SINGAPORE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON ' (Leader of the Opposition): I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position or would care to give the house and the country any late information with respect to Singapore.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I have no information that I believe will add anything to what has appeared thus far in the press.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: A day or so ago my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked if I would give to the house a statement with respect to some of the measures that will be introduced at the present session. The legislative programme for the present session, like that of other sessions of parliament since the commencement of the war, will be confined in the main, and as largely as possible, to matters pertaining to Canada's war effort or arising immediately out of the war. As in previous sessions the most important measure will be the war appropriation bill. Legislation respecting the much discussed plebiscite will be introduced immediately upon the termination of the debate on the address. Legislation also will be introduced respecting the production and marketing of wheat; respecting land settlement for ex-service men, and related amendments to the Soldier Settlement Act; and respecting the ratification of certain trade treaties with Latin-American countries.
Among financial measures, bills will be introduced regarding new borrowing authority and the refunding of maturing issues: bills to amend the War Exchange Conservation Act. the Canadian National Railway financing and

Japanese Nationals - Government Policy
guarantee bill; a bill to ratify an agreement between the C.N.R. and the Temiscouata railway.
There will be amendments to the Civil Service Superannuation Act, the Companies Act and the Patent Act, and possible amendments to the naval service, militia and Royal Canadian Air Force acts. It is proposed, to have the question of redistribution studied by a committee of parliament. There was a committee that took up the matter a session or two ago, and it is the. intention of the government to have a committee look into the matter anew this session.
I have not cited the bills that already appear on the order paper, but in addition to those it is anticipated that there may be other bills of a more or less routine character. It must be understood that circumstances at the moment unforseen may, in the eourse of the session, occasion the introduction of other measures. I do not wish to bind the government exclusively to any programme; there may be other bills if the necessity should arise.



REQUEST FOR OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister if the government will give consideration to permitting the ordinary course of procedure to be followed with respect to the motions of private members. It will be recalled that in previous sessions of this parliament the government took the initiative in taking away from private members their undoubted right to discuss matters which they desire to place on the order paper. I had no great objection to that in the first session or two, but I think that right ought to be restored at the earliest possible moment, and I would ask that the government give consideration to that point of view.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reasons which governed in this matter in the beginning, if they were valid at all at that time, seem to me to be even stronger at the present time, Those reasons, as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition will recall, were that in a war as serious as the present, the attention of parliament could not be given too exclusively to matters pertaining to the war and, what might be regarded as the other side of the same shield, that there should be as little as possible to distract or to prevent the attention of parliament being concentrated upon the war effort. If the motions of private members are to be considered it means that ministers and others must prepare themselves in regard to
a number of questions that at the present time are more or less academic, and in these days the burden on the ministry is heavy enough in connection with the matters relating exclusively to the war to which it must give attention.
I do not wish to say that the government will not be prepared to consider what my hon. friend has suggested, but I am giving to him at once the view that has prevailed up to the present. I think the arguments are quite as strong to-day as they were at the time the decision of the government was taken. And if I recollect aright, the decision was taken by agreement with at least most of the members of the house.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Will what the Prime Minister has said about private members' motions apply also to private bills, public orders and divorce bills? Private members are the connecting link between the government of the day and the electorate, and when they cease to function, all parliamentary government is at an end.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I said had reference to the procedure which we followed in previous sessions. I may say in a word that the government intends to follow a similar procedure this session unless there are very strong requests to the contrary.



JAPANESE NATIONALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some days ago I promised the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) that I would make a statement to the house on the policy of the government in relation to the Japanese problem in British Columbia.
The situation created by the presence in British Columbia of a population of nearly
24,000	men, women and children of Japanese race has for a number of reasons received the closest attention of the government over the past four years. The situation increased in complexity when Japan, on September 27, 1940, associated herself with Germany and Italy in the tri-partite pact. Recognizing the more critical situation created when Japan joined the axis, the government immediately thereafter appointed, on October 1, 1940, a special committee to investigate and report upon the problem of Japanese in British Columbia from the standpoint of national security. The report and recommendations of the committee were tabled and published in
398	COMMONS
Japanese Nationals - Government Policy
December, 1940. The most important recommendation was that there should be a re-registration of the Japanese population of British Columbia and that a small standing committee should be set up to keep the government constantly informed as to the oriental situation in that province. These recommendations were acted on at once and in determining its policy the government has had the benefit of the advice of this standing committee on which various viewpoints were represented.
In the months which followed, re-registration was carried out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under the supervision of the standing committee. This registration included the photographing and finger-printing of all persons of Japanese origin. The committee received the utmost cooperation from Japanese nationals as well as from Canadians of Japanese racial origin. When a state of war was proclaimed as existing between Japan and Canada, the registration was all but complete. Precautionary measures, which have proved adequate, were put into effect forthwith.
The steps taken were similar to those taken in the case of German and Italian residents of Canada. Individuals, whatever their nationality, who there was reason for believing might act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state, were promptly interned. Steps were also immediately taken to immobilize for the duration of the war all fishing boats operated by men of Japanese race.
Legitimate apprehensions in British Columbia were concerned with three things: the aid which might be given to enemy submarines and enemy raiders if they should be supplied with fuel or furnished with information; the possibility of acts of sabotage; and the possibility of anti-Japanese riots in which military force might have to be used to restore order.
To determine the policy to be followed a meeting was called in Ottawa on January 8, in which the members of the standing committee participated. This meeting was under the chairmanship of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) and at it the Hon. George Pearson represented the government of British Columbia. ,
The recommendations of the conference of January 8 and 9 were carefully considered by the government. On January 14 I announced the government's policy. I might summarize the policy as follows:
Persons of Japanese race, who are Canadians either by birth or by naturalization, and Japanese nationals resident in Canada will be justly treated. Their persons and property will receive the full protection of the law. No action will be taken which would give any excuse for the ill-treatment of Canadians under the control of Japan.

Nor will action be permitted which might give Japan an excuse to inflame Asiatic hostility against the white race. Canadian policies will march in step with those of Britain and the United States.
As specific measures, all persons of Japanese race will be removed from fishing boats and other vessels for the duration of the war. For the same period the sale of gasoline and explosives to persons of Japanese race will be controlled by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Japanese nationals have been forbidden to possess or use short-wave receiving sets, radio transmitters and cameras. Their present surveillance by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

similar to that successfully exercised over German and Italian nationals -will be continued.
For Canadians of Japanese race who are anxious to serve Canada, a civilian corps is being formed to be used on projects that will contribute to the national war effort.
Enemy aliens, whether nationals of Japan or of Germany or of Italy, will be required to leave the protected area on the coast of British Columbia. Permits to remain may be granted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. For the time being, permits will normally be granted to women and children and to men who are unfit. Those required to leave may be placed in normal employment, if it can be found for them, outside the protected area. They will, of course, be under the usual police surveillance over enemy, aliens.
A commission has been set up to arrange for the sale, lease, requisition or charter of fishing vessels with a view to ensuring the sustained productivity of the fishing industry in British Columbia, and fairness to Canadians of Japanese race who own or have an interest in such vessels.
The defence area from which enemy aliens must withdraw has been defined by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and the Minister of Justice. The placing or employment of enemy aliens is being arranged by the Department of Labour through the unemployment insurance commission. The civilian corps is also being organized by the Department of Labour. A committee of the cabinet, consisting of the Minister of Pensions and National Health, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture, has been entrusted with a general supervision of the programme. This committee will recommend to the government from time to time such further action as may be necessary.
In all the arrangements being made in connection with the Japanese problem, special

Welland By-Election
consideration is being given to Japanese Canadians who are veterans of the last war.
The situation on the Pacific coast has now been clarified. The government's policy has been determined and is being carried out by the responsible agencies. Under the circumstances it has been decided that we need no longer place on the members of the standing committee the burden and responsibility of advising the government in regard to this problem. I have written to the members of the committee and thanked them for the assistance they have rendered during the past year.
One of the results of the existence of a state of war between Canada and Japan has been the abrogation of the immigration agreement which was concluded in 1928. Thus as a result of Japan's own action, there are no longer any agreements or understandings, express or implied, in regard to the admission of Japanese to Canada.
It will be recognized that Canadian citizens of Japanese race have been placed in a very difficult position. They are being asked to bear with patience inevitable hardships and losses. A situation of this kind can only be effectively met by an equal measure of tolerance and understanding on the part of the people of Canada generally. In the national interest it is of the utmost importance that the problem should be approached in this spirit.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many Japanese nationals have been interned?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot give my hon. friend the figure at the moment, but I shall get it for him.


Mr. GREEN:: Has an order actually been issued to the effect that Japanese shall not be allowed to have radio receiving sets and transmitters and cameras, or is that to be done in the future?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been issued, I understand.


Howard Charles Green: It is in effect now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). The press reports the distribution of badges to men who have been rejected for military service as physically unfit. May I ask the minister what has been done about
badges for men who have served in the armed forces and have been discharged through disability? If badges are to be issued, does not the minister think that these discharged men should be given preference in the matter?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Yes. I would reply to my hon. friend that what is known as a service badge is being issued. I am veiy much surprised that it is not out before this. As a matter of fact both badges have been authorized for some time, and it is just a matter of getting manufacturing facilities and obtaining deliveries. Badges are being issued for service as well.



WELLAND BY-ELECTION PRESS REPORT AS TO RADIO SPEECH OF HARRY J. CARMICHAEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). The Toronto Daily Star of February 7 contains a verbatim report of a speech delivered by Harry J. Carmichael, an employee of the Department of Munitions and Supply, and the director-general of muni-tioiis production. This speech was delivered1 over the radio in St. Catharines, in support of the candidature of the Minister of Labour.
Was the government or the Department of Munitions and Supply or the Minister of Munitions and Supply advised by this employee of his intention to deliver such a speech?
Was permission asked for, and given?
Does the government approve of the principle of government employees making speeches during election campaigns, whether for or against the government?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: delivered the speech, that he wished to do so. He felt that the representations he had to make to the electors of Welland were so important to his own war work that the speech was justified. He wished to know if I objected and I asked him under whose auspices he intended to speak. He said he intended to pay for his own time on the radio and was speaking to his own friends in his home district. Under the circumstances I could see no objection to his doing so. I will say. of course, that had he been on the government payroll his action would have been improper, but in the special circumstances of Mr. Carmichael's case I saw no impropriety whatever.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not seen the speech of Mr. Carmichael, and with respect to his position in the Canadian manufacturing world I agree with everything the minister has said. The minister seems to draw a distinction between a man in a government post who draws a salary and a man who does not draw a salary. To me that means nothing. This gentleman, and I understand he is a very high class gentleman, addressed the electors of Welland during the by-eleetion campaign while occupying a post in the government service. I think that is open to condemnation, and the minister should not have allowed him to do it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Since my hon. friend has made a comment about my statement, may I make a comment about his? Will he explain the position of Mr. Alan Cockeram, who spoke in the York South election?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand that Mr. Alan Cockeram spo'ke as a private citizen with the full knowledge-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not faze me a bit. All these catcalls do not bother me at all; I have listened to them for twenty years. Mr. Cockeram spoke to his own people with the express permission of his commanding officer and the officers of the Department of National Defence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is that not true of Mr. Carmichael?


Mr. HOMUTH:: He is not an employee of the government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Cockeram is not an employee of the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No? He draws a salary.



PRIVILEGE-MR. GOLDING MILITARY SERVICE-REFERENCE IN DEBATE TO COMMUNICATION FROM STRATFORD

[Stage Direction]
Beacon-Herald On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth):: Mr. Speaker, rising to a question of privilege, I should like to refer to an incident which occurred in the house when the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) was speaking on Friday afternoon. On page 394 of Hansard, referring to myself, he is quoted as having said:
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 day letter 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.
When the hon. gentleman made this statement, I was positive that he used only the word "letter," and evidently the reporter was of the same opinion; for in the original copy the simple word "letter" appeared. However, a correction has been written in changing it to "day letter". One would naturally infer from the hon. gentleman's statement that I had received a personal letter from the editor of this paper pointing out to me the general feeling in our district. Believing, as I did, that my hon. friend intended to convey that impression, I made the following statement, which appears also on page 394 of Hansard: I did not receive any letter at all.
However, in reading this correction in the original copy I am sure now that my hon. friend had reference only to a telegram which I received from Mr. C. Dingman, editor of the Beacon-Herald, on the afternoon of January 23, and which I find was a day letter. Had the hon. gentleman mentioned a telegram there would have been no misunderstanding. However, in view of this general misunderstanding and in fairness to the editor of the Beacon-Herald, I should like to read to the house the wire I received and my reply. This is what I was challenged to do. The wire I received is as follows:
Would appreciate for publication statement from you dealing with following questions: Are you in favour of submitting proposed plebiscite, or do you feel parliament ought to decide issue of extention of conscription? What attitude will you take in the house? Are you in favour of compulsory selective service without restrictions? Please wire us collect any time to-day about three hundred words hinging on these questions.

Legations
My answer to that wire was quite brief, and is as follows:
You will probably have noticed that after the caucus yesterday the Prime Minister stated that it was the most satisfactory caucus he had ever attended. I think nothing need be added to his statement to indicate where the members stand on this question.
It will be recalled that I stated my position when I spoke on this question in the house, which I considered was the proper place in which to make any statement. I should like to say that as editor of the Beacon-Herald, Mr. Dingman was quite within his rights in asking me where I stood on these important questions, and I might add also that my good friend Mr. Dingman, as editor of a daily paper, is entirely within his rights in approving or disapproving any stand which I may take on any public question. I hope this statement will clear up any doubt in the minds of hon. gentlemen regarding what actually happened and what sort of telegram I did receive.


Thomas Langton Church: You never can answer a newspaper; it always has the last word.



LEGATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps' I might say a word with respect to legations to be opened shortly in Ottawa. I notice in the press of this morning reference to Norway opening a legation in the city. I might say that there have been requests from Norway and from Poland and Yugoslavia to have legations established in Ottawa. Requests have been received from other countries, but I mention these three in particular. Careful consideration has been given to the requests, and the government has decided to accept them. We are pleased to have in the capital of Canada diplomatic representatives of these countries which have been playing such heroic parts in the present great world struggle.
The first legation to be opened will be that of Norway. The Norwegian minister will be Mr. Daniel Steen who has been consul general of Norway in Canada for many years. The first Polish minister will be Mr. Victor Podoski, who came to this country as consul general of Poland at the outbreak of the war. Both these gentlemen, now raised to the rank of minister plenipotentiary in the service of their respective countries, are held in high regard and esteem by the Canadian government and all those who have had the pleasure of meeting them. I may add that the first
minister of Yugoslavia to Canada will be Doctor Isidor Cankar, who has had a distinguished career in the diplomatic service of his country and is at present Yugoslav minister to the Argentine republic.
Perhaps I should mention also that Greece has indicated a desire to have a minister resident at Ottawa and that request is being considered at the present time. With respect to the reciprocal appointments of ministers to other countries, it is understood that the matter of reciprocation will stand over until the end of the war.



BRUCE COAL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, as a private Liberal member of this hon. house I desire to bring the attention of the government to the following clipping from the morning Ottawa Citizen of January 22, 1942, page 14:
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Investigates Local Coal Company.
Acting on a search warrant obtained last night, officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police criminal investigation branch to-day seized all books and files of the Bruce Coal Company, with offices in the Hardy Arcade, Sparks street, and Bayswater avenue.
A Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer informed the Citizen to-day that an investigation of the company has been under way for a month and it was decided to seize the company's records to-day.
The same source said the probe would continue for perhaps a week or two longer. The reason for the investigation was not disclosed.
Again, sir, as a private Liberal member of this hon. house, on account of the continuous silence of the outside leader and the inside acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) with respect to this matter, and in order to save the country the sum of $1,500 daily, may I ask the government if a thorough investigation will not be made to ascertain the truth of the widespread talk in town that even since this item appeared in the press the Bruce Coal company has been selling the same coal three times at a rate of one hundred tons daily on government contracts: (1) for the Hull internment camp; (2) for Uplands airport, and (3) for the Arnprior airport.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest from the length of my hon. friend's question and what I heard of it that it is a matter which concerns several departments, and I

The Address-Mr. Ross (Calgary)
would have to ask him to wait until there is an opportunity of conferring with other ministers before giving him an answer.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 6, 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.
Mr. GEORGE H. ROSS (Calgary East): Mr. Speaker, many very interesting arguments have been advanced in this debate. One of the most strongly pressed and in my opinion one of the most futile is the charge that it would be humiliating to .take a plebiscite at this time. The speech from the throne was no sooner delivered than one of the newspapers came out with the statement that a plebiscite would be most humiliating. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) took up the cry in this house. It has also been raised with frenzied vigor by a number of speakers in this house and outside, and by a section of the press.
Why would it be humiliating to consult the people at this time? None of the speakers has told us. The press has not told us. I have asked a number of my friends that question, and not a man can tell me any reason why it would be humiliating to consult the people. Who would feel humiliated? I have never been humiliated by being consulted. I am sure the electors of my riding will not feel humiliated by being consulted. I do not believe any good Canadian will feel humiliated by being consulted.
The leader of the opposition has frequently referred to Australia as an example that Canada might very well follow. But I would remind him that during the last great war Australia on two different occasions consulted the people on the question of conscription, apparently without being humiliated. The suggestion that intelligent people will feel humiliated by being consulted is too absurd to pursue further.
The last speaker in this debate, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), protested vigorously against some of the references that have been made to some of the people of Toronto. He spoke of "dry tinder" being ignited by the "flame of passion". I wish to point out to the hon. member that no one suggests that all the people of Toronto are igniting dry tinder by a flame of passion directed against

the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). There are very many fine citizens in Toronto. It is only a clique of hysterical Toronto people and a section of the press that would sabotage the government in order to form a so-called national government to further the selfish interests of a few Toronto financiers. I realize that this is a serious statement to make of any group of citizens, but the ruthless emotional and false attacks being made on the Prime Minister force one to this conclusion. If they can only get rid of the Prime Minister they will have gone far in carrying out their nefarious purpose. WThat other reason have they for directing these vicious attacks against the Prime Minister? Surely every other member of the cabinet is equally responsible.
The speech made by the Prime Minister in this debate was clear and convincing in support of the plebiscite which is to be submitted to the people. He is probably the best informed man in Canada. He is now serving his fourth term as Prime Minister. As Secretary of State for External Affairs and as chairman of the war committee of the cabinet, he is probably better informed and knows how our war effort can best be put forward better than any other member of the cabinet. He is the man who selected and brought into his cabinet the able ministers conducting our war effort. It is under his leadership that the ministers have cooperated to put forth such a fully balanced total war effort.
Mr. Churchill, speaking in this chamber on December 30, 1941, used these words:
Canada is a potent magnet drawing together those in the new world and in the old, whose fortunes are now united in a deadly struggle for life and honour against the common foe.
Everybody knows of the splendid work done by our Prime Minister in bringing about the extremely friendly relations that exist between the United States and Canada and between the United States and the other British nations "now united in a deadly struggle for life and honour against the common foe." The Prime Minister is the personification of Canada's magnetism that brought about these good relations.
Our war effort has been magnificent. The New York Times recently said of it:
Canada's all-out war effort has been no mean accomplishment . . . the achievement has been one of the little appreciated miracles of the war.
These capable men who are making such a remarkably good job of conducting our - war effort have asked for a plebiscite. I shall gladly act on their judgment and vote for the motion before the house. I hope and believe that when the vote is taken the people of

