LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: I should like to lay upon the table copy of order in council, P.C. 629. I may state that

this is the order in council requested by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) on Friday afternoon. It deals with the basic wage rates in shipbuilding plants in Ontario and Quebec.	,



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.
He said: This is a reintroduction of a bill which was not reached last session. The purpose of this bill is to provide that the Unemployment Insurance Commission created* by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, shall cooperate with other authorities in the dominion or provinces for the purpose of collecting information concerning any plan for providing medical care or compensation in cases of ill health.
These provisions were found in the Employment and Social Insurance Act, chapter 38 of the statutes of 1935. This act, having been declared to be ultra vires by majority of the supreme court, and subsequently by a judgment of the privy council delivered January 28, 1937, was repealed in 1940 by section 103 of chapter 44 of the statutes of that year, being the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.
The competency of parliament to legislate in regard to unemployment insurance has been now settled by the amendment to the British North America Act of 1940. It is highly desirable to reintroduce these health provisions into our dominion law.
Mr. POULIOT:: This is a waste of time.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Not as much as you have wasted.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to amend the Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1930.
He said: This bill was passed by the senate at the last session and given its first reading in this house, but because government business was given precedence all through the session, public bills were not reached. I may say that I discussed this bill with the late Minister of Justice before introducing it. We went over

Questions
it carefully and he agreed that it was necessary and wise legislation. Therefore I introduce it again.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	What decision has the government reached regarding the recognition of our present ally the U.S.S.R.?
2.	If recognition has been decided upon, will the government exchange representatives with the Soviet Union?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My hon. friend has been advised as to the reasons which make it desirable to let this question stand for the moment.
Question stands.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: The Prime Minister has stated that he has communicated to the hon. member who asked this question the reasons why it was not being answered at the moment. Is there any reason why the house should not also be given the reasons now? This is a matter of considerable public importance.


Jean-François Pouliot: Say it with flowers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure my hon. friend will realize that there may be public reasons why it is inadvisable to answer a particular question at one time rather than another. There were reasons why it was thought inadvisable that this question should be answered at this moment, and those reasons were communicated to-day by the Undersecretary of State for External Affairs to the hon. member who has asked the question. The Under-Secretary having communicated those reasons to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and the hon. member having agreed that they were sufficient reasons for not answering the question at this time and being quite satisfied that it should stand for the reasons given, I think that ought to have sufficed. I do not mind telling my hon. friend what the reasons are. The government has undertaken negotiations in this matter and at the present time we are awaiting word from the Russian ambassador in London who unfortunately I understand has not, because of illness, been in a position up to the present time to send the desired information. I think it would have been as well if I had not had to make that explanation. I would ask my hon. friend and other hon. members of the house, at this time of very
delicate relations between different parts of the world, that the government be allowed to reserve its answers to certain questions where it may be assumed it is in the public interest to reserve them without its good faith in the matter being open to question.
Question stands.


SOLDIER SETTLERS' DEBTS
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	What was the cost of administration of the soldier settlement board each year from 1930 to 1941, inclusive?
2. What was the total amount owed by soldier settlers at the beginning of the year 1930?
3. What was the total amount owed by soldier settlers at the end of the last fiscal year?
4.	What was the amount of accrued interest at the end of each year since 1930?
5.	What was the amount of (a) principal, (b) interest paid by soldier settlers each year during the above period?
6.	What is the amount written off soldier settlers' debts by way of (a) bonus, (b) farmer's creditors arrangement boards, (c) other ways, during the years 1930 to 1941, inclusive?
7.	What is the number of settlers still in debt to the board?
8.	What is the amount of their indebtedness?
9.	What was the original number of settlers?
10.	What was the original debt?
11.	What percentage of such settlers still in debt and on the land have a reasonable chance of making good?
12.	How many of such settlers have been dispossessed because of inability to meet financial obligations since the inception of the soldier settlement scheme?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Fiscal year
1930-	31	
$1,300,327	551931-	32	
1,035,474	511932-	33	
818,325	271933-	34	
740,692	801934-	35	
741,504	891935-	36	
757,507	951936-	37	
730,298	441937-	38	
709,278	381938-	39	
734,047	971939-	40	
699,489	701940-	41	
648,916	05
Note.-The above figures include the cost of a wide variety of services for the Departments of Finance; Pensions and National Health; National Defence; Labour; Secretary of State; Lands, Parks and Forests Branch, Immigration and Indian Affairs Branches of the Department of Mines and Resources; also war veterans' allowance board; dependents' allowance board; Canadian farm loan board and Canadian pension commission.
19S
Questions

2. Soldier settlers	 Civilian purchasers....	. $39,162,173 99 . 8,212,354 90
Total		. $47,374,528 89
3. Soldier settlers	 Civilian purchasers		. $12,645,256 54 . 7,690,170 22
Less deferred bonus...	$20,335,426 76 . 262,892 82
Total.					. $20,072,533 94
4. Accrued interest-soldiers and civilian purchasers-
Fiscal year		
1930-31			$1,644,859 90	
1931-32			1,798,292 15
1932-33			1.812,837 74
1933-34			1,812,603 68
1934-35			1,701,200 19
1935-36			1,686,352 94
1936-37			1,404,220 78
1937-38			1,329,647 53
1938-39			1,207,352 79
1939-40			760,491 22
1940-41			676,S00 81
5. Repayments-soldiers and		civilian purchasers-		
Fiscal year	Principal	Interest1930-31	$1,237,045 95	$642,910 301931-32	741,988 26	637,547 901932-33	499,372 00	551,358 521933-34	724,560 53	471,134 881934-35	609,068 78	768.323 801935-36	691,718 62	684,779 681936-37	, 596,180 59	608.048 301937-38	, 716,825 74	730,302 381938-39	. 838,295 37	523,145 141939-40	, 1,141,717 80	669,506 561940-41	. 1,126,605 91	752,954 426. Soldier settlers	Civilian purchasers	Total(a) $3,426,153 32	$1,512,619 04	$4,938,772 36(b) 6,343,109 45	2,362,857 87	8,705,967 32(c) Land revaluation- $1,130,750 59 	1,130,750 5930 per cent reduction- $11,303,283 26 	11,303,283 261932 interest remission- $1,308,623 38 585,305 85	1,893,929 237.	Soldier settlers, as at December 31, 1941, 7,661; civilian purchasers, as at December 31, 1941, 5,528; total, 13,189.8.	Soldier settlers, as at December 31, 1941, $11,412,145.4'!; civilian purchasers, as at
[Mr. Crerar }
December 31, 1941, S7,513,003.30; total, $18,925,148.74; less deferred bonus, $134,204.75; grand total, $18,790,943.99.
9.	25,017.
10.	$104,502,821.41.
11.	From 65 .per cent to 75 per cent.
12.	Practically none. It has never been the policy of the department to dispossess a settler for the sole reason of inability to pay. Dispossessions result from quit claim deeds due to a combination of factors, including inability to pay, or from cancellation proceedings due to a combination of factors, including failure to pay.
Number of original soldier settlers, 25,017. Loans repaid in cash and by time sales, 3,831; soldier settlers' loans still active, 7,661; number of completed adjustment cases, 12,470; number of adjustment cases held for resale, 1,055; total, 25,017.


LEGATIONS-JAPAN
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government a foreign legation in Japan?
2.	If so, where is it located, who compose the staff and what are their salaries, and other allowances?
3.	What functions does such legation perform in war time?
4.	Who now looks after Canadian nationals in Japan?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Legation premises are occupied by the staff who are still in Tokyo although the legation has not been functioning since the outbreak of war with Japan.
2.	The address of the legation is: 16 Omote-Cho, Sanchome, Akasaka-Ku, Tokyo. The
' staff now in Japan, with their salaries and allowances, are as follows:
E.	D. McGreer, first secretary and charge d'affaires-Salary, $4,940; allowance, $4,260.
H. F. Feaver, second secretary-Salary, $3,420; allowance, $1,350.
E. H. Norman, third secretary-Salary, $2,520; allowance, $1,575.
R. Martin, stenographer-Salary, $1,500.
At present on the staff of the Canadian legation at Tokyo is Mr. M. T. Stewart, acting Canadian commercial attache. His salary is $2,940 and his allowances are $2,475.
3.	None. The legation premises will be closed as soon as arrangements for the evacuation of the staff are carried into effect.
4.	Argentina is the protecting power, and the Argentine legation is looking after all Canadian interests in Japan.

Questions
PRAIRIE FARM	ASSISTANCE-WHEAT ACREAGE


REDUCTION REGULATIONS
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	What is the cost of inspection under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and wheat acreage reduction regulations in each of the municipal districts of Streamstown No. 511, Vermilion
Valley No. 482, and Merton No. 451, in the
province of Alberta?
2.	Who are the inspectors in each of the
above districts and what amount did each receive for (a) salary, (b) travelling allowance, (c) miscellaneous?	.
3.	On whose recommendation were these men appointed?


Mr. GARDINER:: 

MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-PURCHASE OF EELS


Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	In what way is the mailing list compiled for the distribution of speeches and information?
2.	Must application be made for the material before it is sent out?
3.	What is the cost in paper and printing per month of the information service?
4.	Has the question of economy in paper been considered? If so, will this service be, (a) discontinued, or (b) greatly reduced?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	Generally speaking, the distribution of printed matter by the office of the director of public information is based upon either direct or indirect requests. There are some twenty main lists-some large and some small-
* arranged to provide the most economical and most efficient distribution of different types of material. The basic request list originated with some 50,000 letters asking for copies of the let's face the facts broadcasts (summer, 1940). Since that date many thousands of additional letters have been received from individuals asking that their names be added to the mailing lists. Indirect additions to the mailing lists result from requests made bj' individuals, corporations, associations, churches, the army, schools, boards of trade, etc., etc.
2.	Generally speaking, yes. An exception is one list of important government officials, dominion and provincial, who are assumed to have a natural interest in the material sent out. On rare occasions, when it is decided

that wider distribution is desirable, the post office departmental list-based on professional and business addresses-is used.
3.	The cost varies greatly from month to month. An average for the first nine months of the current fiscal year is $15,000 per month.
4.	Yes.
4a. No.
4b. Yes.


WORKING HOURS IN FACTORIES PRODUCING WAR SUPPLIES
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow-River):: 1.	How many factories in Canada, producing war supplies are working 24 hours per day, 365 days in the year?
2.	How many factories in Canada producing such supplies are working 24 hours a day, 6 days a week, throughout the year?
3.	How many factories in Canada producing war supplies are working less than 6 days a week, 24 hours per day?


Norman Alexander McLarty: 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.
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.
In this connection there is being established a joint system of inspection and reporting which is designed to produce the data requested.


PRICE CONTROL
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	What is the estimated cost of administering the price control board?
2.	What are the estimates of deficits to be absorbed by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	It is impossible at this time to furnish a complete estimate of the cost of board's administration.
2.	Cannot foretell.


GOLD PRODUCTION AND EXPORT
Mr. QUELCH:: 1.	How many men are employed in the gold mines of Canada?
2.	How many in all other branches of the gold mining industry?
3.	What was the value of gold produced in Canada in (a) 1940; (b) 1941?
4.	To what countries was this gold exported and what amount to each country during each of these years?

Questions


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, before tabling the answer to this question I feel it advisable to make a statement to the house concerning questions of this kind. It will be recalled that during the last session members sought information with regard to our exports to various countries. At that time I stated that it was not in the public interest to reveal certain information, but	I added	that if any	hon.member desired information for his own personal use and	accepted	it	upon his	ownresponsibility, I was prepared to give it to him. With	reference	to	part 4 of	thisquestion, it would not	be	in the publicinterest to make public the information asked for. Otherwise the whole question is answered, as follows:	'
1.-Auriferous quartz mining industry, 1940
Number
Underground	 18,760
Surface	 7,648
Mill	 2,339
Salaried employees	 2,658
31,405
Alluvial gold mining	'____ 840
Total	 32,245
2.	

Answered in No. 1.
3. -(a) 1940	 $204,479,083
(b) 1941 (*)	 $204,906,000
(*) Preliminary estimate.
4.-Not in the public interest to release this information.


THREE HILLS, ALTA., 1941 VICTORY LOAN
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	How much was subscribed to the Victory loan of 1941 in the Three Hills, Alberta, area?
2.	What was the amount of commission paid in this area?
3.	To whom were commissions paid and how
much to each individual?	,


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that this question be dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.
Canada's overseas auxiliary services


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has any interim or final report been received from the commissioner appointed, in 1941, to visit Britain and report on Canada's overseas auxiliary services in war time?
2.	Was any overlapping found, and is there anything in the report regarding delivery of parcels to soldiers in Britain and prisoners of war, and what changes, if any, were recommended?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	A full report was submitted by Colonel Manion on his return to Canada.
2.	Some duplication of effort was reported due to the following reasons:
(i)	The fact that in the field the four organizations operate independently despite a great deal of cooperation and mutual assistance;
(ii)	In the case of some of the organizations there was an absence of preparation or training of the men chosen to be supervisors for the units in the field;
(iii)	The fact that certain of the organizations felt that they could not carry out as extensive a programme of service as could others;
(iv)	The failure to pool supplies of certain articles such as sports equipment (for example), of which some organizations had provided themselves with a greater supply than had others;
(v)	These causes led to an unevenness of service and resulted in some units being better cared for than others;
To overcome these inequalities the report recommended that:
(i)	A joint board of organization headquarters officials, in London, be set up to deal with all problems affecting the services in the field;
(ii)	That supervisors selected for service with the organizations be given preparatory training in Canada before being sent overseas;
(iii)	That equipment and comforts distributed by the organizations be pooled and an equal distribution to all units be made.
These recommendations have been followed out and the joint board composed of organization representatives, and the pooling of available facilities has led to a more even distribution of supplies, to better cooperation and more unity of action by the organizations.
Organization supervisors are now given experience in the militia and air force camps in Canada before being selected for overseas service, and this has resulted in better service to the men in the units.
There is no mention in the report regarding delivery of parcels to soldiers in Britain or to prisoners of war. These matters come under the Canadian postal corps.


