PRESS REPORT OP SPEECH OP CANDIDATE IN QUEBEC EAST BY-ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: My attention has been called to a press report of a statement by Mr. Bouchard, who is a candidate in the by-election in the constituency of Quebec East, in a speech prepared for delivery in that city a few days ago, in which he gave utterance to sentiments which were suppressed by the censor on the ground that they were a violation of the defence of Canada regulations. I have not seen the speech, but no doubt officials of the government and members of the government themselves have seen it. I ask the government if investigation has been made with respect to the contents of this speech. If it was in violation of the defence of Canada regulations it was properly suppressed by order of the censor, and if it was in violation of such regulations, what action does the government propose to take in the premises, having regard to what it did in the case of the mayor of Montreal?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say to my hon. friend that I have no knowledge of what has been said or censored, but I shall look into the matter. I might say further to my hon. friend and to the house that it is a pretty difficult matter to decide what is the wisest course to take with respect to censoring political speeches. Men can be made martyrs of if their words are suppressed; on the other hand they are apt to convey an entirely false impression to others than themselves with respect to the significance of their words if they are allowed to speak freely. In these matters I think at this time we shall have to trust largely to the common sense of the people.



YUKON AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) whether any steps have been taken for the defence of the airports at White Horse, Dawson, Mayo and Watson Lake in the Yrukon. The government have recently spent a good deal of public money on some of those airports, and they are worth taking

The Address-Mr. MacKenzie (Vancouver)
care of. The airport at White Horse is in a particularly strategic position for the service of northern Canada and the territory of Alaska. I should like to know whether anything is being done towards the defence of these airports.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I will consult with my *colleague the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) and give my hon. friend an answer later.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Alphonse Fournier for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-:Sunbury), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health): On Thursday, January 22, Mr. Speaker, you informed this house of the speech of His Excellency the Governor General. On Friday, January 23, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier), seconded by the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), moved that we "beg leave to offer our humble thanks to your excellency for the gracious speech which your excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament."
On that occasion both the mover and the seconder observed the finest traditions of our parliamentary institutions, and to the tributes that have been paid to them from all parts of this house I should like, in a spirit of deepest sincerity, to add my own.
Then, sir, on January 26, those who were privileged to be here had the pleasure of hearing two very able addresses, one from my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), which, although I did not have the pleasure of hearing it, on account of being engaged on important duties elsewhere, I read most carefully. And I am left amazed as to why the Conservative party in this country found it necessary to supplant him in the leadership of his party at this time. There was also that magnificent and comprehensive address of my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), probably one of the finest in his distinguished public career, which is going to continue for many years in the history of our dominion.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition outlined seven essential points in our war
effort. May I say to him immediately that I agree with him in regard to every one of those seven points. The only question is as to priorities.
With one of his remarks I take leave partly to disagree. I quote him, as reported at page
21 of Hansard:
The defence of the nation lies in Britain, in the English channel, in the North sea, in Russia, in the Near East, in the Far East; wherever the enemy may be found. There, overseas, lies Canada's defence her first line of defence. I think we are all agreed on that principle; at least I hope we are.
Well, sir, while that was definitely true some three months ago, I hold that it is not unqualifiedly true in Canada at the present time. I say that to-day the defence of Canada lies not only on those far frontiers, but also along the indented inlets of British Columbia, along our exposed Atlantic coast, along all the shores of the Dominion of Canada.
The other evening we had a speech by my good friend the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), pointing out the potential dangers to our Pacific shores. In parts- and I say this kindly-that speech may have been ill-considered and unguarded; yet in its essential thesis, which I took to be a waking up of Canada to the necessity of taking the utmost possible measures for the defence of the Pacific coast, I find myself in substantial agreement with it. As a matter of fact, quite unintentionally and without his being aware of it, the hon. member's address was a condemnation of most of the speeches we have heard from his colleagues of the Conservative party during the course of this debate. They have insisted, practically to the exclusion of everything else, on raising one issue and one alone in this house at this time; that is, compulsory selective service for the army overseas. As the Prime Minister very carefully and prudently stated in his address there is no real difference except on this point between the policies of the major parties in this house.
As reported at page 32 of Hansard the Prime Minister said:
Freed from the emotions and passions aroused by the storm of controversy, it will be seen that the only difference that does exist is a difference with respect to the application of compulsion in raising men for military service overseas.
And again;
The issue, therefore, between the government and its opponents narrows down solely to the question of the application of compulsion i,n raising men for the army. ... It should be added that the issue thus narrowed to conscription for overseas service in the army
372	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
relates only to a possible future contingency, since up to the present the active army has secured the necessary recruits on a voluntary basis.
The last quotation is from page 33 of Hansard. The new policy of the government was announced by the Prime Minister in what I have previously termed that magnificent and comprehensive address. I quote his words, as reported, at page 39 of Hansard:
During 1942, that is this year, up to March 31 next, it is proposed to create overseas a Canadian army of two army corps. ... In addition, all necessary ancillary units to serve these two corps will be provided.
This involves changing the fourth division to an armoured division and raising another tank brigade, together with the necessary ancillary troops and headquarters staff organizations.
Then, sir, an amendment was moved by the leader of the opposition-an indictment containing four counts against this administration. If the house supports any one of these counts, it votes non-confidence in this government. The first count in the indictment is that the governmenL-. . . have sought to evade their responsibility by holding a plebiscite, which, in the view of this house, is the negation of responsible government.
The second count regrets that the government has not introduced additional measures designed to-
. . . mobilize the W'ealth and material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man and woman power of the nation, to the end that the nation may wage total war in any theatre of war.
It is in the last few words that the only real difference which divides us is given expression. In the third count my hon. friend regrets that the government has not introduced additional measures designed to-
. . . supply the imperative needs of agriculture, industry, and the fighting forces of the nation.
The fourth count is an expression of regret that the government has not introduced additional measures designed to- prepare for the post-war period.
I have yet to hear any hon. member on the other side suggest what the sponsors of the amendment had in mind with regard to the last two counts of their indictment.
I should now like to deal briefly with the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who is not in his seat at the moment. It is expressed also by way of a vote of non-confidence in this administration, and regrets that the government-
. . . have used the sweeping powers conferred by the National Resources Mobilization Act

mainly for the conscription of men for home defence, and in the opinion of this house no total effort adequate to meet the present needs of the war, domestic problems and the preparation for post-war conditions is possible without total mobilization of wealth, industry and finance, as well as human resources.
Therefore this house respectfully requests that the forthcoming plebiscite should seek the support of the people of Canada for the complete and effective conscription of war industries, accumulated wealth and financial institutions, at the same time and on the same basis of sacrifice as the suggested extension of the conscription of man-power.
In regard to the various arguments introduced by my hon. friend under these headings, I regret that I cannot support them. In his address, however, he made one important statement to which I would give my complete support. It appears at page 56 of Hansard:
If we are to have this all-out war effort, it must be on the basis of national unity. Every discussion of these matters in this house and in the country ought to be undertaken with due regard to the unity of our people of all races, creeds and tongues. Had the nature and objective of our war effort been clearly placed before the people, our unity would not be endangered. This house has failed to realize that the greatest danger to our unity in war is exactly the same danger we face in peace, the danger from inequality of sacrifice and opportunity.
Let us now, Mr. Speaker, look back to other days; perhaps from the experience of the past we may learn some lessons for the present and the future. In 1917, when the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Hugh Guthrie, Fred Pardee and others in that memorable debate upon the referendum urged the conscription of wealth in Canada, they advocated measures which are in full operation in Canada at the present time. To-day we have no tax-free bonds in which the wealthy man can secure his riches under the guise of patriotism. At the time of which I speak there was not even a federal income tax, which only came, in its somewhat restricted form, largely as a result of the arguments advanced during the session of 1917 in favour of the conscription of wealth, by those great Liberal leaders, although they were severed in regard to that particular issue. In this war I submit that we have gone a great deal farther than anything dreamed of in those days by the most ardent supporters of the conscription of wealth.
The hon. member who moved the amendment to the amendment-and I am not holding this against him-is a socialist, and is completely within his rights in advocating socialism for Canada. But he has been doing so for many years, and the electors of Canada have not yet approved of his policy. When he calls for the conscription of industry, accumulated wealth and financial institutions, this might mean one of two things. If it