The Address-Mr. Ross (Calgary)
Calgary East will vote for the plebiscite, and that the people of Canada will vote for it, and thus release the government from past commitments, and give them a free hand in conducting the war.
Last Friday the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) referred to some measures that have already been taken to deal with post-war problems. I wish to take advantage of this occasion to urge upon the government to provide a greater measure of social security and social insurance as a further measure to meet post-war problems. Existing legislation in Canada and in the provinces is wholly inadequate to relieve the misfortunes that come when earnings are cut off by want of work, old age, blindness, sickness or death, and when children are left with no one to care for them. It is good public policy to aid the worker in planning a defence against these hazards. He and his family should, not be allowed to become public charges. In the words of the preamble to the labour section of the Versailles treaty:
Universal peace . . . can be established only if it is based on social justice.
Let me quote further from the preamble. What I am about to quote was true of the industrial nations of the world at the time it was written in 1919; it is in a measure true of Canada to-day. The preamble says:
Conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required; as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, the regulation of the labour supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provisions of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own, recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organization of vocational and technical education and other measures.
We should have a plan of social insurance in Canada that would afford a measure of protection not only to the worker but to his wife and dependent children as well. We have already the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940; many of the provinces have workmen's compensation acts. But these are not enough. Under workmen's compensation acts compensation is payable for "personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment." There are a great many cases of distress against which protection is not given
by these acts. There should be insurance to protect the wage-earner in the case of industrial accidents to which these acts do not extend. There should be insurance to protect the worker in the case of illness and old age. There should be insurance to protect his wife and family in the case of his premature death. We should have social insurance in Canada to cover all such cases.
Many now employed are wondering what will happen after the war is over. When that time arrives and our men in the forces and in munition plants are demobilized we shall be met with a serious unemployment problem. A considered scheme of social insurance would solve a substantial portion of it.
1.	It would lessen direct relief, which tends to destroy the morale of persons seeking it.
2.	It would have a stabilizing influence in sustaining buying power after the war when expenditures are cut down.
3.	It would cushion the shock which will be caused by the drop from present full-time employment to the lack of employment after the war.
4.	It would give the worker and his family greater peace of mind so that they will make better citizens and do better work.
In the words of the report of the Mather commission:
Social insurance would remove the spectre of fear which now haunts the wage-earners; it would make him a more contented and better citizen.
If responsible government is to be a success in Canada we must have a united, happy and contented people. Nothing militates against unity, happiness and contentment more than fear.
In introducing social insurance a fund would have to be established out of which to pay those protected by the statute. The contributors should be the employer, the employee and the state.
As to the employer, the additional cost would not discriminate in favour of one employer against another in the same line of business, because all employers would have to contribute. It would be an additional cost that would be added to the eost of the article produced. The additional cost would not make it difficult for a producer in Canada to compete with producers in other parts of the world, because contributory social insurance already exists in the other principal industrial countries.
As to the worker, the cost to the worker with a small income would be considerable. The income of most workers is very small out of which to pay rent, to clothe and feed a family, to pay doctor's bills, and to build up a reserve to carry the worker through sick-
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Ross (Calgary)
ness and old age. But workers out of their meagre earnings would gladly contribute with their employer and the state to build up an insurance fund. Few with very small incomes build up a reserve where no contributions are coming in from the outside.
As to the state, the additional cost to the public treasury would not be great, as we are already making heavy payments because of insecurity. During the last depression governments in Canada spent more than a billion dollars on unemployment relief alone. In addition to this, large payments had to be made for old age pensions, mothers' allowances, hospitalization, medical and other relief. Social insurance would lessen the burden on provincial and municipal governments. For that reason they should readily agree to share the cost.
It takes many years to build up a contributory social insurance system to the stage where it will carry itself. A system usually takes under its protection workers over eighteen years of age. If the plan is to carry itself from the start, either the older workers would have to pay excessively high premiums, or the younger workers would have to pay a very large share of the pensions of the older workers. To avoid any such hardships Great Britain and Australia subsidized the contributory plan. Canada should also subsidize it.
We should not wait until after the war to introduce social insurance; we should start it right now. There is now more employment than at any time in our history. Wages are now at the highest peak ever reached in Canada. The present time is ideal.
We have been told by the Minister of Finance that under our constitution only a province can carry out a social insurance plan. If the constitution is in the way, let us have it amended. Let us treat it as an instrument to serve and not to shackle reform.
A scheme of social insurance is not enough. It should be supplemented by a system of public assistance to take care of those persons who do not readily fit into a contributory insurance system.
Social insurance would not protect all needy widows and orphans. It would not protect deserted wives; it could not very well protect farm labour and those domestic servants whose employment is seasonal, and others whose income is low and intermittent. These people would not fit into an insurance scheme. Furthermore, their income is so small and sporadic that it is impossible to expect them to provide adequately for themselves in case of serious illness, prolonged unemployment, accident, old age or premature death.
It has been well said that a nation marches forward on the feet of its children. This

being the case, the government as well as parents should be concerned in giving children a good start. Governments have to some extent accepted this responsibility. We have public schools. Mothers' allowances are provided for in eight of the provinces. But the health and welfare of children, when death or some disaster has left a family without a breadwinner, is not receiving the support of the state that it should.
Last November the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) told the house "only about fifty-six per cent of the men called up for military training were placed in category A, the only category that is accepted for training at the present time by the Department of National Defence." I believe there would have been far fewer rejections had the children of the nation been better fed and had they been given more and better medical treatment.
The present Old Age Pensions Act makes it possible for old and needy people to go on living in their homes with their own families. This is as it should be. But the age limit is seventy; that is too high. It is particularly too high in the case of ex-service men. By reason of the hardships and sufferings which they endured while on active service, their expectation of life has been shortened. They and their widows are entitled to special consideration. Women too are entitled to special consideration for the reason that their salaries are smaller than the salaries of men and their opportunity for saving is much less. The age limit should be reduced.
When the old age pension act was passed the maximum pension was fixed at $20 per month, which was deemed to be the smallest amount that an old person could live on. That is very little out of which to pay for rent, clothing, food and medical care. A dollar a day asked for by old age pensioners, would be reasonable. They should at least get a cost of living bonus. I urge the government not to wait until the war is over but to get in touch with the provinces and grant relief now.
The state should also do more for those who are in need by reason of having lost their sight. The United States federal law sets no age limit for aid to the blind. Canada fixes the age limit at forty. I cannot understand why we should have this age limit in Canada. A person who is blind is as helpless at twenty-five or thirty as at forty, and is just as much entitled to a pension.
The Canadian people have always believed that all persons who cannot earn a living for themselves, whether because of lack of employment or of illness, age or feebleness, should be

The Address-Mr. Neill
supported by the state. Everyone of us has a stake in this responsibility; we must not shirk it. I urge the government to take the matter up with the provinces without delay and work out some scheme whereby all needy persons in Canada will be provided for either through social insurance or public assistance.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: 'I would like to speak on the plebiscite and the Japanese, two subjects which are very deeply unpopular in the district I come from, and I think I might say in a more general way, in the province of British Columbia. I have not time to deal with both to-day, and therefore I shall have to leave the Japanese situation until the main motion comes up. That will give me an opportunity also to study the information laid on the table by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I must therefore confine my remarks to the two amendments.
I deplore two things in connection with this plebiscite-first, its introduction now, and the form of words which will be used when the plebiscite is taken. We have been debating this question for twelve days, and I think we have done the country and the war effort more harm than we shall make good in twelve months. I cannot see any benefit that can accrue. Secondly I deprecate the desperately partisan character of the tone of the debates. We have to go back to 1917 before we can get anything comparable to it in bitterness and unfairness, especially among those who have been defending the plebiscite in the last twelve days.
I will give one or two illustrations. One hon. member alluded to his opponents as employing subterfuge, deception and hypocrisy. Later he said they were ready to besmirch the ballot box and take away the rights of the common people to express themselves; and he talked about ridiculing democratic government. Later on in his speech he said he was going to appeal to the members of this house, and it was going to be an appeal for unity, for understanding, for cool heads and clear thinking.
I hardly think the language I have quoted above is a very likely means of inducing people to keep cool heads and to think clearly. I could give other instances-this one was by a cabinet minister. He referred to "spite-infused and hate-inspired enemies." He was not talking about military enemies; he was talking about political enemies. Then there was the suggestion that Mr. Hepburn, who after all is the elected premier of a province, would rather see Mr. King defeated than Hitler. I think that is a very unfair and scurrilous attack on a public man. Such an
attitude and remarks like these add little to our dignity and to the defence of the- plebiscite, and certainly they do nothing towards helping the war or our reputation among the nations.
Before dealing with the plebiscite itself I want to make two comments. One is on the question of w'ant of confidence. As the debate goes on more and more pressure will be put on that phase. A minister of the crown the other day described these two amendments as being wrant of confidence motions, and as time goes on pressure will be put on and we shall be told that if the main motion does not carry it will mean the defeat of the government and a general election. Well, no member wants that, and I am certain the country does not w'ant it either. This threat about want of confidence is of course always trotted out by every government of the day, no matter who they are, to try to get their followers lined up behind them. They always say that a vote for amendments means a want of confidence. It means nothing of the kind unless the -house chooses to say so. There is nothing in the constitution or in the rules that demands it unless it is embodied in the motion in words to this effect-that "the house has no confidence" in the government of the day. I have seen this done twice, once here and once in the local house, and on both occasions the government of the day had a slim and unreliable majority.
They could not change the constitution; they did not need to, but they announced they were going to take advantage of it, and said they would not regard the defeat of any measure as a vote of want of confidence unless there was a resolution containing those words, "that this house has no confidence in the government." That is well known; and in this case, writh the huge majority of the government, it is absolutely unnecessary to ask anyone to vote for this plebiscite other than on its merits.
There is another matter about which I want to speak. The other day we listened to what I suppose we might call a brilliant fighting speech by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). The vociferous applause which he received, both while speaking and at the close of his remarks, would indicate not only his own personal popularity but also how acceptable to the members of his party were the sentiments to which he gave expression. The applause afforded him by the cabinet ministers indicated that he was qualified to be their spokesman, or at least that he was uttering sentiments with which they were fully in accord. Let us see just what he said; I am
The Address

Mr. Neill

not going to give my opinion, or anything
else, but his own words, at page 334 of Hansard:
There may be features about the plebiscite that are not as we would all like, but I have studied it. I went home and for three days did nothing but turn it over in my mind, and I came to this honest conclusion.
I shall deal with that conclusion in a few minutes. The hon. member is a big business man. During the course of his remarks he seemed rather annoyed at some people who were members of some committee and who were interested in many companies, but he himself, according to the guide, is president of half a dozen companies. There is no shame to it, but he is a big business man, a man of outstanding ability and long experience. Will anyone deny that? He has been elected to this house three times and defeated once, which in experience is equal to two elections. He knows what it is all about; he can think on his feet; he can regulate his thought and analyse a situation accurately. He says that for three days-and presumably three nights, though he does not mention them-he studied this question. He even has a biblical precedent for his action, because three days and three nights was the exact period that Jonah spent in the belly of the whale, re-orientating his own future. Now we have a picture of this very able man pacing up and down, wearing out the carpet in his study during ceaseless days and restless nights, before he could come to any conclusion. I am sure he will not deny-and I can quote his words- that his loyalty and devotion to his leader had much to do with the decision at which he arrived, but it was seventy-two hours before the scale was tipped. And what tipped it? Was it his judgment on the basis of the facts? No. Was it his loyalty? Yes. Let me quote his words, at page 334 of Hansard, as to his conclusions after studying the problem for this length of time:
I was convinced that ... I should appeal to my fellow Canadians to stand behind the man who for five times has been elected by the ballots of the people of Canada to lead this country.
That is. the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Then, in closing, the hon. member said:
For God's sake get behind Canada. Don't sell her short. Get behind the Prime Minister, and let us put this thing over.
Those last words, "let us put this thing over" are the only words in his whole speech in which he might be held to express definite approval of the plebiscite. You see, his whole appeal, and what tipped the scale, was his conviction that he should be loyal to his leader. That is a very admirable and beautiful sentiment, which does him credit; but it is

not a very overwhelming argument as to the merits of the plebiscite. And I suggest it is reasonable for us to assume that it was the loyalty of which- he speaks so much that governed him in arriving at a decision, rather than the merits of the plebiscite, as to which he says so little.
On the strength of that, having built up that picture on that premise, I ask the house and the country this question, which I might ask the hon. gentleman himself. With all his experience, his knowledge and ability, it took him that period of time, wrestling with himself in the still, dark watches of the night, before coming to his decision. That being so, how long does he expect it will take the ordinary man in the street to come to a decision on a matter of such vital importance, when that ordinary man does not have the hon. member's advantages; when he does not have even such knowledge of war conditions as we have, and certainly no such knowledge as the government undoubtedly possesses? Remember, the man in the street nowadays has not that intense party loyalty that he had formerly, and that consideration would not be as important a factor in his case as it was in the case of the hon. member for Northumberland. So if we concede these points, and I do not believe they can be denied, I believe it cancels the entire weight of the hon. member's eloquent speech. I admit that his speech was eloquent, but it was not necessarily convincing. I submit that it was a powerful demonstration that we should hesitate to repudiate our responsibilities as members of parliament and throw responsibility for the decision-and throw the blame also-on people much less informed than we are, who sent us here to make these decisions.
Some years ago a matter arose in my own district, which I thought I would refer to a committee composed of Liberals and Conservatives, in order to get their decision. It was not a matter of patronage but more the question of a decision. Very shortly thereafter I received a note from the secretary of the committee saying that they were leaving the matter to me. When I went home I discovered that one of the members of the committee had taken the stand, in which the others backed him up, that I was shirking my responsibility. They said, "Neill is trying to pass the buck to us. Tell him it is his business." I made my decision and, since I heard nothing more about it, I guess they approved of it. They said they sent me here to decide these matters, and I should decide them. That was only a small affair, but the principle holds true also in connection with more important things.

The Address-Mr. Neill
There is another important development which has occurred during this debate and which has caused me grief and pain. I always thought it was a characteristic of Liberals to be true and loyal to their party, their principles and their policies. We have heard that echoed from a thousand platforms. Imagine my grief when I discovered that instead of being true to its ideals and all the rest of it the Liberal party was walking out with another young lady! I could hardly believe it, but it is obvious; you can see it even in this house. There is a thin red line-not very thin, either-running between the government benches and the seats occupied by my hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The other day the hon. member for Northumberland was throwing bouquets at them. I need not take time to read what he said, but they were very obvious bouquets, to the effect that in the last few weeks-he was careful to add that-he had occasion to agree with very many of the fundamental truths which have been uttered by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). And there have been other instances. I see in the newspapers that a cabinet minister has agreed with the principles of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and so on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, the members of that group are entitled to cheer. But the lady has been coy; she has not been so willing. At the very moment these wistful advances were being made by the hon. member for Northumberland the same hon. gentleman whom he was eulogizing had and still has on the order paper a motion which the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) says is a motion of want of confidence; and less than an hour later another C.C.F. member referred to the government as a "servile and anti-labour government." The government does not generally throw bouquets at people who move votes of want of confidence. They generally throw bricks; or if there is a bouquet you will find a brick wrapped in it. But this is different. The liaison is still continuing; they are still walking out, and and they have even walked as far as Toronto. According to the press a very prominent member of this house, a reputable man whom I highly esteem, has been speaking over the radio, and there is no doubt of what he did. He was speaking in support of Mr. J. W. Noseworthy, the C.C.F. candidate in the federal by-election in York South. Well, Mr. Speaker, when we have members of the cabinet and reputable men such as I have mentioned doing these things, there must be something in it. Is it possible

they would rather back the C.C.F. than see Mr. Meighen elected? I think the Liberal public throughout Canada ought to be advised of this unhallowed alliance that is going on. They ought at least to be warned to prepare for this political foundling which will be put on their doorsteps before long.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are getting ready to have a morganatic marriage.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I am afraid it is going to be worse than that. They should be warned, because they will have to do something when the baby is put on their doorstep. Perhaps after the election steps will be taken to regularize their relations. I certainly hope so, but I frankly confess that the prospect is not lichtsome, to use a Scotch expression.
I am no prophet, and I always bet on the wrong man in an election-consequently I never bet. But I do express the hope that the Minister of Justice will be returned to-day. He is a capable man, untouched by political background, which seems to be regarded as a taint nowadays. I hope he may be returned, because he is a man capable of filling the position of the man whose memory I shall always revere.
I hope the Minister of Labour will get in, because I believe he is an honest man. I know he is an able man, and I believe he will do as much as any one man can do for labour, among a bunch of seventeen or eighteen members in the cabinet, no matter what cabinet is in office.
I also hope-and I listen for the applause of my friends over there-that the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen will get in.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alan Webster Neill: I thank you. I know that his ability will be of great benefit and advantage in the house in these critical times.
And now to come to the plebiscite. There is a good deal of misunderstanding about this thing. The ordinary man in the street is not versed in legal terms. He is not accustomed to untangle political phrases which can be construed to mean one thing to-day and another to-morrow. What he will say is this: "Oh, I see they are going to take a plebiscite on conscription." That is the way he will think about it, and that will be the greatest misunderstanding there could be, because it isn't anything of the kind.
If it is to be put forward by government agents, it is a deliberate attempt to falsify the issue. The question which will be asked in the plebiscite is this:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
The Address-Mr. Neill

Just look at that. The man on the street is to be asked if he is in favour of releasing the government from commitments. Does it say anything there about conscription? Not a word. Do these men on the street know what commitments mean-commitments about something which took place years ago?
Here is the way I suggest the question should have been put:
Are you in favour of the government introducing total conscription if and when the government find it necessary?
Would that not put it up to everybody? We would not need to go round telling people how they should vote. They could understand that. Does the government expect the ordinary working man and woman to understand that proposed question, if we cannot agree here on what it means? Half of the house says it means one thing, and the other half says it means another thing-and quite a few of us think it does not mean anything. But apparently the government expects the man on the street to diagnose it, and to give a competent and sensible answer, something which we ourselves do not appear to be able or willing to do.
The language used in the plebiscite question is something like a car on a switchback railway ; you can go in any direction you like, up or down. But it does not get you very far, does it? After all, you do not get anywhere by travelling on it. This plebiscite question is just a means of getting up and down, marking time and doing nothing.
But it has one advantage. It can be used either way. To the man favouring conscription it can be quoted like this: "Oh, here we are clearing the way for conscription; what else could it mean?"-and he and his friends are satisfied. To the other man who does not want conscription, and who is complaining that the plebiscite would mean that, the answer is,-"Where do you get that idea? Just look at the wording of it: the word 'conscription' is not mentioned. It is just a gesture; trust to us not to force it on you". That argument is being used in Quebec to-day, and in other places as well-and in language even stronger than I have put it.
The plebiscite, as worded, is simply a piece of political strategy, guaranteeing nothing and imposing no obligation, and leaving it open to take another $2,000,000 plebiscite six months or twelve months from now on the real issue of conscription or no conscription.
My position is somewhat different from that of many others. When the election was held, not being tied to the utterances of any political party leader, possibly with longer vision-although I doubt it-but certainly

with more congenital caution than most, I did not commit myself as rigidly as some others. I quoted the two leaders, and I said, "I do not consider conscription is an issue; I do not think conscription is needed at the present time, and I am going dowm there to vote against it, but" -and here is where the difference came in-"if the situation ever gets so bad that it is needed, and if in my best judgment that is the position, I will vote for it; but I will come home first and tell you I am going to do it." I decided that last June, and I went home. At public meetings, in the press and on every occasion I possibly could I told them that I thought the time had come and, to tell the truth, I thought I was committing political suicide. However I did that, and I was surprised at the reaction. At only one of the meetings, and out of all the resolutions which were passed, only one little man voted against it. He said he was a pacifist, God help him. He called himself a pacifist; I wonder if that word will get him by if he meets a Jap with a bomb in one hand and a bayonet in the other. I hope it does.
Let me explain the meaning of conscription as I explained it then and as I understand it now. I explained it in a speech on November 10 when I described it as a measure warranting the compulsory service of men and women in every form of war work, and the control of industry and money. With the exception of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), I believe I was the first to take such a stand, in the house, and I have suffered some discrimination since then-discrimination of such a petty character that it provoked nothing but amused contempt on my part. But of that more anon, possibly.
My suggestion then-and this is what I want now-was for total conscription of that character. How can I attain it? My suggestion was and still is that it should be done by means of a union government. Get the best men in the country together to share the responsibility, so that no one party could be crucified by taking alone the necessary steps. Or, if necessary, I would agree to conscription which would leave out sections where the feeling was anti-conscriptionist. That was done in Ireland twice, during the great war and in this war. No trouble resulted, no ill feeling, and no discrimination. Possibly it would be a good idea here.
At any rate I am against a plebiscite in this form. I was much impressed the other day by the speech of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). He did not flaunt the fact that he was in uniform. He was very sensible. He did not talk bitterly against those who differed from him, and he made a very sen-

The Address-Mr. Neill
sible speech. He said the plebiscite was an unnecessary and unfair waste of time and money and an evasion of our responsibilities. And it is not merely the waste of time and money taking the plebiscite, I am afraid, because there will be also marking time while we are waiting for the plebiscite to be passed, and we will have to wait after for it to take effect. All this time we are going to stand idly by saying, like Lady Macbeth, "Letting 'I dare not' wait upon 'I would'," for goodness knows how long a period.
Who knows best the needs of the country, and its relation to the war? Certainly the government. Times without number people have said to me, "We send those fellows there to govern; why in - " - why in - " - why on earth don't they govern?" If we leave it to the people, by way of a plebiscite, then in all common decency we must fully inform them -and that would take far too long. And we also must tell them things that only the government knows-and that would be giving information of value to the enemy.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It would get on the German radio.