OTTO STRASSER
Mr. REID:: *
1.	Has the attention of the government been drawn to Mr. H. G. Wells' statement that one Otto Strasser is now in Canada raising an armed force to save Germany from bolshevism, and that he is getting arms while many of Britain's air fields are still short?
2.	If so, what action will the government take in the matter?

Questions


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I answer this question orally? With reference to question 1, "Has the attention of the government been drawn to Mr. H. G. Wells' statement", I should like to say that much depends upon what my hon. friend means by the attention of the government being drawn to a matter. His question, of course, draws the attention of the government to the matter, otherwise I am not aware that the attention of the government has been drawn to the point which he has raised. In that connection I would like to point out that it is very difficult to answer questions of the kind because, without conferring with all departments of the government to ascertain whether any communications of the character mentioned have been received, it would not be possible to give a definite reply of yes or no. I would like to suggest with reference to questions where a particular point of information is sought that the specific matter on which information is desired be set forth. The indefinite form, "has the attention of the government been drawn to certain communications" invariably creates some difficulty in the preparation of a reply.
Answering question 2, Mr. Strasser is not receiving any arms and he is not raising any armed forces, so there is no action which the government could take or will take in the matter. While I am speaking of this question I should also like to refer to question 36.


Mr. MARTIN:: *
1.	Under what conditions was Otto Strasser permitted to enter Canada?
2.	Is the government aware that Otto Strasser applied for a visa to reenter the United States and that his application has been refused?
3.	Is it true that Otto Strasser is raising an armed force in Canada in connection with his leadership of a so-called free Germany?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Part 3 of question 36 is practically the same question that I have just answered, "Is it true that Otto Strasser is raising an armed force in Canada in connection with his leadership of a so-called free Germany?" If I might be permitted to answer that question now, I would say that it is not true.
Answering questions 1 and 2 I would say that there were certain reasons of public policy which governed the matter of Mr. Strasser's admission to Canada, and if the hon. member who has asked the question would seek an interview with the Undersecretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Robertson will be pleased to let him see the confidential correspondence on the matter.


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How many individuals or firms in Canada failed to obtain a licence as originally ordered by the wartime prices and trade board?
2.	How many firms were:	(a) prosecuted,
(b) convicted, for failing to obtain a licence?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	As individuals and firms have been given until March 31, 1942, to comply with the order, the answer is, "none".
2.	(a) None, (b) None.


PURCHASE OF BUILDINGS IN HALIFAX COUNTY
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence for Naval Services, or any other department of the government, purchased two hotels or similar buildings, in Halifax county, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, who was the vendor in each case?
3.	What was the total purchase price paid
for each hotel or building?	.	.
4.	What accommodation is available in each
hotel?	...
5.	For what purpose will the hotels, or similar buildings, be used?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	The Department of Transport has acquired what has been known as the Gainsborough Hotel at Hubbard's, Nova Scotia. Only one property has been purchased, not two.
2.	Mr. A. W. Shatford.
3.	Purchase price SI5.250, covering the hotel itself, and adjoining house known as the annex, the barn, and all appointments, including complete furnishings. In addition, the purchase price includes a wharf and the adjacent land, as well as a building used as a yacht club.
4.	There was accommodation in the hotel for about 60 or 70 people, but alterations and additions are being made to increase this accommodation to approximately 150.
5.	The hotel and buildings, when converted and adapted, will be used as a Sea Training school where young men volunteering to go to sea will be taught the rudiments of seamanship, with a course of instruction approximating 12 weeks. This is a war effort rendered necessary by the need for recruiting men for the merchant navy.


SYNTHETIC RUBBER PLANTS
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Are there any synthetic rubber plants in Canada?
2.	If so, where are they located?
3.	If not, is there any encouragement or direction being given to the establishment of synthetic rubber plants?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	The establishment of a synthetic rubber plant or plants is receiving full consideration.

Questions


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-DOMINION LOANS
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	What amount has been loaned to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company by the government of Canada?
2.	What rate of interest is charged?
3.	When were such loans made and what are dates of maturity?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Details of loans to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are set out in Appendix No. 24 of the Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1941, Pages 131-135.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-ADVISORY BOARD
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the present members of the advisory board set up in 1940 to assist the Canadian wheat board?
2.	Have any changes been made in the personnel of this board since it was first set up?
3.	If so, what changes have been made and upon whose authority and recommendation?
4.	What jurisdiction is exercised to-day by the parliament of Canada over this advisory board?
5.	How many meetings of the board have been held to date during the year 1941-42?
6.	What remuneration, both by way of salary and travelling expenses, was paid each member of this board since it was first constituted?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	The following are the names and addresses of the Advisory Committee of the Canadian Wheat Board set up in 1940 as they were listed in The Canada Gazette, No. 10, Volume 74, of September 7th, 1940, at page 783:
Vancouver-Mr. Fred H. Clendenning, Vancouver.
Alberta-Mr. Lew Hutchinson, Duhamel, Alberta (Chairman, Alberta Wheat Pool) ; and Mr. Paul Farnalls, Halkirk, Alberta, (President, Western Union of Municipalities).
Saskatchewan-Mr. J. H. Wesson (President, Saskatchewan Co-op. Wheat Producers), and Mr. J. A. McCowan, Summerberry, Sask.
Manitoba-Mr. D. G. MacKenzie (1st Vice-Pres., United Grain Growers Ltd., Winnipeg.
Honorarium
Campbell, D. A	
Clendenning, F. H	 $480
Farnalls, Paul	 630
Hutchinson, Lew	 430
McCowan, J. A	 450
MacKenzie, D. G	 210
Messier, R	 140
Pettypiece, Fred	 510
Reece, R. C	 220
Wesson, J. H	 250
Reid, A. C	
Ontario Producer-Mr. Fred Pettypiece, Auld, Ont.
Quebec Consumer-Mr. Rosario Messier, Contrecoeur, P.Q.
Line Elevators-Mr. A. C. Reid (Western Grain Company), Winnipeg.
Millers-Mr. D. A. Campbell (former President St. Lawrence Flour Mills Co., Toronto,' Ont.).
Exporters-Mr. R. C. Reece, K. B. Stoddart & Co., Winnipeg.
2.	No changes have been made in the personnel of the committee since it was first set up.
3.	This question is answered by the answer to question 2.
4.	The Advisory Committee is set up under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, as amended 1940, and is appointed under section 6 (1) by the governor in council during its pleasure.
5.	Seven meetings of the Advisory Committee were held during the crop year 1940-41 and three meetings to date during the crop year 1941-42, the dates of the above meetings being as follows:
1940-	41-
August 26 and 27, 1940.
September 30 and October 1, 1940.
November 18 and 19, 1940.
December 18 and 19, 1940.
January 13, 14 and 15, 1941.
February 17, IS and 19, 1941.
May 12, 1941.
1941-	42-
August 27, 1941.
December 8 and 9, 1941.
January 12, 13 and 14, 1942.
(Question 5 only requests the number of meetings to date during 1941-42, but in view of the extent of question 6, all the meetings of the committee since it was set have been enumerated.)
6.	Remunerations by way of salary and travelling expenses since the committee was first set up have been paid to the individual members as follows:
Subsistence	Travelling	Total$560	$1,268 99	$1,828 994S0	382 65	1.342 65630	722 63	1,982 63420	500 41	1.350 41450	271 76	1,171 7637	50 45	297 45140	549 15	829 15510	823 61	1,843 61220 00250	314 06	814 0630	90 30	120 30
Questions


DAIRY PRODUCTS BOARD-STORAGE OF CHEESE
Mr. SENN:: 1.	Were any firms in Ontario found to be buying and storing cbeese contrary to the regulations issued by the dairy products board during 1941?
2.	If so, was such cheese confiscated by the board or any of its officers?
3.	Have charges been laid against any firm violating the regulations in this way?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.


DAIRY PRODUCTS BOARD-PURCHASE OF CHEESE FOR EXPORT
Mr. SENN:: 1.	How many firms in Ontario made application for permission to buy cheese for export during the year 1941?
2.	How many firms were granted such permission?
3.	How many were refused?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Nine.
2.	Eight.
3.	One.


STOCK YARD AGENTS
Mr. CARDIFF:: What is the name and salary of each of the stock yard agents employed in the stock yards at, (a) Toronto; (b) Montreal; (c) Winnipeg?


Mr. GARDINER:: (a)	C. C. Lyster, district supervisor, live stock marketing, $3,000 per annum; F. J. Rridel, stocky'ard agent, grade 1, $1,920 per annum; A. H. Hepton, stockyard agent, grade 1, $1,920 per annum.
(b)	S. N. Chipman, supervisor, stockyards, $2,SS0 per annum; J. A. Deguire, stockyard agent, grade 2, $2,520 per annum.
(c)	C. E. Bain, supervisor, stockyards, $2,S80 per annum; E. J. Johns, stockyard agent, grade 2, $2,520 per annum; J. Maddox, stockyard agent, grade 1, $1,920 per annum.


DAIRY PRODUCTS BOARD-SHIPMENTS OF CHEESE
Mr. SENN:: 1.	Did the dairy products board prohibit the shipment of cheese from Ontario in the period from May 1, 1941, to November, 1941?
2.	Were any permits issued during that time for shipment of cheese to Winnipeg and areas west, in violation of any regulations as above?
3.	If so, to what companies and in what amounts?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No.
2.	No permits were issued in violation of any regulation.
3.	Answered in No. 1 and No. 2.
[Mr. J. A. MacKinnon.!


FIRST AND SECOND WAR LOANS
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	What was the amount, by provinces, subscribed to the first and second war loans?
2.	What was the amount subscribed to the first and second war loans in each city having a population of more than 20,000?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This information is not
available. The records of the first and second war loans were not maintained in such a way as to show the amounts subscribed by provinces and cities.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How many houses have been constructed by Wartime Housing Limited at each of the following places: fa) Fort William, (b) Halifax,
(c)	Hamilton, (d) Welland, (e) Peterborough, (f) Wrightville?
2.	What was the total cost of construction, including purchase of land and providing water and other services, at each centre?
3.	What was the total cost per house in each place?


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Did Wartime Housing Limited give a contract in 1941 to erect houses or other buildings in or near New Glasgow, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, to whom, stating value of said contract, and if not carried out, the reason for termination?
3.	Did Wartime Housing Limited negotiate with Eastern Woodworkers of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, in 1941, with respect to building construction?
4.	If so, to what extent?
5.	Did Eastern Woodworkers have a subcontract in 1941 from any contractor of Wartime Housing Limited to build or supply materials for prefabricated houses in Nova Scotia?
6.	If so what was the amount of such subcontract?
7.	Did Eastern Woodworkers have a contract during 1941 from Wartime Housing Limited to erect houses in any part of Nova Scotia?
8.	If so, state locality, the number of buildings and the total contract price?
9.	What was the average cost of each class or model of such buildings completed, including streets, side-walks, sewerage, plumbing and all other expenses?
10.	Did Wartime Housing Limited have any land surveyed in 1941 for proposed prefabricated houses or other buildings in or near New Glasgow, Nova Scotia?
11.	If so, where was such land situated, who was the owner or agent, what was the price, who did the surveying and what was the expense ?
12.	Did Wartime Housing Limited negotiate with Mr. A. D. McCormick, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, for the purchase of any land in or near New Glasgow, Nova Scotia?

Questions as Orders for Returns
13.	If so, where was such land located and what was the price asked?
14.	Who recommended to Wartime Housing Limited that they negotiate with Mr. A. D. McCormick?
15.	Did Wartime Housing Limited pay or receive any accounts for costs of excavation for sewerage or other expenses on account of any land in or near New Glasgow, Nova Scotia?
16.	If so, by whom were such accounts rendered; and what amounts and to whom were payments made?


CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Who are the officials of the Canadian Farm Loan Board (a) in the head office at Ottawa,
(b)	in the different provinces in Canada?
2.	What were their respective salaries during the last fiscal year?
3.	What were the total expenses, exclusive of salary of each official?
4.	What are the total amount of loans in each province?
5.	What were the total collections made in each province during the last fiscal year?
6.	What was the total expense in connection with this board, legal and otherwise, during the last fiscal year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Return tabled.


RUBBER TIRES
Mr. HATFIELD:: 1.	Who is eligible to buy rubber tires in Canada?
2.	What is the procedure in regard to purchasing rubber tires?


Mr. HOWE:: Return tabled.