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
means the conscription of large incomes, the prevention of profiteering, the utilization of our material resources, no matter to whom they belong, for the prosecution of the war, then I say that this government not only has been given the power to do these things but has done them, and is accelerating the application of its power at a rate that has amazed the entire world.
What is it that we have done? We have limited the profits of industry. We have taxed away a substantial portion of what is left under that limitation. We have done away with profits altogether in a tremendous proportion of our war industries, by setting up state-owned factories. We have taxed the personal incomes of the wealthy almost if not quite to the point of confiscation. We have told the people who have supplies of steel, copper, lumber, and a thousand and one commodities, that not the owners thereof but the Dominion of Canada shall decide what they shall do with their property, to whom they shall supply it and at what price. We have gone into industrial plants and told the proprietors what they are to make and at what price they are to sell it.
We have in control of our financial institutions a national bank which, with its many controls, is compelling the use of our national finances for the benefit of the nation. We have taken over private property, without compunction, when needed for national purposes. We have restricted and curtailed luxury spending so that private moneys shall be at the disposal of the state. We have told the grocers and the butchers that they shall not let scarcity be an excuse for increasing the price of the people's food. We took far-reaching measures for national security, such as the Unemployment Insurance Aot and the postdischarge reestablishment plan.
These things we have done and are continuing to do with ever-increasing scope and severity. We have .gone farther than any other country whose economy is based upon free enterprise. The marvel is that we have been able to go so far and so fast as we have, without impairing our national efficiency. These things which I have described are the conscription of wealth-conscription to an extent unprecedented in any state whose economy is based upon a system of free enterprise.
But, Mr. Speaker, if the amendment of my hon. friend goes farther than the limitations which I have described, then it asks this house to declare for the abolition of free enterprise and for the substitution of state socialism, a measure which would involve revolution in our whole economic system in Canada. In peace time I would indeed be prepared to
debate that issue with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar on its merits, and perhaps I might go very far along that road with him. I would disagree with him upon the main issues, and the public would then have an opportunity at recurring elections of deciding the merits and the demerits of the issues at stake. But I submit in the strongest possible way that such a debate in war time is a dissipation of energy. We must in this crisis use the organization which we have attained, use it to the best advantage, and with all the improvements we can make to it, in carrying out the purpose-which, after all, is the purpose of us all-of winning this war for Canada, for the empire, for democracy and for freedom itself.
I have heard arguments from time to time in this 'house about loss of time while we seek to ascertain the will of the people. But the loss of time and efficiency which would be involved in changing Canada from' a system of free enterprise to one of socialism is such as to make any such proposal in war time, to my mind, grotesque and absurd. This amende ment, therefore, is not a proposal to use socialism for the more effective prosecution of the war; it is an attempt to use the war as a justification for a socialist revolution. I humbly submit to my fellow Canadians in the house, to hon. members, that there has been too much of that sort of thing in Canada. Every party or clique with a hobby has been using the war as an argument to justify its particular theory.
I would, sir, with great respect suggest that it would be more in our national interest to throw our favourite political theories to one side and concentrate our energies for the time being on using our equipment-our present economic system-for the prosecution of this great and terrible war. Even if one were convinced that a socialist state would foe better equipped to prosecute a successful war, a proposition to which the majority of members in the house and the people of Canada would not subscribe, this is no time to divert our energies from defeating the enemy to the confusing and colossal task of uprooting the whole system of private enterprise.
But, sir, on the broad principle of equality of sacrifice, in so far as we are able to adopt it, 'the present government has made greater strides in the past two or three years than we have ever known before in the records of our Canadian history. The government's programme is based upon the curtailment of luxuries and economic waste to the greatest possible extent. New measures in this direction are being introduced as rapidly as we can organize the procedure for administration. Greatly, therefore, as one sympathizes with
374	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
the spirit which prompted the amendment to the amendment, one is forced to ask at this time that it be defeated in the house, because, in the first place, it expresses a want of confidence in the government; because, in the second place, the machinery for its accomplishment is already on the statute books of this country, and because, in the third place, underlying it is the demand for a socialist revolution in Canada, in the midst of a war.
I now come back again to the main amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. In language which is far from being definite or specific, it refers to the question of compulsory selective service for overseas in the army. Before I discuss that issue, as I mean to do later on, fairly, freely and frankly, may I say a word about the last paragraph of the amendment. That paragraph refers to measures designed to meet post-war problems. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what exactly was in the minds of hon. members opposite when they drafted this particular amendment. I do say, however, that the government has submitted to this house a series of far-reaching measures dealing with post-war problems, and I am glad to be able to say that at least two further important measures will be submitted at the present session.
The Unemployment Insurance Act of 1940 was primarily a post-war measure. The postdischarge plan, which was passed by order in council, but tabled in the house immediately after it was passed, giving the benefit of the Unemployment Insurance Act to members of the armed forces, and providing other measures of assistance to discharged men, is a post-war measure of the highest importance.
At the last session a competent committee of members of parliament assisted in the revision and amendment of the Pension Act. At the same time that committee reviewed the work of a dozen committees of civil servants and others, covering the whole field of civil reestablishment of members of our forces. That committee submitted a report containing certain recommendations, and I should like at an appropriate time to place on record the actual action taken in regard to each of its specific recommendations.
Of the measures to be introduced at this session, one will deal with a system of land settlement which, I believe, will be found by all members of the house to be one of the most constructive and far-reaching proposals of its kind ever submitted to parliament.
In regard to the main problem of reconstruction, the government appointed a committee consisting of six of our most dis-
(Mr. Ian Mackenzie.]
tinguished Canadian citizens-and I should like to place on Hansard at a future time, for the information of hon. members, the names of its personnel. When the opportunity presents itself, I intend to proceed with a comprehensive analysis of the work already carried out, both administratively and by research, but I submit it is not possible at the present time to introduce any further measure which could be effective. Therefore I fail to understand the exact significance of that point in the amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
I wish now to revert to what is, after allr the main theme of this debate, and the main theme of the main and rather beclouded' amendment. 1 must agree with my right hon. leader that it certainly is not definitely or specifically expressed. The government of this country had three alternatives before it. One was to disregard completely its solemn and sacred pledge given to the people and come out for overseas conscription, as a national policy. I ask hon. members in all corners of the house to envision what would have been the effect in the house and country. The result would be a divided and disunited nation in Canada at the present time.
The second alternative was, as a government, regardless of possible future developments and necessities, to come out against conscription. I ask hon. gentlemen to envision what would be the effect in this house or in -this country-and I reply again: A divided and disunited nation. The government has, in my humble judgment, taken the only honourable course, that is, asking for relief from a pledge which was solemnly and sacredly given in the very midst of a war, and by which this government must stand until it is released therefrom by the people themselves, or until the government itself should fall.
We are not taking a referendum on the merits or demerits of conscription itself. We are asking the people to give us the authority, in case the nation's necessity demands it, to act, irrespective of previous pledges, in the best interests of this country and of the cause for which we are fighting to-day and must, I fear, fight for many years. Indeed, if we were asking for a referendum on the merits of the issue, there is nothing contrary to tradition in that. Australia took two referenda on conscription in the midst of the last war. Canada had a general election on the issue in the midst of the last war. .
Let me trace history very briefly. In 1917 the issue arose in this house. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the then honoured leader of the

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
opposition, that magnificent leader of the province of Quebec, moved in this house for a referendum on the issue and said that as far as his influence went, he and the province which he directly represented would be bound by the result of that referendum. However, his amendment was defeated, and the country was subjected to a general election under the iniquitous War-time Elections Act, which divided Canada and has been responsible for the division of Canada from 1917 until 1942.
Mr. Speaker, there was taken on the strength of the Canadian expeditionary force in the last war a total of 619,636 men. Of these there were obtained by voluntary enlistment, 536,281 men. The number raised by the Military Service Act, after all exemptions were dealt with, was only 83,355. When the Military Service Act became law, the total voluntary recruits were approximately 435,000. After the Military Service Act became law, the number who joined was 184,000. After the passage of the military service law, we obtained by the voluntary enlistment of all classes who did not come within the confines of that act, 83,355 out of 184,000. Therefore, even during the regime of the Military Service Act, the voluntary system produced more recruits than conscription, and of Canada's army in 1914-18, five-sixths were volunteers and only one-sixth were obtained by conscription. That issue passed, but there survived the grave national disunity which has never yet been completely suppressed in our dominion.
Then we come to 1925 when the present leader of the Conservative party, who is now seeking election in a constituency in Ontario, delivered an address in Hamilton on November 16. I am going to quote only one paragraph of that address. I have the complete speech here and if any hon. member wants it in full I am ready to make it available. He said this:
The government would have to act on its judgment, but before there was anything in the way of participation involving the dispatch of troops, the will of the people of Canada should first be obtained.
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, 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.
A few days later, at Actonvale, Quebec, during the course of a by-election in Bagot county, the same distinguished gentleman 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. Neither one party or the other was of that opinion when the last war broke out. Both parties agreed that immediate action must be taken, but the decision of the Conservative party to-day is that the people, as well as parliament, must decide such action.
The phraseology of my hon. friend's amendment is that this is a negation of responsible government, but the gentleman who is to-day the leader of the Conservative party went beyond the confines of parliament. Speaking in that by-election, he said that "the people, as well as parliament, must decide such action". That is all we are asking for to-day, that the will of the people shall prevail on a lesser issue, that is, to give the government the power, if necessary, to be free to exercise its authority to send troops by compulsion to serve anywhere. What we refer to the people is much smaller in its phase than what Mr Meighen declared in 1925 should be referred to the people.
Then we come to March, 1939, just prior to the outbreak of the present war. The then leader of the . Conservative party spoke on March 28 as follows:
Because of the danger of attack upon Canada itself and because of the necessity of maintaining Canada as a united nation, I do not believe that Canadian youth should be conscripted to fight outside the borders of Canada.
And again he used these words:
Conscription in the last war led to violent racial antagonisms and much disharmony, and was of no real military value.
The leader whom they followed gave the same pledge to the people that we gave. At the special war session, on September 8, 1939, the Prime Minister made the following statement as reported on page 36 of Hansard:
The present government believe that conscription of men for overseas service will not be a necessary or an effective step. No such measure will be introduced by the present administration.
Next came the challenge from Quebec referred to by my hon. friend who spoke yesterday afternoon. The four ministers in this administration from Quebec staked their political lives upon the issue as to whether Quebec should come into a total war effort with the rest of Canada. In that campaign 'the Liberal forces were returned by a tremendous majority on a policy of cooperation with the rest of Canada in regard to our effort in the war. Then came something which has become rather familiar in the last few years. The government was challenged by the government of Ontario. We have at the present time another challenge from the same Mr. Hepburn, from the same government which has been somewhat disrupted this morning. The challenge came from Mr. Hepburn
376	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
and his government, a resolution made by the premier himself, supported by his companion Colonel George Drew, in the following words:
That this house has heard with interest the reports made by the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition of the result of their visit to Ottawa, to discuss war measures with the national government and this house hereby endorses the statements made by the two members in question and joins with them in regretting that the federal government at Ottawa has made so little effort to prosecute Canada's duty in the war in the vigorous manner the people of Canada desire to see.
The Prime Minister of this country immediately decided to challenge the condemnation by the government of Ontario of the policy of this administration by appealing to the people, and the Prime Minister and his supporters in this house were returned by the free will of the free people of this free dominion with the greatest majority in the whole history of our party. In that election campaign, the leader of the Conservative party used these words:
No one knows better than Mr. King my position against conscription, because he was present in the house on March 30 last when I made my position very clear.
What happened next? The present leader of the opposition-there have been so many leaders I have great difficulty in keeping track of them-was entrusted with his present responsibility, which I may say without hesitation he has filled splendidly in this house. He made a tour of the Canadian west. Speaking at Fort William at a luncheon tendered to him by members of the Lakehead Conservative clubs last summer, he indicated that he was not sure of the feeling in the west in regard to this question of conscription. He used these words, as taken from the press.
It is my considered opinion that mobilization will come, but not unless it has public support. It is the duty of the citizens of the country, if they believe in the right of the principle, to stimulate public opinion.
That was the stand of my hon. friend. If that was their duty, it is his duty and the duty of those who sit around him here to-day. But he did more than that. He spoke in Toronto, in one of the great resorts of those who are high up in the political and social register in that great city, the Albany club, to members of the Conservative party. This is the declaration of my hon. friend who is the acting leader of the opposition in this house:
I have been urged to declare for conscription of man-power. What would happen if I did? Immediately the Conservative party in parliament nailed conscription to its masthead, we would consolidate all those forces that have been opposed to us since 1917, and they would be marshalled against us.