Alan Webster Neill: If absolution is needed for a government pledge, then parliament is the place to give it. We are qualified and we are ready. I am sure we are ready. The Prime Minister wishes to know the wishes of the people. There are 230 members of parliament outside the cabinet who should know the wishes of their constitutencies. I will tell the Prime Minister what the wishes of my constituency are, and will stake my seat on its general accuracy:	The people of Comox-
Alberni want action, in great big capital letters -ACTION 1 They want action, and they want it now. And they want another thing, and that is leadership. Then they will accept universal service, if it is necessary-universal service of each man and woman, where he or she can best serve. Half the speakers who have spoken in this debate have attempted to prove that we do not need conscription, therefore why have a plebiscite? The other half have said that we do need conscription, so why not bring it in instead of taking a plebiscite?
Another objection I see to this, and I believe it is a bad one, is the effect it will have upon other nations, upon friendly, neutral and enemy nations. They are not familiar with, nor do they understand, our system. They will 'think that it means doubt, hesitation, cold feet perhaps. It will depress our friends, it will sober neutral nations, while our enemies will be tickled pink. I am sure it will ring through the chancelleries of Europe that Canada stopped in the middle of the war to take a plebiscite as to whether or
not she would continue. That is the way it will be interpreted. You do not suppose Germany is going to let us do the interpreting; she is going to do it. This will be twisted in meaning and it will be repeated to all and sundry. Neutral countries will say that Canada stopped to do this in the middle of the war. The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) is already on record as having said that the enemy already are quoting speeches made in this house. The other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) combated that stand and said that it was not having that effect upon neutral or friendly nations. He quoted from a large newspaper in the United States and from one in Great Britain. He quoted the New York Times as being satisfied with our explanation. There is nothing about their being satisfied with the plebiscite. What they say is:
On this matter it would be impertinent for outsiders to give an opinion.
And then they say:
The patriotism of Canadians lias been demonstrated by their efforts in this war.
Of course they had to say something like that. They were not dealing with the total acceptance of the plebiscite. The minister also quoted the London Telegraph and Morning Post, but there is no mention of the plebiscite from beginning to end of that editorial. They say that there has been nothing more splendid than the record of Canada. We have not heard what they said when they went home and attended their cabinet meetings. I think it was on the next day that an hon. member from somewhere along here-I know his name but I cannot remember his constituency ;-he is a noble looking man, looks as though he is fit to be appointed a senator 

oh, yes; the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) quoted the Buffalo Courier-Express. This is what this large United States paper had to say:
The natural question which arises on this side of the border is that if we can do it overnight why does Canada hesitate?
I do not think we can take much comfort from that point of view. The "it" refers to conscription. Members of parliament have quoted Churchill. He said that our effort wTas magnificent, but he could not very well say anything else. Here is the answer: the greater the effort, and it is a great effort, the greater will be the reaction. The argument that will be used in Germany will be that Canada's effort has been magnificent, therefore there must have been something very wrong, something desperately wrong, disloyalty or breakdown or something of the kind, to
The Address-Mr. Neill

make Canada stop in the middle of the war to hold a plebiscite. It can be worked both ways, and be sure that that is the way the Germans will interpret it.
When I was a little chap and happened to be tardy and attempted to make an excuse I was sometimes told that if the dog had not stopped to look for a flea, he might have caught the hare. Then there is that classical quotation that some of us will remember:
For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of a shoe, the horse was lost;
For want of a horse, the rider was lost;
For want of a rider, the battle was lost;
For want of a battle, the empire was lost,
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
History is full of instances in which a comparatively small number of men have turned a battle, or a comparatively short period ,of time, a few days or even a few hours or minutes, has changed the outcome. The Duke of Wellington always said in his after years about the battle of Waterloo that if the French could have brought up a couple of hundred fresh men, he would have lost the battle. The same thing was true in the Crimea and in the Boer war. In one of the battles of Ypres, I forget which one, the Germans were pushing through with the use of gas and they had nothing between them and Calais but a few broken men. Some one in the back lines rushed up a few cooks and orderlies and they were spaced out so far apart that they could hardly see each other. It looked like such an obvious trap that the Germans hesitated to come forward and they lost their chance and allowed our reinforcements to be brought up. It is thus that a few days or minutes makes such a difference.
The other day the Minister of Finance said that the magnitude of Canada's effort may well tip the scale. That is not my language; that is the language of the Minister of Finance. Yes, but the lack of magnitude may tip it the other way. It would be a bitter, black page in Canada's history if it were to be recorded that Canada paused, turned aside to hunt fleas-political fleas-the fleas of political advantage, the fleas of longer power, the fleas of what might be said about us in the next election three years from now. In a crisis, so little sways the destiny of a nation or an empire.
I have heard man after man proclaim confidence in and affection and almost passionate loyalty for the Prime Minister. I believe in the sincerity of these hon. members. But I ask this question:	would not that same
loyalty, that same trust, that same confidence rally around three times greater in the support of the Prime Minister if he came out and said that the war emergency overshadowed 
everything else, and that he had decided, either by means of a union government or on his own initiative, to adopt universal service despite the promises made years ago? There will be a risk, but it would be a glorious risk. Is any great achievement ever attained without taking a risk? He would get support both in this house and throughout the country that would make him the greatest man in Canadian history for a hundred years to come. He would be known as the man who saved time and money when both were of vital importance. He would be known as the man who by the timely increase of Canadian help shortened the war and saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives. He would be known perhaps as the man who had saved the British empire, perchance civilization itself. What an ideal goal at which to aim! What a magnificent height to scale! The good wishes and blessings of everyone in this house and of all in Canada would follow him if he turned his face with gallant courage to such a noble task.
I want to reiterate that the people want action and leadership. I am told that I am an old man and therefore my viewpoint is that of age and decrepitude. But that is not necessarily so. You may see an old Ford with a good engine still able to give good service. An infirm body may still have a young mind. Experience is sometimes worth something. I certainly can claim to know the feelings of my people and my country. Speaking as a Canadian-and I dare anyone to dispute my claim to be a Canadian, because while I was not bom in this country, I have spent fifty-one years here and have grown up with it, taking part in all its activities-speaking for a Canada that is still young, I must say that she is passing from an old era into a new.
In this debate I have heard appeals made along old party lines, attempts made to stir up old party policies, loyalties and so on. I want to tell the house and the government that the people of Canada are no longer moved by the old party appeals, catch-words and shibboleths, of twenty, thirty or fifty years ago. They are no more interested in what was said in 1917 than they are in what was said in 1817. We have turned our backs on the dead, dying past and now face toward the east, where new policies are rising, God-given, Christlike policies, that will give us action and leadership, that will ensure the undivided effort of every man and woman in Canada toward the successful prosecution of the war; policies and leadership that will lead us through victory to peace, and beyond peace to such a reorganization of society as will

The Address-Mr. Moore
guarantee for all time, that all, not just a few, shall live in peace and happiness throughout all their days.


Mr. W. H. MOORE (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) need not fear his views as a result of age, for I find myself largely in agreement with him. What I have to say bears mainly upon the practice of government as it eventually affects the form of government. Some members may think I go back ages to determine how we should govern ourselves in the twentieth century, but it is only for a moment. When our structures topple and some of them come crashing down it seems to me that we ought to examine the footing, and it is very apparent from the wording of the plebiscite, which the member for Comox-Alberni read several times, that a structural change has come over our practice of government, and we would indeed be derelict in our duty as representatives of the people were we to refrain from trying to assess the significance of that change.
At first sight there is high merit in a plebiscite, in a reference to the polls. Is it not within the essence of democracy, almost the forthright expression of the people? In these days in our part of the world we all profess democracy. Do we not say we are at war for the express purpose of throwing off autocracy? Say, we are prepared to give life, property, all we have, to defend the freedoms that lie within democratic institutions?
Then, on second thought, we ask ourselves: what is democracy? The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) touched upon the subject, but it seemed to me that he did not go far enough to sift the gold from the sand. If the question were really put to a poll of the members I have an idea that the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), whose distinguished ancestor wrote such a marvellous history of ancient Greece, would tell us something about the factions of Athens, and my French-Cana-dian friends, versed as they are, steeped almost, in the classics, would tell us something of the work of Polybius, that great man who wrote of autocracy and democracy as the sunrise-the sunshine-and sunset. Well, no matter the source; it was always the same. History has written in parallel lines the downfall of self-government and the factions of the polls. We all know that in course of time our ancestors, French and British alike, hardened their determination that there would never again be a sunset on their freedom. It is not necessary for me here to describe the means which they took to preserve freedom and self-government. We
know that there were two main features: first of all,' the distribution of power among the constituencies, and secondly, provision made for calm debate. It is not necessary for me to remind the members of this chamber what those provisions are. We know them; the member for Comox-Alberni has referred to them.
What is that structural change that has come over us? It may be, and I believe it is, that we are so close to government that we do not realize from the very wording of that plebiscite that there is change. Who is the government that is to be released from its commitments? We do not see it. However, we can see with the clarity of perspective the change that has come over the structure of the government in Europe. We know that democracy is only flickering in the vestiges of Europe. It is disconcerting to find Mussolini making a claim in his work, "La Dottrina del Fascismo," that the purest form of democracy lies in the expression of the will of the people, through the will of a few, or even the one. We reject that claim; at least I do.
Let us look closely at the fascist structure, then by it try to classify our own practice among the political systems. The Italian Minister of Justice, Alfredo Rocco, in explaining the law of January 31, 1928, which settled-and I will have you, Mr. Speaker, mark these words-the relationship between the executive and the legislature, said:
A dominant position is accorded to the executive; the government is the representative of the whole of the power of the state and exercises a general function. The other two powers discharge a special function and occupy a secondary position. The judicial and legislative powers are the result of the state having different functions. The executive power possesses and is the organ of all functions of state.
In other words the legislative and judicial powers are limited and specific. The executive power, on the contrary, exercises unlimited and general functions. Now the law of January 31, 1926, concerning the right of the executive to enact measures of a legislative character, reads as follows-the section is short but I would have you notice it because naturally my next step is to compare it with the practice of legislation in Canada. I quote:
Measures having the force of law

Or orders in council.
-may be promulgated by royal decrees, after consultation with the cabinet, (1) when the government is so authorized by law. within the scope of such delegated authority; (2) in extraordinary cases, when emergency and absolute necessity so demand. The question of emergency or necessity is subject to no other
The Address-Mr. Moore

control than that of parliament. In cases under (2) the decree shall be submitted to parliament for confirmation as a law at one of the first three sessions following its promulgation.
Now before turning directly to comparison
with Canada I would have you know the opinion of Kranenburg, who is professor of public law at Leiden university, as to the Italian system. He says:
It need not be demonstrated that political control by a parliament constituted in the way described is of no practical importance; nor is it necessary to point out that the confirmation of a decree-
Or order in council.
*-as law by the self-same parliament, at one of its next three sessions, is a bare formality.
Indeed Roceo says in his book, "The Transformation of the State," that parliament is in fact to be reduced to a mere registry for decrees.
How are these orders in council made in Italy? By boards of government; boards that have to deal with the determination of prices -and you must remember we all live in a price world-by boards that have to do with wages; in other words by boards that undertake the distribution of the national income.
When I turn to the Canadian system I want it thoroughly understood that I recognize the impact of crises upon the form of government. In fact it is with the events in mind of 1917, 1918, 1922, 1933 and 1940, bringing revolution in the form of government in Russia, Germany, Italy and France, that I stress the vital importance of taking stock of the structure of government at this time. Moreover, the assumption of power to legislate by order in council in certain matters has always been conceded to the executive body. But structural change came ip Italy, as it has come to Canada, and is coming everywhere, with the quantity and the quality of the measures.
With these qualifications I take up P.C. 8253. I am not to be accused of exaggerating the bearing of that matter upon the structure of Canada's government; for speaking directly to the nation over the radio on October 18, 1941, the Prime Minister referred to the subject matter of that order in council in the following words:
I am, therefore, going to speak to you to-night about an action which the government proposes to take in connection with conditions within Canada. I believe that what is proposed will vitally affect our war effort, because it will affect every man, woman and child within Canada.
The action which I am about to explain represents an experiment hitherto untried on this

continent, and perhaps having regard to its breadth and variety, hitherto untried by the will and consent of any free people anywhere.
As I listened I confess I found it hard to believe what my ears told me I had heard. The thing seemed incredible. I thought back to declarations made in this House against the arbitrary assumption of power by another administration in the days when nearly every tenth family lived by grace of the public treasury. I thought back to all the definitions I had ever read of a free people. And I confess I did not find that the Prime Minister's words fitted them. As my distinguished namesake, Mr. Tom Moore, who I believe is president of the Trades and Labour Congress, said in a public statement:
Both in its terms and in the manner of its introduction, the new order is the longest step yet taken by any democracy toward the establishment of a totalitarian state.
Action, you say. Action. Wait a minute. Mr. Tom Moore goes on to say:
Is there such urgency that a matter of this kind should be dealt with by order in council when parliament is to meet in two weeks' time?
I find myself in agreement with the statement made by the president of the Trades and Labour Congress. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is there anything on earth that would justify a revolution in the economic structure of the country without parliamentary action, if we still have parliamentary government?
May I also say that there are members in both houses of parliament .who could have made valuable contributions to the objective of the measure; members who have given particular attention to the vexed, shall I say, illusive, matter of inflation. We could at least have pointed out the futility of nailing down the ceiling while the doors were wide open; for the turnover in employment is now three or four times the normal rate. And some of us might have added that a government, subject to organized economic pressure and the size of its deputations, with its eyes on the polls, can never distribute equitably the national income.
I shall pass by the declaration of war against Japan, made-I do not want to exaggerate- with almost the easy nonchalance of a man cracking another egg for breakfast; I shall pass that by with .this observation. It is not sufficient to say that parliament, had it met, would have made a swift and unanimous declaration of war against Japan-not sufficient because by parliamentary action the people would then have become informed of the social consequences of war on another front, a matter .that seems to be vaguely contained in the proposal for a plebiscite before the

The Address-Mr. Moore
house. And so in our attempt to discover the identity of the country's government we come to the matter of broken pledges.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said-he said it at Vancouver and repeated it in the course of this debate:
The present unhappy state of the world is in large part the result of broken pledges. Nazi Germany has erected bad faith and broken pledges into a principle of action. Bad faith and broken pledges in disregard of the popular will are the forces against which Canada is fighting to-day.
In a measure I agree. But I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that these pledges, all oi them, were given in disregard of parliamentary government. I would go on to add this: I thought we were carrying on war to render it impossible for the one or the few to give pledges in matters of major importance without having first obtained the considered sanction of the representatives of the constituencies through the established procedure of parliamentary government.
No one likes broken pledges. Are we in this house to give a pledge that cannot be kept? For who will say, in the midst of war, that there can be by plebiscite, to use the words of the Prime Minister, "a full and honest expression of the views of the people"? Military secrets that are not to be given to this house are not to be broadcast to the public; and how can there be a full and honest expression of opinion without a knowledge of need? It would seem that some explaining has to be done.
Why is there more urgent need for men in 1942 than in 1940? True, we have taken on another seventy million enemies; but the Japanese were already handicapped with some 450,000,000 unsubdued Chinese; and besides, in 1942, we have 190,000,000 stout Russians and 135.000,000 inventive Americans on our side.
How many men should be sent where? I do not know, and I doubt if anybody can tell us save the Minister of National Defence; and we should not forget, as some seem to do, that the issue before us is not conscription. We have conscription now. The issue is solely as to the need of men serving outside the country-a strange issue; for we know in our hearts that eleven and a half million people cannot by their own resources hold on to one-sixteenth part of the world's surface in a world with great powers grown greedy for conquest. If this country is invaded we must have outside assistance, and we ought not to expect other countries to give us what we are unwilling to give them.
I do not altogether blame the people for not viewing the situation in that light. The blame rests upon those of us in this house who profess to lead public opinion and who ought to have foreseen and long ago prepared against the forces that threaten us. In taking the plebiscite, will there be no resort to the highly developed technique of modern propaganda which from soap to social systems sways the views of the people? Already west and east we can observe the machine being geared and greased for the occasion.
In truth, Mr. Speaker, if it was the part of wisdom to establish parliament, wise to lay down rules as to procedure, that the will of the people should be expressed by reason, then it is unwise to send the matter contained in this particular plebiscite at this time to be disposed of by mass emotion. The plebiscite is packed with explosive materials. Already the tramp of civilian feet has been heard on our city streets. Already family is being set against family. "My boy is overseas; why should yours rest at home?" Members can hear that question no matter what constituency they represent. Class is being turned against class. Already people are talking about relative class exemptions from military service, by this administration or another one.
Recalling the racial and national composition of this country, I will not say it is wicked to submit this matter to a plebiscite; but to those hon. members who in this debate have advocated taking a plebiscite as a means of preserving unity I commend the considered opinion of Ernest Barker-a great English Liberal, and a professor at Cambridge-as to the social consequences of mass decisions. He says:
Emotion is always waiting for its opportunity. A community which is not on the watch may easily slip down with a run into the abandonment of mere group-sentiment. It may do so all the more easily because the art of advertisement and mass-suggestion, nowadays so highly developed, can readily play entrancing tunes to stir the emotions. When this is done and done successfully the high democratic art of rational discussion is abnegated and induced unanimity of emotion takes its place. The basis of emotion may be class, as it is in Russia. It may be race, as it is id Germany. It may be nation- the nation as a higher personality, superior to all its members, the very anima dell'anima-as it is in Italy.
Here is the conclusion of Barker, a great English Liberal:
Whatever it be, it necessarily entails, at any rate for the time being, a breakdown of democracy.
As hon. gentlemen know, Barker does not stand alone in his opinion. I might continue on with citations all to the same end.
The Address-Mr. Moore

If in the practice of government we are to disregard the well-determined lines laid down by science, then let us burn the textbooks and declare the bankruptcy of the social sciences. In the meantime let us cease talking about mass controversy as a means of unity. There are pledges and pledges. There was a pledge given by the government, as represented by ministers and the senate and commons; a pledge to our enemies; a pledge to our allies, to the world at large. I express it in the words of the Prime Minister:
The policy of the government is, and from the outset has been, the achievement of a total national effort for total war.
Shall we keep that pledge, keep it to the letter? Total national effort! How are we to keep that pledge, if the result of the plebiscite taken in all the mad passions of war should be a negative one? You may consult the dictionaries for definitions as you will, but labels mean little in this matter. What may be a plebiscite for the ministers will be a referendum for the members. Personally I could not and I would not vote against the expressed will of the people I represent.
Let me put the matter another way. When parliament declared war against Germany we flaunted the country's unanimity in the face of Berlin and boasted of it to London. How will a substantial vote, say of hundreds of thousands, against relief from total war, be . regarded in the outside world? Recalling the collapse of Russia in 1917, and of Germany in 1918, will that vote be interpreted, as was suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), as a sign that Canada has grown war weary? I protest the thought. Burdened we are, but Canada will carry on.
References have been made to the mandates of the general election of 1940. Is it not true that we, the members, came here each with a particular mandate? Personally I thought I came with a mandate to support the practice of making laws in an open chamber, with the suggestions, the criticisms and even, if needs be, the opposition of the other members of all parties. I opposed a national government party because I believed it meant the introduction of the one party system of government that characterizes the new political order of Europe, only to find myself deprived of the right to present the views of my constituents in the making of laws that affect their living. I hope, Mr. Speaker, hon. members to your right and to your left alike will forgive me when I confess that I feel as though I had escaped the regime of a one-party system only to fall into the deep blue sea of order-in-councildom.

