cupboard of the world. A few days ago I was reading an article on conditions in Europe, where thousands are cold and hungry. Will Canada soon not have to be sending food supplies to Russia as well as England? Canadian farmers are as loyal and patriotic as any people we have in Canada. They have met the demands made upon them and are willing to continue working long hours and doing their best, but they are becoming greatly handicapped by the labour situation. The calling up of men as recruits for the training centres, the employment of men by factories, shops and the railways, make it almost impossible to hire men for farm work. The only farmer who is going to get by is the small farmer, who can do the work himself.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I come to the question of calling up young farmers for war service. The procedure under the present policy is very unsatisfactory. First let me say that Mr. W. A. Martin, the divisional registrar at London, who represents the whole of western Ontario, is the finest, fairest type of man it would be possible to have in that position. He wants to be fair and impose no hardship on anyone, but he has an impossible task; no one man can act as a tribunal for all western Ontario. I should like to give my experience only a short time ago. About ten o'clock in the morning I called his office. The long-distance operator reported back that Mr. Martin could not talk to me until after two o'clock. I said to her, "I will not be sitting at this telephone at two o'clock. You tell him W. H. Mills wants to speak to him, and I think he will speak to me." I was talking to him inside of a minute. If it had been a farmer from a back concession who had called, there would have been some other alibi at two o'clock because his staff simply have to protect him. He cannot attend personally to all the demands made upon him.
I should now like to mention my experience in interceding in one or two cases, although I could refer to many. A short time before I came to Ottawa, a lady and her son came to see me one evening. I found that she was a widow, with one son and a married daughter. The son was the only help she had. They came to see me on New Year's day, and the

The Address-Mr. Mills
son. had been notified to report at the Chatham training camp the following Thursday, which would leave no one to do the work.
I should like to read one paragraph from the letter I wrote to Mr. Martin in this connection:
He is the only son of a widowed mother. She has one daughter who is married and away from home. They have one hundred and ninety acres of land, fourteen milch cows, sending the milk to the Corinth cheese factory, fourteen young cattle, four brood sows, turning off approximately forty to fifty hogs a year, have four horses, and do general farming. Wilford has been doing the work on this farm alone with no hired man and it is out of the question to get one. If he has to take this four-month training, there would be nothing else but a sale and quit farming. At this late date, it is even too late to have a sale in time, and they do not want to do this anyway. It is not the intention of the department that a widow's only son should have to go into training and the farm be abandoned. The Hon. James Gardiner spoke especially on this point at the London meeting a year ago.
I asked Mrs. Burwell at what time they got their mail, and she said, "About nine o'clock in the morning." So I said, "If you do not hear anything by next Tuesday as a result of the letter I will write, you telephone me and I will telephone Mr. Martin." Then I added, "You go home, go to bed, and get some sleep," because I could see that she was greatly worried. I added, "You take it from me, Wilford is not going into training next Thursday." I heard nothing more for some time, so I took it that they had received the looked-for letter. Then Mrs. Burwell sent me a copy of a letter they had received giving her son a postponement until March 31, a date not far off now. If she took that letter too much to heart, she still would not be sleeping nights because the letter said that Wilford would be expected to report at the first training camp after that date, and that he would be notified in ample time as to the place and date.
I contend that there should be some different policy from this worrying of widowed mothers. I would refer to another case, that of a young man who finished his four months' training last July, was given a postponement for six months and then was notified to return to duty on December 15. Prior to that date he and his father interviewed me to see if something could not be done, so I wrote a letter in his behalf to the commander in charge, Wolseley barracks, where he was sitpposed to report. -This young man's father, Mr. Danbrook, has only one other son, who has been in the 'air force for over a year and a half. The other boy, Keith, is married and lived at home with his father, working the farm with him. They have two hundred
acres-I know the farm very well-twenty-two Holstein cows and sixteen young cattle, an accredited herd. They kept hogs until some time ago, when they had an outbreak of hog cholera and their twenty-six hogs were slaughtered, but they are going back into hogs shortly, and are carrying on general farm work. This boy went to London, without result, and he was instructed to report at the barracks. I wrote the commander there, and received this reply:
This young lad has reported here for duty and is at the present moment being held in the depot for disposal.