CONTRACTS FOR EQUIPPING SAINT JOHN, N.B., HOSPITALS
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	What contracts have been awarded by the government for the construction and/or equipping of hospitals or similar buildings in or near Saint John, New Brunswick, since September 1, 1939?
2.	What is the total amount of each contract?
3.	Were tenders called in each instance?
4.	If so, who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
5.	For what purposes are the buildings to be used?
6.	Did the government purchase land upon which these buildings were erected?
7.	If so, from whom was the land purchased in each instance and what was the total purchase price paid?
COST PLUS CONTRACTS	*


Mr. BENCE:: 1 How many cost plus contracts have been awarded by the government since the outbreak of the war?
2. To what persons, firms and corporations have such contracts been awarded?
3.	What is the total amount of such contracts?
4.	How many management fee contracts have been awarded by the government since the outbreak of war?
5.	To what persons, firms and corporations have such contracts been awarded?
6.	What is the total amount of such contracts?



DEBERT AIRPORT AND MILITARY CAMP

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PURDY;
1.	How much land did the government purchase in connection with the development of (a) Debert airport; (b) Debert military camp?
2.	From whom .was this land obtained and what price was paid in each case?
3.	Are there any parcels of land acquired by the government in this area which have not as yet been paid for?
4.	If so, who were the owners and why has settlement not been made?

Mr. CASSELMAN:: 1.	What is the total amount expended by the government by way of capital assistance to private corporations?
2.	What is the name of each corporation to whom capital assistance by the government has been granted?
3.	What is the total amount granted to each such corporation?
4.	What is the purpose for which each such grant was made?
5.	Is the government committed to make additional grants by way of capital assistance to any of such corporations?
6.	If so, what is the additional amount of such commitment in each case and what is the purpose of the additional grant?
7.	Have any payments other than grants by way of capital assistance been made by the government to any private corporation for the purpose of expanding the production of such corporation?
8.	If so, what are the names of the corporations to which such payments have been made?
9.	What was the amount of each such payment?
10.	What was the direct purpose of each such payment?



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT-OWNED CORPORATIONS


Mr. STOKES:: For a return showing:-1. The names, addresses and ordinary occupations of the directors and chief officials of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation;
2.	The total remuneration paid by way of salary, honorarium, living allowances or travelling expenses paid to each such director or chief official;
3.	A statement of the authority, duties and functions of the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation;
4.	A statement of the actions taken by the said corporation since its organization.



WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD


George Henry Stokes: For a statement showing the names, previous occupations, salaries, honorariums or living
allowances of each person appointed to a position under the Wartime Prices and Trade Board and/or the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation since the first day of October, 1941.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


Mr. TUSTIN:: For a return showing the names of all government corporations which have been organized to carry on any work in connection with the manufacture or purchase of munitions or supplies, together with a statement showing the names, addresses and ordinary occupations of the directors and chief officials of each such corporation; and also the total amount paid by way of salary, honorarium, living allowances and travelling expenses to each such person.


COST OF RECRUITING
George James Tustin: For a return showing:-1. The total cost of recruiting for (a) the army, (b) the navy,
(c)	the air force, since the outbreak of war;
2.	The total cost of the recruiting campaign conducted in May, June and July, 1941;
3.	The total cost of the building and preparation of camps used for the purpose of training men under the National Resources Mobilization Act;
4.	The total cost incurred by the Department of National War Services in calling up men for training under the National Resources Mobilization Act;
5.	The total cost incurred by the Department of National Defence in training men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act.


CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE, 1914-18
George James Tustin: For a return showing:-1. The number of men who enlisted in the Canadian expeditionary force during each month of the great war 1914-18;	,	.
2. The number of men serving overseas with the Canadian expeditionary force at the conclusion of each month during the great war 1914-18;

3.	The total number of enlistments by provinces and/or military districts for active service during the great war 1914-18;
4.	The total number of men, by provinces and/or military districts, who served overseas during the great war 1914-18;
5.	The total number, by provinces and/or military districts, who were drafted pursuant to the Military Service Act during the great war 1914-18;
6.	The total number of men, by provinces and/or military districts, who were drafted pursuant to the Military Service Act and who served overseas in the great war 1914-18;
7.	The total number of casualties sustained by the Canadian expeditionary force during the great war 1914-18;
8.	The number of casualties incurred by the Canadian expeditionary force in each month of the great war 1914-18.


CANADIAN ARMY-ENLISTMENTS, ETC.
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: For a return showing:-1. The total number of men, by provinces and/or military districts, who have enlisted with the Canadian active army as of the latest available date;
2.	The total number of men, by provinces and/or military districts, serving overseas with the Canadian army as of the latest available date;
3.	The total number of men, by provinces and/or military districts, who are attested for overseas service and who are now serving in the Canadian army as of the latest available date;
4.	The total number of men, by provinces and/or military districts, who are serving with the Canadian army reserve as of the latest available date;
5.	The total number of men, by provinces and/or military districts, included in the statistics in question number 4 above who were posted to reserve units after receiving training under the National Resources Mobilization Act.


Mr. RALSTON:: This raises a question
which I have had up with my hon. friend; that is to say, whether we should disclose the number of men serving. I have tried to meet the convenience of, and -provide information for, hon. members as far as possible, by giving round figures-that is to say, upwards of so many, rather than giving actual figures. I trust the -house will accept that as being sufficient in connection with matters of this kind.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well,
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister takes that attitude at this time, but I would suggest to him that this is a substantial change of policy, and possibly of very recent date. On November 12, 1941, as reported in Hansard, page 4322, in answer to a question relating t-o the total number of men now serving in overseas theatres of war, the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), then acting as Associate Minister of National Defence, gave the exact figure,

Motions for Papers
indicating that, as of October 25, 1941, 110,209 were serving in all theatres beyond Canada. As a matter of fact, the minister himself, in the course of a speech on November 5, and in reply to a question from my colleague the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman) stated that there were over 110,000 serving.
If the minister mentions that these figures can only be given in round numbers, I should like to point out to him that his margin of inaccuracy was only 209.
Similarly, at page 4323 of Hansard, November 12,	1941, the Associate Minister of
National Defence gave the exact figures of the total number of men then serving in all branches of the Canadian Army.
It is apparent that the objection which is now taken to furnishing statistics of strength represents a very recent change of policy, and I do say that the minister should give us a reason for that change. I should like to make it clear that I am not at the moment quarrelling with the policy; I want to know what it is, and the reasons therefor.
While I am about it I might also refer to Nos. 8 and 9 under Motions for Papers on the order paper. No. 8 deals with the air force, and No. 9 with the navy. I might say that I helped draft these motions, and in these cases inquiry, has not been made regarding the number serving overseas, because I understood it was the policy of both the naval and the air force departments which they have consistently taken and maintained, that these figures should not be furnished. Now there is a change of policy on the part of the Department of National Defence regarding the army. I should like to know the reasons for that change so that they may be considered, having regard to the fact that heretofore we have been given exact figures.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend knows
that in only the one case to. which he has referred were the actual figures given.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: I may say to my hon. friend that that was a slip. That should not have been done. The house will realize, I am sure, that you can no more get those figures in England than you can fly to the moon. They won't give them at all. Unfortunately we adopted in the one instance the policy-which I think was wrong-of giving figures. I am willing, although here I may be going too far, to give figures of enlistments even. I only want hon. members to realize that in withholding figures we are acting simply in the interests of security. I do not see why we should publish on the
pages of Hansard the exact size of our army, our navy or our air force. It is all very well for the enemy to guess about it, but there is no reason in the world why responsible ministers should stand up in their places and give that information. I do not believe that precise figures were ever given before. The hon. gentleman cited the case in which I spoke of "over 110,000". If it had not been that the previous figures were given there might have been a wide margin and that would have been the minimum, whereas, if you give the exact figures it discloses of course the maximum as well.
It might not be objectionable to give hon. members individually the exact figures, although there, perhaps, I may be going farther than I should. Let me say that I would have no objection to giving exact figures to some hon. member who wishes to check them to make sure he is not being misled, and I do propose to give the house "upwards of so-and-so", or, as I said in that case, "over so-and-so".
I hope the house will accept that suggestion as being, to say the least, not too restricted, and going perhaps further than ministers would go elsewhere.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no desire to pursue the matter: I have asked the minister for his reasons, and he has now given them. I may point out, however, that in the United States the policy to which he takes exception is being followed; the nation is being told from time to time what the strength of the army is.


James Layton Ralston: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, then, I do not read the newspapers aright.
Mr. RALSTON': The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) reminds me-I had thought it applied only to the air force-that we had representations from the British government in regard to this very matter of giving the strengths of our various forces. The Prime Minister tells me that that was with regard not only to the air force and the navy but with regard to the army as well.


ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE-ENLISTMENTS
Gordon Knapman Fraser: For a return showing:-1. The total number of men by provinces, who have enlisted in the Royal Canadian Air Force as of the latest available date;
2. The total number of men, by provinces, who are now serving with the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Motions jor Papers


ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY-ENLISTMENTS
Gordon Knapman Fraser: For a return showing:-1. The total number of men, by provinces, who have enlisted in the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve since the outbreak of war;
2. The total number of men, by provinces, who are now serving with the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve.


NATIONAL RESOURCES MOBILIZATION - NUMBER CALLED UP AND TRAINED    ATTESTATIONS FOR OVERSEAS SERVICE
Gordon Knapman Fraser: For a return showing:-1. The number of men by provinces and/or military districts who have been called up and received training pursuant to the National Resources Mobilization Act;
2.	The number of men by provinces and/or military districts called up for service under the National Resources Mobilization Act who have volunteered and been attested for overseas service;
3.	The number of men, by provinces and/or military districts called up for service under the National Resources Mobilization Act, who have not volunteered for overseas service but are serving in Canada for Che duration of the war;
4.	The number of men, by provinces and/or military districts, who have received training under the National Resources Mobilization Act and who have been permitted to return to their civilian occupations.


ENLISTMENTS IN CANADIAN FORCES BY MONTHS
Gordon Knapman Fraser: For a return showing:-1. The number of men enlisted for active service (a) in the army; (b) in the navy, (c) in the air force, during each month since the outbreak of war;
2. The number of men serving overseas in the Canadian army at the conclusion of each month since the outbreak of war.


James Layton Ralston: The answer to No. 2 will be subject to what I said with regard to the other motion of the hon. member.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In that connection may I point out to the house that in this booklet which is issued monthly by the director of public information, under the authority of the Minister of National War Services, there is a statement progressively of the numbers who have enlisted voluntarily for service anywhere and for home defence. As revised to December 1, 1941, the statement is made on page 15 that the Canadian army has expanded greatly since the outbreak of war, as indicated "by the following figures", and then it gives the pre-war and to-day's figures under both headings, showing voluntary enlistments for service anywhere, more

than 240,000, and enlistments for home defence, more than 160,000. These figures are approximately correct, I assume, and I do not see that there is very much force in the minister's statement. I do not see why the exact figures cannot be given.


James Layton Ralston: The only alternative is for me not to give anything. I am going as far as I can and I do not think my hon. friend should complain.


Georges Parent: Carried, as qualified by the Minister.


PUBLICITY OR PUBLIC RELATIONS-EXPENDITURES- STAFF APPOINTMENTS, ETC.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MacIvINNON (Kootenay East):
For a return showing:

The total expenditures incurred by the Department of National Defence, the Department of National Defence for Air, the Department of National Defence for Naval Services, on publicity or public relations work for the fiscal years ending Starch 31, 1940; March 31, 1941 and the present fiscal year to date.
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: For a return showing: (a) name; (b) date of appointment; (c) previous occupation; (d) salary, honoraria; living allowances and allowances for travelling expenses of each person engaged in publicity or public relations work for any department of government, or any agency of the government including government-owned corporations.


NATIONAL RESOURCES MOBILIZATION-ORDERS IN COUNCIL
Mr. MacKINNON (Kootenay East):: For a copy of all orders in council passed pursuant to the National Resources Mobilization Act.


CEILING ON PRICES AND WAGES
Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: For a copy of:-1. All orders in council dealing with the ceiling on prices and wages;
2.	All orders, regulations, rulings or formal decisions of any kind made by the Wartime Prices and Trade Board and/or any official thereof in connection with the ceiling on prices;
3.	All orders, regulations, rulings or formal decisions of any kind made by the Minister of Labour, the National War Labour Board, the Regional War Labour Boards, the Department of Labour and/or any official thereof with reference to the ceiling on wages.


ORDERS IN COUNCIL UNDER WAR MEASURES ACT AMENDING REVENUE LEGISLATION
Wilbert Ross Aylesworth: For a copy of all orders in council passed pursuant to the War Measures Act or any other act which amend, alter, suspend or in any way affect the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff Act,

Motions for Papers
the Excise Act, or the Special War Revenue Act, together with any regulations, rulings or formal decisions made by the Minister of National Revenue and/or any official of the
Department of National Revenue or the Wartime Prices and Trade Board or the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation and/or any official thereof, pursuant to such order in council.


CANTEEN FUNDS
Alfred Henry Bence: For a copy of the report made by the committee appointed under order in council P.C. 7520 for the purpose of inquiring into the utilization and custody of canteen funds, together with a statement of the action which has been taken by the government to implement such report.


CANADA PACKERS-DISMISSAL OF ADAM BORSK
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G1LLIS:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Labour and Canada Packers Limited, Toronto, and between the Packing House Workers Organizing Committee and the Department of Labour, relative to the discharge of Adam Borsk, an employee of Canada Packers, on December 23, 1941.