In the first days of the war we found ourselves facing the paradox of giving up democracy to preserve democracy. Over a period of years the totalitarian powers had mobilized their man-power and heaped up great stores of munitions, not secretly but boastfully, for an attack on the democracies; and all the while the democracies refused to prepare for defence. When the blow fell, the British parliament put the blame on its Prime Minister and replaced him. We of this house shouldered the blame with the Prime Minister, as we should have done.
Action, not words, we said, is the inescapable rule of war time. Wars are not won by debates, at least not in an era of tanks and aeroplanes. Democracy implies government in the face of opposition, while war calls for unity of action. But if action be the rule of war, I repeat the question of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni: Why do we wait months to determine the distribution of the troops by a plebiscite, while Australians are being killed off for lack of reinforcements?
Once aroused, the spirit of inquiry goes on to wonder how far the actions of the cabinet have justified the scope we have given them; for it is not to be forgotten that while we delegate power, we are ourselves the trustees of that power and responsible to the people for its application. The ministers, of course, were much too busy with executive duties to shape the country's legislative requirements and so, in due course, appointed legislative boards to carry on the duties which we were elected to perform. Legislative boards! Let us pass over the method of appointment; it is on the model of the fascist order. Let us pass over the proceedings of those boards; so far as I know, they have no published Hansard. Some day the people will become keenly interested in the country's political setup. It is an extraordinary one. I venture to say that in proportion to population Canada is paying more people for making laws than any other country in the world. The cost is tremendous, the confusion appalling. Away from the provinces, there are two deliberative bodies at Ottawa. One is in continuous session, preparing orders in council; the other, ourselves, when in session, reduced by the executive to a sounding board for speeches, engaged in the "bare formality" of ratification.
Having established a bureaucracy after the manner of the new order in Europe, and having continued to maintain at least the expense of a representative assembly, perhaps it was to be expected that in course of time we would take up with the third form of government, a direct reference to the people. The political structure of this country ought to be-

The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
subjected to careful review, not by another commission but by this parliament. Within the time at my disposal I may mention only several matters which in my opinion seem to condemn the new order in Canada. The ministry, by order in council assuming responsibility for distributing prices and wages-in effect, distributing national income-has made no announcement as to the principle of distribution. The law of supply and demand has been repealed by orders in council, but what has been put in its place? What happened is not quite evident, but this much is certain: the economic structure has been put partly into reverse. Instead of penalizing people for combining in restraint of trade, penalties are provided against competitive services. Laissez-faire was the first casualty of the war, I may be told, but that was not altogether so in this country; for, while some people are tucked under the wings of authority, most people are left to scratch for themselves.
The people I represent, however, are particularly concerned over the principle of distributing rewards and sacrifices between the workers in factory and field, as well as the pay of those enrolled in the active service of the armed forces. And again I ask: on what principle are rewards and sacrifices distributed under the new order in Canada? Specifically, why are those who serve in the front line paid less-so very much less-than those who serve in the rear lines. "Economy!" I may be told. Does economy begin with those who offer the sacrifice of their lives? "The menace of inflation!" I am told. But do not the very measures of those who legislate in our stead, lead to inflation? To divert thousands of people from producing "consumers' goods" to regulating the production of "consumers' goods" is an inflationary measure. Having outbid the farms for work in the home services of the government, they borrow, and tax, to maintain artificial prices and dispense subsidies to certain producers-subsidies that increase in number and size as the sessions go by. Surely, those measures are highly inflationary. Paying more for less is inflation.
As I draw toward a conclusion, I would not have you believe, Mr. Speaker, that because I have not recited the good deeds of the ministry, I am unmindful of them; I have not referred to them because I chose to speak on the maxim our British and French ancestors laid down years ago that the form of government is as important as its achievements. The war must be won; but we must not lose its objective-the preservation of democracy. For what would it profit a country to gain the whole world and lose its own soul.
It is this plebiscite that brings up the matter of achievement and puts us on guard that all may not be well with our war effort. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) in an admirable presentation the other day quoted words of unstinted praise for this country's war contribution from the English press. Those quotations are reported in Hansard at page 311.
If those words are deserved, then the people are not to be blamed for their bewilderment as to why they are to be thrown into the turmoil of general election by plebiscite.
Looking back, I ask if the British of the Isles, while they faced overwhelming odds, in 1940, were really content when our ministers declared that only Canadians who volunteered were available for the defence of Britain. And, now, the Minister of Justice, by another pledge, makes an even more startling declaration as to our relations within the British commonwealth of nations, as reported on February 5, in the Ottawa Journal:
The sole goal of our effort will be for the defence of the country. Because of a mutual defence agreement with the United States, however, it may be necessary to send men out of the country.
One might have smiled at the naive suggestion that we discharge our duty in the world's battle for freedom, by conscripting men to help 135,000,000 Americans defend the United States, were it not for the express implication that we are unwilling to do as much for the nations within the British commonwealth. By my seat in this house, I refuse to accept that declaration as the policy of this country.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) to the government's most close scrutiny.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And to their propaganda bureau.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is most unfortunate at this time that the speech from the throne was not worded so that it could have been endorsed by every hon. member, signifying to the country that once and for all the entire house was in favour of an all-out, total war effort, instead of again indulging, as it has been, in a rotten, political mix-up. I cannot conceive of anything which would give Hitler greater joy than to know that this country is split in two, and that while a part of the country has a desire for a total, all-out war effort, another part has not.
We are speaking about a total war effort. Almost every hon. member who has spoken has said that he is in favour of a total war effort. After almost three years of war we find hon. members rising in their places and
416	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
stating that they want total war. I wonder where they all were in 1939. I never saw them voting for a total war effort, but I did see them voting against a total war effort. A resolution was put by my party, and without exception they all voted against it. There was only one party, the one to which I belong, which voted for a total war effort; and because we took that stand we lost seven of our members.
We are now about to take a plebiscite. It is indeed unfortunate, as was pointed out by the last speaker, that in order to have a total war effort this government should have placed itself in a position where it now has to go back to the country to ask permission to break some of the pledges it made in 1940. I quite well recall that Liberals, and Conservatives too, were quite unanimous with respect to opposing an all-out effort. In my opinion there is no difference between Liberals and Conservatives, and I do not know that I would rather see Conservatives than Liberals in office. I say that because their policies are just the same, and that is shown by the amendment. The action of the Conservatives as well as that of the Liberals in 1939 must be kept in mind. Only the other day I heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) state that he was in favour of the conscription of finance, material wealth and man-power. Yet I saw him stand in his place in 1939 and vote against the conscription of finance. Surely he should make his position clear before he can expect other people in this country-


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: He was not in the house.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, he was in the house, and so were you; and you voted against it.


James Arthur Ross: I was not a member
of the house and neither was our acting leader in 1939.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is
your stand now? I will bet you, Mr. Speaker -and I am not a gambling man-
Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: What are the odds to-day?


Charles Edward Johnston: -that if the question came up for a vote in this house of conscripting finance and industry before man-power, my hon. friends of the Conservative party would vote solidly with the Liberals against it.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Not much cheering
there.


Charles Edward Johnston: They voted against conscription of finance on September

12, 1939, as recorded on page'165 of Hansard. I shall not read it, but it is there for inspection.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: A lot of water has flowed over the dam since then.


Charles Edward Johnston: You bet,
and it is some dam too. I should like to refer to the plebiscite a little more in detail. I do not think there has ever been a greater disgrace put upon the people of Canada than this. I should like to read what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said with regard to this on January 26, 1942, as reported on page 51 of Hansard:
The question which the government proposes to submit to the people is the simple and straightforward question:
It is simple, but it is not straightforward.
"Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service."
It will be seen that in seeking freedom for itself to act on all matters pertaining to war in accordance with its judgment, the government is taking a course which will remove all legitimate excuse for controversy, and the course best calculated to maintain the unity of the country in this time of war.
I contend that they are taking the best course to split this country open. The Prime Minister said that this was a simple and straightforward question, but how are the people going to vote upon it? No matter how they vote, we have no information as to what action the government will take. Even though they vote "yes," the Prime Minister has gone out of his way to assure them that there will be no change in policy with regard to the sending of men overseas. He said:
. . . the government is taking a course which will remove all legitimate excuse for controversy.
The controversy referred to is, in my opinion, political controversy. I think it will be found that the government will proceed exactly along the lines which it is following to-day and which it followed when the war first started. This is one of the meanest political tricks ever perpetrated upon the people of Canada. There are two conceptions to this plebiscite, and I think this has been done intentionally. One is for the people of Quebec and the other is for the people of the remaining eight provinces. I am going to endeavour to prove my point.
I have never been able to find that the Prime Minister has said that there would be conscription for overseas. In fact, that is not the issue as far as he is concerned. I do not think the word "overseas" has been used by him, certainly not in his speech which I have

The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
gone through most carefully. I should like to draw attention to what was said by the late Minister of Justice on September 9, 1939. I am referring to his speech because in my opinion he was the leader of the government at that time and the Prime Minister was taking his advice. Mr. Lapointe is reported on page 68 of Hansard as follows:
The whole province of Quebec-and I speak with all the responsibility and all the solemnity I can give to my words-will never agree to accept compulsory service or conscription outside Canada.
That is most definite.
I will go farther than that: when I say the whole province of Quebec I mean that I personally agree with them. I am authorized by my colleagues in the cabinet from the province of Quebec-the veteran leader of the Senate, my good friend and colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) -
Where is the Minister of Public Works now? It would be interesting for the house to know his stand on this question.
-my friend and fellow townsman and colleague, the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power)-
Where does the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) stand on this question of conscription for overseas service? It would be interesting to have his opinion in this regard.

to say that we will never agree to conscription and will never be members or supporters of a government that will try to enforce it. Is that clear enough?
I do not know whether that was for the Prime Minister's benefit or not, but he sat in his seat and he did not contradict the late Minister of Justice. The late minister went on to say:
May I add that if my hon. friends and myself from Quebec were forced to leave the government I question whether anyone would be able to take our place. If my hon. friends in the far corner of the house opposite;-
He was referring to us.

if the Ottawa Citizen, which just now is waging a campaign for conscription, think they are serving Canada by splitting it at the very outset of the war, then I say they are gravely and seriously wrong.
And again:
And those in Quebec who say that we will have conscription, in spite of what some of us .are saying, are doing the work of disunity, the work of the foe, the w7ork of the enemy.
He concluded:
I believe the majority in my province trust me; I have never deceived them, and I will not deceive them now.
I do not think there can be any misunderstanding about the question. There was the Minister of Justice at that time; there was 44561-27
the Minister of Public Works at that time who is still in the cabinet, and there was the then Minister of Pensions and National Health, now the Minister of National Defence for Air, who were quoted, and the Prime Minister sat in his seat and never contradicted the statement. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is still their opinion and that this plebiscite is a pure deception. They have no intention of doing anything different. Let me prove that. On January 26, 1942, as reported on page 46 of Hansard, the Prime Minister had the following to say about the premier of Quebec, and' I quote this to connect him directly with the Prime Minister's stand now:
Hon. members are also aware that if, at the time when Canada's participation in the war was challenged in an election in the province of Quebec by a government professing a different political faith, a like assurance with respect to service overseas had not been given in the name of the present government by the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), and other Liberal leaders and members of this House of Commons from the province of Quebec, the verdict of the people of that province might have been wholly different.
He refers to the statement that Mr. Lapointe made in 1939.
He then goes on:
At that time, the people of the province of Quebec turned out of office the government that had sought to thwart Canada's war effort, and placed in office under the leadership of Hon. Mr. Godbout, a government which was prepared to cooperate with the federal administration in furthering the national effort.
The Prime Minister there definitely
associated himself with the premier of Quebec. What does the premier of Quebec have to say about this matter? I quote from the Ottawa Journal of January 28, 1942:
Premier Godbout told a public meeting tonight that Prime Minister King "has always been .against conscription for overseas service. I think that conscription for overseas service actually would be a crime," he added.
Mr. Godbout spoke in French at the annual meeting of the St. Denis-Dorion Liberal Association.
When Mr. Godbout said that Prime Minister King was against conscription for overseas service, someone in the rear of the hall shouted "yes, but he had already sent men overseas."
Discussing the proposed plebiscite, Mr. Godbout said that Prime Minister King could put the question this way: "Are you for conscription," or "Are you against conscription?"
I should like to know what that was if it was not a deliberate attempt to deceive the people. I think Mr. Godbout is right in what

418	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
he says. I think also the late Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe was right in what he said. I am not disputing that. The report goes on:
If the majority answered in the affirmative, Mr. King would have to enforce conscription, or else resign. If he resigns, another government, headed by Mr. Meighen (Conservative leader Arthur Meighen) will take his place and will immediately enforce conscription. But Mr. King knows that England doesn't need men, so he will not ask the question that way.
Therefore it was designed for the purpose. The report continues:
Mr. Godbout said he approved of the "defence of our country in our own land, but there are certain territories which must be defended to protect our own land". He mentioned Labrador, and islands off the coast of British Columbia as places to be defended to protect Canada.
The only difference it will make if the people vote "yes" on the plebiscite will be that the government will be permitted to send men outside Canada to Newfoundland, Labrador and some of the islands near the Pacific coast. That is the extent to which there will be a difference.
Let us turn now to the present Minister of Justice, Mr. St. Laurent, who is a minister of the cabinet, the Prime Minister's own choice, and a man in whom the Prime Minister has said on different occasions that he has complete confidence. On February 3, 1942, the Ottawa Citizen reproduces a Canadian Press dispatch from Quebec dated February 2, as follows:
Justice Minister St. Laurent said in a radio address to-night that Conservative party supporters in Toronto know "that at the moment and probably for a long time to come conscription for overseas service would harm our war effort.
"What is the attitude of the King government in the face of this double-barrelled menace? You know it, you know its past; know that it is Canadian first and Canadian before all. Have confidence in him (Mr. King), help him to complete his cabinet. When this cabinet will be completed he will ask you if you consent to relieve him of the promises he made when you elected his supporters.
"It is evident," he continued, "that the plebiscite does not give 100 per cent satisfaction either to those who fear that Mr. King will not do enough or to those who fear that he will do too much. But I believe that the government's decision to appeal to the people as to its promises is in conformity with the spirit of our democratic institutions and with the best Liberal traditions."
There the present Minister of Justice admits that the wording of the plebiscite has a dual purpose, one to satisfy the English-speaking part of Canada who may claim that the government is not doing enough in the war, and the other to satisfy those who claim that the government is doing too much-and that, as

the minister points out, is in conformity with the best Liberal traditions. Well, Mr. Speaker, knowing them as I do, I can second that last part.
I want to read another extract for the benefit of the Minister of National Defence for Air. This is taken from the Ottawa Journal of February 6, 1942:
One answer is what is happening in Quebec East, where one of Mr. Ilsley's most distinguished colleagues, Mr. St. Laurent, is a candidate. On Tuesday night in that riding Mr. Oscar Drouin, a minister of the Godbout cabinet and campaign manager for Mr. St. Laurent, said: "When the time of the plebiscite comes, I pledge myself to ask my electors to reply in the negative."
There is the campaign manager for the present Minister of Justice pledging himself to ask his electors to vote against the plebiscite, and yet a minister of the government running in a Quebec constituency wants his electors to support the plebiscite. So definitely there must be a split in the cabinet. One can come to no other conclusion. The report goes on to say that "on the platform with Mr. Drouin was the Hon. C. G. Power, Minister for Air." Where is he now? What is his stand on this question? There you have the government's attitude in Quebec. What is the government's attitude in the other eight provinces?
All the debate in this house has hinged round the question of conscription of manpower for overseas. The press almost daily is giving the impression throughout the country that there will be conscription for overseas. I was at a picture show the other evening-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: It was on a Wednesday evening; the house was not sitting. What did I see there? There was a picture shown which had been produced by the national film board, and paid for by the government. It was a moving picture of the Prime Minister and the cabinet, and the title was that the cabinet was busy preparing ballots on conscription. That is the government's stand today. Let us see now what the Prime Minister said not long ago. As reported at page 44 of Hansard of January 26, the Prime Minister said this:
The government is not announcing a new policy. What we propose to do is to extend what, in fact, we have been doing right along, that is, to apply the principle progressively. In other words, we intend to continue to extend the application of national selective service to meet new needs as they arrive.
On November 12, last, I made it very plain to parliament that, with respect to the mobilization of man-power, the government's policy was one of national selective service; and, also, that an extension of the application of compulsory

The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
selective service-conscription, if you will-was a part of that policy. Let me repeat my exact words.
I want it to be distinctly understood that so far as the principle of compulsory selective national service is concerned for Canada, in Canada, I stand for that principle. I have never taken any other stand. It is the position that I have held all along. It has been applied in connection with military training, and applied in a number of other directions I might mention. How much further it will be applied the house will learn as the government takes its decisions on that matter.
I do not think there is any doubt as to why this plebiscite is being taken. It is again to lull the people into a sense of false security. There is an agitation now for a greater war effort, but rather than increase our war effort the government would sell the country out in order to save its political party. It is quite evident-there is no assumption about it-that there is a decided split within the cabinet on this question; and if the cabinet themselves are not united and the house itself is not, how in the world are the people going to be united?
I do not think there is any question that there is no shortage of men; the government so assure us. The Prime Minister has said that there are plenty for the navy, plenty for the air force, and plenty for the army up to date. The Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) said that it was quite satisfactory; the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said just a few days ago that on one day alone 500 enlisted; so they are satisfied, surely. Yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) said the other day that he was not satisfied, and the Minister of Pensions and National Health is not satisfied. Nevertheless we are going to spend two and a half to three million dollars in order to settle a political quarrel between the Liberal and Conservative parties. And we are going to continue the same policy as before. Who would have the audacity to go out from this parliament and ask the pe.ople to contribute to the war loan, ask the children in the schools to give up their nickels and dimes to buy war savings stamps, when this government can so carelessly spend two and a half to three million dollars to settle a political question? It is unfortunate indeed that the government have placed themselves in such an embarrassing position; that is, it is unfortunate for the government. It might be a good thing for Hitler, but it is very tough on Canada.
We advocated in 1939 that the first thing that should be done was the conscription of finance so that money would be available for all the needs of our war effort and for the agricultural effort of the country. We advocated the conscription of industry and of natural resources before the conscription of man-power. I still believe that is the soundest stand that could have been taken then, and I think it is high time it was taken now. One of the things we are short of, as has been shown time and time again, is our equipment for the fighting forces. We saw what happened in Norway because of lack of sufficient material; we saw what happened in France, Holland, Belgium, Greece, Crete, Singapore, Hong Kong and Libya. How much more is it going to take to wake this government up? I do not think anything will wake them up short of a bomb dropped on this building.
I was interested the other day in the discussion of British Columbia defences. This might be interesting to the Minister of Pensions and National Health because he is going to be over there some day, maybe. This is from a letter received on January 26, 1942:
Dear Sir:
There is much talk about conscription now. I'd like to bring to your notice how the 17th Battalion on searchlight duty at Victoria are equipped right now. They have two Bren gun carriers minus the guns and an old rifle each, some with the sights gone and forty-two rounds of ammunition each. Pity the Jap plane that encounters these fellows.
What a tragedy! I do not know whether the statement is true or not, but the Minister of Pensions and National Health probably knows. I know that when a parliamentary committee went to a certain camp, one of the largest in the country, for many thousands of men there was one Bren gun. It is time the people knew these things. Yet we have a book like the one I have in my hand. Here is the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) named right on the first page. "A nation transformed." I should say it is. It is signed "C. D. Howe, Minister of Munitions and Supply." "Canada supplies the tools of war," and anyone who looks at this would not question our war effort. Look at the shells piled up, and the ships and shipbuilding plants. All over the country we are producing war supplies and aeroplanes. Here are mines and factories. It must have cost a nice penny to put out this book; one would just think there was a tremendous flow of materials for our war effort. What does Douglas Bell company say about our war effort?
This is from the Ottawa Citizen of February 3 last, reporting a speech by Mr. Hepburn in connection with the Welland by-election:
To switch public attention from the plebiscite issue the federal government had instituted sugar rationing "notwithstanding the fact that there was no shortage and no one was hoarding", Mr. Hepburn said. This was another case of
420	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
"fooling the public" just as the federal government had done in speaking of Canadian-made planes and Canadian-made tanks.
He charged that Ralph Bell, director of aircraft production, had stated for the purpose of helping Labour Minister Mitchell's campaign-
This is something for the Minister of Munitions and Supply to listen to:
-that three hundred aeroplane engines a month would soon be turned out at the Chrysler plant in Windsor, Ont. Mr. Hepburn said he had cheeked on this with John Mansfield, president of the company, who had told him that "if everything goes well it will be eighteen months before we can make one engine and even then parts will have to be imported."
Then in the same paper they speak of the Ottawa Car and Aircraft company that had to close down or at least lay off five hundred men. Over a year ago I brought to the attention of the government this very company, and I do not think the government ever made any investigation regarding the labour conditions there that I pointed out. We had a chance to visit the company, and they were doing good work but the president then told me they were working on aeroplanes for which they had no contract with the government. When I asked him how he knew he would get a contract he said: "We don't know, we just have hopes. We cannot wait on the government, they are too slow." I should like to know what the Minister of Munitions and Supply is doing about these five hundred men laid off. To talk about all-out production is ridiculous. Here we sit around and fiddle away and our factories are only working part time. I was talking to Mr. Quain, president of the Ottawa Car and Aircraft company, again the day before yesterday on the telephone. He said that his company is not the only one in this situation, that there are dozens all over the country just like it.
Not long ago I went to see the rolling mills at Calgary; it closed at five o'clock each afternoon. In June last when I was talking to the Minister of Munitions and Supply about this rolling mill and telling him we wanted to get it open, the minister said they did not need that type of steel.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As a matter of personal privilege I wish to say I made no such statement.


Charles Edward Johnston: I can refer to it in Hansard, but I do not have it with me. The Minister of Munitions and Supply said twice in answer to a question, "We do not need that steel for my department."