Conscription is bound to come to the front more and more insistently-
Then listen to this:
-but it must come from the people themselves.
Those are the words of the acting leader of the Conservative party, the leader of the Conservative party in this house, less than three months ago, when he was speaking in Toronto. He said:
. . . but it must come from the people themselves.
That is exactly the policy of this government and of all honest supporters of this government in this house to-day. He went on to say:
Some will disagree with this view. I have studied it from every angle. If it were put to a plebiscite, I don't know what would happen. I wish you could see the letters I have received -letters from mothers who say they didn't raise their boy to be a soldier.
Then he said: "Our sense of citizenship must be such that we will go out and tell the people what the situation is," but "if you make conscription a political issue, you'll retard its adoption."
Well, sir, they have certainly made it a political issue, but not for one second, I believe, at the urging of the leader of their party in this house but of that coterie outside who are the first cousins of the gold-diggers on the roof-garden. I wonder whether his own followers in this house will be satisfied to be classified, in the language of their own house leader, as amongst those who are retarding the adoption of conscription?
On November 13, 1941, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, after a curious conclave in this capital city of Canada, and after a week's peculiar pondering, accepted the leadership of the Conservative party from which he was kicked out by Howard Ferguson and the group in Winnipeg in 1927. In accepting the leadership, after a certain amount of coercion by my hon. friends opposite, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen said:
I shall, therefore, urge with all the power I can bring to bear compulsory selective service over the whole field of war.
So that now, despite the pledges made by hon. members opposite in the election of 1940, pledges by which they are sacredly bound to-day, commitments to which they gave their solemn adherence-despite these pledges, just because the outside leader spoke as I have mentioned, conscription is now officially raised as a political issue in the Dominion of Canada.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it must be debated calmly and emphatically; but not now. It is not the issue before this house now. The issue now is to trust the people-now, as Mr. FEBRUARY 6, 1942	377
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
Meighen said in Hamilton and in Bagot, and as my hon. friend opposite said to his loyal friends of the Albany club, in Toronto, on the thirty-first day of October.
Then, adding their voice to that of the new leader, there was appointed the other day at a sinister meeting on the roof-garden of an illustrious hotel in Toronto a committee of two hundred, who are opposed to the will of the people of Canada expressing itself. They are the people who are to decide on compulsory service. Are they more powerful, more influential than the mass of the voting people in this freedom-loving country? If that day ever comes in Canada, this will no longer be a free land, and it is to keep Canada a free land that our glorious troops are fighting to-day and wall fight to-morrow and every day until peace comes again to us all.
William Jennings Bryan once said:
\ou shall not press down upon the brow of labour this crown of thorn. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
But that is what the members of that committee, inspired by the great wealthy interests of Canada, would do. They are endeavouring to get control of parliament and to dictate its policies. Under compulsion and coercion they would, for the sake of imposing their special point of view on others, crucify the unity of Canada on a cross of gold.
So, Mr. Speaker, what are the alternatives now? What are we asking for? The speech from the throne has plainly stated that what we seek from the people of Canada is a release from our pledges, and just as truly as parliament controls the government, just as truly, at least in a democracy, do the people control parliament. We are, therefore, going back to the source of our power, to the people themselves and asking them to give us this complete freedom of action to act upon these great national questions in the light of the necessities of the nation as we see them, and our rights and responsibilities as God gives us the power and the strength to see them and to assess them.
There were certain obligations mentioned by my right hon. leader and certain obligations mentioned by the leader of the opposition. To my mind it is entirely a question of priorities. This war is entirely different from the great war of twenty-five years ago. This war has changed in its aspect as far as we are concerned, very vitally indeed in the last three months. The leader of the opposition told us-and I must say he was expressing the orthodox military opinion-that the defence of Canada lay on those far-flung
frontiers where the battle rages furiously to-day. I am inclined to think, and certainly if I believe the assertions of the leader of the opposition, the order of priorities has changed.
Regardless of what our requirements may be for the defence of Canada, having committed ourselves already, as we have done in the past and we are doing here to-day in the speech from the throne, to certain obligations, of sending troops overseas, I have no hesitation in asserting that the first obligation upon Canada, the first priority, is to make sure that essential reinforcements to provide against wastage by battle or other causes must be provided for those we have trained or are training to send beyond our borders to fight for our country. That, Mr. Speaker, is the least we can do. That is an obligation of honour, and when hon. gentlemen opposite accuse us of not supporting our boys overseas, I wish to tell them now that not only will this government support them by providing the best equipment in all the world but will support them with essential reinforcements wherever they may be employed or wherever they may be engaged.
If we get a mandate in the affirmative from the people of Canada to release us from our pledges, and if voluntary enlistments should not be sufficient to provide these reinforcements, then as far as I am concerned my recommendation would be to resort to all measures and means that may be necessary to see that these essential reinforcements of trained men are forthcoming, and forthcoming in time.
Then 1 come to the second priority. Possibly it should be the first. I am sure that there are some of my friends who would put it first, and I am not saying they are not correct. A few months ago the defence of Canada was not the vital problem it is to-day. On account, however, of the shifting fortunes of war, the defence of Canada is a very vital problem at the present moment. I must say frankly that I do believe our duty is, at the moment, to use all our resources to see that our two coastlines have all the protection that the manhood of Canada can supply and the producing industries of Canada can equip. For that purpose we have the fullest authority under the National Resources Mobilization Act, and that authority we shall use, as was announced by the Prime Minister at the opening of this debate.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in seeking this authority from this house at the moment by
378	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
way of the adoption of a resolution, and by seeking this authority from the people later on, as fast as we possibly can obtain it, if there is to be any delay in obtaining the authority, the delay will not be occasioned by us, and the responsibility for that delay shall rest elsewhere.
We are appealing, in my humble judgment, to the altitudes of truth and to the high ways of honour.
Next we come to our contribution-I can only mention it briefly as I go along-in munitions, in supplies and in food, already well described by several speakers in this debate. I believe most definitely that, for us, man-power is not the greatest problem in this world battle. If man-power alone were all, then the teeming millions of China would be decisive. I believe that our most effective contribution most certainly comes from our factories, our farms, our fisheries and our fields.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have raised the question of delay. But this argument ignores two facts. One is that the government already has complete power to draft men for service in Canada. That authority has been and is being exercised to the maximum extent to which our military advisers say they are able to accommodate, train and equip the men so drafted.
As I have just stated, the problem of cooperating with our allies overseas is not entirely one of man-power. The demand from Russia, China, and Great Britain is for equipment, and Canada has used her productive capacity to the extent of sending at least half of her production of military equipment to other countries. Canadian guns and tanks and armoured cars, Canadian equipment of many kinds, have already seen service in Russia, Libya, Malaya and China. In so far as Canada's man-power contribution is concerned, we have sent the greatest possible force that could be equipped without depriving our allies of equipment needed on the vital battle fronts.
In this argument that a plebiscite involves delay, the suggestion has been advanced that we are not in a position to send reinforcements to the men already operating overseas. I say definitely and emphatically that that is not so. It has not been considered advisable to publish full particulars about the strength of our forces; but as we examine the figures that have been published, we are able to estimate the strength of the formations overseas. We know that substantial numbers of the troops now overseas are themselves reinforcements. We know approximately the numbers of men in Canada who enlisted voluntarily for service anywhere.

Then, with regard to the question of national unity, which some regard as of little importance in connection with this issue, some, not in this house so much as outside, in their lofty pretensions and their exuberant protestations, scoff at this question of national unity in Canada. I humbly venture to suggest to you, sir, that if there is, during the hard, anxious and difficult days ahead for all of us, one thing in Canada above all else necessary in our dominion, it is the unity of our people from shore to shore. We have had in Canada nearly two hundred years of national life on the basis of a partnership between the French and the English, and, later on, of other European races. This is one of the greatest achievements in all history in the interests of peace. Twenty-four years ago, however, through gross mismanagement in this country, the seed of suspicion and distrust between the two major races was sown. Rightly or wrongly-it does not matter much at this stage-the feeling was definitely engendered in French Canada that the other great race was putting French-Canadians in a position of inferiority.	We have endeavoured in the
present war in every way possible to avoid any such situation.
We have had, up to the present time, a united effort, by representatives of the two races and of others, associated in the government, associated in parliament and associated in the armed forces in a common effort to exert Canada's maximum strength in the struggle against forces of evil, forces which are hated with equal intensity by all Canadians, no matter from what race they come.
If, sir, through the heedless overexuberance of fanatical extremists on both sides, we were to divide the component parts of our population	and set up	conflict	between	them,	theloss	of efficiency	in our	national	war effort
would inevitably be tremendous and irretrievable.
Certain old sores continue to rankle even now in the hearts of humble people on the farms and in the villages of one of our greatest	provinces.	Nevertheless, to-day,	theleaders of French Canada in this parliament have undertaken to go out into the counties of Quebec and appeal to their people to free the	government	from a	pledge	which	was
given with honesty, with sincerity, and in the best interests of the nation.
As a Scottish-Canadian, I would pay tribute to the courage and patriotism of my French-Canadian colleagues in the cabinet and in this house for the courage and devotion they have shown in their willingness to give leadership to their people in overcoming ancient grudges and old prejudices. As a Scottish-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
Canadian I may be permitted, however, to appeal to my fellow Canadians to hold their hands at this critical hour and to do nothing which will militate against the success of the noble effort which French-Canadian leaders have pledged themselves to undertake at this time. Let us rather seek paths of cooperation and harmony so that together, as Canadians, we may march as one united nation together to victory!
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to a brief discussion of the plebiscite.
Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has exceeded his time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Proceed.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, through you may I express my profound thanks to the house for its courtesy.
The challenge has been thrown across the floor of this house, the challenge has been reechoed in the editorials of leading publications of this country, "Why a plebiscite on this issue?" Let me remind this house that Australia took twice a referendum on conscription in the midst of the last war. Let me remind the house that Canada had a general election on this issue in the midst of the last war. The present proposal, therefore, although it has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits or demerits of compulsory selective service for overseas, is no departure from well-established practice.
The leaders of the Conservative party have no valid reason for professing to be shocked at the present government adopting a proposal which, in some form, they themselves have repeatedly advocated, and which they themselves utilized. Their policy is that whatever the government does is wrong, even when it does a thing which they themselves have previously advocated.
To the question, "Why a plebiscite?" let me give an answer, not in my own language, for the moment, but in the language of an eminent Canadian who is not to-day a member of this house. He said:
Surely it is worth while in any British country to have the people understand once for all that they are in control of the great policies of that country and that their control is real and not merely a sham. .
And then again this same gentleman, a former Prime Minister of Canada, went on to say in the same context:
Now the next objection urged is this: that the very fact of submitting such questions to the electors contemplates the idea, possibly, that the electorate might decide adversely, and then the consequences would be terrible. . . . You can trust the people in this matter as in
everything else, if you give the people the truth. . . . Bring that right down in the hearts of the people and you can trust the people of this country.
Those are not my words, or the words of the Prime Minister, or the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. They are the words of Arthur Meighen uttered in Winnipeg on October 11, 1927. They are the words of the man who is to-day the leader of the Conservative party. And his followers ask us across the floor of this house, "Why a plebiscite?"-the question which was answered by Mr. Meighen in that speech at Winnipeg: "Trust the people, because the people rule."
The present campaign, which is inspired by that group on the roof-top in Toronto is not so much a war against Germany and Italy, it is a war against this cabinet and against our revered leader, the Prime Minister of Canada. If these loose-talking, gold-digging Tories believe for one second that any member of this administration is not one hundred per cent behind our leader the Prime Minister, it is the greatest mistake they ever made in their lives. Our war against Germany, Italy and Japan is a war for freedom and democracy, the establishment of decency and honour, and the observance of pledges; and every Liberal or Conservative member in this house was elected on a platform that expressly stated that conscription for overseas service would not be adopted in Canada.
I go so far as to agree that circumstances have so changed in the progress of the war that the government and parliament itself, including hon. members opposite, should ask the country to be freed from this pledge. I do not, however, see in the immediate developments at this time-but this is a purely personal opinion-any reason for increasing our overseas commitments beyond those already made and those announced in the speech from the throne. On the contrary, there are arguments such as those used by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) which, in my opinion, strongly suggest the desirability of strengthening our Canadian defences within our own domain, the Dominion of Canada.
The time has now come, and definitely come, when the government should be free, without breaking faith with the people, from whom all our authority comes, to adopt any course which will most effectively contribute to the successful outcome of the war and the effective defence of our Canadian soil.
If taking the plebiscite involved delay in some vital phase of our war effort, I could sympathize with those who argue against taking it. But since, in my judgment, it does
380	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
not and cannot involve any delay which hinders or hampers or retards our war effort, I now appeal to those who feel that the government's hands should be freed, to stop this noisy panie-mongering appeal and get out into the country and convince those who need convincing to vote affirmatively on this great plebiscite to ascertain the will of the Canadian people. In that way we have some prospect of maintaining national unity.
The method suggested by a small element, that the government should disregard its pledges, could lead to nothing but strife, dissension, antagonism and charges of betrayal. What would be the attitude of the opposition if this government, without consulting the people, had broken its solemn pledges and proceeded with measures that were definitely in defiance of those pledges? No one likes a plebiscite for its own sake, but I submit it is the only honourable way to deal with a situation which is as much the result of actions of hon. members opposite and of their leader who is not in this house, as it is of actions of this government.
I have heard during the progress of this debate questions hurled across the floor of the house: What will the government do after this vote has been taken? Well, if one were to accept the argument of the hon. member for Vancouver South about the situation existing on the Pacific coast, it would almost lead some people to the conclusion that we should not send another soldier out of the country.