I regret that I am unable to take any steps regarding any further postponement but would suggest that you write the district officer commanding, headquarters, M.D. No. 1, London, who will issue instructions to me as to what disposal I am to make of this young man.
I wrote as suggested, enclosing a copy of the letter I had written to the commander at Wolseley barracks, and saying I could add nothing more except that the father was confined to bed at that time with a paralysed shoulder. Then I got the following acknowledgment from him:
This man has completed his four-months training as a reserve recruit and has now automatically become a member of the Canadian army "home defence".
Had he applied to the Department of National War Services prior to 15th December it is possible that he might have secured an additional postponement, but now his status is the same as a member of the Canadian army active.
We have had this man in and suggested to him that it is thought that he might possibly secure a discharge on compassionate grounds, and further suggested that he should forward an application through his commanding officer for a discharge.
The next information I received was in a letter from his father. They had a neighbour boy helping to do the chores, and the son was sent to Camp Borden to wash dishes. He remained there for about three weeks, and then finally, on January 14, he was released on compassionate grounds and given six months leave of absence. That will take him up until around the 1st of July, when we all know he will be needed at home more even than he is now. Will this whole procedure have to be gone over again? If he does not get a postponement, there will be difficulty then.
There are several young men in training from my constituency who should be at home. Will the same procedure have to be gone through to get their release? What I recommend to the Department of National War Services is that Canada be given a more definite system, a system which will be advertised so that young men can understand
The Address-Mr. Mills

it, and know what action to take if they are key men and it is almost impossible for them to take training. It ought to be arranged so that they will not be trapped, as they are now. The policy should be widely known so that an hon. member is not called upon to intercede for every young farmer in his constituency. That responsibility should not fall upon us. We have enough to do to-day to look after the interests of our constituency, without this extra work.
1 also recommend to the Department of National War Services that a board be set up for every county or constituency, whichever way it would work out best, such board to comprise either two or four men. Where possible, the appointments should be made half from each political group in the riding. In Ontario the executives would be mostly Liberal and Conservative. Such committee would have for its third or fifth member, according to the size agreed upon, a county judge. It would receive applications for postponements, make inquiries, and deal with applications on their merits. The opposition could not then say that this is a Liberal war.
As to the proposed plebiscite, may I say that I have not been favourable to the taking of a plebiscite, and I still wish it could be avoided. But our Prime Minister and cabinet ministers tell us that the matter has been given careful consideration, that the government is unanimously agreed, and that the plebiscite is going to be taken. Therefore there is nothing else to do but to go back to my constituency and advise my electors to go out and vote, making a cross opposite the word "yes", so as to release the government and many private members from pledges previously given the electors respecting the raising of recruits for overseas service. In this way the government would have a free hand to meet the situation which is changing from day to day. This war must be won at any cost or sacrifice.
From my observation during eight years as a member of the house I know that thousands upon thousands of dollars are wasted by every session being prolonged month after month by speeches made for no better reason than that of publicity, so that they may be printed in Hansard and reprinted back home. This is a war session. I know how busy the cabinet is, with the unlimited work connected with the prosecution of the war. Its work is greatly increased while the house is in session, and I should think it would welcome as short a session as possible. I know that help is scarce at home, and most hon. members, including myself, are needed at home.
Therefore I appeal to all private members on this side of the house as well as those in 
opposition groups to refrain from unnecessary, non-constructive speeches. Let us get down to the business of conducting the greatest possible war effort. Let us consider the general business of the country, and conclude this session by May 24, at the latest. This can be done just as well as by staying here until the heat drives us out in July.