Karl Kenneth Homuth: For a return showing the number of officers and men serving in the active service forces of the army, navy and air force, with their religious affiliations as set out on their attestation papers.


James Layton Ralston: I wonder if my hon. friend, who moves this for the hon. member, will allow the motion to stand. This means another running through the Hollerith machines of all cards with respect to attestation papers, having regard particularly to religious affiliations. The hon. member will see how serious this is, and I should like to consult the member in whose name the motion stands to see whether he thinks this time, labour, expense and material should be incurred for the purpose of this particular return. As my hon. friend can see, it means that they have to go over all the cards, mark them, and go through the Hollerith machine, and it does take a great deal of time. Unless it is urgent, I would ask that it stand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has this been done up to a certain point of time?


James Layton Ralston: I do not know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no objection to the minister's request, but I have an idea that it has been done up to a certain point of time and it only means coming from that time to the present. I had no communication with the hon. member for Broadview about this question.
Motion stands.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. MARSHALL:: For a copy of all recommendations made to the Canadian wheat board or the government by the advisory committee of the wheat board for the year 1941-42 and the year 1942-43.


James Angus MacKinnon: I should like this matter to stand until I look into it further. It may not be in the public interest to table all the papers that have been requested.


Georges Parent: Stands.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Shall we have a plebiscite on dollar wheat?


WARTIME HOUSING-PREFABRICATED HOUSES
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: For a copy of all correspondence and telegrams exchanged during 1941 between Hon. J. H. MacQuarrie, Attorney General of Nova Scotia and the Hon. Mr. Howe, or the Department of Munitions and Supply, and Hon. Mr. Ilsley or the Department of Finance, and Hon. Mr. Macdonald or the Department of Defence Naval Affairs in connection with the proposed building of prefabricated houses in Pictou county, Nova Scotia, by Wartime Housing Limited.
Also a copy of all correspondence and telegrams exchanged during 1941 between Warden F. H. McNeil, chairman of Victory loan committee for Pictou county and the Hon. Mr. Ilsley or the Department of Finance in connection with the Victory loan and the proposed building of prefabricated houses in Pictou county by Wartime Housing Limited.


INCOME AND CORPORATION TAX-CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams or other documents, exchanged between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, or any official of the government, and the provincial treasurer or other official of any provincial government, relating to the proposed vacation of the fields of income and corporation tax.


DELEGATION OF MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY
George James Tustin: For a copy of all instruments or other documents signed by any minister of the crown purporting to delegate authority vested in such minister or any act of parliament, or otherwise, to a deputy minister or person holding the rank of deputy minister or any other official of the government.


Norman Alexander McLarty: This motion is an
extremely broad one. I am advised that the amount of work entailed will be very large and the delay will be very great. I was going to suggest to the hon. member in whose name the motion stands that perhaps we could limit it. For example, it requires returns from all
Motions Jor Papers

departments, and a motion could be made which would doubtless give the hon. member the information much more quickly than he would obtain it if this motion were to pass as it stands at present.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I cannot appreciate the minister's statement that it would involve a lot of work. I think every minister could ask his deputy to get this. I happen to know one department where this has been done, much to my astonishment. I think it was without any legal authority or justification. If each minister would ask his own deputy he would soon get the answer. I do not think it is universal in all departments, but I know of one or two where it has been done. Well, I limit it to since 1940.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I wonder if the hon. leader of the opposition has given consideration to the provisions of the Interpretation Act with regard to the delegation of authority by ministers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a legal question.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think a motion could be framed which would elicit the information required without being nearly as broad in its terms, because this as it stands could, I suppose, go back to confederation.


Georges Parent: Motion stand.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-AGREEMENTS WITH GOVERNMENT-OWNED CORPORATIONS

["On Thursday last the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked what effect the order in council advancing time one hour would have upon the Atlantic standard time zone. He pointed out that in that portion of Canada within the Atlantic standard time zone already the mean or sun time was in advance' of the actual time and suggested that a great portion of the people of Nova Scotia and all the people of New Brunswick would be ninety-six minutes ahead of true sun time.\nGenerally speaking, the width of a time zone is 675 miles. The farther westward a point is within this zone the greater the amount by which the mean time varies over the actual time. To illustrate this: Halifax, for example, is 14 minutes ahead of mean time; Moncton, 19 minutes; Saint John, 24 minutes; Fredericton, 27 minutes, and Woodstock, 30 minutes.\nThis situation, of course, applies not only in the case of Atlantic time but throughout the various time zones in Canada. For example, Ottawa is 3 minutes ahead of sun time; Toronto, 18 minutes; Windsor, 32 minutes, while Fort William is 58 minutes ahead of sun time. Such a situation exists in every time zone, and to attempt to reconcile mean and actual time would, of course, obviously create an impossible situation.\nIn his question the leader of the opposition correctly stated that other factors, such as transportation, might affect the position. I communicated with the Railway Association of Canada as to the transportation problem which would be involved if any changes were made in the order. On Friday afternoon I received the following reply:\nYour message yesterday re adoption daylight saving time in maritimes. Deflection from true sun time at points in maritimes would\nnot be any more excessive than deflection at many other points throughout Canada. Transportation difficulties resulting from adoption new time in maritimes are not any greater than in any other time zone. Would point out that in 1941 Halifax, Saint John, and Moncton voluntarily adopted daylight saving time from May 4 to September 27. In circumstances we urge that there should be no modification of order in council 547 exempting the ^maritimes as such modification would result in voiding all public time-table and working time-table arrangements already completed on basis of order in council. Also modification would result in disruption of through and local train connections and railway arrangements cannot now be altered."]
Alfred Henry Bence: For a copy of all agreements entered into between his majesty and/or the Minister of Munitions and Supply and any government-owned corporation created pursuant to the Department of Munitions and Supply Act.



Mr. MacINNIS:: For a copy of all orders in council relating to the dispute at Kirkland Lake, Ontario, dated from October 14, 1941, to date, as well as a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents in connection with this dispute, during the same period, passing between the Minister of Labour or any officer in the Department of Labour and, (a) any officer of local 240 of the United Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers' Union; (b) any officer of the Canadian Congress of Labour; (c) any one of the owners or management of the mines concerned;
(d)	any officer or representative of the Mine Owners' Association or Federation.
Also a copy of the minutes of any meeting of the national war labour board at which the question of the said labour board acting as the arbitrator in the said dispute was discussed.


EXPENSES OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS TRAINING FOR MEDICAL SERVICES IN H. M. FORCES
Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, briefs, statements, memoranda ' and all other papers passing between the medical profession, any medical society or any university medical faculty in Canada, or any officer or officers or members thereof, or of any students of medicine, or any other person, and the government of Canada, or any officer thereof, regarding a loan or grant towards the annual expenses of medical students in university who are also training for medical services later in his majesty's forces.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON SHIPBUILDING-LABOUR DISPUTES
Angus MacInnis: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, orders in council and other documents in the possession of the government, relating to the appointment of the Royal Commission on Shipbuilding in the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, as well as a copy of any recommendations made by the said royal commission, and any report or reports of boards of conciliation and investigation under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act in relation to disputes between any or all of the companies mentioned in order in council P.C. 629, January 26, 1942, and the employees of such companies.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May 1
ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) whether facilities will be arranged for the later consideration of notices of motion for the production of papers which it has been asked should stand? Under the order, as I understand it, these might not be reached again without some special facilities being granted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might be understood that if as the result of conference between the hon. member asking the question and the minister concerned with the order any agreement reached between them might be regarded as equivalent to the order being passed. The papers could be made ready and the order formally passed at another time.


MILITARY SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to direct some questions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with respect to the proposed plebiscite. My questions arise out of a press report which appeared in the Ottawa papers, stating that the machinery for holding the plebiscite is already being set up, presumably in anticipation of legislation which will be introduced to give effect to the government's proposals,

Canadian Army-Enlistments
if, as and when they are approved by this house. The report divides this into two major portions:
First, that the proposed vote is to be taken on the lists used in the last general election, without any revision. I can scarcely believe this, as these lists are two years old, and many thousands of young men and women must have come of age since the last election. Also many thousands of persons eligible to vote in March, 1940, are now deceased, and in addition, thousands have moved from a constituency in which they voted in 1940 to other constituencies, in many cases too far distant for them to return to vote.
Second, and more startling to me, is the report that the ballots cast from all over Canada are to be brought to Ottawa, dumped into a huge national pool and counted without reference to province or other locality. May I ask the Prime Minister if there is any truth in either of these reports?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I were to begin to answer questions relating to reports with respect to the plebiscite appearing in the papers, I should have nothing else to do. The house will be informed in due course of the procedure the government intends to adopt. May I say that I think the procedure we shall take will commend itself to hon. members on all sides.


&quot;COMMITTEE FOR TOTAL WAR&quot;
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I hold in my hand an advertisement which was widely publicized in the press. It is entitled "Total War".
Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, that is old.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is old and dead.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is signed "Committee for Total War". I would ask the government whether it is possible to ascertain how many of the two hundred "Tailors of Tooley Street" who signed that proclamation are qualified voters in South York.


CANADIAN ARMY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I am advised that in one of the basic training camps a notice was posted on the bulletin
board to the effect that those who were called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act would not be permitted to enlist in the navy or air force. I made some inquiry and I understand that men who have passed the first basic training period, shall I say, of two months, and are in the second basic training period, are now not given the option of applying for enlistment on the completion of their four months' training, or whatever it may be, in the navy or the air force. But has a rule now been promulgated under which young men in the first basic training period no longer have the option of going into the navy or the air force? The bulletin to which attention was directed does not make that clear.


James Layton Ralston: I have no knowledge
whatever of any such rule having been promulgated or order made. I do not know whether it is an individual case, concerning some particular basic training centre. But I may tell my hon. friend that there has been some difficulty on one point, a matter between the services. That is to say, I think there was a feeling that officers from the other services come to the basic training centres at inopportune times and perhaps interrupt the training in order to find out whether there are any recruits for them. This has now been cleared up, but I should be very much surprised if any such order as my hon. friend referred to had been issued with regard to the first basic training period. The situation is different with regard to the advanced training centres. The army feels that it has done its share for the other services when it has given the basic training and then allows the men to transfer to the other services. When the men have gone on to advanced training it is felt that they should remain with the army.


&quot;COMMITTEE FOR TOTAL WAR&quot;
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Owing to the fact that the leader
of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) butted in before my revered leader could answer, would the Prime Minister be kind enough, now to reply to my question about the two hundred "Tailors of Tooley Street" in Toronto?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I understood aright
the purport of my hon. friend's question it was whether this advertisement, which
Cheese-Shortage of boxes

appeared in the Ottawa Journal of Monday, January 12, 1942, and which has appeared in a number of other newspapers throughout Canada, was not really intended to be part of the literature of the present campaign in connection with the by-election in York South.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And, as such,
whether it should not bear on its face something to identify the parties who were responsible for having it issued.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no doubt that is probably correct. However, the Election Act deals with that matter and provides means whereby action may be taken with respect to any violation of its provisions, if that is thought advisable.


HONG KONG
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Gould the Minister of National
Defence indicate to the house when the country may expect further word regarding the casualties sustained at Hong Kong?


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry that I cannot.


QUESTION AS TO THE SHORTAGE OF BOXES AND MILK CANS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Garfield Gardiner: On January 28 I was asked a question by the hon. member for Haldimand1 (Mr. Senn), which I agreed to answer at a later time. The question was:
It has been drawn to my attention that there is danger of a serious shortage of cheese boxes, owing to the failure of the controller to release material for manufacture. It has also been drawn to my attention that the same condition exists in regard to milk cans.. It is pointed out that there is an insufficient quantity of tin to coat the cans. Have any representations been made to the minister on this subject, and if so, does he intend to take action?
The answer is that there may be a temporary shortage of cheese boxes at some points during the present winter, owing to the heavy increase in the production of cheese as compared with the same period one year ago. The total gradings of cheese last week exceeded those of the same week one year ago by 889 per cent, while the increase in the accumulative gradings since December 1 last is 207 per cent. Many

of the cheese box manufacturers had not provided for the manufacture of any quantity of boxes during the winter months, and, owing to the increase in the production of cheese, there is a temporary shortage of properly seasoned material for making boxes in some sections. It can be stated, however, that officials of the timber controller's office, also officials of the dairy products division, have investigated the cheese box situation in Ontario and Quebec with reference to a supply of boxes for the coming season, and it is expected that there will be sufficient boxes available to meet the requirements throughout the year.
With regard to milk cans, the tinned iron used in the manufacture of large thirty-gallon milk cans is imported from England, and it is understood that supplies of such material in Canada are satisfactory. The heavy black iron used for making milk and cream cans of five and eight gallons, also for reinforcing the large milk cans, comes from the United States. The General Steel Wares Limited and the Canadian John Wood Company, Toronto, placed orders in the United States for material some time ago, and while only part of their orders has been filled they expect to get priority rating, which will enable them to secure the balance of their orders. The tin situation in Canada is tight; meetings have been held between the agricultural supply board and the officers of the metal controller's office, and action has been taken in an effort to secure the necessary tin to meet the requirements of the daily industry.


Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: If I am not accused of infringing upon the rules of the house, I should like to add for the minister's information that the condition I spoke of in regard to cheese boxes prevails in western Ontario. The condition which prevails in regard to milk cans, particularly the smaller sized cans of five to eight gallons, is due partly to the fact that they are unable to get tin with which to re-tin and recondition these cans. I just draw this information to the minister's attention so that he can deal with it.


PRAIRIE FARM INCOME PAYMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Garfield Gardiner: On January 29 the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked me a question, as follows:
I should like to draw attention to order in council P.C. 8126, dated October 22, 1941, but published only on January 23, 1942, in an extra

Prairie Farm Income Payments
edition of the Canada Gazette. My first question to the Minister of Agriculture is, why was the publication of this order in council so long delayed? What other steps were taken to bring its provisions to the attention of the interested public?
The answer to that question is that the War Measures Act does not require the publication of orders, in council passed under the act. The practice in this department has been to publish such orders in council when it is desired to bring, through the Canada Gazette, the information contained in the order to those to whom it is intended to apply. In the case of this order more direct communication was the means of conveyance. This took the form of press and radio announcements and press advertisements. Following this publicity a number of applications were received for copies of the order and, since it was apparent that a considerable number would likely be required for distribution through this department and the treasury department, it was decided to have the order printed in the Gazette and the necessary copies obtained for distribution.
The next question was:
The order in council provides for the expenditure of $20,000,000 by way of additional payments to increase the income of farmers in the spring wheat area of western Canada. I should like the minister to explain the real purpose of this order in council, and the relationship of the payments to be made under it to the $35,000,000 provided under schedule B of Appropriation Act No. 4 of 1941.
The answer is that the amount of money, $20,000,000, provided in the order in council, was for the purpose of supplying additional income to wheat farmers who had harvested a much lighter crop during the past year than was expected at the time the policy was laid down last spring. There is no direct relationship between the $20,000,000 and the $35,000-
000.	The $35,000,000 provided under order in council last year was for the purpose of encouraging a reduction in wheat acreage. That reduction was made, and there was also a reduction in the crop because of the unusual weather conditions this summer, which cut down the revenue from wheat sufficiently, as we thought, to warrant the government in voting an additional $20,000,000 for that purpose.
The last question was:
May I also ask him to tell this house why those provisions were made by order in council instead of being brought before parliament at its November sitting in the usual and proper manner.
As is indicated, the order was issued on October 22. The regulations under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act require that all applications for payments be in before December 1;
and in order to get information out to the farmers in sufficient time to allow those applications to be in by December 1 it was considered necessary to take this action immediately rather than wait for a sitting of the house.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Pursuant to the reply of the minister to the leader of the opposition with respect to orders in council providing for certain bonuses, I wonder if the minister would indicate to the house what percentages of these bonuses have been paid already? I have had many inquiries as to when the balances of the wheat acreage bonus would be paid and also when the first payment would be made on the $20,000,000 bonus. Would the minister care to indicate where these bonus payments stand now?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it would be better if a question were placed upon the order paper in order to get the exact amounts, rather than my attempting to recite them from memory. I would say that by far the greater part, approximately five-sixths, of the money under the wheat acreage reduction plan has been paid. Probably more than that has been paid; I have not the recent figures. In so far as the prairie farm income payment of $20,000,000 is concerned, a considerable amount of that has been paid out. Only 60 per cent is payable after December 1, and 40 per cent is not payable until after March 1, so that a considerable part of this would not be paid up to the present. As far as prairie farm assistance is concerned, payments have been going out since some time in December. I am not in position to state exactly how much has gone out, but if a question were put upon the order paper I would get the figures up to date.


&quot;FAIRMILE FUDDLE&quot;
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): On Friday the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), as reported in Hansard, page 193, addressed a question to me orally in the following words:
I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services to an editorial appearing on page 4 of Boating Magazine for January-February of this year, under the caption " Fairmile Fuddle." I shall not read the editorial, because I presume
'Fairmile Fuddle'
[Stage Direction]
the minister has a copy of the journal. I should like to ask these questions: First, where are the five boats which are reported to have left Midland early in November, 1941, and, second, was a qualified officer in charge of those boats?
I stated to my hon. friend when he asked the question that he had not given notice of it. I find now that he had written to me. His letter reached my office about one o'clock on Friday, but at that time I was in attendance at a meeting of the cabinet council and did not return again to my office before coming into the house at three o'clock. So that I did not have my hon. friend's letter when I answered his question. I have it now, and having looked into the matter, I should like to make the following statement.
In late November, arrangements were made for two Fairmile motor launches from Midland and two from Penetanguishene to sail in company to Toronto, a distance of approximately 600 miles. One great lakes pilot was employed for the Midland group and another for the Penetanguishene group. All four motor launches had commanding officers who were lieutenants, Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, who had experience ranging from two years' war service in a Canadian destroyer to one year's service in motor torpedo boats, as well as peace time experience in handling small craft. In addition, a senior officer was appointed in this group of four Fairmiles for the passage. This officer, Lieutenant-Commander McQueen, R.C.N.V.R., has a master's' great lakes ticket and was a great lakes pilot for vessels in his own company during peace time. In addition this officer served during the last war as an officer in tjie Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, originally in submarine chasers and later in the salvage branch of the Admiralty. Therefore, it can be taken that this officer was not merely competent, but wTas an officer of very great experience.
The two Fairmile motor launches from Midland, Q-058 and Q-051, sailed at eight a.m. on November 24. Q-058 had on board a great lakes pilot and Q-051 was instructed to follow close astern. Unfortunately a very heavy blizzard set in almost immediately. Q-051 lost sight of Q-058, got into shoal water and struck one propeller on a rock. There was no damage to her hull and she eventually proceeded in company with the other three vessels. This Fairmile was eventually hauled up for repairs at Sarnia, which is roughly half way between the point of departure and Toronto, where it was found that a new shaft and propeller would be required. The total 
cost will not exceed Si,200. The remaining three Fairmiles proceeded to Toronto where they arrived safely on November 30.
On this date the weather conditions in the lower St. Lawrence were so severe that it was considered that no further Fairmile launches could be sailed to Halifax this season owing to the probability of damage from ice. Instructions, therefore, were given for these three to be laid up at Toronto for the winter and the fourth at Sarnia. Slight damage to Q-072, not exceeding 8270, occurred while she was being hauled out at Toronto. The total repairs wall cost less than $1,500, it is estimated, to ships that are worth $600,000, or a repair cost of about one quarter of one per cent. These repairs are not properly classed as "extensive and costly", the words used in this editorial.
The Fairmile motor launches are of wooden construction and could not be employed where they would encounter ice. All thirty-six Fairmiles will be in commission by early summer. They will he extremely usefully employed in anti-submarine patrols off the coast of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador, and in the gulf of St. Lawrence. It would not be -possible to spare any for use in the Mediterranean.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence) asked a question on Friday about a report that 100 commodities are not affected by the price ceiling. This report was incorrect. Seasonal goods are definitely under the price ceiling, as the board and its administrators have repeatedly stated, and there is nothing that this board has said or done to warrant any misunderstanding in this connection. The report has no foundation whatever.
Seasonal spring and summer goods, not similar to goods sold during the basic period, September 15 to October 11, 1941, are subject to the general rule that they may not be priced higher than they would have been priced if they had been sold in the basie period. This means that in the spring of 1942 seasonal goods may not be sold at more than the price charged in the spring of 1941, plus an increase equivalent to the increase between the spring of 1941 and the autumn of 1941, in the price of year-round goods of the nearest similar classification and intrinsic value.

Munitions and Supply-Contractors
For the practical application, of this general principle, the board has issued a list of seasonal goods, has advised manufacturers that their 1942 prices must be approved by the administrator of their industry in consultation with the administrator of retail trade, and has advised wholesalers and retailers that they may buy at approved manufacturers' prices and add the same mark-up as they did during the corresponding season in 1941.


DAYLIGHT SAYING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Norman Alexander McLarty: On Thursday last the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked what effect the order in council advancing time one hour would have upon the Atlantic standard time zone. He pointed out that in that portion of Canada within the Atlantic standard time zone already the mean or sun time was in advance' of the actual time and suggested that a great portion of the people of Nova Scotia and all the people of New Brunswick would be ninety-six minutes ahead of true sun time.
Generally speaking, the width of a time zone is 675 miles. The farther westward a point is within this zone the greater the amount by which the mean time varies over the actual time. To illustrate this: Halifax, for example, is 14 minutes ahead of mean time; Moncton, 19 minutes; Saint John, 24 minutes; Fredericton, 27 minutes, and Woodstock, 30 minutes.
This situation, of course, applies not only in the case of Atlantic time but throughout the various time zones in Canada. For example, Ottawa is 3 minutes ahead of sun time; Toronto, 18 minutes; Windsor, 32 minutes, while Fort William is 58 minutes ahead of sun time. Such a situation exists in every time zone, and to attempt to reconcile mean and actual time would, of course, obviously create an impossible situation.
In his question the leader of the opposition correctly stated that other factors, such as transportation, might affect the position. I communicated with the Railway Association of Canada as to the transportation problem which would be involved if any changes were made in the order. On Friday afternoon I received the following reply:
Your message yesterday re adoption daylight saving time in maritimes. Deflection from true sun time at points in maritimes would
not be any more excessive than deflection at many other points throughout Canada. Transportation difficulties resulting from adoption new time in maritimes are not any greater than in any other time zone. Would point out that in 1941 Halifax, Saint John, and Moncton voluntarily adopted daylight saving time from May 4 to September 27. In circumstances we urge that there should be no modification of order in council 547 exempting the ^maritimes as such modification would result in voiding all public time-table and working time-table arrangements already completed on basis of order in council. Also modification would result in disruption of through and local train connections and railway arrangements cannot now be altered.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. K. HAZEN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. A Canadian Press dispatch which appears in one of the morning newspapers states that the Department of Munitions and Supply announced on Saturday that it has decided to discontinue the practice of issuing individual lists of contracts awarded by the department, either as press releases or in printed form. I presume that statement' is correct, and my question is (1) will the Prime Minister or the Minister of Munitions and Supply tell us why it has been decided to change this practice, and (2) what means the public and members of parliament will have of knowing what contracts have been let and how and where the country's money is being spent for munitions and supplies?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The new policy adopted in
relation to the publication of lists of contractors is as stated by my hon. friend. The change of policy was made in Canada as a result of representations made in a letter by the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom in Canada. At the same time the policy of the United States was changed, also I believe on representations from Great Britain. It has not been the policy in the United Kingdom to publish lists of contractors for war munitions, and Great Britain herself has objected to either Canada or the United States doing so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
about the second question?
Beet Sugar


INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TAKEN TO INCREASE BEET SUGAR CAPACITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, on January 28, in answering a question which I had1 asked with respect to beet sugar, the Minister of Finance indicated that he was taking steps to cause an increase in beet sugar production during 1942. Would he tell the house (1) how many acres of beets have already been promised to him in Canada in excess of last year's sugar beet acreage; (2) how many new sugar factories have already been planned with his consent to be opened in 1942, and (3) how many new factories are already planned to be opened in 1943?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that questions of this kind be put on the order paper. We are taking a large part of every afternoon in answering questions which under the rules should not be asked in this way. Before the hon. gentleman puts his question on the order paper I would suggest that he read again . what I said on January 28, because I certainly did not give any basis such as he indicated for the questions he has just now asked.


John Horne Blackmore: After the long list of questions that have been asked this afternoon, I think Mr. Speaker, that my question ought to be answered. Why should my question be picked out and I be told to put it on the order paper?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It was the first question of the kind asked me.