Mr. GREEN:: I did not say that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not suggest that my hon. friend said it, but I suggest that what he said might influence some people to think no further soldiers should be sent out of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: I would say that we should do both.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am glad my hon. friend has amended his opinion.
On the other hand, if we listened to those who advocate another point of view, we might be led into a course which might greatly imperil the defence of our own Canadian soil. The situation on the Pacific coast we all know hinges on the outcome of the present battle in the far ea9t, and the outcome of that struggle is not yet determined.
Now a word on the question of man-power. Some figures have come to my attention, but in their application I do not attempt to speak with final authority. Figures in regard to our man-power resources are undergoing most intensive study at the present time, in order that we may have the most complete and

accurate information possible. That is the sort of information that any country must have before any final decision is reached in regard to the broad placement of its manpower.
Our duty in Canada is, first, to defend our own territory to the uttermost; and second, to contribute to the striking power of the united nations in such a way as, in the end, to destroy the enemy. This involves the best possible use of our man-power.
The census reveals that Canada's population is approximately 43 per cent greater now than at the time of the last war. But a detailed analysis indicates that the increase in the-number of men of military age is not nearly as great as the increase in the general population. In 1914 Canada had just had a tremendous influx of young immigrants, mostly unmarried and of military age.
In the last war, when industry utilized less than half as many people as are engaged in war production to-day, when we had no air training plan and no real problem of home defence, Canada supported in the field four army divisions, and a fifth was mobilized but had to be broken up for reinforcements. The government were advised by their military staff in pre-war years that having regard to population and the claims of other services, the number of divisions which this country could maintain in warfare was seven. We have already formed six, and we have made demands upon our man-power for other purposes not fully anticipated when those estimates were made.
Let us consider how we have utilized our resources. Financially, Canada has declared that there is no limit; that what we have capacity to do physically we can and will endeavour to finance.
Industrially, we have undertaken tasks of a kind and magnitude never attempted in Canada before. Prior to the outbreak of this war Canada had never manufactured any weapons except rifles, although the manufacture of machine guns had been begun. We had made a small beginning in the production of modern service types of aircraft, never made in Canada prior to 1937. To-day Canada is turning out tanks, heavy and light artillery guns. We have the greatest machine gun factory to-day in the whole world-and for that, with some modesty, I may perhaps claim some credit-and we are manufacturing seven different types of service aircraft.
In the last war, Canada recruited into the Canadian expeditionary force, by the voluntary system and conscription combined,
619,000	men in four and a half years of war. She utilized also 275,000 in war industry, a

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
total of 894,000 men. In the present war, in two and a half years we have built up the strength of our armed forces to over 400,000 men, and in addition we are utilizing in industry 625,000 persons of whom 550,000 are men.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a [DOT]question? While he is giving these figures, can he tell us how many men have been discharged from the forces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, in round numbers about 45,000. That number is approximately correct.
Apart from agriculture, therefore, we have harnessed to the war effort over a million men; that is, in a little more than two years we have exceeded under our voluntary system the total man-power effort of four and a half years of the last war. These are only round figures; they are not by any means exhaustive. But on the studies now in progress, our manpower policy must ultimately be determined.
Now I approach my conclusion, with the [DOT]indulgence of the house.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: No. The hon. member has spoken over an hour now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I approach the conclusion of this presentation by pointing out some of the possible disadvantages of introducing compulsory selective service for overseas. First, there is the risk of sacrificing that spirit of national harmony and unity which until very recently prevailed throughout our dominion. Second, there is the possibility of stirring up antagonisms as between those of different racial origin in Canada. It is only necessary to remember the situation that existed in the last war- some of us recall it now-to recognize the importance of racial accord in our dominion. We have lived together in peace and harmony in Canada for 175 years. The nearest approach to a breach was in 1917. I believe that only the calm, wise and prudent leadership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier prevented violence and bloodshed then. He confined his opposition to parliamentary and democratic methods.
I say again that before the war came, this government gave a solemn pledge that, in the [DOT]event of war, service outside Canada should only be undertaken freely. When war came, this pledge was solemnly reaffirmed both by the government and by the opposition of the present day, by practically all hon. members of this parliament; not only in the general election and before the war but in the very midst of the war that policy of declaring ourselves on this very issue on which we are now seeking a plebiscite of the people was endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the free-voting people of Canada.
As to whether, at this time of all times, the spokesmen for a nation engaged in this war should disregard their solemn pledges, I cannot do better than quote the words of the Prime Minister in an address which he delivered at Vancouver on June 30 last:
The present unhappy state of the world is, in a large part, the result of broken pledges. Bad faith, broken pledges and disregard of the popular will are the very forces against which Canada is fighting to-day.
That being so, I wish the more emphatically to affirm the government's intention to keep the pledge repeatedly given to the people of Canada.
So, Mr. Speaker, I leave this issue to the house. I have endeavoured to make the situation as clear as possible. I have endeavoured	to	analyse	the	significance	of	theamendment to the amendment and why I cannot accept or receive it. I have endeavoured	to	analyse	the	significance	of	the
amendment itself, and its implications in several respects. I have endeavoured to make clear to the house that both the subamendment and the main amendment are definite declarations of a lack of confidence in this administration. I must emphasize, therefore, with all the strength at my command, that any vote for the subamendment is a vote of non-confidence in this government. I must further emphasize that any vote for the main amendment is a vote of non-confidence in this government.
I believe I have fairly and honestly endeavoured to meet the arguments which have been adduced in support of their protestations. We are not seeking dictatorial powers. We are appealing to the people, who are the masters of parliament. We are appealing through parliament, who are our masters, to the people, who are the masters of us all. We are appealing to the people for a mandate, if you will, to be unrestricted and untrammelled, not impeded or retarded, in adopting such measures in connection with the provision of men for military service as in the government's best judgment are necessary for the fullest and most whole-hearted war effort by the Dominion of Canada. I would plead, if the plea would be of any avail, that to-day, if possible, we should unite our forces and remember only the dark clouds that hang over this nation, and the uncertain course of our sacred cause. ,
I fear, however, that we must have dissension. I trust that the conscience of every hon. lady and gentleman in this house is clear in regard to the course that he or she is pursuing. I do aver and strongly avow that in my judgment, at this stage, we should even sacrifice some of our convictions in order to get together, if possible, upon a common,
382	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
united policy for the future of Canada, which we all in this chamber endeavour to serve and for which we have a deep-seated affection.
I trust that the great majesty of the effort we have made up until now may not be marred by bickerings or dissensions or discords among ourselves. I trust that we all may be prepared, as I certainly am prepared, to sacrifice much for the sake of a common unity and a common harmony, so that we may be privileged, in this dark period of our nation's destiny, together to work out a plan for Canada in this great struggle, which shall be a plan of purpose, a plan of honour, a plan of unstinted effort and a plan, I would hope in the end, of great achievement and proud accomplishment.


Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), who has just concluded a lengthy address, has given a complete and extended review of the shortcomings, the sins of omission and of commission, of this party. I hope he has not omitted anything. If I were able to speak with the fervour, the fluency and the high-powered eloquence of the minister, perhaps I might 'be able to make some impression. However, I shall endeavour to keep below the boiling point, and to confine my remarks to the speech from the throne.
This debate is on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. That speech is brief and very carefully worded. In some respects it is as clear as it is possible for words to be; in other instances it is just about as vague as expediency could demand. During the last campaign the government gave this pledge against compulsory service outside Canada; and, at this time of gravest crisis in the history of the world, it is proposed to hold a plebiscite asking the people of Canada to relieve the government of that pledge. The National Resources Mobilization Act provides for compulsory service within Canada. The speech from the throne does not tell us what is going to happen whether the plebiscite vote is yes or no, but the basis of this entire discussion is simply: shall we or shall we not have compulsory service for overseas, to reinforce and relieve those young Canadians now voluntarily serving beyond Canadian shores?
The plebiscite is vague in this respect, that if the people of Canada vote against it the situation simply remains as it is. If they vote for it the government then is given freedom to act as its judgment may dictate. Well, this is a very live question right across the dominion. Some portions of Canada are

calling for conscription; other portions are very much opposed to it. In the province of Quebec we have the Minister of Justice contesting a by-election. I do not say that he says outright that there will not be conscription for overseas service, but certainly he is creating an atmosphere of assurance to the people of Quebec that there will not be such conscription; and in that respect he is supported by the premier of Quebec, who simply says, "Well, you need not fear; Mr. King will not bring in conscription. He is opposed to it." That is the situation, whether or not the government takes exception to it. Then we also have a by-election in Welland, being contested by the Minister of Labour. I can tell this house that the government candidate there, and those speaking for him, are having the greatest difficulty in selecting words which will fit their endeavour to soothe the people of that district into the belief that the government will bring in conscription. So that we have two opposite views, and we cannot blame the people of this country for being a little concerned about it.
I am very much in accord with the suggestion put forward yesterday by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) that this parliament should be permitted to decide the question. Parliament is not deciding the question whether we shall have conscription; that is not the wording of it. Parliament is deciding only whether it will relieve the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government from its election obligations. As is stated in the speech from the throne, the government then reserves the freedom of acting as its judgment dictates. The progress of the war makes it necessary for one to change one's pledge. The Prime Minister himself has told us over and over again that the government has laid down the principle that there will be no participation by Canada in a war without presenting the matter to parliament. But we had a declaration of war against Roumania, one against Finland and one against Hungary, without the government's coming to parliament; we had a further declaration against Japan without coming to parliament, and I am sure nobody in Canada has taken exception to the government's action in those respects-not at all.
I believe the people of Canada would, without question, approve action by parliament to decide this matter, and which would relieve the Prime Minister of his obligations, thereby saving the time, money and discontent which would naturally be connected with a plebiscite, at a time when all the energy of our people should be directed to war activities, when the time of -the government should be

The Address-Mr. Esling
taken up with war measures, and when every interest centres around the putting through successfully of a loan for the purpose of carrying on our part in the war.
The other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) stated his position with respect to public opinion and the plebiscite. He comes from Nova Scotia. In the constituency of Kootenay West we have innumerable people who in the early days came from that province. There were lawyers, doctors and farmers, and they have done well in British Columbia. They form a creditable portion of the people in my constituency. A similar cross-section of the residents of every constituency in Canada would show a similar representation from the maritime provinces. The minister acts precisely as his conscience dictates, and I believe that is just the way every hon. member acts. He reflects the views of his constituents, and if he does not do it in a way that will retain the confidence of his electors he will have a successor at the next election.
In October last the executive council of the Canadian Legion presented to the Prime Minister an appeal for the total utilization of our resources and man-power in the prosecution of the war. That appeal was endorsed by 1,470 branches of the Legion across Canada. It has been endorsed by the fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters of the members of those 1,470 branches, and those people ask that the mobilization act be amended so that compulsory service will apply beyond the shores of Canada, as well as within Canada.
That must be accepted as the general opinion of the people in my district, even if hon. members are not willing to accept it as the opinion of people in the provinces east of Ontario. The appeal by the Legion has been endorsed by industrial, mining and agricultural communities in my district; it has been endorsed by boards of trade, by municipal councils, by school boards, by ministerial associations, by service clubs, by fraternal organizations, and others. I say that as a member of the house one must reflect and act upon the views of his constituents.
The speech from the throne contains the statement that the policy of the government is one of total national effort for total war. That is one of the vague phrases in the speech. What does it mean? Nobody knows what it means, and the government will not tell us. But surely any hon. member will admit that the man on the street interprets it to mean that there will be compulsory service to relieve those who have volunteered for service overseas.
On many occasions the government has made it clear that parliament is supreme. The speech from the throne points out that at this time of greatest crisis in the world's history the administration should possess complete freedom to act, subject only to its responsibility to parliament and irrespective of previous commitments, as its judgment dictates. Without being prejudiced, one might properly construe that to mean, as political expediency dictates.
I emphasize the fact that as members directly representing the people of Canada surely we have the power in parliament to relieve the Prime Minister of his obligations. We can pass laws; we can tell the people what they shall and shall not do; we can tell them where they shall and shall not go. We can tell them what price they shall or shall not pay for an article. The people at large have given us that responsibility; surely they will acknowledge our authority to relieve the government of an obligation which was not so urgent at the time it was made.
Last Monday the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) referred to useless extravagance in recruiting. I believe the Minister of Finance could not do better than see to it that there is some curtailment in general expenditures.
One of the branches of the Legion in my district sent in a resolution protesting against the holding of a general conference in Victoria early in November. Recruiting officers and citizens received invitations to attend this conference, as did many people in West Kootenay and other parts of British Columbia. The conference was called to discuss recruiting methods, notwithstanding the fact that every minister of the crown and other people whose services they could enlist had been speaking over the radio on the same matter. Some two hundred guests attended, and they had their travelling and living expenses paid. They were given a good time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Also a banquet.