Mr. ARMAND SYLVESTRE (Lake St. John-Roberval) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the great number of my French-speaking colleagues who have taken part in this debate prompts me to follow their example. Like them, I have always been and still am opposed to conscription for overseas service. I would go further and state that any government attempting to enforce this execrable measure will meet with numerous obstacles and many disappointments in every section of the country. During the last general election campaign of 1940 I made my own the statements coming from my leaders and the electors [DOT]in my constituency, by casting their votes in my favour, ratified the pledges made at the time. I know beforehand that 95 per cent of the electors in my constituency will answer "no" to the question put by the plebiscite and I have no intention of asking them to release me from the solemn pledges I have taken. I therefore intend answering with them in the negative.
For all that, I have not the least objection against the holding of the plebiscite, for it is the fairest method of ascertaining whether or not public opinion has changed in the land, as some claim it has, and it is also the method most in keeping with the democratic principle , of government of the people by the people.
I even believe that the vast majority of the people will answer in the negative and that the effect will be to silence once and for all the voice of those fire-brands and false patriots whose only purpose is self-interest and whose ever readily borrowed cloak of patriotism only serves better to disguise their turpitude and selfishness.
I will therefore vote confidence in the King administration. I will also add a word in connection with the abnormal situation created by calling farmers' sons for military service. Mine is principally an agricultural constituency. More than ever is a greater and more extensive agricultural production being advocated. In order to increase production, cheese factories are being operated over the winter in my constituency; work on the farm is increased as a consequence and this is no time to reduce the number of available farm hands.
The exemption board for the district of Quebec sits in Quebec city, 200 miles from my district. When a farmer's son receives a call

The Address-Mr. Sylvestre
from the registrar, he must within eight days of its receipt send a request for postponement to the latter. The registrar has no authority to decide whether the request should be granted or not, but has to transmit it to the board. The latter sits from time to time and receives hundreds of applications which it hasn't even time to read, with the result that applications for postponement are rejected when they should be granted. On account of the great distance and the consequent expense, farmers and farmers' sons cannot afford to submit their case in person. Because of the serious prejudice resulting therefrom, I would suggest that the board delegate a representative to the districts of Lake St. John and Chicoutimi to meet the applicants, examine their requests on the spot and report to the board.
Otherwise, the way things are going, we are slowly crippling agricultural production which, to my mind, is more necessary to victory than the manufacture of arms and munitions, for, as a consequence of the defeats in the Pacific, there will remain only Canada to supply foodstuffs to Great Britain in the event of the Japanese securing the mastery of the Pacific and cutting communications with New Zealand and Australia.
In addition, lumbering employs thousands of men, and in my district there was a shortage of labour this year. I know that many farmers' sons go to the lumber camps in winter. They are more useful there than in the army, for the work of the woodsman requires a degree of capacity and of physical strength which is not given to all. In calling this class of men to the colours we are crippling another essential industry.
Another serious problem calls for attention on the part of the government. I refer to the movement away from the land. My duties in the army have enabled me to grasp the extent of it for I had occasion to visit many localities, and a continuance of such a situation will spell disaster. A great number of farmers' sons leave the land to work in factories. They are attracted thereto by fairly high salaries, by comparatively short working hours and by the pleasures of city life. Most of them do not save anything, they squander all their earnings and enjoy themselves without any thought for the future. A young man who leaves the farm to work in a factory is lost forever to agriculture and the terrible lesson of the last post-war period is now quite forgotten. As every one knows, one of the main causes of the last depression was the movement away from the land. If nothing is done about this, the next post-war period will be worse than the last one, for when the factories now employing thousands of farmers' sons close their doors, those men will not go
back to the land but will swell the ranks of the unemployed in our large cities, as has happened in the past. The government should make arrangements with the managements of those factories so that inquiries may be made about those who seek employment, and whenever it is found that they are from rural districts, they should not be accepted. Human nature is such that people must sometimes be protected against their own mistakes, but as I say, it is vitally important for our race that farmers' sons should remain at home.
In conclusion, I may say that I cannot understand the reasoning of those who, while claiming that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is our best safeguard, will vote against him. Such is certainly not my way of showing confidence in a man and I feel that in spite of the dark hours at hand and the clouds that are gathering over the horizon, the Prime Minister like the experienced helmsman he is, will bring the ship of state safely into port.
On motion of Mr. Eudes the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, February 17, 1942