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said I made no such statement, and the hon. member is repeating it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I accept the statement for the time being.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Fournier, Hull):: I will ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will withdraw the statement on the condition that I can refer to the words in Hansard to-morrow. I think I have the right to read it to-morrow.
That is our all-out war effort. Just to show how much the government knows about our all-out war effort, I asked a question of the former Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). I asked the question because I wanted to find out what our total war effort amounted to. I put three questions on the order paper, the first being:
1.	How many factories in Canada, producing war supplies, are working 24 hours per day, 365 days in the year?
That would be a one hundred per cent war effort, as the Prime Minister said out west. Listen to what the acting Minister of Labour
said, as reported at page 200 of Hansard of February 2, 1942:
Except in connection with certain industrial disputes the hours of labour in industrial employment are a matter of provincial jurisdiction and no comprehensive statistics exist to answer the above questions.
In other words, they do not know how many factories are working full time. What a sad plight after nearly three years of war! The second question was:
2.	How many factories in Canada producing such supplies are working 24 hours a day, 6 days a week, throughout the year?
That is only part time. This is the answer that was given:
Under the recently established national and regional war labour boards, however, the dominion and provincial governments are cooperating in the handling of most matters relating to employment conditions.
Can you imagine such an answer to a direct question?
The third question was:
3.	How many factories in Canada producing war supplies are working less than 6 days a week, 24 hours per day?
Listen to the reply:
In this connection there is being established a joint system of inspection and reporting which is designed to produce the data requested.
This reveals absolute ignorance of the working conditions of industry in the country. Where are we going to end up? If there is not another Hong Kong, it will not be the government's fault.
I remember in 1938 when I was speaking in this house about oil production in Alberta and trying to get the government at that time to develop the oil fields; and again in 1939 when

The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
war first broke out I pointed out to them that it was not beyond the stretch of imagination that the German forces would be down into Iraq and Iran, in the Persian oil fields, taking Britain's supply of oil, and I said that one of the greatest needs was to increase production of oil in Alberta and construct a pipeline across to the Pacific coast. But I was laughed at as frightening the people of Canada. I was regarded as an alarmist. But what is being done to-day? That very thing may happen, though we hope not. But if it does, can we meet our obligations? What is being done by the government now to increase oil production?
A man came into my room during the last session and told me that in Regina there was a refinery which had a system whereby they could extract oil from the tar sands of Athabaska, but he said that they needed a little financial assistance and he was here seeking help from the government. At the time he spoke to me, however, he had not been able to make any headway with the government. The company itself had spent over 815,000 in developing this method of extracting oil. I asked him whether it could extract gasoline and compete with other commercial companies, and he said, "yes; the byproduct alone will enable us to do that." But what is the government doing about it? What is being done about working conditions in Kirkland Lake? Those men have complied with every possible request from the government. The only ones who have defied the government are the owners, and the government are deliberately starving the men into submission to the financial interests and doing nothing. Yet they talk about unity. They are even breaking the labour organizations in the country, splitting the country as wide open as races; and they have the audacity to say that they are advocating unity. What a sad plight!
We are surely taking care of profits. The people of the country know quite well that large profits are being made, and yet we are asking soldiers to fight for $1.30 a day. We are asking the farmers to produce at a loss, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Gardiner) is saying to them: "You fellows should not expect to make money in war time; you will have to lose a million or two at the beginning of the war and at the end." But here are the banks-what profits are they making? Let me give some figures from a house return filed in 1940. Column 1 of a table I have here shows net profits after published provisions for dominion and provincial taxes shown in column 2 but before appropriations for bank premises, pension funds, etc.,
shown in column 3; and the percentage of net profits to capital paid up is given as follows for the banks mentioned:
Percentage of
Bank	net profits
Montreal	 9-54
Nova Scotia	 16-18
Toronto	 24-08
Provincial	 7-28
Commerce	 10-02
Royal	  10-08
Dominion	 13-70
Canadienne Nationale	 10-68
Imperial	 15-18
Barclays	 0-38
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Edward Johnston: Just before the house rose, there was some difference between the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) and myself in regard to the question of steel. I want to settle that question right now. On June 11, 1941, at page 3812 of Hansard, I find these words:
Mr. Johnston (Bow River):	The minister
speaks of it as being a business proposition and no concern of his department; but if this country needs steel, it is this government's business.
Mr. Howe: We do not need that particular steel.
And later I said:
I think the point is well put by the minister, and I am not going to say any more about it because I understand now that we do not need the steel.
Mr. Howe: I said, we do not need that steel.
Mr. Johnston (Bow River):	I understand
now that the minister means that we do not need this scrap iron which it is the purpose of the salvage campaign to gather because we do not need the steel which would be produced from that scrap iron.
Mr. Howe:	I said nothing of the kind. I
said that we did not need that steel.
Then later I said:
There is not a thing that I will not do to help win this war, but I certainly am not going out^ to ask our people to give this scrap iron if it is not necessary. If we do not need that steel, then I am through as far as that part is concerned.
I think that definitely settles the question which we were discussing before recess.
I was also referring to bank returns, and I should like to mention a few more of the profits being made by industry, in order to see if some of these difficulties cannot be cleared
422	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
up. I have in my hand a page from The Monetary Times of November 22, 1941, where I find this report:
Report of the International Nickel Company of Canada, Limited, and subsidiaries for the nine months ended September 30, 1941, show's a net profit in terms of United States currency of $25,695,938 after all charges, depreciation, provision for income and franchise taxes, etc. When the preferred dividend requirements were met, this net was equivalent to $1.66 a share on the 14,584,025 no par shares of common stock outstanding. This compared with a net profit of $26,425,104, equal to $1.71 a common share in the corresponding period a year ago, and $26,584,806, or $1.72 a share, in the same nine months of 1939.
Then here is the report on another company:
Present indications are -that earnings of Steelman Bros., Limited, will be sufficient to absorb the higher rate of taxation and that net profits for 1941 will be as good as 1940, when net, after all charges, totalled $274,664, equal, after preferred dividends, to $2.85 a share on the common. Sales in the ten months ended October 31, were well ahead of the similar period of 1940 and profits, before provision for taxes, were proportionally higher than the increase in volume.
And another:
Canadian Bakeries, Limited, Calgary, Alberta, reported a net profit of $34,160 for the year ended August 31, 1941. This compared with $20,824 in the preceding year. Net was equal to $3.74 a share on the 5 per cent preference ' stock compared with $2.26 a share for the preceding fiscal year.
This shows that some companies are still making quite good profits. I believe one of our greatest difficulties, and one that should be faced immediately, is the question of production. I was quite amused to hear the reply given the other day by the Minister of Finance to a question asked by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) in regard to sugar. The minister said, as reported at page 109 of Hansard:
If the hon. member is asking that consideration be given to that question, I can assure him that consideration will be given to it. I may say, however, that the sugar administrator advised the beet sugar industry some time ago that they should do everything possible to bring production of beets up to the maximum capacity of their factories. If this were possible in the case of the two factories in Alberta, it would mean that beet sugar production would exceed the total requirements of the three prairie provinces.
My point is this:	The minister says the
administrator advised the beet sugar industry some time ago to see if it could not bring up production to capacity. I do not think that is the mobilization of industry; I do not think that is the conscription of industry. Why does the responsible minister not go to the industry and say, "Here, we are not asking

you to bring production up to capacity; we are telling you to do so." The government should see that industry is carried on in a proper way. If the people know that industry is working to capacity; if they know that industry is completely mobilized, as it certainly is not now, I am quite positive that you will find a much greater degree of unity. It is no use going round to these industries and appealing to their patriotism; that will not work. The Minister of Munitions and Supply tried that. Let me read what he said on September 12, 1939, as reported at page 179 of Hansard:
The provision of five per cent was put in the last act after a good deal of consideration as a minimum return for the service rendered, but it was one which men of considerable experience believed to be unworkable. I can say to my hon. friend that from that day to this the defence purchasing board has done its very best to place contracts on that basis and has used every pressure that could be brought to bear in the form of patriotism, and so on, but to date it has not succeeded in placing a single contract on that basis.
Notice that; he appealed to their patriotism, but he was not able to get a single contract on that basis.
To carry that provision into another bill would be out of the question at this time. That part of the act we can consider as having proven to be unworkable.
I believe that is definite proof that industry is not going to do as the government wishes unless pressure is brought to bear. The minister told us he even appealed to patriotism. This is a time of war; apparently the government is not going to appeal to the patriotism of the ordinary man to get him into the army; he is going to be forced in. Why not do the same thing with industry? I think it very unfortunate that in this, the third year of war, this country should be divided within itself. There is great discontent among the working classes, who feel that they are not being given fair treatment. It is the common people who have to bear the burden. They not only have to pay for the war but have to go and fight it as well. The workers, the farmers and the common people are the ones who have to produce the food and make the tools, and now they are being asked to pay for the war as well. As long as we have discontent and disunity we shall never progress as we should. We have a law which provides that anyone found guilty of sabotage resulting either directly or indirectly in loss of life shall be subject to the death penalty. _ I believe that those responsible for retarding our war effort, no matter who they may be.

The Address-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
should be brought before a court of justice and, if found guilty, given the full penalty provided by iaw.
I want to conclude with the words of Mr. Bevin, speaking in the British house, which words bn this occasion I take as my own. He said:
Let bitterness and discontent get into the hearts of my army of workers and then, by God, we have lost the war.


Mr. P. C. BLACK (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, we are now approaching the crisis of this, the greatest war in history. All that we hold dear is at stake. Mr. Churchill has said that though the British empire survive for a thousand years, history would regard this as our greatest hour. We all have a responsibility. The people have their responsibility, and members of parliament have a greater responsibility. As a member of parliament I am prepared to assume my responsibility and discharge it according to what I believe to be the interests of Canada, the British people and our allies.
1 believe our first duty is to our enlisted men, the men in the fighting services; to give them support; so to organize the resources and man-power of this country that they will have the greatest possible cooperation. This does not mean that every person called up to give service to his country must go into the fighting forces. It means that every person should be called to that station where he can give the best service. In the town of Amherst, for instance, we have working in the liquor store three men who should be working at their trades, one as a machinist, another as an expert moulder, and the third as a sheet metal worker. If they are called upon to do war work, I believe they would be willing to discharge their full duty. My idea of selective service is the calling up of each man to do the work he is best fitted to do.
I believe the county of Cumberland will compare favourably with any other constituency in Canada as to percentage of enlisted men. Some of our districts have as high as 10 per cent of their population in the armed services. Conscription, therefore, would not affect those districts very much, although it might rearrange the man-power, and put some men at more useful war work.
I feel I have a special duty to the returned men and, so far as I am able, I shall carry out their wishes and requests. I owe a special duty to patriotic bodies, groups of women and war workers, and individuals in the community who have appealed to me to take a stand with respect to the conscription
plebiscite. I have resolutions from Red Cross organizations, church workers and municipal bodies asking that I make known their wishes to parliament, and- that I be guided by what they consider to be in the interests of the country at this time. I am prepared to do that. They are behind the veterans' organizations in Canada calling for a complete, full war effort. So far as I know, there is not an elector in Cumberland who is not prepared to do his full duty in carrying on the war. So far as I know, there is not an elector who does not wish the government to govern the country at this time, and mobilize all our resources and man-power so that we may put forth our greatest effort.
No government ever had more whole-hearted support in carrying on the war than this government has had from the opposition. The complaint with respect to the government is that it has not gone faster and done more. I was nominated in the constituency of Cumberland against my wishes and my interests. I was elected opposed to a partisan administration in a time of war. I promised to support any government in measures to win the war. I do not want office. I do not want the responsibility, myself, in the matter of administration. I wish only to do my duty to the men in the fighting services, the people of Canada and our allies.
The people of Cumberland take great pride in and have the utmost good-will toward the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) in the tremendous task which is his. We want him to work in the Churchill way; let him give direction; let him see that all our resources are harnessed and that each man and woman is placed in his or her proper station. Let him see that the armed services are given all the support they require, that the greatest production is attained from both factories and field, and that everything possible is done to win the war. The government knows the facts; it should lead the way. It should give guidance to the people. It should give direction as to what measures should be adopted in carrying on the war, without a plebiscite. '
The people of Cumberland expect me to act for them; they do not want me to shirk responsibility. They do not want the mothers, wives and sisters to have the responsibility of saying what shall be done with respect to conscription. They do not want delay; they do not want expense. They fear disunity, and they fear, too, that bitterness will be created by the plebiscite. They want parliament and the government to act. I have doubts whether more than twenty-five per cent of the electors will go to the polls to vote. There is grave
424	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
doubt as to the result. What will our enemies say if the decision is not emphatic? What will our allies do? What do they think now?
There is the question of the present war loan. I have had a personal appeal from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). He has appealed to me as a member of the House of Commons to do what I can to make the victory loan a success, and I am prepared to do that.
We have in Cumberland a committee which operated during the last loan, and will continue to operate. They gave their services without commissions. This committee had the confidence of the people of Cumberland. There is no question of plebiscite, so far as their efforts are concerned; there is, no question of party allegiance. They are all working for the country, all trying to do their duty, with no political consideration.
Whether we like it or not, we are in the greatest war of all time; with one task to perform, and that is to get on with the war. I am opposed to a plebiscite because it gives comfort to our enemies and humiliates our partners and allies. I oppose it because it shifts the responsibility from those who were elected to carry it. It does not show strength of leadership; it dampens the spirit of our people and disheartens our fighting forces. Never in their history did the British people take a plebiscite in the face of the enemy, or decide war policies in terms of votes while the battle was raging. Yet, there never were enemies as ruthless as those we are now facing.
During the last election conscription was not an issue in Cumberland, but I cannot say that the government did not make political capital out of it. They endeavoured to offer people an easy, popular war. It is true, too, that the leaders of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia made political capital out of it by saying that while both leaders, the present Prime Minister and Doctor Manion, were on record as being opposed to conscription at the last election, yet Doctor Manion had been in favour of it during the last war and had written a book justifying his action. They . left it to the electors to decide whom they could trust to protect them from conscription after the election.
There is no question as to the seriousness of the war, and there is no question that the Prime Minister appreciates that seriousness. During the November sitting he told us "that the war had grown in intensity and extent", "that every conceivable means by which freedom can be crushed is to-day being employed by nazi Germany", "that world domination was Germany's aim", "that it has taken the past two years for most countries

to come to see the all-encompassing aspect of the conflict and that the cause is indeed the highest which it has ever been given to man to defend". Since then, Japan has struck and has been on the offensive for two months. We have had Hong Kong and Singapore and the retirement in north Africa. We are threatened on our eastern and western coasts. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) have warned the house of the menace to our western shores. The danger is as great, if not greater on the Atlantic coast. Our shipping, our oil works, our steel works, our mines and our wTar industries are in danger, and yet we are told that the electors must give direction, that this is not the responsibility of the government.
My constituents expect parliament and the government to take the proper action. We have conscription now for home defence, and we have that without a mandate. The electors were not consulted, so why should they be consulted now? In the past, little respect has been shown for the voters. Responsible government has meant the type of government practised by British people down through the years. An article appearing in the Ottawa Journal puts the situation very well:
In the proposition for a plebiscite which the speech from the throne announces on parliament hill, there is a diabolical ingenuity on Prime Minister King's part. For whatever the result may be, it will free his skirts from obligations and give him a new lease on political life. Consider the proposition:
Then follows a quotation from the speech from the throne:
"My ministers accordingly, will seek, from the people, by means of a plebiscite, release from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service."
Now, you who read this, which way are you going to vote?
If you vote yes, to free Mr. King from all previous commitments, you vote to give Mr. King continued power with a free hand.
If you vote no, to hold him to his previous commitments, you vote against conscription. Because, Mr. King's essential previous commitment was that he would never introduce conscription.
So, if you vote yes, you leave Mr. King free in power; if you vote no-not to release him from his pledge-you endorse his stand against conscription.
And if you happen to be a conscriptionist, and vote to release Mr. King from his pledge against conscription, you don't even get anything out of that. Because, Mr. King, makes no promise to introduce conscription even if the plebiscite gives him a free hand.
That is the situation which is being placed before the electors with the holding of this
. FEBRUARY 9, 1942
The Address-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
plebiscite. We also have the statement by Mr. Godbout, premier of Quebec, by the Minister of Justice, Mr. St. Laurent, that there will be no conscription. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), and others who have spoken in favour of the plebiscite, indicate that conscription will be put into effect. As yet we have not had a statement from the Minister of National Defence. I feel that the members of parliament. and the people of this country should have a definite statement from the minister, and that at once.
I should like to say something with respect to the work of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). He has had many commendations, and I wish to add mine. He has done his utmost to harness the industries of this country, but there are many in this house and throughout the country who look upon that as a party accomplishment rather than the work of all the people. The taxpayers are not given very much credit. They are the ones who provide the money when parliament votes huge sums. During the fiscal year 1939-40, a total of $127,000,000 was expended to carry on the war; in the following year, 1940-41, the expenditures amounted to $778,000,000; in 1941-42 a total of $1,450,000,000 was voted, but we have not yet had a report as to how much of that will be expended by the end of the year. The Prime Minister announced in his speech during this session that in 1942-43 a total of $3,000,000,000 would have to be provided. All that is needed is to name a sum up in the billions and parliament votes it without question. The easiest thing to get in this parliament is a vote of one, two, three or five billion dollars provided it is required for carrying on the war. That is, as far as the members of parliament are concerned, and I think they are supported by the people of Canada. In addition to these large sums, there are the expenditures made by this government on behalf of the British government and also in connection with the lease-lend bill of the United States.
All this does not mean that there are not grave misgivings all over Canada as to whether all this money is being wisely expended. Many people are convinced that there is extravagance and waste, but it is popular to spend money, and this is not questioned to any great extent when it is done for the purposes of war. The public are told that they are protected in connection with these expenditures by a parliamentary committee on war expenditures. I have been a member of that committee, and I do not want the members of parliament or the people of this 44561-28
country to get the impression that any committee can safeguard them with regard to these enormous expenditures. We are not looking for scandal; we are not looking for waste, but the responsibility is upon this committee to give as great protection as possible with respect to these expenditures. The committee can touch only the fringe of these expenditures. While the responsibility is placed upon us to safeguard the public interest, it is impossible for us to do that, no matter how hard we try or how great our effort.


Mr. SPEAKER:: There should be less conversation in the chamber. It is very disturbing to the hon. member who is addressing the house and I ask hon. members to refrain.