William Kemble Esling: At the very least the cost must have been 810.000. This created so much criticism that the Rossland branch of the Canadian Legion protested against this extravagance. There is every reason why they should. The government is engaged in raising war loans, and the children and fathers and mothers of this country are being asked to purchase war savings stamps and certificates. Not a very healthy atmosphere is created when the public see such useless expenditures of money. I was interested in hearing the
The Address-Mr. Esling

Minister of Finance say that he had received letters threatening a boycott of the war loan. I hope that these threats are confined to the few letters the minister has received. There is an old saying that a member of the opposition should never send a bouquet across to a cabinet minister unless it is followed by a brick. I have no bricks. I just want to say that in my district it is considered that the energy, the aggressiveness and the sincerity of the Minister of Finance have been the dominant factors in the success of the war loans.
I should like to quote two instances of what I would term absolute negligence in connection with recruiting, I do not think we can blame young men who have good jobs for not wanting to enlist. They feel that if they do, someone else will take their jobs. Take the Doukhobors for instance. They are absolved from enlisting or from undergoing training of any kind. The government laid out a piece of work and told them that if they would not go into the training camps they would have to do some public work, such as road building. They were to receive fifty cents a day and their board, and were to work under the control of guards appointed by the provincial government. Their reply was simply that "we are not going into training camps, we are not going to do road work, we are not going to do war service; so what are you going to do about it?" The government can do nothing.
I should like to give an illustration of indifference on the part of those who should be held responsible for men who have enlisted and then been discharged because of illness. Previously I cited the case of a young man from my constituency who enlisted in the 111th battery. He went to Edmonton with the rest of his battery and was not there very long before he had to go to hospital for one month. He was discharged from the hospital and also from the army. He was given a warrant for his fare back to his home in my district, but no provision was made for berth or meals. His mother was with him and she purchased a berth for him and his meals. When the train reached Nelson, the place of embarkation, he was taken to the hospital in an ambulance and he stayed there one month. After that he made his way to his home, some fifty miles distant. He was there only ten days when they had to send for an ambulance again to take him to another hospital, where he remained for four months. He had sold a service station he was running, and because of all these bills he and his parents found themselves out of pocket to the extent of an amount in excess of $900. He

made his way to the coast in search of a job, and while there he applied to the Shaughnessy hospital for treatment but was told that there was no authority to give him treatment and he did not get it. He is now walking the streets of Vancouver. I should like to ask the minister if steps will not be taken to give better attention to such matters and provide more encouragement for enlisting.
I should like to ask the government what steps are being taken for the defence of the most vulnerable point in the interior of British Columbia, the city of Trail and the adjacent territory in which power plants are located. At this point is located the largest metallurgical plant in the world. It is really a munitions plant, and what it is producing there is for the British government. The only evidence of defence there is a partial unit of the Rocky Mountain Rangers which was organized a few weeks ago, and a company of the veterans guard. There should be some protection against aircraft.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Are there no anti-aircraft guns?


William Kemble Esling: No anti-aircraft guns or protection of any kind. While I am on this matter of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company I should like to say that I think some of the remarks made by hon. members of this house about this company are most unfair. I am sure they would not be made if hon. members were more intimately acquainted with the operations of this company. I have seen it grow from a little slag pot plant to its present size. It is where it is to-day because of the work carried on by its research committee. It is able to furnish the British government to-day with lead and zinc at a price much lower than has prevailed in any average ten years in the history of Canada. This company is providing zinc for the British government at just one-eighth of what it was sold for by the United States companies during the last war. In the early days of that war there was no process available in Canada for separating the lead and zinc in the ore. Many people do not have a proper conception of the industrial relations which exist between this company and its employees. The company has provided non-contributory pensions for its employees. They provide their employees, free of charge, with a large amount of insurance, put a seventy-five dollar cheque in their pay envelope at Christmas time, and when you consider that they have loaned employees a million and a half dollars for housing purposes, and have given to employees company shares valued at one million and a half, the company is not doing so badly, and

The Address-Mr. Cleaver
I think there should be a greater sense of fairness than has been displayed in the disparaging remarks against it. I do not believe that the heads of industries in this dominion are all bandits and profiteers. They create industry and employment, and that is what we want. It is the only thing which can make this country prosperous.
In conclusion may I again appeal to the government to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Lincoln, and let this parliament release the government from its pledge. The Prime Minister himself has told us many times that parliament is supreme. This plebiscite does not require the government to bring in conscription. Parliament itself, as the direct representative of the people, can release the Prime Minister from his obligations, and I am sure that if this question were submitted to parliament it would release the Prime Minister, and the country at large would thoroughly approve such action.


Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I have already extended my personal congratulations to the mover (Mr. Fournier), and the seconder (Mr. Macdonald), of the motion which we are now discussing, for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to the speech from the throne.
We are now well into the third year of the war. At this the opening of another session it is well that we should, look back over what has happened in the past as well as study the present and plan for the future. The opening year of the war was fraught with almost overwhelming dangers. It is a fact, well known now, that if Germany had immediately followed Dunkirk with an invasion of Great Britain, all might have been lost. Even as it was, only the fortitude and bravery of the British people saved the world.
Since then Hitler's aims of world, domination have become apparent to all, and now practically all of the democracies have banded together at Britain's side. To-day, while in certain countries the tide of war is still against us, we can rest assured that we are not going to lose the war. Democracies are peace-loving countries and do not lightly become engaged in warfare, but now that the decision has been made we find them all gearing up bo end the war successfully and as quickly as possible.
Canada, though only a small country of eleven and one half million people, in the short space of two and one half years has made wonderful strides. Some of our people were impatient at the start and wanted us to throw everything into the struggle without any planning for .the future. Some people quite sincerely thought that the war would be
won or lost in a year. Your government had no such illusions and planned our war effort for a long struggle, planned our war effort so that each year it would become increasingly stronger, and in furtherance of this policy in the opening months of the war took the time and spent large sums of money to build new factories for the production of armament and equipment. They took the time and money to build and create the greatest air training establishment in the world. They enlarged shipyards and built plate mills to fabricate plates for vessels. They increased the production of steel and other necessary materials. As a result, Canada stands to-day as a living example of what foresight, courage and initiative can accomplish. We have seen our navy personnel increase from less than 2,000 all ranks to over 27,000. We have seen our air force increase from less than 5,000 to over
100.000.	We have seen our army for overseas increase from 4,500 active soldiers to nearly
260.000.	and we have a reserve army of over
150.000.	On top of all this, hundreds of thousands of workmen are employed in war industries all over the country.
To sum it all up, the total cost of the last war to Canada, including the cost of demobilization, was just under 1,700 million dollars. We are crowding into just this one year of this war one and one half times the .total cost of the last war. In the present fiscal year, ending March, 1942, we shall have spent 1,500 millions on our direct war effort, and .we shall 'have sent to Great Britain over a thousand million dollars' worth of shells, guns, planes, motorized equipment and foodstuffs. It is truly a stupendous effort.
Now, what of the future? Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has already advised us that the navy will be expanded in personnel as rapidly as naval ships can be built. Already we have expanded our navy from 20 ships at the outbreak of war to 350 ships. We have built in Canada over 120 corvettes and mine-sweepers. Just before the freeze-up we were receiving deliveries of these vessels at the rate of one every four days. These little ships will outride any gale on any sea. They are the answer to the submarine menace. They are just as effective against the submarine as destroyers are.
As to merchant shipping, if we are able to maintain our 1942 programme, by the end of this year we shall be turning out merchant shipping at a rate equal to that of Great Britain.
In the air our enlistments will be maintained to the capacity of our training schools, which are as yet unsurpassed by any country.
In the army thus far we are planning an additional armoured division and an additional

The Address-Mr. Cleaver

tank brigade. This, added to the armoured division already planned, and the three infantry divisions and the tank brigade already in Great Britain, will bring up our army to three infantry divisions, two armoured divisions and two tank brigades, as well as all necessary ancillary troops for two Canadian corps.
As a private member with only slight military service in the last war I hesitate to express any military views, but for what my opinion is worth I should like to urge that for our armed forces overseas Canada should concentrate on armoured divisions and tank brigades. We are now industrially equipped for this type of work, and when the time arrives for an invasion of the continent I believe that the air force and swift-striking mechanized troops will be of paramount importance. Canadians in the air have shown tremendous courage, self-reliance and initiative. These same qualities will be of equal value in land operations.
There are some people who believe that industrially we have about reached the peak of our national capacity. In this I do not agree. I concede at once that we have very few skilled men out of work, but this country has not as yet really got down to business. We still have many men performing services which are not essential in war time. We still have duplication of services. Many of our people are still using luxuries we can well do without.
Let me illustrate. In my home town of Burlington, with less than 4,000 people, there are seven trucks and seven truck drivers driving up and down the streets delivering milk. In the city of Hamilton there are over three hundred coal dealers serving that city. I am told on good authority that four of the larger firms could amply supply the fuel needs of that city. We have thousands of salesmen still carrying on competitive selling which is unnecessary. Take life insurance, for example. There are thousands of life insurance agents going up and down this country. I think they could be well spared for the war effort. Then, too, we have many industries still engaged in the production of non-essentials. Thousands of men could be transferred from this non-essential work and placed in war production.
In addition to all these groups I have mentioned, we have hundreds of thousands of women in this country who are willing and anxious to work for war purposes.
For all of these reasons I would urge that orders should be placed at once which would substantially increase Canada's production of war equipment. There are still many small machine shops dotted over this country which are not being fully utilized.

Some may question Canada's ability to pay for any greater war effort. I have a suggestion to make in that regard as well. If I judge aright the temper of the Canadian people, they are not only cheerfully responding to the present demands that we are making upon them, but they are positively asking that we should request greater sacrifices on their part. There is a feeling abroad that we as a people are spending too much money and using up too much valuable material on non-essentials. In my opinion we should get down to business and stop trying to "keep up with the Joneses".
During the first ten months of this fiscal year we have collected nearly $500,000,000 in income tax, compared with a total of less than $10,000,000 collected in the entire period of the last war. This is a pretty good record, but to me it is not good enough. We have not gone far enough. At a time like this, why should we leave untouched $100,000 of income in the hands of any individual in Canada? To-day a man with an income of $500,000 is left with $100,000 in the clear. Coming down to the moderate incomes, why should we leave $15,000 in the hands of any individual as income, untouched?-and that is just what we are doing in regard to a man earning an income of $30,000. Roughly speaking, on $30,000 we take half. I wish to urge in all seriousness and with all the sincerity at my command that we should take all income over and above the living exemptions. It would mean that thousands of personal servants would have to be discharged, but these would be available for war work. It would mean that everyone would have to be his own butler and his own valet. When the safety of the world is at stake, when the flower of Canada's manhood is in the front line, or on the way to it, I ask you, should anyone at home complain if cut down to the bare necessities of life?
In the financing of this war I still have another suggestion to make. We do not hesitate to make a capital levy with respect to the estate of a deceased person. This is just exactly what we do under our succession duties acts. I firmly believe that the present situation is grave enough to justify serious consideration of the subject of a capital levy for war purposes. After setting up exemptions to provide amply for family responsibilities, for illness, and for old age, in my opinion any surplus capital over and above that should be taxed for war purposes. When a young Canadian gives his life in defence of this country, that is a one hundred per cent capital levy so far as that young man is concerned. Should wealth object to a partial capital levy?