John Horne Blackmore: It is a question which the country wants to have asked and answered right now.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my hon. friend the member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) is to be the first speaker in this debate this afternoon. He is, as I think hon. members are well aware, a close personal friend of my own and I had hoped to be in the house while he was speaking, but I may say to him that I have not yet had an opportunity to-day of so much as looking at the mail that has come in over the week-end. The morning has been taken up with other matters, among them the representations of important delegations which occupied my

time exclusively from 10.30 this morning until after two o'clock this afternoon. I have been in the house from three until now twenty past four. I am trying to give all the time I possibly can to the very important matters immediately connected with the war effort of the country. That involves of necessity my absence from the house a good part of the time during the course of the debate. I know my hon. friend will excuse me if I am not present when he is speaking. I raise the matter because I noticed that by some of tiie press attention had been drawn to the fact that one day of last week when the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) was speaking I found it necessary because of an engagement at the time, made before I knew at all that the hon. member was to speak, to leave the house and keep that engagement along with others [DOT]which I had for the afternoon. I hope the house will realize that I am anxious to be as courteous as I can be to every hon. member, but it will be recognized that in addition to all the matters in connection with the war effort to which the government is obliged to give attention there is a good deal in the way of political controversy both in and out of parliament. I hope it will not be thought that any actions of mine are intended to be a reflection in any way upon those who may be taking part in political discussions.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, may I very briefly make a somewhat similar statement. The members of the wheat committee of the cabinet have an appointment at four o'clock this afternoon to meet the Saskatchewan wheat delegation, which will necessitate our absence from the house.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, January 30, 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. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport) :: Mr. Speaker, I must first thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for his very kind reference to myself and assure him that I know he has a tremendous load to carry and cannot be in the house at all times. I must also thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) for his kindly remarks.
FEBRUARY 2, 1942	[DOT]
The Address-Mr. MacNicol
There has been enough said during this debate to convince me that many of the members of this house and many outside this house apparently are not yet seized of the stern and grim realities of this war and of the fact that this empire of which Canada, in my opinion and that of many others, is an indissoluble part, irrespective of the statute of Westminster and any other statute, is engaged in a life and death struggle which can have only one ending, either victory, freedom and life, or defeat, bondage and death.
We are receiving from all across this empire reports from the generals commanding our armies on the far-flung battle-line that more fighting battalions and more munitions are required if the empire is to be saved. I have heard here, from men in high places, that fighting battalions are not now and have not been the matter of major importance. I will ask each hon. member to cast his thoughts across the seas. Last year our armies retired from Libya. Now they have again retreated. Why? Our armies evacuated Greece and Crete. Why? Our men were captured at Kowloon and Hong Kong. Why? Our troops have now retired from Malaya. Why? To me the answer is very clear: our armies have not had, and have not now, sufficient fighting troops and munitions.
The speech from the throne, as I read it and understand what is behind it, lays bare the stern fact that more fighting battalions and munitions are required. But it does not say that these battalions and munitions will be rapidly provided. It proposes that there shall be a delay, at least as regards the provision of the battalions, until a plebiscite is taken-a matter of perhaps three months-a plebiscite which will be both costly to the country and heart-rending to the people.
My honoured leader in a brilliant speech pointed a way to relieve the situation I have mentioned, which, at least to me, is clearly indicated in the speech from the throne. He advocated an amendment to the speech from the throne in which he called for a prompt mobilization of all our material resources and, on a selective basis, the full man and woman power of the nation. I am not in favour of a plebiscite but am in favour of the amendment. According to the press-which may not have the facts-a plebiscite will cost this country anything between $800,000 and $3,000,000, altogether too large a sum to spend when the government itself is asking the people of this country to economize in every way they can, and has even ordered the cutting down of sugar rations; when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) is going out for one of the largest loans in the history of this country
-a loan which must be subscribed; nothing should interfere with that-and when nearly everybody in this country will shortly have to pay the most staggering income tax which they have ever had to meet, and that a month earlier than on any previous occasion. In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, this is not a time to spend up to $3,000,000 in taking a plebiscite.
When I was home a few days ago I was greatly alarmed as to what might be the effect of the decision to take a plebiscite on the minister obtaining, from several sources, contributions to the war loan. A number of parents told me that their children, school children, had said that if the government is going to squander $3,000,000 or so in taking a plebiscite, they will refuse to buy any more war savings stamps. I hope it does not have that effect on the school children of Canada, because one of the things on which I can congratulate the government is their having persuaded children to buy war savings stamps. It has three good effects. It teaches school children thrift at an impressionable age; it inculcates patriotism, which they learn in contributing their pennies for stamps; and it turns a lot of money into the treasury of this country. Returns from the Toronto public and secondary schools show that subscriptions by children between September, 1940, and December, 1941, both inclusive, amounted to $434,641.08. That is in addition to contributions by them of almost $50,000 to some thirty-eight other war service organizations, of which amount $16,929.25 was given to the Toronto Telegram war victims fund, and $13,271.43 to the Red Cross fund. I hope the controversy caused by the taking of a plebiscite will not affect children's donations, because, if it does, I would fear it would affect the purchases of war savings certificates by their parents- purchases which have had a good effect on the average humble parent, teaching him to save his money against the rainy day which may come. I hope that the government will not proceed with the taking of a plebiscite, but will find some other way to accomplish what is required to be done.
We are told that the government will have to break a promise. Well, a bad promise is always better broken than kept; and it was, in my humble opinion, a bad promise. It is bad because it was made, years ago, to retain political strength in this country; it is bad because it should not have been made, particularly in war. time, for none can tell how war will go. Generals who expect to win for their side endeavour to place the most men and the most machinery at the point of fighting, first; but we are now undertaking to enrol an army for the purpose of taking a

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
plebiscite across the country, while we should be enrolling men and providing fighting battalions, to be sent wherever the fight is taking place.
A bad promise, as I have said, is much better broken than kept. It is humiliating for a government that has the great following behind it that this government has, the largest in the history of the country, to be placed in the position, through a political promise made in war time, of being compelled for a time to cease its work in the raising of battalions and the making of munitions in order to take a plebiscite. It makes me think of the giant of antiquity, made of metal but with feet of clay. Here we have a government, the strongest government the country ever had, throttled by a promise. Its feet are so tangled up by its promise not to enrol men for overseas, either on a selective or on a compulsory *basis, that it can do nothing in that regard.
Let me discuss for a few minutes something else in connection with the government's prosecution of the war. I refer to the high cost of recruiting under the present system, which would all be saved under a system such as that in force in the United States. I was in western Ontario recently and spent a couple of days in a small village. There I saw on the lawn of the town hall a tent and a couple of recruiting officers-there may have been more. There were two during the day, but w'hether that was the total number I do not know. I engaged them in conversation. I asked them how many recruits were coming forward, and they told me that they had been there ten days and had obtained two recruits. What a big price to pay to obtain' two recruits! They told me that in a town ten miles west of that point there was also a tent on the lawn of the town hall with two officers in charge of recruiting, and that in the space of two weeks they had obtained only one recruit.
I have seen a similar situation in many towns across Canada, and I have no doubt it is true of the country as a whole. We are paying a staggering price to obtain small results. I saw a long cavalcade of trucks-I do not remember exactly how many-going up Yonge street, Toronto, on one occasion, and I inquired w'here they were going. I was informed that they were on their way to northern Ontario to carry on a recruiting campaign. Well, that was a large number of men and trucks to send to northern Ontario for that purpose. It would be rather expensive, for there were billboards here and there as well as advertisements, and there would be the cost of the trucks, the gasoline and so forth.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend think it would be justified, however, in connection with the victory loan campaign for the purpose of getting money? Does he think a long cavalcade of transport on the road would be justified for that purpose?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am talking about the
conduct of the war by the department.


James Layton Ralston: I am talking about this
war too.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
Karl Kenneth Homuth: He swallowed himself
completely.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -which will be required to take the plebiscite. A few days ago I saw in the Toronto Globe and Mail a picture of the Ridley family in the city of Brantford-one of our best industrial cities. This picture showed two sons and two daughters, all four of whom have enlisted and one of whom is in the army in Great Britain. I was surprised that the hon. member for Brantford City, having seen what he saw in Great Britain, could come back and take the stand he did, not to send without a plebiscite immediate help to Lieutenant Kenneth Ridley, his townsman, whom he perhaps saw or who, in any event, is in England. I was surprised and sorry, because I have a very warm feeling for the hon. member for Brantford City.
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) recently made a statement that I endorse. I cannot say very much about the Minister of Agriculture at any time, because I know little about agriculture. I am not like some hon. members who know a great deal about agriculture and at the same time know all about what it took me thirty years to learn, the manufacture of iron and steel.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are not a lawyer.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was not referring to lawyers; I was referring mostly to certain hon. gentlemen to my left.
The Minister of Agriculture, in a speech delivered, I believe, on January 10, stated that this government would not fail to send strong support-let me quote his words:
We are also going to take our part in manning the bastions of empire in any part of the world.
I was pleased to read that, and I hope the minister will speed up the sending of support to these bastions of empire, not delay it as in the sending of it to the great bastion of Hong Kong.	.
Last summer I was in Saskatchewan, and on the day I was in Regina, September 11, I was affected by reading a page in the Regina Leader-Post giving the pictures and names of heroes of that province, of whom twelve were killed in the navy, sixteen in the army and forty-nine in the air force. We have always thrilled with pride at what our army has done, and I have on more than one occasion read of some famous fighter from Saskatchewan, whose name has slipped my mind for a moment, but across the skies over France and Germany these Saskatchewan fighters have blazed a bright trail of glory that will never fade. I could say the same about my own province and every province, but as I come from Ontario perhaps it is not out of place for me to say a word about my own province, because we hear so many unkind things said about it in this house-it rolls off my back like water from a duck's back; the most sticks are always under the best apple tree, and I take it in that way. My own city of Toronto with its suburbs has sent more men to the army in this war, as it did in the last war, than any other equal community in this country. My own riding sent more men overseas in the last war than any other riding bar none, and to-day the sons of the heroes of 1914-1918 of Davenport riding have enlisted in their thousands to fight anywhere in the world. Most of their parents, I might say, are old country stock.
Something has been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and I was sorry he said what he did, because I have a
	.
very warm feeling for him, for reasons about which I do not care to speak. But the other day he said something about the so-called committee of Two Hundred. And they have been spoken of contemptuously by an hon. gentleman on my right who did not know anything whatever about them, and by an hon. gentleman to your right, Mr. Speaker, who perhaps knew less. That committee consists of two hundred or more outstanding men and women. They come, not from Toronto alone but from most of the towns and cities of Ontario and perhaps every county of lower Ontario at least, if not every county in Ontario. They did not sign as Conservatives or Liberals. I have not looked to see what they are politically; many of them I know, and I give them credit for being sincere. We are all entitled to be regarded as sincere. Many of them have sons overseas. I do not blame them a bit for doing what they can to shake the government out of its complacency; someone has to do it, and I am sure that if the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) could only have his fling, he could do a much bigger job than he is doing to-day. It is no fault of his; I will add that.
I see my time is going. I should like to talk a little now about munitions, because iron and steel have been woven into my very fabric from boyhood. A couple of years ago I offered in this house the suggestion that this government at once initiate measures to increase the production of iron in this country. At that time I said the day would come when Canada might not have the iron it needed to make munitions. I hope that time is not approaching, but the situation looks very serious. For some time we have had a delegation at Washington coaxing the steel controller there to permit us to get some iron and steel, and at last he has consented to give us two million tons of iron and steel. That is not very much for the programme outlined by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe); but what about next year?
I beg this government to delay no longer but immediately to promote the production of pig-iron. My suggestion two years ago was that this government grant a bonus to encourage that production, but I was turned down; my words fell on deaf ears. But thanks to Premier Hepburn, who has been denounced here so frequently, some action was taken. He carried out the programme first initiated by the Ferguson government, and granted a bonus of $2 a ton on the production of pig-iron. I am happy to say that in the county in which I lived when I was a young man, the county of Algoma-it was the district of Algoma then-the Algoma steel company at

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
Sault Ste Marie is now producing considerable quantities of pig-iron from a low grade ore possessing, I believe, less than fifty per cent iron content, and requiring to be beneficiated.
I have not been able to obtain the latest figures, but I believe the annual production is something like four or five hundred thousand tons. That is a substantial production. I ask the government now to do what it can, by means of a bonus to the Algoma steel company or any other company, to double the production of pig-iron, because next year we may not be able to obtain any from the United States, whose reserves are being rapidly depleted. I made a careful study of this matter some years ago, and according to the best figures the reserves in sight in the United States amount to about five billion tons. This year they are producing some eighty-five million tons, while the production next year probably will be double that if they carry out their vast programme. We may not be able to get any iron from the United States if this war continues and they go at it as they are planning to do.
We have plenty of iron ore in Canada. We have a high grade of hematite at Steep Rock. I do not know what is being done about that, or how soon we may take advantage of it; but the government should see to it that Steep Rock comes into operation just as soon as possible, because that is a really high grade ore. Then we have billions of tons of low grade ore as well. In the United States they are now looking for low grade iron ore, because the Ford company has developed an electrolytic process by means of which iron can be economically produced from ore with a content of from twenty to thirty per cent, which heretofore has been considered of no account. In the Hudson bay basin we have billions of tons of low grade ore; and if they can use it in the United States, we can use it here. So I urge the government to take steps to bring about a much greater production of iron in this country.
There is one other item about which I should like to say a word, namely, magnesium metal. I raised that question on June 14 last. At that time the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) did not seem to know much about it; he said some company was going to build a plant on the Gatineau river, but that plant was for making magnesium oxide, not for magnesium metal. The United States is going into this in a big way, and Germany has been producing large quantities of this metal. It may be that their planes have been able to do the things they have because they have so much magnesium metal in their construction. It weighs one-third less
than aluminum and has approximately the same tensile strength. A plane made of magnesium metal will go faster and carry a larger load of bombs further. I urge this government to get into the business. We have one of the greatest deposits in the world of dolomite limestone, from which magnesium metal is made, together with any amount of electrical horse-power, which is essential in the manufacturing process.
I want now to say a word about Canadian manufacturers, because they deserve the unstinted .praise of this house and this country for what they have done, commencing even before the war. At their annual spring meeting in 1939, before war broke out, the Canadian Manufacturers association decided to send a committee overseas to consult with the British government and British manufacturers in order to demonstrate what Canadian plants, Canadian workmen, Canadian technicians and engineers could do. And they did go overseas, at their own expense, and, I am glad to say, with the blessing of the government. When they came back, the Prime Minister was very kind; he spoke very nicely of their efforts and gave them due credit. On September 8, in a press release, the Prime Minister said:
With the concurrence of the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom, a delegation organized by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and widely representative of Canadian industry recently visited the United Kingdom to study on the spot all forms of armament and munitions production with a view to the expeditious adaptation of Canadian industry to these forms of production.
They came home and went to work, and they played a major part in organizing this country for the production of munitions. As the Minister of Munitions and Supply has said, Canadian industry did a wonderful job with his help in providing orders, I am happy to say. I have not time to mention the names of all these outstanding men, but I think some of them should appear on our records; I believe they deserve that recognition. Among these business men were: E. Holt Gurney, Toronto; H. G. Bertram, Dundas; E. Winslow-Spragge, Montreal; John E. Goodison, Sarnia; A. R. Goldie, Galt; Victor Drury, Montreal; and Chester Hamilton, Toronto, and John T. Hepburn, Toronto, who were over in Britain, and many others.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe every man or woman in this house is ready to do what he or she can to support the government and the country in order to win this war. It is imperative that we do this. As far as I am concerned, I will go anywhere and do anything the government feel my long experience in industry and manufacturing qualifies
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