Percy Chapman Black: Apparently the election returns are on the minds of all hon. members rather than what I am trying to say. Capital expenditures in the way of assistance to industry as reported by the Minister of Munitions and Supply on February 5 amounted to $268,499,894. Details were given, and the information was made public through parliament. Among these expenditures was one of $18,450,128, comprising different items for the John Inglis works, where the Bren gun and other automatic guns are being manufactured. Great credit is taken by the Minister of Pensions and National Health for the work done at the John Inglis plant. Canada adopted the Bren gun, and with an expenditure of $18,450,128 of public funds, as of February 25, we should expect substantial results. It is one of the main armament plants of the country. Since February 25, I presume that additional millions may have been provided, and from an industry that is subsidized to that extent we are entitled to get results. It should not be looked upon as a political accomplishment. It is an accomplishment of the taxpayers of this country. They are the ones who provide the money, and we are gratified if good results have been secured from expenditures of this kind.
The Minister of Munitions and Supply made a further report on November 4, that appropriations for capital assistance to industry aggregated, on that date, $550,000,000, or more than double the expenditure reported the previous February 25. I asked for particulars of that expenditure, but up to the present time we have not obtaned them. We have the responsibility at least of knowing where this money has been spent. We have not that information up to the present time.
In the constituency of Cumberland which I represent we have a number of war industries and they have done excellent work. There is a general complaint in the maritime

426	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Black (Cumberland)
provinces that they have not 'had their share of the war expenditure, and I am sure that that complaint is warranted by an examination of the figures. In the town of Amherst we have a large industry, operated by Canadian Car and Foundry company, engaged in the production of aeroplanes. They were late in getting to work, but the results there compare favourably with those of any other like industry in Canada. I want to give credit to the Minister of Munitions and Supply and to Mr. Ralph Bell, director of aeroplane construction, for the splendid work accomplished in aircraft construction. A great deal of the credit in Amherst is due to the men and women employees. It is the expectation that this industry will be further expanded and that it will do still better work in the building of aeroplanes.
There is an air field at Amherst. The land was purchased by the town, and it shared with the government in the cost of the landing field, so that the aeroplanes might be tested. I think it is d-ue the town and the workmen engaged in aircraft production in Amherst that this field be made a standard air field. It is not fair that the taxpayers or the industry should bear the cost, inasmuch as air fields are provided all over Canada out of government funds. I know of no other community that has been called upon to assume such responsibility.
There are other war industries in the town of Amherst which have done splendid work. I take pride in the production from the coal mines in the county of Cumberland. They have increased their production since the beginning of the war, and their output compares favourably with that of coal mines in any other community in Canada. Their production has increased notwithstanding that about ten per cent of the population have put on the uniform. I am also proud of the coalminers of the county of Cumberland in that there have been no major labour disturbances and no slow-down strikes there. They have done their duty in providing this necessary war material required to operate our industries and our railways. I believe the labour unions in Cumberland county would separate from their parent organization rather than be a party to a slow-down strike.
There are other matters not so directly connected with the war but of great interest to Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces. There is the matter of old age pensions. It is hard for the aged people who are the recipients of the pension to understand why in Nova Scotia the average amount of the old age pension is only $14.90 a month, in New Brunswick, $14.71, and in Prince Edward Island, $11.26, while in Ontario it is $18.55,

and in British Columbia, $19.12. British Columbia is not satisfied with this, the largest old age pension paid in Canada, for the provincial government out of its own revenues increases that monthly payment by $5 a month. I believe it is due to the old age pensioner in the maritime provinces, where the cost of living has increased, that there should be a substantial increase.
There are some misgivings in the maritime provinces with respect to the government's shipbuilding programme. There has been some activity in those provinces, but on a very small scale in comparison with other parts of Canada. It is hard for our people to understand why there should be a shipbuilding programme of $500,000,000 in British Columbia, while there is an expenditure of only a few million dollars in the maritime provinces.
The maritime board of trade has made representations with respect to matters affecting the maritime provinces. At their recent meeting in Moncton, a resolution was passed asking that the Prince Edward Island car ferry the S.S. Charlottetown that was lost, be replaced as quickly as possible. The people of Springhill, supported by the people of the maritime provinces, feel that the car ferry should be coal-burning rather than oil-burning. There was regret that the present boat was transformed from a coal-burner to an oil-burner.
They passed a resolution asking for a wider distribution of war orders. They asked that transportation facilities across the strait of Canso be improved in the interest of the coal and steel industry of Nova Scotia. I believe that railway carried the heaviest traffic of any railway- of its class in this country.
There were other resolutions passed by the maritime boards of trade requiring the attention of the government and the departments at Ottawa. Many people in the maritime provinces want to know why sugar and a hundred and one other articles should be controlled, while there is no control on the importation and distribution of intoxicating liquors. These are representations made by church bodies and others, and they are entitled to consideration by the government.
There is also a feeling in the maritime provinces that they have not had full consideration in the setting up of war industries. There has been more bonusing of industry in this country than was ever dreamed of, amounting to $550,000,000 by November last. Industries that are necessary and vital to Canada's war effort were built up by the national policy in days long gone by. Many of our war industries should be encouraged

The Address-Mrs. Casselman
that would have a peace-time value and importance; those industries should be located in the outlying parts of Canada, in order that there might be better distribution of industry. I do not believe that the government have taken full advantage of the opportunity to have war industry and peace time industry equitably distributed.
We all believe that we are going to win this war; but until each one is summoned to his or her station, the tendency is to let the other fellow do it. Morale is suffering, and there is lack of confidence. Many think this is a political war. I was sorry the other day to hear the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding), the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario (Mr. Fraser), the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), and even the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) make an attack on citizens of this country who believe that the greatest possible effort is not being put forward for the winning of the war. It is hard to understand why there should now be a plebiscite in order to make the government do their duty at this time. I am opposed to the plebiscite. I believe it is the duty of the government to act in this time of war.
I hope some day to see on parliament hill two more statues. I should like to see one to Winston Churchill, the man who has given leadership before the war and during the war, in whom the people of the democratic world have such confidence. I should also like to see a statue to one of our greatest, if not the greatest Canadian, Sir Charles Tupper. It is long overdue.
We are told there should be unity in this country, but there are many indications that such is not the case. I was very much disturbed recently by reading a statement of the Minister of Justice who is running in Quebec East:
I know that the word "conscription" brings you back to 1917. Do not put us in a position where a Meighen movement will come in and will impose it (conscription) on us with bayonets and machine guns.
I do not know how we are going to have unity in this country when one minister will make a statement of that kind in one part of the country, while the government is calling for unity and the greatest possible effort in other parts of Canada. I know that the people of this country are back of this or any government in the greatest possible effort to bring this war to a successful termination, and statements such as that by one who is seeking a seat in this parliament do not make for unity.
There never was a government that had such support from the opposition as the present 44561-28J
government has had. We support them in all [DOT]measures that are necessary for carrying on the war. We do not want responsibility; we do not want office-I speak for myself and I think for my associates-but we do want to do our duty and help the government and those who have this responsibility. We want action, united action, and we want this country to put forth every effort in winning the war. We all have a duty, and, speaking for myself and for my associates, we are ready to discharge that responsibility. The times in which we live are very serious, too serious to play politics or take any action that would tend to weaken our war effort. It is my belief that Nova Scotia is prepared to discharge its full duty in carrying on the war, but what the people of my province want is leadership. They want the government to govern the country, and they do not believe a plebiscite is necessary at this time.
Mrs. CORA T. CASSELMAN (Edmonton East):	Mr. Speaker, may I extend my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I commend them for the excellence and the comprehensive nature of their speeches.
I should like to bring before the house some matters that have already been discussed here and which I have no doubt will be referred to again. I have noticed some repetition in speeches that have already been made, so I am not alone in repeating things that have been said before. Let me add, however, that I am under no obligation to the four hundred or the two hundred, and that I have not submitted my remarks to be blue-pencilled by any member of the government or of the opposition. What I say is my own.
To me there are two main objectives before the country at the present time: first, the winning of the war, and second, the extension of the cause of democracy. I consider, as almost everyone else does, that the winning of the war is the chief of all our aims at this time, and I believe that the carrying of the plebiscite by a sweeping majority will contribute materially to our war effort. At the moment, however, I wish to address myself to the second object I have mentioned, namely, the advancement of the cause of democracy; because, in my opinion, although this may be an inopportune time to bring in measures for the advancement of democracy, nevertheless there may be no better time even after the war. Indeed, these may be the best years that we shall have in which to introduce such measures as I intend to discuss for a moment or two.
The Address-Mrs. Casselman

Let me refer to a question mentioned frequently before in this house, that of old age pensions. I submit that the amount paid is too small; a sum of twenty dollars a month is inadequate to meet the everyday, inescapable, ordinary expenses of the pensioner. Of course, he is allowed to earn or receive up to one dollar a day, but how can he earn it? It is physically impossible. A senator may earn it; a practising doctor or lawyer may earn it; perhaps you and I may earn it at the age of seventy. But as far as those who apply for the old age pension are concerned, they cannot. They are too old. The age limit is too high. The pensioner was already too old to earn five years before the time he actually applied for pension; that is to say, at the age of 65. Many pensioners were out of work before reaching that age and had a long stretch of hard years ahead of them before becoming eligible. I could tell you stories of pensioners, decent, worthy, upright citizens, who have had to struggle along; but I do not want to appeal to your emotions, but rather appeal to reason. Hon. members can see for themselves in their own constituencies people in receipt of small old age pensions who need some additional help.
Democracy should do two things: It should extend a helping hand to those who are not able to help themselves, and it should also put forth the hand of compulsion to prevent from becoming pensioners those who later on, thirty or forty years hence, might find themselves in such circumstances. This could be done by asking such persons now, during the years of their earning capacity, to contribute to a scheme for their use later on.
I have studied the speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) on November 14 on this topic-an excellent speech. He appeals to the logic of the situation. In fact, when he was in Edmonton last year and addressed an audience on the question of taxation, there were many favourable comments afterwards and some people said that his address on taxation made one almost enjoy the paying of taxes. The minister gave reasons for not increasing pensions. At page 4427 of Hansard he is reported to have said:
It will be noted that in several provinces there is considerable leeway for increasing the average amount of pension paid if the province so desires.
That is a good argument. He goes on to speak of the cost-of-living index at the time the act was passed in 1927, which was higher . then than it is now. That also is a good argument, though not infallible. The amount paid even then was too low. The things on which the pensioner has to spend money-food and

clothing, rent and so on-are all somewhat higher than the average cost-of-living index at the present time, and therefore pensioners are in greater need of assistance now.
In my opinion the administration of this act might be a little more liberal. Sometimes I think the pensioner is not given the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes the conditions imposed, the certificates and forms, partake rather too much of the letter of the law rather than the spirit; so that although checks are necessary, I should like to see more leeway given when the pensioner's view clashes with that of the administrators.
The minister sets out the difference in cost of living between different provinces and indicates the many difficulties there are in the way of raising the old age pension-dual control, dual contribution, on the part of the province 25 per cent, and of the dominion 75 per cent, and the fact that the province administers the act. These difficulties are very real. He also sets forth the reason that there may be need for constitutional amendments in order to make any change in the pension law as it stands at the present time.
I am not alone in advocating changes in the pension law. We have had many speeches touching upon this question. Changes are being asked for not only by pensioners but by others as well; there are thousands who would be glad to see some scheme advanced. I suggest that there should be a short-term policy and a long-term policy in this regard. In the short-term policy I would at least grant a cost-of-living bonus to pensioners. In this connection I would quote a sentence from the minister's speech as reported at page 4429 of Hansard-.
If any of the provinces desire to do so-
That is, to increase the pension.
-the government is prepared to amend the regulations and, if necessary, the act, to ensure that such supplementary payments by a province do not entail a reduction in the pension payable under the act.
I am glad to see that British Columbia has taken note of this and increased its pension; and at the present time Alberta is considering the question.
Then there is the long-term policy. In that regard I should like to see some consideration given to the point the minister discusses, the question of a pension on a contributory basis. He says-and I think this is right- that the matter will never be settled satisfactorily until such a scheme is worked out. I would urge the setting up of a committee to look into the matter to find out if it can be linked up with the Unemployment Insurance Act, if that is possible, in order to provide

The Address-Mrs. Casselman
for contributions to be made during the earning years so that there will be a sum of money which, by right, will be the pensioner's when he reaches the age at which a pension is necessary. There would be need for an amendment to the constitution. The minister said it would be necessary. All right. If so, the constitution was made for man, not man for the constitution, and I think by cooperation, based on good will, between the provinces, such amendment might be adopted.
To me, Mr. Speaker, social security does not depend solely upon the granting of pensions to supplement deficiencies in the earning power of the individual. It depends also upon the right of the individual to earn his own living and upon the conservation and development of the natural resources of the country. That is one direction in which the government could help. In that category I place the question of the bituminous tar sands of Alberta. We need oil at the present time. It may be that oil will help decide the war. In the Athabaska tar sands we have a tremendous reservoir of oil. The Canadian Mining and Metallurgy Bulletin of February, 1941, sets forth some of the estimates of the amount of oil in those deposits. The dominion expert, who has occupied that position since 1913, says 100 billion barrels of oil could be extracted from the tar sands of Fort McMurray. The United States expert places the figure at 250 billion barrels, while the potential production of the entire world, apart from this deposit, is given as only 35 billion barrels. Therefore at the lower estimate we have something like three times the potential production of the rest of the world. I realize that provincial control also enters into this question, but it seems to me that the federal government might do something toward the development of that resource. The oil is there and a process has been developed for the extraction. Perhaps I may be permitted to read a paragraph from a bulletin published by thfe bureau of mines of the Department of Mines and Resources in March, 1941:
Between 1927 and 1930, a total of two thousand tons was shipped for laboratory investigations, and a further three thousand tons was used in the construction of demonstration pavements and road surfaces. During 1931 to 1938, International Bitumen Company processed small amounts of bituminous sand at its plant at Bitumont, Alberta, producing asphalt for paving and roofing and 37,500 gallons of fuel oil. . . .
During 1940, Abasand Oils, Limited, continued the building of its separation plant and refinery on Horse river near McMurray and the development of a system of quarrying the bituminous sand. The separation plant is designed to treat 400 tons of sand, and the refinery to treat 600 barrels of charging stock per twenty-four hours.
Unfortunately that plant was destroyed, in part, by fire in November, 1941, but the reports state that gasoline, diesel fuel and other refined products have been commercially produced. There, then, is the oil; there is the possible need for military purposes; there is the process that has been developed, and I think we could make something of that at this time of crisis.
Again, there is the question of roads. Hon. members from British Columbia have stated that their great province might be isolated if bombs should be dropped at strategic points, such as bridges or tunnels. There are two railroads into British Columbia, and the Big Bend highway, which is not and cannot be kept open the year round. There is another route which might be developed, that through Yellowhead pass-the Tete Jaune-down along the North Thompson river from Jasper to Vancouver. Some parts of that road have already been constructed. The gravel highway between Blue River and Kamloops, for instance, would have to be made into an all-weather road. There are stretches from Jasper to Blue River that could be joined up by a new road; I believe they amount to about one hundred miles, in three different sections. This is one way in which we could improve our connections between the prairie provinces and British Columbia. Hon. members from that province have pointed out that in British Columbia there are numbers of unwanted Japanese who might provide labour for a project such as this. I should like to stress, however, that our own Canadians who are unemployed, who have not been absorbed into industry in the west, who are perhaps too old or physically unfit for the army but who might do work of this kind, should be given treatment at least equal to if not better than that given any alien in connection with any such scheme. There is need for another route into British Columbia; there is the labour and there is the equipment, for I believe that much of the machinery used in the construction of the air bases on the way to Alaska might be made available for this project. I commend this suggestion to the house. It may be that officials of the government are considering it already, because I have noticed that some of the things we discuss here already are under consideration by the government.
In connection with the question of roads I should like also to mention the suggestion that it might be of military significance to build a road from the United States boundary to Alaska. There are several possible routes. If such a road were built, it might be necessary to use it quickly. I am not unmindful, of course, that this road would pass through

The Address-Mrs. Casselmcm
the city of Edmonton. That would be a great advantage to those who travel the road, who also would be brought within reach of Jasper park, one of the most beautiful playgrounds on this continent. Therefore the construction of such a road might have significance, not only now, in connection with military purposes, but in peace time for tourist traffic through the west.
Another matter I should like to mention is the health of the country, than which there is nothing more important both in peace and in war. I think the setting up of a committee on nutrition, in the Department of Pensions and National Health, was a good move, because it will help build up the health of the people. I believe even amid the clamour of war we might consider some health insurance scheme. I believe also we might build up national supplies of food, which would be available to a hungry Europe or Asia when the sea lanes are open once more. Even now, before it becomes necessary, we might also consider creating some reservoir of drugs and medicines, because, if the experience after this war is like that after the last one, there may be need of more drugs and medicines for civilian and military use than may be available. The conditions that prevail at present in Europe are the very conditions that make epidemics likely to occur.
Again, to my mind the man in the ranks in our services should be better paid. I recall that in the statement given by the Minister of Finance on November 14 last, figures were presented to show that the Canadian private is as well paid as any other soldier in the world; yet he receives less in many cases than the industrial worker whose contribution is so all-important now. Would it not be possible to give the privates in our armed forces savings certificates which would be theirs at the end of the war; theirs, because they had earned them by military service; theirs, for their own reestablishment when the war is over? That would ease the situation for many a man and woman if, like the industrial worker, the soldier earned savings certificates, to be repaid when similar loans are repaid in Canada.
I think it would also help toward stability, toward transition from war-time to peace-time economy. Those are just some of the measures about which I have been thinking which would tend to do that which was set out in the Atlantic charter by Roosevelt and Churchill. Give to every man "the right to live out his life, in freedom from want and fear."
These aims are important, but they can be dreams only, if the war is not won. We must be victorious, and to my mind the carrying

of the plebiscite is a step forward in that direction. It would free the government from promises made or implied at a time when we felt that if Canada produced the tools for war, then she was making a very great contribution-as indeed she was. She has made a magnificent contribution in that regard.
If we look again at the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, we shall find what contribution Canada has made along the lines of munitions and supply. It gives me a great deal of pleasure in that connection to quote from the Magazine Digest of December, 1941, excerpts from a short article commenting on "King of Canada," and setting forth what the Prime Minister has done in the building of Canada, both in peace and in war. I find this:
Historians, I believe, will have a very special page for King. They will recall how in 1922, by refusing to be stampeded by Lloyd George he caused the British government to think twice, and thus saved the world from a futile war against Turkey.
"Refusing to be stampeded." Then, there is this:
Long before Kipling's "If" was written, King began associating with all kinds of men and still remained true to himself.
"True to himself," interpreted in the light of doing what he thought was best under the circumstances. And lest there might be some narrow interpretation of that expression "to himself," let me say that it follows those lines of Shakespeare:
This above all; to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
There is also this sentence:
Certain Canadian newspapers accuse him of lacking colour, of failing to inspire his country to an all-out war effort. Yet this colourless country gentleman-
My apologies to him.
-working always through and with his cabinet, has inspired Canada to the greatest war effort, proportionate to population and wealth, of any English-speaking nation, excepting only Britain.
To come back to the plebiscite, I would say that its purpose is that of freeing from promises implied or definitely stated under a democratic system. It will do that by an appeal to the voice of the people. It was hoped that this might be done in calmness. It was hoped that it would be done while the nation was not yet as closely entangled in war as it might be later-if war comes to our own doorstep. It was hoped that it would be done before emotion ran riot, before alarms which are now in the near distance, were right on our own doorstep.

The Address-Mrs. Casselman
Canada could dramatically-I repeat the word "dramatically"-put itself on record as being behind whatever sacrifice or duty may be imposed upon us by this war. With his own hand and making his own cross, the individual may stand behind the country's war effort. To me it is not a desertion of our lads overseas; to me it is stating that we are right there behind them, and that no matter what comes and no matter what duty or sacrifice is required, we individually, by the crosses we make with our own hands, place ourselves back of them. To many a person it will be an individual pledge to some soldier, sailor or airman. Let me point out that there are just as many on this side of the house as on the other side who have sons, brothers or other relatives overseas. There are just as many proportionately on this side as on that who served in the last great war. There are just as many who are intimately and personally concerned with the outcome as it will affect the whole country-our Canada.
The critics may say that the taking of the plebiscite will delay the war effort. Yet the raising of troops, the training of men, the building of ships and the making of munitions are going forward right now, just as has been the case in the past. Those troops trained for home service may serve overseas, if it becomes necessary through the passage of events in the next few months. They may be volunteer forces or they may not. Many of our volunteers who are over there now were not coerced, as has been suggested. They have gone of their own free will to fight for the cause, because they know what they are fighting for. They have gone to keep from our shores the war they do not want to fight on these shores.
And let me remind those who may be anti-conscriptionists, if that question arises, that the Germans have fought on foreign soil in many wars over a hundred years. They have fought and lost or won their wars on foreign soil. To those who may be anti-conscription-ist, I ask this question: If other nations took that view, namely the view that their men were valuable only on their own shores, where would Great Britain's navy be right now? It would be in its own home waters, and not over here helping to protect our shores. We must keep these things in mind, if we wish to keep the balance true, and particularly if the anti-conscriptionist issue arises.
But the carrying of the plebiscite does not mean necessarily that the question of conscription will follow, and I do not think it should. The purpose of the plebiscite is that of freeing the government's hands to do whatever is necessary for the winning of the
. war. But the question of conscription should and must be settled by those to whom conditions are known and who have access to all possible information. In my opinion we should proceed only on that basis, so far as conscription is concerned.
We may fail in our war effort. The League of Nations failed to keep peace, and in my view, the greatest reason for that failure was lack of cooperation among the nations. Hitler's armies have swept through Europe. In my opinion the chief reason was the lack of cooperation among nations. Why should Canada's war effort lag? To my mind it would lag only through a lack of cooperation among the people of Canada-yes, a lack of cooperation.
Czechoslovakia fell not only because of Munich. It broke because three and a half million people living in Sudetenland ceased to cooperate, and because the nationalist cry was raised in their midst. Czechoslovakia broke because Slovakia, another province, ceased to cooperate. Is there a parallel in Canada? I hate to suggest it, and I apologize to loyal Canadians of whatever extraction they may be because the comparison is not an exact one. Yet one of the reasons for Czechoslovakia's downfall was a lack of cooperation within its own borders and the raising of a nationalist cry which laid it open to the treachery of the enemy without.
Let us be a united nation; let us go forward together to the winning of the war. Our greatest contribution may not be made by the men and women in the armed forces, in the fields, in the mines, in the forests, in our industries or on the farms; it may not be won chiefly by our foodstuffs, our munitions, our ships, our war effort; it will be won by the morale of our people, and to that morale every man, woman and child in Canada contributes. That contribution may be a plus quantity or a minus quantity, but every individual contributes to the sum total in Canada of the will for victory.
Perhaps ninety per cent of us will do nothing spectacular to win the war; we shall go about doing our same old jobs, perhaps more thoroughly and cheerfully; perhaps we shall take on some volunteer work that we ourselves find; perhaps we shall take part in the salvage campaign or help with the Red Cross; we practise some economy, we do not buy some extra we had planned to buy; we pay our taxes, subscribe to war loans and buy war savings stamps and certificates. All this may not be spectacular, but it is a real part in
The Address-Mr. May hew

our war effort. It is forever true that the backbone of a country is the people who "obey the law, do the dull tasks to make the nation strong."
Let us remember that Mr. Churchill has told us to keep our eye on the ball. Our goal is to win the war and thus advance the cause of democracy. We must reach out toward that goal which Churchill has called "the march of the common man toward his true and just inheritance."