The Address-Mr. Cleaver
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 SI per day, and, while in active service overseas, an additional S2 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 war-time operations.
In some communities considerable harm is being done to the war effort through the high wages being paid, especially on piece work, in war-time industry. In this regard I have a suggestion to make. I want to say at once that these young lads who are making $7, $8, $9 and some as high as $10 a day are earning their money on a competitive labour market and should have that wage. I would not do anything which would tend to cut down the production of war material. But I do not believe that in time of war any workman in Canada should receive a greater cash wage than the equivalent of what he would receive were he in the army. In the army, a single man without dependents receives the equivalent of about $17 a week, that is, $1.30 a day, his board, clothes, medical and dental services. A married man with two children receives the equivalent of $30 a week, because you must add, in excess of the amount paid to the single man, the $35 per month dependent's allowance to the wife, and $12 a month for each of the children. I do not think that, during a war such as this, any workman in Canada should receive in cash more than the equivalent of what he would receive were he in the army. Of course it must be kept in mind that in the army there are varying rates of pay; non-commissioned officers and commissioned officers receive more money. In the factories, superintendents would have to get more money. But my suggestion is that, in the main, the cash wage to the worker of Can-44561- 25J
ada should be the equivalent of the cash wage he would receive if he were in the army.
I said a moment ago that I would not deny any man the wage he earns. I would pay him the balance of his wages in a non-negotiable war savings certificate, which he could not cash, pledge, nor give away until the war is over. Thereby you would be doing two things beneficial to this war effort. You would be preventing that man from calling now for consumer goods, using up materials which should go into the war effort, and you would also be building up a postponed consumer demand which will come in very handy when the war is over.
I now come to a subject which I hesitate to discuss, because I frankly admit that perhaps sometimes I myself may have transgressed. The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), who is now looking so seriously at me, may in a measure concur in that regard. A deliberate attempt is being made at this time to stir up political strife in Canada, to stir up sectional and racial strife, to pit French Canada against English-speaking Canada. I wish to protest against this practice with all the vehemence at my command. It is selfish, it is disloyal, it is doing a lot of harm to Canada's war effort. I suggest that I on my part should search my heart, and that every hon. member should search his at this time. I should ask myself: Am I doing anything at which my Conservative friends could take offence? Am I doing anything which will harm the morale of the Canadian people? If I am, then I am being disloyal to Canada. Before saying anything in this chamber or out of it I should ask myself the question: Will what I am about to say help, or will it actually harm, Canada's war effort? I am not suggesting that unfair attacks should not be answered; where the occasion demands plainspeaking we should speak our minds. Perhaps in the past I have on occasions been too vehement in my views, but notwithstanding all this I say to myself and to every hon. member: think of Canada's war effort before speaking.
I freely admit that I have already dictated and thrown away two speeches for this debate, and I am not satisfied with my speech to-day; it is not good enough for the times. It is a shame that in the midst of the present life-and-death struggle we should have to take time to discuss anything but the war effort. However, during the few days that this house has been in session, and throughout the country, so much has been said about the present government being a single-party government, motivated by the party spirit, that I feel I should frankly express my view.

The Address-Mr. Cleaver
At the outbreak of the war we had in office a government that did not have a mandate from the people to carry on a war. Everyone agreed that there must be a general election, that the Canadian people had a right to elect a government to carry on the war, and that that election should take place as soon as possible. The Canadian war effort had first to be set in motion. That was done, and as soon as possible, having regard to the exigencies of the war, a general election was called.
In that election there was only one issue, namely, Canada's war effort. Both parties were sincerely and honestly in favour of an all-out war effort. Both parties were sincere and honest in agreeing that if a maximum war effort was to be made we simply had to have a united Canada; we had to forget politics until the wrar was over. The Conservative party thought that the best way to take politics out of the war effort was the formation of a national government composed of leading men of both parties. This suggestion had considerable merit; it was a view honestly reached by the Conservative party, and no one has any right to question their sincerity or loyalty in arriving at that decision.
The Liberal party, though seeking -the same end, took a totally different view of the problem. We thought the best way to take politics out of the war effort was to divorce the war effort from government, to let the army heads run the army, the air heads run the air force, and the navy heads run the navy. As to production of goods, we thought the best way to take politics out of Canada's war effort was to call in leading industrialists from across Canada, irrespective of political affiliations, and say to them; Look after Canada's war production.
Those two points of view, both seeking the same end, but in method as wide apart as the poles, were placed before the Canadian people. Both were eloquently argued, over the air, on the public platform and in the press. When voting day came, the Canadian people, fortunately for Canada, spoke very decisively; there was no room for doubt. The Canadian people had a right to choose the form of government they thought would be the strongest in time of war, and, rightly or wrongly, they chose a single-party government.
The promise made by the Liberal party ' has been fully carried out. I have yet to hear of one criticism, in this house or in the corridors, of political interference in regard to any of the armed forces. I have yet to hear one criticism on the floor of this house in regard to political interference in letting a war contract. It is a well known fact that well over three-quarters of all army, navy and air force
	1 < .1 v *'*?,! 1
officers are Conservatives. It is well known that a considerably higher percentage than that of the dollar-a-year men in the Department of Munitions and Supply are Conservatives, and they are doing a wonderful job. Take for example, Mr. Allan Nicholson, the timber controller. He comes from my home town of Burlington. He was urged to contest the 1940 election as Conservative candidate. He is to-day vice-president of the Conservative association in my riding. Will anybody suggest that he is a political appointee? And he has done a wonderful job for Canada in connection with its war effort. He has saved this country millions of dollars in the purchase of timber and lumber.
Every dollar's worth of goods bought for war purposes is bought on competitive tender, or, if a type where competitive tender is not possible, is purchased in a businesslike manner from the source that can best supply it. Though hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent monthly, we have yet to hear of any serious misconduct or any political favouritism.
Right here, with all these facts in mind, I implore the opposition to cease making the charge that this is a party government motivated by party feelings. The charge is not true. Hon. members who make such a charge are not being fair to themselves or to the Canadian people. It is harmful to our war effort to stir up in the public mind distrust of the war government. We have honestly tried to take politics out of the war effort. If some are still playing politics, I say to the opposition, denounce them; give us the particulars; let us smoke them out and punish them. So far as I am concerned I owe it to the Conservative party organization in my riding to say that they have fully cooperated with me in the past, and I am confident that this will continue in future as long as the war lasts.
Personally I renounced party politics the very day war was declared. Since September, 1939, I have not made one single political appointment. At the time of the national registration, after consulting with the defeated Conservative candidate I suggested for nomination the president of the Conservative association and the president of the Liberal association as the two key men in my riding to take the national registration. These men made fifty-fifty appointments in every ward in the riding; the entire work was done on a fifty-fifty cooperative basis, and not one man accepted one dollar for his work. The national registration in Halton county cost this country nothing except the cost of printing and advertising.

The Address-Mr. Cleaver
In this connection let me make a suggestion in regard to the plebiscite. Halton county is going to take the plebiscite vote in the same way; it will not cost this country one dollar in Halton county except for the printing and advertising.
As I have heard over the radio and read in the press the many ill-advised, unfair and bitter attacks which are now being made, I have asked myself this question: Do these men know that they are doing exactly what Hitler would want them to do? I have toyed with this idea: What would I do if I were a paid German agent, hired by Hitler to try to thwart this country's war effort?
In the first place, just as soon as a campaign was launched for voluntary enlistments, I would immediately sponsor conscription. I would tell of all the evils and weaknesses of voluntary enlistment, and I would be all out for conscription. Why? Not because I wanted men; not because I wanted to help the war effort, but because I wanted to harm the war effort and dry up voluntary enlistment.
In the second place, wrhen a victory loan campaign was announced, I would at once charge the government with reckless and extravagant expenditures, with throwing away money in taking a plebiscite, and so on. I would charge them writh anything that would undermine public confidence in the government.
In the third place there would be only one thing I could do, other than blow up a factory. I would try deliberately to undermine public confidence in the government by bringing about disunity among the people. I would charge the government with complacency. By doing this I would hope to alienate from the government all the impulsive and restless people who are never satisfied, no matter what is being done, unless they are doing it themselves.
Then I would take the other tack; I would also charge the government with being too ruthless and too energetic in the prosecution of the war. I would charge it with interfering with business; I would charge it with doing public business by order in council. I would charge it with failing to trust the people. By doing all of these things, as a paid agent of Hitler I would hope to overthrow the government and so disturb the public mind that unity would be lost.
The Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, is carrying a terrific load. The ministers of the five war departments are working to the extreme limit of their strength. Where, I ask, would you find five better men in Canada than Hon. J. L. Ralston, Hon. C. G. Power, Hon. Angus Macdonald, Hon. C. D. Howe, and
Hon. J. T. Thorson? I sometimes wonder if the Canadian people realize the load these men are carrying, and the load being carried by our Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and every other minister of the crown.
What about this complaint about lack of leadership? What man in Canada to-day other than Mackenzie King could have organized our war effort as successfully as it has been organized? What other public man in Canada to-day holds the confidence of all groups as he does? But, Mr. Speaker, the results speak far more eloquently than I can speak, so let us look at the results. What of Canada's morale? Are the Canadian people tired of this war? They are paying heavy taxes; they are making no profits; we are interfering with their private business, but notwithstanding all this what do we find? Instead of being tired of the war the Canadian people to-day are demanding a still greater war effort. If these results do not prove masterly leadership, then I do not know what leadership means.
The load being carried by the Prime Minister to-day in directing Canada's war effort is not by any means his sole task. It is fortunate for Canada, fortunate for the British commonwealth of nations and indeed for all the democracies of the world that at this time Canada should have as Prime Minister a personal friend of the President of the United States. Friend and foe alike agree that this fortunate circumstance has, during both peace and war, served as a valuable liaison between Great Britain and the United States. It is strange but true, Mr. Speaker, that no really great man is universally recognized as such during his lifetime. I believe history will record the fact that in our present war leader we have the greatest statesman Canada has yet produced. I do not for a moment expect my hon. friends of the opposition to concur in my views; but I do say, irrespective of the views they hold of the Prime Minister, that he was chosen by the people of Canada to lead our war effort. And, health permitting, he will lead Canada until victory is won.
Now just a word about conscription and the plebiscite, and I am through. We had conscription for ten months of the last war, and the total number of troops raised during that ten months' period was less than 85,000. If any hon. gentleman wishes to check that up I shall be glad to give him the reference. During the past seven months of this war we have had voluntary enlistments at the rate of nearly 20.000 a moijth. As long as voluntary enlistments can be maintained at this rate, conscription would do more harm than good to Canada's war effort. During this period
The Address-Mr. Cleaver

when conscription is unnecessary, many people are opposed to it; and I want to say that they are not all in French Canada, as some would lead us to believe.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Then why the plebiscite?


Hughes Cleaver: If the hon. gentleman will just possess himself in patience for a moment, I am coming to that. If the time ever comes when voluntary enlistments fail to supply our needs, all Canadians, French Canadians and those of British stock, will support conscription; make no mistake about that. Forcing the issue now, before it is necessary, will do untold harm. My hon. friend shakes his head.
1 am just as sincere in my views as he in his.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Minister of Justice does not take that stand.