me to do in order to assist our war effort. I do not suppose I could go to fight, though if I were placed in a fort, behind a parapet, I might be able to shoot as straight as most people, because in my day I could shoot pretty straight. We have wonderful examples to inspire us. On Sunday, January 25, I went to Grove preparatory school at Lakefield, where a window was unveiled in memory of Sergeant Stuart Dunn, W.A.G., R.C.A.F., a young hero from Quebec city who served over Germany and France for months but who lost his life on a return trip. I liked the spirit of the ceremony. This boy's father, Major C. G. Dunn who had gone to this school also as a lad, and a large number of boys attended the service.. Those young men sang most earnestly the following words, with which I shall conclude:
I vow to thee, my country-all earthly things above-
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love.
The love that asks no questions; the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.
In memory of what the glorious young heroes from every province of this country have done, it is our duty to send fighting battalions and munitions as speedily as possible to the armies of the empire, no matter where they are.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I must first of all commend the government for the announcement in the speech from the throne regarding the contribution to Great Britain of vast quantities of munitions, foodstuffs and supplies, estimated to be worth at least one billion dollars. May I at the same time commend my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) and his advisers for making the financial arrangements necessary for this transaction. I should like to point .out, to him and to them that I am pleased to see that they are at least moving forward and to the left. I trust they are beginning at last to realize how restricted and narrow so-called orthodox finance has been in the past.
I would remind them also of an age-old truth, that so long as the sun shines and the rain falls, so long as we have labour, land and materials in abundance, many things which were deemed impossible a short time ago are now possible. I trust that after this war these will include social justice and social security for all our citizens.

I have listened with a great deal of interest and care to the speeches which have been made so far in this debate, and I have wondered why, in speeches made by the opposition, so little has been said about the great contribution which Canada has made in this war of men, munitions, food, ships and money, as well as other war materials. In the eyes of impartial competent observers, such as the New York Times, this is considered as one of the most astounding accomplishments arising out of this war. This is the way in which they refer to Canada's great contribution of munitions, supplies and other materials.
Prior to coming east for the session, I visited Seattle in connection with a meeting of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission of which I am chairman. I found many of the people in the state of Washington to be loud in their praises of what Canada has done and is doing, but they were extremely critical about their own President Roosevelt. Coming back to Canada, I found numbers of our own people enthusiastic about President Roosevelt, but critical of our own Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and of Canada's war effort. I am coming to the conclusion that many persons in Great Britain, the United States and Canada are to-day suffering from an affliction which for lack of a better name might be called "far-off pastures look greener affliction," and which, to quite an extent, is affecting their vision of the actual accomplishments of their own country-. I suppose others would diagnose this condition as war nerves.
Speaking about leaders, I am not altogether surprised at the attitude of the Conservative party toward the Prime Minister, the leader of this government, especially when I consider the number of leaders the Conservative party has had during the past number of years and how harshly some of them were treated. Let me take one example only. The best and most capable leader they had in late years, one for whom I have still some admiration, the Right Hon. Viscount Bennett, they forced to leave Canada. No one will deny that the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was and still is a great Canadian. The hearts of that party, however, now incline toward Meighen, but in my estimation Meighen cannot equal Bennett in ability. In passing, may I compliment the present house leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Hanson). Personally I think he has done well as leader. He has certainly worked hard and ably since assuming the responsibility of leader of the opposition; his speech last week was a splendid one, and I wish to compliment him upon it.
In paragraph (c) of his amendment the leader of the opposition regrets that additional

The Address-Mr. Reid
measures for the post-war period were not recommended in the speech from the throne, and before dealing with the question of the plebiscite I should like to remind him that Canada has given more thought and extensive study to post-war conditions and is now further ahead on plans for the post-war period than Great Britain, the United States, or any of the other dominions.
Regarding the matter of holding a plebiscite, may I say at once that I do not like it. When, however, one looks at this matter from a national viewpoint instead of merely a provincial or sectional one, when one faces all the facts he must be convinced that the action proposed by the government, with all the circumstances and facts before them, is the logical one to take. Whether or not we like the plebiscite, its taking has been definitely decided upon by the government, and so the matter should be expedited as speedily as possible. It is unfortunate that at this particular time so much feeling should be aroused or stirred up throughout Canada over the taking of this plebiscite. I do not agree with those who say that the taking of the plebiscite is retarding our war effort.
My personal view on this matter is that there should be complete mobilization of every resource we have in Canada, including finance, natural resources and man-power for service anywhere when considered necessary. So far, the only real sacrifices which have been made by any of our people in this war have been made by those who have given of their lives, who have offered their services to the army, navy or air force, or who are the wives or parents of these boys. Equality of sacrifice is to-day spoken of freely, but we have much further to go in this direction before it becomes an actual reality in Canada. The government have to-day, under the National Resources Mobilization Act, all the powers they require to mobilize finance and industry as well as man-power. I am pleased that the government have intimated to parliament that they are going to do more under these powers than what has been done, splendid as that has been. In my opinion it will require a total all-out war effort to bring victory.
Whilst we are turning out munitions and supplies of all and every kind in commendable quantities and of splendid workmanship, in my opinion we have not yet reached our maximum effort. In certain ways we could do much more than we are doing, and this is especially the situation in British Columbia. In saying this, I have particularly in mind our shipbuilding programme. It is true that we have a programme providing for about $500,000,000 of steel merchant ships, corvettes,
destroyers and other miscellaneous boats, but this is not nearly the total Canadian capacity for producing new ships provided the government, and particularly the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), would only consent to the building of wooden vessels. Will anyone deny that the allies are in need of ships?
It may well be said that the losses at sea so far in this war have not been as heavy as they were during 1914-18, but we should not forget that' our ship tonnage is less to-day than it was during the last war, and we have the further disadvantage of a war in the far east with Japan against us. It is well known that lack of shipping has considerably handicapped Britain's war effort. More and more ships are required to carry vital military supplies and food, not only to Great Britain, Egypt and the near east, but now also to the far east. It is my opinion that Canada's present programme of steel ships cannot now be much further expanded, if at all, owing to the United States war expansion programme recently outlined by President Roosevelt for 1942 and 1943, which programme will require many more million tons of steel than the United States herself required in 1941. Great Britain is crying out for more ships. Great Britain is at the moment short of lumber, to mention but one of her many requirements. Great Britain is at the present time getting lumber from Russia by way of Archangel because she cannot procure all the Canadian lumber on account of lack of ships. Let me read a recent article in the Commercial Intelligence Journal of the Department of Trade and Commerce, of January 17, of this year. The article is headed "Canadian Timber Favoured" and reads:
Examples of the dislike of timber men in Britain to change when once they have become accustomed to certain materials or certain methods of trading are always occurring. When this country began to change from the almost exclusive use of European softwood to the importation of British Columbia pine and hemlock, criticisms about the qualities of this Canadian wood were almost abusive. Many importers stated that they would not have it in their yards; that it was not suitable in building, that it split when nailed, was liable to rot, et cetera. Further, that their workmen disliked it. However, prejudice was gradually overcome, the import grew by leaps and bounds, and owing to circumstances over which the trade has now no control Canadian wood has Since the war constituted our main source of supply. The trade has, in fact, become well accustomed to the wood. Now after a long interval Russian wood is beginning to arrive, but so used to British Columbia pine and hemlock have importers and merchants become that there seems to be no urgent wish to change again. The Russian wood is dearer and this may, of course, have something to do with the
The Address-Mr. Reid

disinclination to purchase when British Columbia pine or hemlock are available. When joinery quality is required, No. 2 common and better British Columbia pine seem to answer all necessary purposes.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that after getting the British .people used to our Canadian lumber and after building up our lumber trade with them, we are at the present time faced with the loss of this trade as a result of the lack of boats. Allow me, sir, to inform the house what we did with regard to ships and wooden shipbuilding during the last war. During those years a total of sixty-nine wooden steamers were built in Canada, twenty-seven of which were built in British Columbia. Every one of these ships carried lumber to Great Britain, taking one and a half million board feet of lumber on each voyage. They were built at a cost of $150,000, compared with five or six hundred thousand dollars, which is the cost of the steel merchant ships being built in Canada at the present time.
When the lion. Minister of Munitions and Supply tells us that wooden ships are too slow, I wonder whether he is overlooking the fact that the ivooden ships built for service during the last war, and which we could build now, made an average speed of 10 or 10J knots an hour. When one considers the average speed of convoys, and the time we had to wait before a ship was available to take military equipment necessary for the Can-dian troops for the defence of Hong Kong, and that when that ship was procured her average speed was only 8J knots an hour, one wonders what really is the chief reason for the opposition to the building of wooden ships. The story of Hong Kong might well have been a different one had we, prior to the fall of Hong Kong had Canadian ships available.
Another instance of where Canada is losing out for lack of ships is in connection with available trade between Canada and South American countries. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) paid, a visit to south America last year with a view to bringing about better trade relations and better relations generally between the peoples of south American countries and Canada, and his mission was, I believe, an unqualified success. He did a great work for Canada on that occasion. However, like many other things we do, we sometimes fail to follow the matter up, and we made a mistake, I believe, in not sending one of our highest officials to represent Canada at the Pan-American conference held a short time ago instead of sending or designating someone to sit in at that conference with what is known to the lawyers as "a watching brief" only. What I want to mention particularly, however, is the fact that although good trade results were obtained

through the visit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, manufacturers and others in British Columbia cannot carry out the orders which are on their books from south American countries because there are no ships available to transport the goods and articles ordered. In the light of all these facts, I plead with the government, and particularly with the Minister of Munitions and. Supply, as earnestly and sincerely as I can to proceed with the building of wooden ships to augment the programme of steel ships now being built. In British Columbia there are hundreds of idle men ready and competent to work on these ships, both carpenters and caulkers, the two chief types of artisans used, and we have likewise the lumber and other materials in abundance in my province for this class of ship, which is something that cannot truthfully be said with regard to steel.
Since we last met, Canada has declared war on Japan, which now brings the war to Canada's Pacific shore as well as the Atlantic. We in British Columbia are perhaps more directly faced with this menacing situation than are those in the central provinces of Canada/ and so, Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to devote a few moments to dealing with some of the problems confronting Canada generally but affecting particularly the people of British Columbia, -who to-day are faced not only with the possibility of attack but also with the problem of a resident Japanese population totalling, according to the recent registration, 23,461. First of all, I want to assure the house of my desire to be fair and tolerant in all I have to say in connection with the Japanese dwelling within our country, and I should like to point out that sc far I have endeavoured to refrain from making any public statements which might in any way incite racial feelings amongst our own people, realizing, apart entirely from a sense of common justice to the Japanese, how dangerous such feelings might become, realizing also that one had to remember that many Canadian citizens were still living in Japan, likewise the fact that numbers of Canadian soldiers were prisoners of war at the hands of the Japanese in Hong Kong.
First of all, let me commend the government for the speedy action it took, following the declaration of war with Japan, of ordering every Japanese fishing boat to be taken into custody. Over, 1,100 boats have been collected by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the naval authorities, close to 900 of these boats being moored in the Fraser river at New Westminster.
While it would only be fair to say that the standing committee appointed by the government did some good work, in conjunction with

The Address

Mr. Reid
officials of the external affairs department and others, under the chairmanship of the hon. Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), it was unfortunate, I believe, that members of parliament from British Columbia, particularly members from the coast districts, had not been consulted in the matter. It was certainly strange that their advice was not sought on such an important matter.
The government is perhaps not so much to blame as are some of the Ottawa officials in the government service who, it would appear, were determined to ignore any advice or help from the people's elected representatives, who are more aware of the facts of the situation than were most, if not all, of these officials.
May I say to the government that the decision not to issue any fishing licences to the Japanese was well received by the people of British Columbia; but no sooner had it become known that the Japanese fishing fleet was being taken into custody and that no fishing licences would be issued to Japanese for the duration of the war, than representations were made by certain interested parties asking for the release of the boats to the Japanese again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who were those interested parties?