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) have received many compliments and congratulations upon the speeches which they delivered to this house in response to the speech from the throne. To those compliments and congratulations I think they are justly entitled. When we heard who was going to lead this debate we expected that they would set a high standard for the rest of us to follow. I should like also to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon speeches which I believe set an all-time high for quality. But they are not the only ones. The leaders of the other two groups should be congratulated. It was rather interesting to listen to those speeches, to read them again, and to note that, after all, there W'as not much difference in the thing that is essential to us at the present time, that is, the winning of the war.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) suggests that there should be conscription of wealth. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) claims that there is conscription of wealth and that we shall probably realize this more after he announces his budget within a few weeks. Hon. members on the other side think it is not only conscription, but to some extent confiscation of wealth. Whatever it may be, the ordinary taxpayer is not accustomed to thinking of it as we do in this house. He knows that he is having difficulty in paying what taxes are levied against him. But he is doing it without complaint, which is a good indication that the people of Canada are in earnest and are willing to support this war to the utmost. Before I go any further I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Cassel-man), who has just resumed her seat, upon what I consider to be a most excellent speech. I understand that this is her first speech in the House of Commons, and I recall that in my first speech I advocated a somewhat similar policy, that we should have an all-out inclusive, contributory superannuation fund in

Canada so that our old people might be relieved of fear and have something set by for themselves in their old age.
I should like to refer briefly to the election of 1940. At that time I asked the people of Victoria to give me their support that I might represent them in this parliament supporting the present government. In doing that, I said repeatedly, and my statement was sincere, that the present Prime Minister and the other members of his government were as capable, sincere and trustworthy as any group of men in Canada who were then available to lead the government in a vigorous war effort. If an election were to be held to-day, I could say the same thing with equal sincerity. In fact I believe I could more easily prove my statement, because since that time we have had some additions to the cabinet which I think has strengthened it greatly.
In this regard I have in mind the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) who left the province of Nova Scotia to lend a hand to Canada at this time. We heard nothing but compliments of the naval service and the fine contribution that has been made by it. I cannot help but think of how experience has brought out the worth of some of the other members, such as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), previously Minister of Finance. I think of the present Minister of Finance and of what he has done. The people of Canada are pleased with his success, and I am sure that his speech in the house on February 4 has greatly encouraged the people of Canada and has added to his own growing prestige.
I am saying this for two purposes. One purpose is to emphasize my personal belief in these men; the other is to increase, if I possibly can, their prestige and the confidence which the people of this country have in their leaders. Confidence in our leaders is one of the things that we absolutely need, and anyone who tries to dissipate that is doing an injustice to Canada. Not only have these men created confidence in themselves, they have produced results. I am sure that as Canadians we are all proud of what Canada has contributed to this war-contributed in the way of naval development, contributed to the army and contributed to the air force. I should not have forgotten the hon. Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), because the completion of the air-training scheme for which he is responsible will go down in Canada's history and remain for all time a bright jewel in Canada's crown of dignity. To anyone who is lacking in appreciation of Canada's wrar effort I would recommend a journey from one end of the country

The Address-Mr. May hew
to the other and a visit to our naval docks and naval yards, our shipbuilding plants and our munition industries, and I am sure they would come home delighted with what they saw and encouraged and proud to be Canadians.
This is not the time to eulogize too much our own government or pat them on the back. It is rather a time when we should take perhaps the opposite point of view and do a little criticizing. It is not good enough for us to review what we have done and say: "We have done well and therefore let us be content." Rather is it a time for us to say: "No, have we done our best, have we put everything we have into this struggle, everything in the way of man-power, machinery and resources? Have we extracted the last ounce and given the last penny to help win this war?" Nothing but our utmost should satisfy us at this time, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I thank God for the critics, provided that their criticism is honest and based on facts, or even on their own opinions, even if that opinion may not be so good. I do not care for criticism that is based on prejudice or on politics. I hope that although some of what I have to say will be critical of what has happened, it will be taken in the spirit in which it is given, and I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have not been trying to build up a straw-man for the purpose of knocking him down again.
I should like to say a word or two in connection with the Japanese situation in British Columbia. Here, again, my first words will be words of commendation of the government. Within a few hours of the Japanese treachery at Pearl Harbour, which has so disjointed our outlook at the present time, this government gave instructions to that portion of the Canadian navy on the Pacific coast to round up and bring into the Fraser river all Japanese boats and their personnel. That operation was conducted in true Canadian navy style. I believe that no offence was given to any of those brought in, but they were brought in. They went past my own door in long lines as they were convoyed from different parts of the island and along the coastline, and it was not an easy task. The Canadian navy had to go into every inlet, every village, every settlement, along a shoreline of over 2,000 miles. It is over one thousand miles around the island on which I live. Yet that task was accomplished, and accomplished without any indignities to the Japanese who were brought in.
But here my compliments, so far as the Japanese situation is concerned, must, I am sorry to say. end. We still leave them free
to move around in British Columbia just about where they will. I think our own defence should be the first consideration. The men who were gathered in were afterwards allowed to go back to the islands, and along the shoreline, and do whatever they wished to do, and so far as I know, many of them are still in those places. I wonder whether the government or anyone else can give us any assurance that these Japanese have not already cached munitions and arms of various kinds in different places along that long coastline. If that has not been done, it is just our good fortune, because there was nothing done to hinder them. There were some thousands of fishing boats which were capable of going three or four or five hundred miles out to sea, there was nothing to prevent a Japanese merchant boat from delivering to them arms to be cached along our coastline; and to-day, for all we know, at this very minute, they may be directing their friends to these caches for arms to be used against us.
I listened to what the Prime Minister had to say in the house this afternoon. I am sorry I could not grasp all of it, although I tried hard to follow him. One thing I understood him to say was that the Japanese nationals would be taken care of. I suppose he means that those Japanese who have been naturalized within the last three or four or five years, or ten years if you will, are no longer considered Japanese because they have signed a paper. Well, we have the Pearl Harbour incident to show that the signing of a naturalization paper does not mean a great deal to them. I also understood from the Prime Minister that the government was going to intern only those Japanese who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. While I am over forty-five myself, I think I could create quite a lot of trouble yet, and when I was under eighteen I think I could get into quite a lot of devilment too. Therefore I would not care to trust them, and I do not think we have any right to do so. I know that in my city there are a good many people who have lived anywhere from fifteen to fifty years in Japan. They have educated their children in England or in Canada, and although they have lived in Japan all those years, they still count themselves Canadians or British. Can we expect more of a Japanese than we do of our own people? Blood is thicker than water. These people must be taken care of; we ask that it be done with the least inconvenience and that they be provided with proper shelter and proper care. We do not wish one of them molested, or treated in any way that we would not want our own people to be treated, but we want them taken
The Address-Mr. Mayhem

care of. I would not want to be the one responsible for sorting out the loyal Japanese from the disloyal. Perhaps some of our professors have a special kind of X-ray with which they could distinguish the good from the bad, but it is not in the possession of the common man.
Now a word or two on the plebiscite. I think it was a bad promise. But the promise was given by all parties in this house. The Prime Minister, when he gave that promise, gave it in the hearing of us all, and by our silence we gave our consent and shared in the promise, I think, however, most of us, particularly we old men, should have known better than to give such a promise. No one can tell what is going to happen in war time, and certainly that is true as far as this war is concerned. Nevertheless that promise was made. Much as I dislike the thought of a plebiscite, partly because of the expense and partly because of the delay-the hon. member for Edmonton East said our work is continuing, but if it has not caused any loss of time outside this house it has at least delayed us here, because most of this debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne has been centred round that one point-yet I think it is the least of several evils, and perhaps we can turn what is at present a liability into an asset to this country if as good Canadians we get out and try to put this over eighty or ninety per cent at least. But our good friends from Quebec might surprise some of the people who are doing a great deal of talking about conscription.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of a total war effort, and I believe it is the common desire of all the people of Canada that this total war effort shall be continued until we have won the last battle and also win the peace. I think the resolution of the Canadian Legion calling for total war is not calling for conscription in the narrow sense; it is calling for a reallocation of the man-power of Canada, a reallocation of the activities of industry in Canada. It is calling for the efforts of our women as well as our men and for the maximum effort of finance as well as man-power. The Canadian Legion recognize, as you and I do, that an idle dollar is very little use, any more than an idle man. Therefore they ask for an all-out effort of man-power, woman-power, power of our industries, power of our farms, our mines and' our timber, a total war effort. It seems to me rather strange that we have an oil controller, a food controller, a canned fruit controller, and I understand that the other day a controller of men's working gloves was appointed, but we have not anyone

yet definitely set apart to reallocate and control man-power and the industrial power of Canada. I would recommend that some such step'be taken.
When I think of total war I think back to the farm a few miles up the line here where I was born; I think of the effort it took to convert that land from stubborn bush into a fertile farm. Then I multiply that effort by the hundreds of thousands of farms throughout Canada, particularly eastern Canada. I think also of the institutions that have grown up in Canada, of our churches, schools, universities, the great railroads that span this continent from sea to sea; that represents the work of our fathers and grandfathers and is the corner-stone of Canada. It is upon that corner-stone that we had expected to raise in peace and industry a nation that would be the pride of the world. But we have been thwarted in that endeavour. Perhaps we men from the west are a little impatient. We have not got our roots down in the soil of Canada to the same extent as men in eastern Canada; we have not been accustomed to living year after year and generation after generation in one house.
We have not had to carry in ox-carts and wagons the stones to build our churches, schools and homes. Almost in a few years we found the place grown up, and I am wondering whether we are probably not a little too anxious to rush the older and more settled places in some of the things we would have them do. But if the people in eastern Canada have their roots more solidly embedded in the country; if there is a sentimental tie that is binding them to Canada, greater than in the case of the people in the west, is it not equally clear that they would rather fight the enemy on somebody else's soil than see that enemy desecrate all that their grandfathers and fathers had worked for in Canada? I think they would rather be in the position of burning their enemy's homes than having the enemy burn theirs, and I am satisfied that, when the time comes, the province of Quebec, as it has done on every occasion, will come forward and do the right thing in the interests of Canada. They will do it again. I plead for consideration. Let us not be too hasty in what we are thinking about.
May I make a statement or two about our war defences on the Pacific coast. I should not like to leave for a moment the impression in this house or in the country that I am in any way opposed to the policy which the government has adopted since the beginning of the war, of reorganizing the defence of Great Britain, our first and most urgent defence need. Nor has that position changed greatly,

The Address-Mr. May hew
although at the present time we are a victim of the pincer movement on a world scale that has never been known or thought of before.
Hitler, the leader of the three, set the style by conquering countries one by one and fooling the others as he went along. He started in Norway and went straight through to the Black sea, as Churchill said in 1938 that he would. We have a similar position to-day on the Pacific coast. We have the Japanese, the counterpart of Hitler; starting in Malaya, working their way to Singapore, into the Philippines, into the Indies and to Australia and New Zealand; and how do we know that Canada is not the next? Of what use are we to ourselves or to anybody else if we allow the Japanese to go on indefinitely conquering and getting control of the Pacific? We have a little time to spare. I urge the minister and the government to make use of that time to the utmost of their ability and to see that the west coast of British Columbia is supplied with everything with which it is possible to supply it-with guns and tanks, and not with a company of men, but with divisions of men.
The minister said he would have them ready to move. I should like to see them move at least west of the Great Divide where we know we can get them when we want them. I am not implying that we have no defences on the coast. I know well enough that we have, and I know that the defences on the coast have been greatly increased in the last two months. But when the city of London is not immune from bombs and destruction, with all the defences it has, or when we may go to Berlin and bomb that city at will, surely we cannot say that we have sufficient safeguards to take care of our vital spots.
I do not think for a moment that the Japanese are particularly interested in the bombing or destruction of our cities in British Columbia; that would not be worth their while. It is too risky, and it would cost them too much in effort to drop bombs simply for the purpose of destroying a house. The Japanese know that dropping bombs in civilian places will not hurt the morale of the Canadian people, for that has been too well tested in Great Britain, and there would be no greater effect on us in British Columbia. But there are some vital spots. For instance, he would not mind dropping a bomb and destroying the only remaining dry dock of Great Britain on the Pacific coast, the one at Esquimalt. He would be glad to destroy the only means of communication we have between Australia and New Zealand. He would be only too pleased, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) said the other day, to bomb the largest munitions factory in Canada. He would not hesitate to dislocate the rest of
Canada from British Columbia if the opportunity came his way-and he will try to make that opportunity. I therefore ask that we be given not only consideration, but men and materials.
I was pleased to notice in the paper the other day that the minister intends making greater use of the reserve forces. I think this move is well taken, but it is a little late. The reserve forces to-day are composed of men who are not in the military category, or if they are in the military category, they are looking after industry or business of some kind and it is more essential to Canada that their services should be given in that direction. But they are willing to spend their nights and holidays in training and equipping themselves for the protection of the people on the coast.
I think they should be given a warm welcome and every encouragement and given equipment. They should be given instructions how to train and should be told what is expected of them.
When the Hun was at the vei-y gates of Leningrad, Stalin called on the people of that city to come out en masse and defend the place. We people on the Pacific coast are willing to come out en masse to defend our places, but what good would we be? We would only be in the way of the regular soldiers. I ask the minister, therefore, to give this matter his earnest and, I am sure, immediate consideration.
I have spoken longer than I intended but I wish to finish by a recapitulation or short summary of the points I have tried to bring out in my address. The first thing that is required in Canada is the preservation of unity. This cannot be left to the government alone. They can help, but unity can be maintained in this country only by individual effort, by our trying to understand and to appreciate the other fellow's position, no matter which coast he is on, no matter what his religion or his race may be. One of the things that would help bring about unity in Canada, particularly during the war, would be a complete moratorium on party politics.
I ask for a reallocation of man-power in this country, putting to work those who are idle, training the inefficient so that they may be of value. Just here I should like to mention one point. We have in Canada a group of unwanted men. They are not the Japanese; they are the men fifty years of age and up. There are thousands of them, if not in the east, certainly in the west, who are conscientiously searching for some way to help in this war effort. But they are not being encouraged. To-day there is a definite competition for men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, competition not
The Address-Mr. Mayhew

limited to the three services but also between industry and the services. These are the men most useful to us, but in my opinion that competition should cease right away, and we should try to make use of all the man and woman power of Canada.
Then I would ask that the factories be treated on the same basis as the men; that they be asked to do what is needed. They do not need to be told. I do not agree with the hon. gentleman opposite who said a short time ago that industry must be driven to do what we want it to do. There is not an industry that I know of that is not only too anxious to turn over its plant and do what the government wishes it to do.
Then I suggest that the government stop talking about our natural resources, and make use of them. For years I have been telling this government that in British Columbia we have mountains of iron ore that is not being used even yet; and it is still there. Quite recently one industry was set up in the east because it was said there was no power to run it in British Columbia. This plant, I believe, is designed to produce a hundred tons of magnesium a day. Just imagine; no power in British Columbia! Why, if there is anything of which we have plenty, it is power, but no one seems ready to get to work and develop it.
Then I would stop asking our people to do things. We asked them to save gasoline, and it was a flop. We are asking them to save sugar, and that is in a fair way to be another flop. If you want anything done you must tell the people what you want. Over the week-end I went to Winnipeg. Sitting opposite me in the dining car was a gentleman who I thought would know better; but when the sugar bowl was passed and the waiter asked how many lumps he wished he said, "Five." As a member of parliament I almost felt that he was trying to insult me by that action. I went into the observation car, where I overheard two ladies telling each other how they could' get all the sugar they wanted because they divided their business between two grocers and could get their five pounds a week from each. As long as we have people like that, it is a great discouragement to those who are glad to help voluntarily.
In conclusion, I suggest that the government tell the people of their plans. Do not be afraid to give us the bad news as well as the good news, when it comes. We have courage; we have intelligence; we are loyal, and we will help you to a man. After the war is over, we may tell you what we think of you, but in this crisis we will all give all we have.

Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, two months ago, the dominion parliament was bereaved by death of one of its greatest debaters, the Liberal party, of the man who embodied the "sound judgment" of the cabinet; the French-Canadian race, of the most noble and worthy leader it has probably ever had, and the country, of one of her greatest statesmen. Accordingly, the whole nation, without any consideration of race, creed or party, paid reverent homage to that statesman and patriot, bitterly mourning his demise.
Never in the history of Canada was such a unanimous tribute paid to a public man called by death while in the service of his country. All the provinces, even the most remote, were represented at the funeral of the great departed. The leaders of all parties paid tribute to his memory. All the newspapers in the country dealt at length with his qualities as a statesman and even as a private citizen. From many European countries came messages of condolence to the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King). The pope himself sent his representative to his bedside to bestow his blessing upon him. Cardinal Villeneuve, leader of the Catholic church in Canada, conducted his funeral service and delivered an oration which he entitled "A Christian has departed."
Why was there such unanimity before those mortal remains? Why? The reason is that Lapointe was "an honest man." Lapointe never betrayed his race. Lapointe never broke his word. Lapointe never altered his principles.
During forty years spent in political life, Lapointe ever held to the principle of voluntary enlistment, a principle which he learned from Laurier, founder of the real Canadian Liberal doctrine. Lapointe denounced for twenty-five years the conscription enforced in 1917. In 1939, Lapointe asked the province of Quebec, at the time of the provincial elections, for a token of confidence in his war policy. Again in 1940 Lapointe stood for the same principle at the time of the federal election, namely, voluntary enlistment. Were he alive to-day, Lapointe would still be in favour of voluntary enlistment. And I am satisfied that there would be no reference to a plebiscite in the speech from the throne, because Lapointe would have convinced the government of the danger to national unity which such a measure entailed. His sound judgment would have led him to foresee what is happening to-day throughout the country.
Never before in the history of this country have the importance, the great worth and the authority of a political leader been so promptly