Hughes Cleaver: This may be a long war. Voluntary recruiting may become inadequate. The government realizes that the time may come in the future when conscription may be necessary. At the general election of 1940 both major parties solemnly pledged themselves against conscription. Looking to needs which may arise in the future, the government is asking the people, by a plebiscite, to cancel this non-conscription pledge. This is a democratic means of seeking the cancellation of a pledge made to the electors. The pledge was given to them, and only they can release the government from it. Every loyal Canadian who wants an all-out war effort in the final analysis must support the plebiscite. The Duplessis rabble in Quebec are opposed to any war effort at all, and of course they will vote against the plebiscite; but the loyal French Canadians-and they form a large majority-will carry the plebiscite in Quebec. As to the rest of Canada, there are some disgruntled politicians who wish to embarrass this government. There are some selfish business interests who do not like to pay taxes, who yearn for the excess profits which they enjoyed during the last war. These people, in baffled rage-there is nothing else to call it-are to-day making statements of which I predict they will very soon be ashamed. The great middle class of this country will once again assert themselves, and will carry this plebiscite with a splendid majority.
The resolution I am about to read, which was passed at a caucus of Ontario Liberal members held yesterday, gives our answer to one public man in Canada to-day who thinks he is thinking but is only rearranging his grudges:
Whereas the Liberal members of the House of Commons from the province of Ontario, in

caucus assembled, desire at this time to reaffirm their loyalty to and their confidence in the leadership of the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada;
And whereas the Premier of Ontario, Mitchell F. Hepburn, for some years has directed his efforts toward embarrassing and insulting the Prime Minister of Canada;
And whereas Mitchell F. Hepburn, the premier of Ontario, is now endeavouring to discredit and to undermine the present government of Canada by indiscriminate and ill-considered criticism of the measures taken for the effective prosecution of the war;
And whereas he is presently seeking to defeat a minister of the crown who would be helpful to the government and to the Canadian people at this critical time;
Now, therefore, the Liberal members of the House of Commons from the province of Ontario desire to record their loyalty to and their confidence in the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King as Prime Minister of Canada and as leader of the Liberal party.
It is with regret that the said Liberal members of the House of Commons record their disapproval of the actions of Mitchell F. Hepburn and express the belief that he no longer represents liberalism in the province of Ontario.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Was that endorsed by all the Ontario Liberal members in the House of Commons?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Take it as read.


Hughes Cleaver: I cannot invite my hon. friend to caucus; I think he would be out of place. I cannot break the confidence of caucus, so that I shall have to leave him in suspense.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member said "the" Liberal members from Ontario. Apparently he includes them all.


Hughes Cleaver: I must assure the hon. member that I read the resolution correctly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Curiosity killed the cat.


Hughes Cleaver: I cannot help thinking what a wonderful thing it would be for our country's war effort if the Hepburns and the Drews of this country could have a change of heart, and would use their time in coining catch phrases to help instead of harm this country's war effort.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, in common with a large number of members in this chamber, and a considerable number of people across Canada who are thinking these days, my greatest concern is whether or not we are giving everything that we might in an all-out war effort. These thoughts are brought most forcibly to my mind, and they crowd out all else, when I remember what Winston Churchill said not

The Address-Mr. Harris (Danjorth)
so long ago with regard to the part that our own Canadian boys will probably play, and perhaps very shortly, in this conflict. Within a few months, when the invasion season returns, we may find our Canadians in the United Kingdom in one of the bloodiest battles the world has ever known. Surely that one expression of opinion, coming from the world's greatest statesman to-day, should do more to unite our people than some of the bickerings we hear across this floor. And when that great statesman further said that 1942 might see a clearing up of the skies, provided	that	we	use our man-power-hesaid man-power first; brain-power was second -virility and valour in an all-out effort, and provided	that	we	stay at our	task, thatgreat galaxy of English-speaking peoples would give a good account of themselves in 1942, he	no	doubt had good	reason for
making the statement.
So we	have	our	task before	us, and I
implore each and all to apply themselves to the task. It was my pleasure to emphasize the same sentiment on armistice day, November 11, 1941, in this chamber. I felt a sense of frustration then, as to what we as individual members were doing. I still feel the same sense of frustration, that we are not doing enough to-day.
If the premise I lay down is sound, and if we should have this unity to accomplish the common goal, then I have no difficulty in endorsing the mild-mannered, calm statements made with respect to unity by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier). But without taking time to compliment him upon his speech-and he understands where I stand in the matter-I say to him and to all hon. members that the deductions he drew from the arguments he set up do not in their entirety meet with my views. And when I say they do not meet with my views I am thinking of what has happened both before and since he spoke. I call as my first witness the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). While appreciating the load he is carrying and the difficulties which surround his position in these days, I suggest that he take the keynote of the speech of the hon. member for Hull, the keynote of unity, and that in all his utterances he should see to it that no word comes from his lips which would tend to set our people one against the other.
I have in mind a reference made in this chamber by the Prime Minister when he was referring to certain people from Toronto, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). The Prime Minister did not see fit to withdraw his
statement that some people from Toronto take too literally what they read in the press. Not a very serious statement, no- but you know, Mr. Speaker, and I know, that when tinder is as dry as it is now, waiting to be ignited to a flame of passion among the different elements of our people, it does not take much to set it off. And it takes very much less when responsible members in this chamber are the ones to light the tinder. How much faster does it rage when the Prime Minister is the one to set the match!
A word about Toronto in a moment or two, but a word first about one of the first citizens of Toronto. For seven years the hon. member for Broadview was first magistrate of that city. During those most trying years he took his place as a servant of the people, giving leadership in respect to matters of profound magnitude during the last war. What train came back with invalids from the last war, what train came back with returned soldiers, whether it arrived at two o'clock in the morning or two o'clock in the afternoon, did not find the hon. member for Broadview, Toronto's first magistrate, in company with his city clerk, Mr. James Somers, O.B.E., waiting to meet it? The city authorities were always given instructions to see that these men, their wives and families, were cared for. That service was given unremittingly for twenty-four hours of the day.
Since that time, what hon. member will gainsay the fact that on every occasion on which the question of empire connection of the great Anglo-Saxon race in Great Britain and throughout the empire has been discussed, the hon. member for Broadview has risen in his place and given voice to the maintenance of that connection which we all hold so dear.
Every time the opportunity presented itself he offered his empire views, which were largely the views of a great number of hon. members in this chamber as well as of the people of the city of Toronto. I say to these hon. members, and in a moment I shall recite whence they come, that they should 'remember that they are speaking of a great city. Toronto is no mean city. It is a city of industry, a city of intelligence and a city of integrity. This great city with its fine educational institutions, this great city with its extensive public ownership system, is always ready to rise up on every occasion of emergency to help out in war loans or anything else. The young men of that city are ready also to undertake the supreme job of work, that of seeing that the ranks of our different divisions are filled with men ready
392	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Harris (Danjorth)
to serve the empire during this difficult time. I do not say that Toronto is in the premier position in this regard, but her record will compare most favourably with that of any other city.
So I say as kindly and as sincerely as I can that it ill behooves the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Turner) to rise in his place and say what he did. He comes from Manitoba, a province that we love as we love all Canadian provinces. I do not think he should drag in the name of Toronto for his own political purposes. It would have been far better for my hon. friend, before discussing the question he had in his mind at that time, to go into a caucus of the Manitoba provincial members and obtain their views as to what he should enunciate on the floor of this Canadian House of Commons on behalf of Manitoba.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruiekshank) does not consider that any speech he makes is complete unless he is able to slam somebody or something. Because of his sense of humour, we try to forgive him his shortcomings. His depositing of the Japs in Ontario, however, is something with which I shall deal when the proper time comes. I would say to the hon. member for Fraser Valley that it does not help things in Canada to-day to single out one part of the country and say something about it which is absolutely unnecessary.
The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) is a business man of some standing and a French-Canadian colleague for whom I have admiration as I have for gll French-Canadian members. Their forbears came to this country in 1666; I would be proud if mine could date back that far. They are real Canadians, but I do not think they should drag in the name of the city of Toronto in order to support their contentions. I have been twenty years in this house, and I ask you to search the records to find one word that ever came from my lips which was in any way derogatory to those who were Canadians long before we were. The reverse is true.
I pause for a moment to make reference to the late Minister of Justice. I regret his passing. He was a great personal friend, and I should like to interject my tribute at this time. As my time is short I am sure you will understand why I do not enlarge upon it at the moment. In my younger days in 1922 I advocated the development of the Quebec harbour.
Moose Jaw cannot be very proud to-day of its representative because of what he read into the record. Mark you, I am not saying anything to the newer members of this house about reading things into the record, but when one of the older members reads into the record

an essay of the kind read in last night by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), it does not make for unity in this country. We all understand that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) must take a rise out of every question that comes along. I think he realizes that Toronto is a city of learning, and I forgive him for some of the things he said, but not all. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) was fair when he said that 99J per cent of the people of Toronto are sound and all right. I quite agree with him, as I think all hon. members do in their hearts. You all know that Toronto is a great city and that you should not stir up strife at this time. If my pleadings will have any effect upon hon. members in this chamber, the matter will be allowed to rest there.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is coming along with a war loan. The people of Canada must subscribe to it; they must oversubscribe the loan. I hope everything possible will be done to see that it is oversubscribed. The committee for total war effort will get behind this war loan. Too much has been said about those who signed that petition. I do not know them, but they are men and women of the ilk of those who sit in front of me. That is political history, and I do not want to drag in politics. I plead with the two hundred who signed: forget about 'what has been said about you in this chamber and see to it that everything possible is done to make sure that this war loan goes over. I know they will do that. In fact, they have accepted the challenge already. I endorse what they say in their resolutions and advertising. I should like to say something else:	they have proved themselves to be
greater Canadians than they are partisans. When the war loan comes along I am sure they will be greater Canadians than they are partisans, and I am satisfied that the loan will go over.
To my mind our people to-day are not fully conscious of their total responsibilities in the struggle that faces us. We have too many carnival makers. The theatres are crowded, the hotel lobbies are filled, our transportation facilities are taxed to their limit. We are spending money, a lot of it recklessly. Something is being done to curb this spending, but I say that these same carnival makers, these convention attenders and whatnot, will see to it that the enthusiasm they have for their country will put over our war loan. I am not fearful of the result.
What makes them slow down, as well as those of us who perhaps have more responsibility, is the sort of appeasement policy which seems to envelop particularly the Prime