The Address-Mr. LaCroix (Montmorency)
appreciated after his death. Can it be that scarcely two months after he has gone there should be no one in Ottawa to retain any respect for the principles or the memory of Lapointe? It seems I can still hear his powerful voice stating:
I will resign from the cabinet and denounce those who would impose conscription for overseas upon my fellow-citizens.
They who advocate conscription for overseas are opposed to national unity.
The sons of Canada will never be compelled to serve outside the borders of Canada, so long as I am a member of the government.
We have there some of the statements made by Mr. Lapointe when he set forth the principle of the "voluntary system". That is what the Liberal leaders in Ottawa, and particularly all members in this house, specially those from Quebec, must not forget. Those are the principles on which Lapointe had sixty-four Quebec members elected to the federal house. Those principles were not advocated through hypocrisy and for electoral purposes only. On the contrary, what Lapointe sought above all was "national unity", the welfare of the country.
Lapointe was and has always been sincere, and we who followed him also were, still are and will remain so.
It is on the principle of the "voluntary system" that the present government in Ottawa secured its own election as well as that of Mr. Godbout in Quebec. The present leader of the Quebec government stated in 1939 that he would stand against his own party if it ever tried to impose conscription for overseas service.
Those are Mr. Lapointe's Liberal principles for which we fought and for which we are still resolved to fight.
Mr. Speaker, I have in the past made tremendous sacrifices for the preservation of principles which I had advocated. To-day I object most emphatically and most decidedly to the statement contained in the speech from the throne and in which we are asked to set aside the promise, the convictions and the sacred principles of Lapointe.
Mr. Speaker, the walls of this house still echo with this great patriot's protests against that infamous measure, conscription, which split the countiy in 1917.
I shall never forget Mr. Lapointe's protests against that measure and, for that reason, I shall vote against conscription. I shall even cast my vote against the plebiscite which imperialists have thrust upon the cabinet, because it constitutes the first step towards conscription.
I shall respect the memory of Lapointe. Lapointe died on duty. Lapointe died after
struggling, particularly for two and a half years, against the financial organization which seeks to impose conscription for service overseas. The whole of Canada, for which Lapointe laid down his life, asks us to revere his memoiy. Those who die for their country deserve that on their graves people come and pray, and revere their memory.
In his speech of January 26, 1942, Prime Minister the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King informed the house that the question to be submitted to the people when the plebiscite is held, will be as follows:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
By this, the government means: "Will you release us from the pledge we took on March 26, 1940, at the time of the last general election, to refrain from forcibly sending on military service outside the country men who are now or who may later be conscripted for service within Canada?"
Farther on, in this same speech of January 26, 1942, the right hon. the Prime Minister said, and these are his own words:
In the presentation of the plebiscite to the electorate the desire of the administration to possess complete freedom of action will, of course, receive the vigorous and whole-hearted support of all members of the government and of the Canadian people.
I understand the government would have us answer yes; they expressed a strong desire to that effect and they will marshal all their propaganda services to get the people to release them of their promises about conscription for service overseas, promises made to the people just two years ago during a general election and when the war was already started.
Since the government ask the people to release them of their obligations, it is obvious that they intend to use the permission so given and that we shall soon have conscription for service overseas. Moreover, there can be no misunderstanding about it, because in the speech from the throne, the government, through His Excellency the Governor General, have this to say:
The government is of the opinion that, at this time of gravest crisis in the world's history, the administration, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, should in this connection and irrespective of any previous commitments, possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise.
My ministers accordingly will seek, from the people, by means of a plebiscite, release from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service.
438	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. LaCroix (Montmorency)
The speech from the throne does not contain the words "conscription for service overseas", but that is what they have in mind. The government do not say directly that the present administration will adopt such a measure, but the clever wording of the document should deceive no one. This plebiscite is in reality on conscription for service overseas, a measure which the government now believe necessary; otherwise, they would not seek to be released of their promises against conscription.
Besides, here is what says on the subject, in its editorial page, the organ of the Liberal Party in western Canada, the Winnipeg Free Press on the 27th of January, 1942:
But, though Mr. King thus limited himself yesterday, the limitation is formal and the commitment to conscription must be regarded as complete. We predict with assurance that the plebiscite will be followed by the introduction of a bill which will incorporate conscription for military service overseas. The bill will be supported by the government and it will pass. This prophecy is made because any other interpretation of Mr. King's speech is meaningless and because neither his government nor any other that could be formed in Canada could survive if this were not done.
I agree entirely with Hon. Adclard Godbout, premier of the province of Quebec, when he said at the annual convention of the Liberal Association of St. Denis-Dorion, on the 26th of January last, as reproduced in Le Canada of Tuesday, January 27, 1942:
I believe that conscription for service overseas would be a crime at the present time. I know that the situation of Australia will guide the wisdom of the man who governs us and might put some sense in the heads of those who have none.
I do not doubt the sincerity of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King and he wishes no doubt to gain time, in order to put off as much as possible the date, fatal for national unity, when it will become necessary to have conscription for service overseas, but I know too that the shameless blackmail of the group headed by the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen-whose political life has come to an end with the election returns of Ontario-will not stop, and that under the pressure of those members of the cabinet who care the least for Canada, he will have to give in, at the greatest expense of what he and Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe had tried so hard to create, national unity.
For, if we were to release the government from its commitments of the last general election, who knows what might happen in three or four months!
At the present time I consider that it would be a momentous error to send men to foreign

lands now that we must actively prepare for the defence of our own country. It is rumoured, just now, that we are considering sending men to England or to Alaska, a United States possession. Gentlemen, please let us not forget that the United States have a population of 130 million and Britain 50 million people, while we have but 11 million inhabitants from which to raise an army to defend a territory as large as the whole of Europe. Let us not make the same mistake as Australia which, after supplying men for Libya, Greece, Singapore and many other theatres of war, has not nearly enough left for the defence of its own shores which may be incessantly subjected to attack by Japan. Australia is now sending an S.O.S. to Britain and Canada, and the United Kingdom, in spite of its 50 million population is turning again to us for supplying the necessary forces.
It is time for us to forsake imperialistic ideals; let us collect our wits and, amidst this general panic, think first of our own country which is presently being submerged under sentiments that are anything but Canadian.
Moreover, let me submit to the attention of the house the utterances of the right hon. the Prime Minister, on January 26, 1942, and the argument he had, over the plebiscite, with the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), who, as everyone knows, is among the most enthusiastic imperialists in the whole house. I quote:
It will be seen that in seeking freedom for itself to act on all matters pertaining to war in accordance with its judgment, the government is taking a course which will remove all legitimate excuse for controversy, and the course best calculated to maintain the unity of the country in this time of war.
Mr. Homuth: Then what will they do?
Mr. Mackenzie King:	That will depend in
part upon what my hon. friend and those who are round him will do.
Mr. Homuth:	Do not worry about us.
So, the Prime Minister makes his future decisions dependent upon those of the Tory party, since we all know that the hon. member for Waterloo South is one of the most prominent members of that party.
I cannot see why our policy should be dictated by a party which has passed into oblivion-as shown by the results of to-day's elections-and which is now no more than a historical relic. The Conservative party does not represent public opinion and the few people who still cling to it feel ashamed to say so. On that subject, may I be permitted to quote an editorial from Le Soleil, a Liberal newspaper from Quebec, dated January 23, 1942, and which reads as follows:
An illusion to be dropped and a danger to be avoided.

The Address-Mr. LaCroix (Montmorency)
So the Canadian government had not foreseen everything when they made their promises to the people, before the war and since then, and when some ministers were saying that conscription for overseas service was not advisable. Now the Prime Minister asks the electors to be released from a rash promise so as to replace the Liberal formula of the war effort by the formula of total war which he borrows from the Tories, and he does not tell us how he is going to apply it.
Mr. Mackenzie King admits that the war policy which he has followed so far is no longer sufficient in the present critical turn of the world conflict, and he would like his government to be released from all past commitments which could interfere with his future actions. The date of the plebiscite is not yet announced but its object is very apparent in the speech from the throne.
Consequently, with a view to warding off the criticism and intrigues of the Tory party, the government are placing the electorate in a position to assume direct responsibility for shaping the future government policy.
And it goes on:
Le Soleil, a Liberal paper from Quebec, does not wish to conceal its surprise at the stand taken by the King government. But when it is about to lose a cherished illusion, it will refrain from aggravating, through useless agitation, an already tense situation. The only comment it wishes to make to-day is that such a policy does not seem consistent with parliamentary tradition. Under the circumstances would Sir Wilfrid Laurier have taken the course followed by Mr. King?
In enforcing conscription for service outside this country an endeavour will be made to invoke the stand taken by the Americans. Their participation in the war will of course be decisive, but in order to do what we have accomplished as regards military participation, they will have to raise an army of seven million and a half men and send one million and a half men overseas.
Besides, through the Mobilization Act and voluntary enlistments we have been able to raise 500,000 men in Canada. Having regard to population, England should have an army of two million and a half men, had young Englishmen enlisted in the same proportion as young Canadians. I for one feel that the danger which now threatens our own soil forbids us to weaken our own defence unduly; it even makes it imperative for us to strengthen it. Now, the best way of achieving this, in view of our small population and the extent of the territory to be protected, is to keep our soldiers right here for the defence of the country.
Are not our leaders in duty bound to ensure the protection of our coasts, in order to forestall any threatened landing, and are not those coasts extensive enough to require as many men as we can mobilize without jeopardizing the gigantic building and training programme already under way?
We shall be attacked because we have declared war and I am convinced that parliament would not have declared war if the King-Lapointe compromise had not been accepted by the people of this country and if the people had known then that the intention was to enforce conscription for service outside Canada.
Having voted against the declaration of war, I am in a position to speak of this quite freely. I knew then what would logically follow as a consequence of the policy adopted by the House of Commons. There were those, at the time, who said I -was a visionary, but I now find justification for my stand in the following words spoken on January 26, 1942, by the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada. I quote:
Every hon. member of this house knows that, except for the assurance that, in the event of a European war, there w-ould be no conscription for service overseas, this parliament would never have decided, in the immediate and unanimous manner in which it did, to stand at the side of Britain in the resistance of aggression, and the defence of freedom.
Hon. members are also aware that if, at the time when Canada's participation in the war was challenged in an election in the province of Quebec by a government professing a different political faith, a like assurance with respect to service overseas had not been given, in the name of the present government by the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), and other Liberal leaders and members of this House of Commons from the province of Quebec, the verdict of the people of that province might have been wholly different.
Once again I would warn my fellow-citizens of the consequences of a plebiscite through which the government asks to be released of its undertaking to oppose conscription for overseas service. I am convinced that we shall have conscription for service outside Canada. If this does not come about under the present Prime Minister, it will be under another, but the people in my constituency and in my province are strongly opposed to any conscription for overseas service, not through any fear of going abroad, but simply from love of country and a determination to ensure its intelligent defence.
Besides, there could be no ambiguity about that, because, answering a question asked in the House of Commons by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), on January 27, 1942, the Prime Minister stated the following, which will be found in Hansard, at page 60:
When my hon. friend goes on to ask me what I am going to do with respect to any expression of view which may be made by the people in connection with any reference which will be made to them, may I say to him that in seeking
440	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. LaCroix (Montmorency)
to get relief from past commitments I am not going to begin by making new and fresh commitments. In seeking freedom on the part of the ministry I am not going to start in by seeking to tie my own hands.
That is the answer to that part of the question.
My hon. friend asked a further question, whether there was any understanding between myself and Mr. Godbout, express or implied, as to the position which I would take as a result of any plebiscite that would be presented to the people. May I say to him that there is no understanding, express or implied, with Mr. Godbout or with any other person on earth, with respect to the attitude that I propose to take after the people have expressed their views with -regard to giving the government a free hand.
May I add that such attitude as I shall take at the time will be taken in the light of all the circumstances as I may know them as a member of the government, and of all conditions as I know them in regard to this country and, as far as I am able to know something about them, conditions in other countries as well.
Consequently, there can be no doubt that if the plebiscite carries, the government will be absolutely free to enact conscription.
In view of my past attitude on this question and of my promises to my constituents, I consider it my duty to vote against the speech from the throne.
Moreover, I am in duty bound, contrary to the Prime Minister's wishes, to urge upon my constituents not to release the government from their commitments.
I sincerely and earnestly hope that the people will refuse to release the government from their pledges, and I am sure my views in this regard will be shared by my constituents and by the whole province of Quebec. If others turn a deaf ear to that fire-brand who seems to be putting conscription even above victory, there is every likelihood that the government's request will be turned down. Such refusal will settle the issue once and for all and, at the same time, will teach a lesson to those imperialists bent on blackmailing the government on that question and who are forcing them to ruin us by donations-a billion at a time-out of all proportion to our means.
Mr. King, being of sound judgment, could try to balance our participation on a rational basis, and none of his possible immediate successors would give us better satisfaction on this point.
If, God forbid, the plebiscite is carried, as the government hopes, and an act establishing conscription for service overseas is passed by a liberal or a union government, I want to tell

him right now that the province of Quebec will never accept such a solution, and that it will take advantage of the first opportunity offered at the polls to express its contempt.
There is another matter that I believe my duty to bring before the house; I refer to representatives of big corporations who ' serve the country as dollar-a-year men. Occupying key positions, or at least posts of observation, it is for them possible to advise their companies as to future contracts and government's projects. As a result, war industry is a profitable proposition.
Besides, proof of it lies in the comparative balance-sheets, for the first nine months of 1941, of the large companies that control industrial production at the present time.
I want to protest emphatically against that policy which gives all contracts to the large industries, at the expense of the small industries. That is particularly true of us, from the district of Quebec, who do not have large industries.
The Truman committee, of the United States senate, which held an inquiry on the subject in the United States, has just handed its report to the council of United States ministers, and already Mr. Roosevelt has taken drastic steps to correct that situation considered disastrous for the small industries. Why not imitate the United States government, for our problem is the same, and it is advisable for us, possibly more than for the United States, to adopt the remedy suggested by the Truman report?
Moreover, I wish to express in this house my disapproval of the one billion dollar gift to England, as well as of the seven hundred million dollar loan, bearing no interest, which, I have every reason to believe, will never be reimbursed.
My compatriots, already bled white by existing taxes, will have to pay for these gifts which no excess of generosity can justify. There are limits to the running of a country, thinly populated, that has been thrown into a conflict by circumstances which I have condemned when war was declared and which I do not wish to discuss again to-day. This imperialistic folly, 'this shameless blackmail coming from the least Canadian section of the country, to whose will the government always seems ready to yield, will inevitably incite us to break away from the empire after the war, and will throw us into a financial condition which will burden us for generations to come.

The Address-Mr. Hanson (Skeena)
I must also, on the floor of this house, as I have done in previous years, protest energetically against the small measure of consideration given to French Canadians in war services and organizations. It seems that the deeper we get into this war, the fewer French Canadians are appointed. Such appointments are becoming so unusual that it has become very hard to locate their recipients; yet, we make up a third of the population and we are incessantly reminded that national unity must be safeguarded. It seems to me, that the best way to promote national unity is by giving fairer treatment, in this country, to the descendants of the first settlers.
The unfair treatment of French Canadians, at the present time, in all fields of endeavour, will convince them more and more that the present conflict is not a Canadian war, but truly a war waged for the exclusive benefit of the British empire.
As a consequence, it would not be at all surprising, after the war, for the Canadian population to seek total independence or annexation to the United States.
We are profoundly attached to our soil, our traditions and our language. No government charged with the administration of this country, may overlook the fact that one-third of its population, although Frenchspeaking, contribute its fair share of tax payments and personal sacrifice for the prosecution of the war.
For this reason, the French Canadian is entitled to his share in the administration, and, being first and emphatically a Canadian, when requested to increase his war effort, it is necessary that he be convinced by deeds that he is serving Canada and Canada only.
No fitter conclusion to my speech could I find but to quote the words of Leslie Roberts, in the Saturday Night of January 17, 1942:
Why does French Canada still hate the idea of conscription for service overseas, despite the assault by Japan and the threat to our own western coast?
The answer is that Quebeckers are Canada-minded but not empire-minded. Like other Canadians, they have heard a lot about serving Britain and the empire and very little about serving Canada.
Says Mr. Roberts: ... if anybody wants French Canada to accept the idea of fighting anywhere in the world, other than voluntarily, the idea of Canadian survival necessity must first be driven home, not empire survival, not British necessity, not even the survival of democracy.


Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like in a humble way to offer a few remarks in this debate. I shall not speak from the French-Canadian or the Anglo-Saxon point of view because I happen to be an immigrant
to this country. I am one of those two million people whom Canada has invited to her shores from other parts of the world. I am pleased to have had that invitation from the two great races in Canada, French and English, and I am trying to be worthy of the privileges extended to me by being a good Canadian.
I feel it is my duty to address the members of the house briefly at this time because I am the representative of a part of Canada the importance of which in the present war effort is absolutely essential. My constituency of Skeena, and particularly its principal city of Prince Rupert, are in the forefront of war activities. It would be unwise to go into details, but the foregoing statement is nevertheless a statement of fact.
None of us at this time should in any way make statements or give out information that might be a comfort to our enemies and an embarrassment to ourselves. I am satisfied that the national defence authorities have done everything possible to provide for the defence of that vital empire link which I represent. My only desire in this respect is to state publicly what I know and feel. The northwest coast of British Columbia and its great seaport of Prince Rupert are of such vast importance that every possible effort should be made to bring its de'fences to the point where it may continue, in spite of whatever enemy action may come, to serve as part of the life-line between the source of supply in our war and our troops afloat, on land, or in the air who must unfailingly receive from us the supplies and the munitions necessary not only to prevent them from being placed at a disadvantage but to assure them of superiority in this respect. Hand in hand with active defence must go the efforts of the civilian population itself to make sure of a degree of protection in the case of enemy attack.
Canada, since its formation, has taken part in all the wars of the empire. Previously our share, and our proper share, which was undertaken gladly, was to send abroad to a theatre of war far from our own shores our representatives to assist in the preservation of the British empire and of those ideals of fairness and justice for which it stands.
This war has forced upon us a realization that we can no longer ignore our complete duty. The war has been brought home not only to the armed forces of the world but to its civilian population. No man can guarantee that the dread effects of war will not be brought home to our Canadian cities and most surely to those on our coastlines; and those ports which form a part of our supply line will for the same reason be the obvious objective of enemy attack.
442	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Hanson (Skeena)
I want to dwell for a few momenta on the subject of air raid precautions, one of the most essential services and one in which Great Britain has distinguished herself. Throughout the areas of Canada subject to the risk of enemy attack, a civilian organization has been formed, on a purely voluntary basis, to guarantee that our armed forces will be supported by an organized and trained civilian population. These efforts are generally referred to as "air raid precautions." Throughout the riding which I represent, and particularly in the city of Prince Rupert, to which I have referred, patriotic citizens have created voluntary organizations to deal with this matter. In Prince Rupert men and women are freely giving of their time and submitting themselves to training in order to form part of an organized body to meet the dangers that may come their way.
We have all followed what has been happening in the last few days; we realize that Hitler and the axis powers have been trying to destroy our communications by sinking our ships; and if we lose Singapore, which God forbid, the axis powers may next go after the big shipping ports on the British and United States coasts. I have in mind Esquimalt, Prince Rupert and other great sea ports.
I cannot speak too highly of the degree of public service demonstrated by the air raid precautions organization in the city of Prince Rupert. Private citizens and public servants have given freely of their time. They have held practices testing their ability, and I am sure that in the event of enemy action the citizens of the coastal communities will prove as capable as the population of any British city.
Perhaps to a greater degree than is true of any other portion of Canada my constituency is confronted with an alien problem. For many years fishing has been a chief industry of British Columbia and the city of Prince Rupert and my constituency constitute the capital of that industry. The fishing industry of British Columbia has been very largely in the hands of Japanese. It may not be a matter of common knowledge that the largest centre for distribution of what is perhaps the finest edible fish in the world, the halibut, is Prince Rupert. Of the twenty-nine million pounds produced in Canada, British Columbia produces fourteen million and, of that, eleven million pounds come from our district.
So large a place does the halibut fishing occupy in Prince Rupert that a small boy
fM>. O. Hanson.]
there saying his prayers one night in front of his mother said, "Our Father which are in Heaven, Halibut be Thy Name." That is how vital the halibut fishing industry is to Prince Rupert. If that industry is going to be taken away and left to the oriental who is now our enemy, I wish the government to understand what it means in the development of that part of the country.
There is a concentration of Japanese fishermen in the coastal waters which touch my constituency. Whatever may be said of the possible menace of the large Japanese population there-their numbers are from 20,000 to 30,000-it can be said with truth that it is amongst those of this race who are engaged in the fishing industry that our greatest potential danger lies. It may be that the smaller number of aliens of this race who are engaged in farming do not present a serious problem, but Japanese fishermen do present a problem, and I urge upon this government with all the emphasis I can give this statement that these alien enemies should justly and fairly be removed from the coastal areas where they are capable of doing such great harm. This matter has been brought up by several hon. members from British Columbia, and I urge that all Japanese of military age should be removed from that area.
Long ago I referred to the necessity of highway communication between Prince Rupert and the interior of British Columbia, which means with the rest of Canada. While this has long been desirable from the commercial point of view, because of the war situation it now becomes an absolute necessity. In making this statement at this time I am sure I shall not be considered as talking only for the benefit of the constituency which I have the honour to represent; it is a strategic necessity for the defence of Canada. This government which has done so much in so many ways knows that anything of this kind is of great concern, and will realize without further elaboration on my part the seriousness of the situation and take immediate and effective steps in this matter which is of such importance for the defence of our country. I cannot state too strongly that this is an enterprise which should be undertaken at once.
Personally I think it is unnecessary for me to state my stand regarding this vi'ar, because I offered my services, and my son and my son-in-law have done likewise. Not only have

Internments
I offered my services, but the money which I have made through the privileges afforded me, an immigrant, I offered at the beginning of the war, free of charge. Therefore I speak for all Canadians, whether we call ourselves French-Canadians or whatever our racial origin may be, those whom you invited to come to Canada and make it a cosmopolitan country. The finest expression of genuine patriotism that has been given in this house in my long experience of its activities was expressed on Friday by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), our minister from British Columbia. I appeal to hon. members and to all Canadians: If you were sincere in the invitation which you gave to people of other lands, including myself, some forty years ago, and which no doubt you are going to give again, in this crisis through which we are now passing, let us all forget whether we are east or west, whether our birthplace was this or that, and all be Canadians.
A word in conclusion. I am not going to refer to what has happened in the elections to-day, but I do wish to say that my namesake, the hon. leader of the opposition has fulfilled his duties with great credit to himself, and it is apparent that there is no one who could do better. Since the electors have shown that the Mackenzie King government still has the support of the people of Canada, let us accept that and all work together to make Canada greater yet.
On motion of Mr. Ward the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Tuesday, February 10, 1942