The Address-Mr. Harris (Danjorth)
Minister. In history we have had the "wait and see" policy, which almost destroyed our effort in the last war. After that, we had a tendency to take too much for granted. In Washington, for example, we had the Japanese ambassador talking to a great statesman of the United States while at that very moment Pearl Harbour was being smashed. Then, before that, we had a gentleman with an umbrella. I do not say that disparagingly at all. These were great men. The "wait and see" man was a great man, so was the man with an umbrella, and so also the man who talked with the Japanese envoy while Pearl Harbour was being bombed. But the man with a dog-the dog is now dead-should take lessons from what happened on these other occasions and discontinue his appeasement policy. He should step into the breach and lay the whip on our backs, give us more work to do, expect more from us and get more from the Canadian people. I am satisfied that in such a policy he would be endorsed by the Canadian people.
The hon. member who seconded the address W'as Macdonald by name but not in stature. He read most of what he had to say, and the thought ran through my mind, as it did as I listened to previous observations, that it would have been far better if. he had thrown his notes to one side and let his heart and mind coordinate so that he could give voice to what was in his very soul, instead of reading an essay, as is done by so many other members, Mr. Speaker, in violation of the rules of the house. It would have been far better if the hon. gentleman had let his heart and mind speak, instead of simply letting his mind read something which kills the soul and leaves it dead. This has happened on many occasions, and it must have happened to my hon. friend when he shifted his position on the question of the plebiscite. Surely after he had been overseas and seen what he saw there-some of us have not been so fortunate but we will get there yet-he must have realized that the position he took in this debate did not live up to the traditions of the British or his own record. I am sure the gallant gentleman must have had heartburnings when his own Local Council of Women sent him a resolution denouncing the plebiscite, and when his own branch of the Trades and Labour Congress sent him a resolution in similar terms.
My hon. friend the member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon), who gave us such an eloquent address the other day, called in the Army and Navy Veterans, of which he was a member and quoted something they had said prior to the assembling of this house. Why did he 44561-26
not quote the resolution he had received from that body on that day, dated February 2, and tell us that the Army and Navy Veterans, and not only that body but thirty-two other veteran organizations and kindred bodies in solemn convention assembled, had passed unanimously and sent to the hon. Prime Minister a demand for conscription at once, and no plebiscite at all. It is so easy to pick out here and there something which suits your purpose. We all know the Legion. They are men of experience, honourable and gallant men, and there are some of them in the cabinet. There they sat on the treasury benches, sphinx-like for quite a while, but gradually one by one they have risen from their seats to give voice to the feelings within them, and little by little they are getting a little closer to the precipice, as I think some call it, with regard to compulsory overseas service which they want to get over. We had an example to-day in the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). His address brought him a little closer to the brink of the precipice. Why not take the whole jump? But the Prime Minister says no. After that most eloquent address had been given by my leader in this chamber, in which he covered the ground so thoroughly, point by point, in the fashion of a learned gentleman in building up our case, the Prime Minister followed him to tear it down, and then after delivering his speech he caucused his members, and then caucused them again. The fuehrer had spoken, and the members of the cabinet sat dormant and silent. They seemed to be anaesthetized; they could not give voice to what was in their heart and mind. It was the war loan campaign which provided an excuse for the first minister to rise in his place and express his views, and to-day we have had another minister, the Minister of Pensions and National Health, as the second example. I began to think for a while that there was no war on except the war between the different elements within the Liberal party, but one by one the ministers are breaking away from the position they took in the earlier days of the session. But they are not yet giving full expression to what they really think about the plebiscite. That is verboten. The fuehrer has spoken to them, and the result is that we are not getting a free expression of opinion from hon. gentlemen opposite.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we in this party shall vote for the plebiscite if it is forced upon us. We will vote "Ja" in the same

394	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Harris (Danforth)
manner as the Czechoslovakians and the Sudetens voted "Ja", but not for the same reason. They were afraid to vote against their plebiscite. We are voting for the plebiscite because we have been put in a position where a coin is flipped in such a way that heads you win and tails I lose. I do not say that disparagingly, but that is exactly how it stands. You know, Mr. Speaker, where we stand in this chamber. We would not let Canada down by voting no, and the present administration knows that. But had we no plebiscite at all, the Prime Minister and my hon. leader (Mr. Hanson) would have been in a much stronger position to vote on a resolution presented to this chamber on the question, and I am sure that it would have received almost the unanimous vote of this house.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the sound people of Canada have provided us with this edifice in which to enunciate for them their views. Their views of two years ago have no bearing on the views of the Canadian people to-day. I took a note while my hon. friend the minister of pensions was speaking with regard to marshalling public opinion. To-day we find marshalled against us a common enemy possessed of a strength and1 force that we never even dreamed of in 1940 when the last election took place. Not only that: the common enemy is right at our gates. It is no time to stop and take a plebiscite.
Let me recite some of the other reasons, as briefly and hurriedly as I can.
I have been through six elections. Two hundred and fifty thousand people had the opportunity of voting in the different constituencies which I have had the honour to represent. The money spent by parties, by newspapers, by private individuals and by the candidates themselves, amounted to well over a dollar for each vote which was cast in those elections. Yet, with all the energy, the enthusiasm and the interest aroused over the many issues which have arisen during the last twenty years to excite our people and bring them to the polls; with the assistance of the clergy, of the schools, and all other agencies, the proportion of voters to those entitled to vote amounted to not more than 52 T per cent-we will call it 53 per cent for easy figuring. The Stevens candidate got 1-4 per cent, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidate polled 1-6 per cent-he came in lately; previously the Labour party candidate got 1-4 per cent-the Liberal party, 13-2 per cent; and Conservative supporters honoured me with 35-4 per cent. And this, as I have said, as a result of much energy, effort and enthusiasm and all manner of means

employed to bring people to the polls: we did not get anything like a complete expression of opinion. Nor will you get much of an expression of opinion by this plebiscite, for you will be unable to get the people to the polls. Of course you will get the malcontents. But do you want them? Of course you do not. Nevertheless the plebiscite is going to be held.
Let me give the government one warning now with regard to the temper of the Canadian people on this matter. Do not have dominion ministers publicize this plebiscite on the screen. Not long ago I was humiliated, while a newsreel was being run, to hear our Prime Minister booed and hissed when his picture was on the screen. That is bad business. I was ashamed of our Canadian people when I heard it. And it did not happen in the city of Toronto.


Mr. GOLDING:: Where was it?


Joseph Henry Harris: That should not happen. I believe my hon. friend does not come from very far from where it occurred. It was when 1 was waiting for a train connection. I am not going to damn another Ontario town by mentioning the name. It could happen in Toronto. It could happen in Stratford. I think my hon. friend who recited one or two days ago correspondence and editorials which have come to his desk, might recite to this house the dayletter he received from the editor of the Stratford Beacon-Herald: he would know that the feeling of which I have spoken is rampant throughout his own district as well as in Toronto.


William Henry Golding: I did not receive any letter at all.


Joseph Henry Harris: I will send the hon. member a copy.
I thought the Minister of Pensions and National Health would have said more to-day about his own province. To my mind there is a situation there the seriousness of which the people of Canada do not realize. Do you suppose that if 24.000 Canadians were living in a vulnerable point in Japan they would be left there? The danger to British Columbia of leaving the Japanese in their present locations is something to which the government, after the experience of our United States friends at Pearl Harbour, should give immediate consideration. True, a number of them arc Canadian nationals. True, each of those Canadian nationals was registered by the consul when he came into the country. But you cannot be sure of them all. We can be kind to them. We can treat them in the

The Address-Mr. Harris (Danforth)
British fashion. There are wide expanses in Canada where they can be placed, far away from the danger zone.
The Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) is not in his seat. I understand he is of Icelandic origin. Also I am given to understand that lake Winnipegosis and lake Winnipeg, in his province, contain a fine species of fish called gold-eye. These Japanese are good fishermen. I understand that the Icelandic people who fish for gold-eye could fish just as well for salmon. I would transfer those Japanese to the district of lake Winnipegosis and lake Winnipeg and put them to work and be kind to them, but I would get them out of British Columbia and replace them with Icelandic people. Some of them could be sent down to Quebec, where our friends could use them in the lumber mills and saw mills. Many of these Japanese know how to work in a saw mill. Some could be transferred to Ontario. But let us get them out of the coast province and show the rest of our Canadian people that we are prepared to do something on behalf of national security.
I was sorry to hear an hon. member refer to "gold-diggers." References of that kind are not very helpful to the Minister of Finance in his task of raising the war loan. Who are these gold-diggers? Have they hard cash? The minister knows that their assets are largely made up of bank overdrafts, employing the money of others. He knows they are respectable citizens.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You have got to go to
them to get money.


Joseph Henry Harris: When the
hon. member for Northumberland, Ont. (Mr. Fraser), said so many things in such a burlesque fashion with regard to these people, I looked him over, and as he was talking about "Who's Who" I thought to myself, and who are you? He talked about

I thought he said Moloch.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mulocks!


Joseph Henry Harris: Then I thought it was Mulocks, and then I wasn't sure whether it could not be Mohocks, but I discovered it was Murdock, the same hon. gentlemen who by this administration was placed on the Canadian National railway board and is doing a good job on behalf of Canada. I say that, holding no brief for him and never to my knowledge having met him at any time. Nor do I know Charles Burton. I have met Mr. Morrow. He could have gone a good deal further with his "Who's Who," but what good does it do? What useful service did he give to Canada in that dia-

44561-26*
tribe? Was he not just asking himself and other members of his party to "Keep on whistling, boys, until this vote on the plebiscite is taken; we must keep up our courage?" Every time the Prime Minister's name was mentioned we heard loud applause from the boys who are on their way to the political graveyard, a lot of these one-trippers who have so much to say and make for so much disunity in this country. They rise in their places and simply make for more disunity.
I close with something which came to my desk the other day. I hesitate to use it, but at the same time it does enunciate some ideas that are not going to help our position at the present time:
They have a rendezvous with death,
On desert plain or tropic hill,
Where lethal bullets whistle shrill,
And hell's black legions, winging high, Darken the April sky.
For they have pledged and will be true; They will not fail their rendezvous.
But we, when April brings its rain,
Must argue whether we will keep Our faith with all the brave who sleep.
Our cross-to break or to renew Another's pledge; our rendezvous With indecision and disgrace;
Our shrine-the shabby polling place.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shabby.


Joseph Henry Harris: It is, I am sorry to say, and it is more so on this plebiscite.
When I read that I also read this, from the world's greatest statesman, who received a vote of confidence recently of 490 to 1. How grand and glorious it would be if at this time we could do likewise in this chamber 1 He said:
I avow my confidence was never stronger than at this moment that we shall bring this conflict to an end in a manner agreeable to the interests of our country and the future of the world.
That is Mr. Churchill. I commend that sentiment and feel likewise.
I add now a statement made by another great statesman, and it applies right this minute to one and all of us:
There are tremendous things which need to be done and done now, with vigour, thoroughness and dispatch. We need more men for the overseas forces; we need a reallocation of men who are idling or who are wasting or halfwasting their time-the farm-the fighting forces.
We are two years late in organizing this nation for the stern, grim compulsions of war. Political expediency has held us in its grip. Hadn't we better prepare to strengthen those men overseas? Hadn't we better get them reinforcements?
In this hour when the whole world is writhing in flames, in this hour when the guns are roaring nearer and nearer to our shores, and when the enemy tightens his grip on
Excess Profits Tax

civilization, we are not going to waste our time counting noses. Right now we want a sharp, swift drive for results.
That is from the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member has intimated that I have received some letter from a Stratford paper. I want the hon. member to lay that letter on the table of this house. And I want to know what connivance is going on here.
On motion of Mr. Ross (Calgary East) the debate was adjourned.



EXCESS PROFITS TAX


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I wish to make a brief statement. For the information of the business community I ordinarily would give it to the press, but as the house is sitting it is more appropriate that I give it here.
It is the intention of the government to introduce during the present session a minor amendment to the .section of the Excess Profits Tax Act which defines the "standard period". The proposed amendment relates to new businesses which commenced operations after January 1, 1939, and *will preclude them from taking the record of actual earnings in their first fiscal period as their standard profit. Such companies will have to apply to the board of referees for a determination of their standard profit.
Under the law as it now stands, taxpayers who commenced business after December 31, 1937, have the option either of taking their actual profits as their standard or of applying to the board of referees. In some cases this may give very unfair advantages to those taxpayers who commenced business after January 1, 1939. For example, if a company commenced business in the latter part of 1939, after war broke out, and, due to the war situation, made exceptionally large profits in its first fiscal period, these earnings under the present law would constitute the base from which excess profits would be measured. The proposed amendment will disallow this and make it necessary for such a company to apply to the board of referees for a determination of its standard profit.
On behalf of my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) I wish also to say that the commissioner of income tax has clarified the position of sole proprietorships and partnerships in respect of the minimum standard profit of $5,000. He will interpret the wording providing for this minimum as

allowing the minimum to apply after rather than before the deduction of reasonable salary.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 6.07 p.m.
Monday, February 9, 1942