Thomas Reid: Well, I can name one. My information is that the head of British Columbia Packers, Limited, who is also chairman of the wartime merchant shipping board, was one who was very active.
I want to warn the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) against what I believe might happen under the present policy whereby all Japanese are being allowed to sell their individual boats. These boats are worth from eight hundred to five or six thousand dollars, according to the size and class of boat; and any sales made, so we understand, must be on a strictly cash basis. The fleet consists of about eleven hundred vessels, and worth, in the aggregate, between two and three million dollars. It is hardly likely that all of these boats will be sold, especially when actual cash for them has to be found, and so we might again witness some of the fish packing companies acquiring ownership, through finance, of large numbers of these boats and, with this ownership of both boats and fishing' gear, largely controlling the fishing industry in British Columbia. This is at least what happened in the past and, it is to be hoped, will not be allowed to happen again.
It has been intimated that the government intend to move certain numbers of able-bodied male Japanese between certain ages only, and from certain designated military areas. The
age limit proposed is between that of eighteen and forty-five years. What the designated military areas are to be has not yet been made known publicly. My advice would be, if the government is going to move every ablebodied male Japanese citizen, not to leave any over the age of forty-five; and further, the entire British Columbia coast as well as Vancouver island, Queen Charlotte and other islands should be military prohibited districts for the Japanese and enemy aliens. Considerable concern is felt in British Columbia concerning where the government intends removing the able-bodied Japanese to, and I believe most people in British Columbia would agree with the statement that no community in British Columbia really wants them. One suggestion would be that in view of the shortage of farm labour in Ontario and other eastern provinces, the government send three or four thousand east and so provide farmers in the central and eastern provinces with all the farm help they require. This would save considerable expense to the country compared with the proposed scheme of road work in British Columbia whereby the government proposes to pay them for this -work. The people of Ontario, especially round Ottawa, and other provinces have always evinced a more kindly feeling towards these people than the people of British Columbia. We in that province would not mind their departure. I feel sure that if they leave British Columbia, there is one song we would not sing, and that is that splendid old Jacobite song, once sung for Prince Charlie, and now sung when dear friends are departing, "Will ye no come back again?"
The problem of the Japanese in Canada has been principally one of British Columbia's problems, and one which should never have occurred but for the action of the federal government in days long past. From information which we have it would appear that in the year 1894 Great Britain concluded a commercial or trade treaty with Japan. It was simply a treaty for trade purposes only, but one of the clauses of that treaty was to allow Japanese citizens to enter, travel or reside. This particular clause did not affect Great Britain, and at that time she had little interest as to whether the Japanese settled in the British colonies or not. Objection to the clause was made by Australia, so Great Britain offered to negotiate a new trade treaty without a clause of this kind being inserted, and restricting the entry of Japanese nationals into the various countries of the self-governing colonies. Canada preferred to accept the clause as it stood; Australia would not. The acceptance by Canada of that clause in a

The Address-Mr. Reid

trade treaty has been a most unfortunate one for British Columbia, and I believe for Canada generally, for the people of that province have had forced on them an unassimilable race of people, who cannot in the strict sense become truly Canadians. The people of British Columbia have long been protesting to Ottawa against the peaceful penetration of the Japanese in that province, but all protests have been of little avail. In fact, apart from some changes made in the gentleman's agreement from time to time, our appeals to the federal government have been met with almost complete indifference.
At one stage of our history British Columbia endeavoured to emulate Australia, which country successfully defied the attempts of Great Britain to force the entry of orientals on them, but the action of British Columbia was vetoed at Ottawa. It is well known that the pressure of certain Montreal financial interests had something to do with the matter, for back in those years they wanted to have plenty of cheap labour on tap, especially in British Columbia.
There are no doubt many loyal Japanese in Canada, but who can tell the loyal ones from the others? Would anyone say regarding any of our missionaries, or of other Canadians of British stock who have lived from upwards of twenty to sixty years in Japan, as some of them have done, that after living there all those years they or their children born in Japan would be now more loyal to Japan than to Canada or Britain? Of course they would not. Then why assert, as some do, that the Japanese are any different in this regard than our own or other races would be? I am not finding any fault with them in this regard. I am merely reciting what is, after all, only a natural human characteristic and which would seem to be part of the make-up of man and woman in almost every race.
Another fact w'hich should be mentioned here is, why have so many of the Canadian-born Japanese gone back to Japan to complete or carry out their military training in that country? Contrary to what one would imagine or expect from Canadian-born children of certain foreign races in this country, and which is not generally known, many of our so-called new Canadians born in this country are more intensely nationalistic for their parents' homeland than are the parents themselves, and this applies to many of the university class of Japanese born and educated in British Columbia. Do not forget that almost all of them are registered in Japan even though born in Canada and that Japan looks upon them as still being her nationals.

The trouble to my mind with many people- and this includes many round Ottawa-is that they refuse to face the facts on this oriental question. Personally I see no great hope of a permanent solution for the Japanese question in British Columbia other than by way of repatriation.
Perhaps the question would not be so great and might partly be solved were the Japanese spread out over the entire nine provinces. But as the policy seems to have been for the Japanese to congregate almost entirely in one province, the problem in that province becomes a very great and .perplexing one. I would, however, treat all. Japanese in this country fairly and without hatred. Remember, when we speak of repatriation we should think in terms of the future, looking towards the solution of a better and more united Canada. It is worth noting here that Russia, that country from which much can be learned to-day, took action immediately Germany attacked her and removed some 387,000 persons of German descent whose forbears had lived in Russia as far back as 1817. Russia believed, "once a German always a German," and removed every last one of them, lock, stock and barrel, to Siberia.^
With regard to the Japanese situation, if wise steps are not taken now to deal with the problem, looking towards a satisfactory solution, the problem will be an ever-recurring and contentious one, and it is my plea now to the government that it should be dealt with in the light of British Columbia's experience rather than, as in the past, from an entirely -Ottawa and far-away point of view.
There is one other matter which I should like to mention at this time before closing, and that is the question of defences on the Pacific coast, which was discussed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) the other day. Let me say at once to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) that it is not my intention to raise this question in any carping way or from any alarmist point of view. I do, however, warn the minister as earnestly as I can that the people on the Pacific coast are greatly perturbed with respect to Pacific coast defences. AVho would have thought three months ago that the Japanese would be in control of the Hawaiian islands and in control of possessions in the south Pacific now menacing Australia itself, some 3,500 miles distant from Japan? If Singapore falls-and who can say with any certainty that it will not?-where, I ask, will Japan strike next? For in that event it will then control almost the entire Pacific.
Since the war started, so many optimistic reports have been made by high military men

The Address-Mr. Reid
and authorities, which later events showed were certainly not justified, that people to-day can hardly be blamed for being rather sceptical. We are aware that certain defences are being constructed on the Pacific coast, but our people out there are wondering whether most of these principal defences have not been for protection against attack from sea, similar to those of Singapore, rather than against attacks from the air. It is all very well for our fears to be pooh-poohed or laughed at by the higher command here.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend must not
say that. There is no suggestion of pooh-poohing or laughing at anyone's fears.


Thomas Reid: I am glad to hear that, but
the reports that reached us in British Columbia before I came here led me to make that statement.


James Layton Ralston: I assure my hon. friend
it is absolutely incorrect.


Thomas Reid: The majority of people in
British Columbia believe that an attack, when and if it does come, will be chiefly from the air; hence the reason for the haste on the Pacific coast in perfecting blackout regulations and air raid precautions. Here let me commend the splendid voluntary efforts of great numbers of our citizens who are giving of their time so willingly and who belong to the various air raid precaution organizations. Necessary, however, as these precautions are, still they are not actually a protection from an attack by air. Especially does this apply to towns or cities situated on the seacoast or located close to rivers. As evidence of this, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to remember that the bombers attacking German cities now fly at heights of 25,000 to 30,000 feet, so high, in fact, that no object. below is visible from that height, and also the fact that smudge or smoke fires are now used in England to blackout rivers such as the Thames.
In case someone accuses me of mentioning military matters openly in the house, let me tell them that in so far as coast defences and military operations on the Pacific coast are concerned, these are and have been known to the Japanese in British Columbia right along. Although we from British Columbia have complained, ever since 1939 when war first started, against the promiscuous taking of photographs of military defences and other important sites by Japanese and others, no attention was paid to our protests. Make no mistake about it, Japan has all these photographs now, and has also complete information of Pacific coast waters, bays and harbours,
44561-loi
it being well known that the Japanese had up-to-date charts, the data for which were obtained during fishing operations.
Last year I protested against allowing five Japanese families to live inside one of our military compounds and defence areas, and the only answer I got was, that all these were loyal citizens. Well, Mr. Speaker, they could not all have been loyal citizens, for the day Canada declared war on Japan the Royal Canadian Mounted Police deemed it advisable to pick up some of them and intern them as enemy aliens. Nothing, however, has been done as far as I know about the others who are still living there, and whose residences are but a few,feet away from the very defence guns we are depending upon for protection at the mouth of the Fraser river.
To my mind the high military command here at Ottawa are responsible for allowing conditions such as I have mentioned to prevail, and which are inexcusable. No other country in the world would pussyfoot around in these matters or act quite as foolish. Do those in high military command here really understand the Japanese situation on the Pacific, or have they any idea at all of the workings of the oriental mind, which is as different as night from day when compared with that of the occidental? Is the hon. Minister of National Defence, or are members of his staff aware, or do they just laugh at those of us from British Columbia who are earnestly and sincerely endeavouring to warn them about Japan and the Japanese people?
It is my opinion that Japan's real object is that of world domination. Japan, whilst helping Germany, is playing her own game in this war-and make no mistake about it-and this idea of world domination is no new sudden desire on the part of the Japanese. Plans for this ambitious scheme were formulated in Japan many long years ago, and her policy throughout these years has been with that definite purpose in mind. It is part of Japanese philosophy to believe in her own destiny of world domination, and might I point out in this regard that Japanese immigration to British Columbia and all other Pacific coast territories has all been a part of that plan looking toward Japanese world supremacy. The Japanese government assisted her nationals to settle on the Pacific coast of north America, and according to Japan's own records, between fifty and sixty million yen were received by her each year as payments from Japanese nationals who had been assisted in becoming established in other lands bordering the Pacific, which lands included British Columbia.
The Address-Mr. Reid


James Layton Ralston: In what respect did I understand my hon. friend to say the Minister of National Defence or the army officers treated the Japanese situation lightly? Was it anything that had to do with military matters, or is he speaking about Japanese nationals?


Thomas Reid: I gave it as my view and the view of others that the Japanese should have been removed from military defences.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is speaking about Japanese nationals in Canada; I thought he was speaking about the preparation of defences against attack. My hon. friend knows what he speaks of is a civil matter.


Thomas Reid: It is all.very well to say that, but surely the Department of National Defence is in command of defences there and surely they should request the removal of Japanese from such defence areas.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will look at the defence of Canada regulations, he will see that there is a line of demarcation. I do not appreciate being made the subject of attack in connection with the internal situation in relation to the Japanese.


Thomas Reid: Well, I must accept the minister's statement, but I tell him it is high time that some of these regulations were changed.


James Layton Ralston: I can say to my 'hon. friend that the Department of National Defence has gon,e a very long way in making a protective area just because of representations made. My hon. friend ought really to deal with the department that has the matter in hand. The Department of National Defence deals with the matter of attack from the enemy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister allow a question? When I was in British Columbia I saw something of this, and I think I had occasion to call attention on one occasion to a group of these suspected persons near a fortified position. Were they allowed to remain in defence areas?


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to. I am talking about a protected area under the defence of Canada regulations, which have been recently amended. There has been a great deal of loose thinking and talking about the matter of defence areas. This matter of protected areas was formerly under the Minister of Justice and was always dealt with by that department until a few days ago. I was willing to take it over, and I made an order specifying the protected area in British Columbia, although I felt it was more a matter of civil administration.


Thomas Reid: The minister is in the fortunate position of knowing what the protected areas in British Columbia are, wdiereas members of the house are not, but I notice he did not contradict the statement about those five families living close to the guns. I visited that district the day I left for Ottawa, and but for the fact that I am a member of parliament I could not have got into that area, but the Japanese and their relatives and friends could come and go inside that military compound.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend know that that is a defence area established by the military authorit3T?


Thomas Reid: I do not know, but I know there are four guns there at the mouth of the river, and if it is not a defence area it should be.


James Layton Ralston: Who was it kept my hon. friend out, a sentry?


Thomas Reid: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: And allowed the Japanese in?


Thomas Reid: Yes. Five families in all.


Mr. GREEN:: Some of them are between the camp and the guns.


James Layton Ralston: I assure my hon. friend that it was not a defence area such as set up under the defence of Canada regulations that he is talking about.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then what is it, if it is a gun area?


James Layton Ralston: What the hon. member is talking about is in the vicinity of some guns, but is not a defined defence area.


Thomas Reid: Well it should be. Coming back to the remarks I have to make regarding the war in the Pacific, it is evident now that Japan fooled the allies prior to December, 1941, in her war with China, making them believe she was not as strong as she really was. It is interesting to note that both Russia and Japan adopted a like policy in relation to their military strength and preparedness; for it is evident now that Stalin put it al. over Hitler regarding the strength of Russia. Japan, using similar tactics, hid her real military strength from the rest of the world in preparation for her fight against the United States and Great Britain, both of which countries she is endeavouring with all her military might to drive out of the Pacific. My prayer is that our war cabinet and high military command will accept these statements about the Pacific situation more seriously than they seem to have done in the past, and in speaking as I have about this matter, I do so

The Address-Mr. Hlynka
because I feel it to be my duty, and to warn the government and the country against the possible danger which I believe exists. We on the Pacific coast would like to see in all important centres more anti-aircraft guns, searchlights and other military defence measures. The people on the Pacific coast, however, are not asking the impossible and are well aware of the enormous demands for military equipment of every kind which is urgently required to-day to meet the enemy in all the widely flung battle fronts. I urge the Minister of National Defence, for whom I have the greatest regard, that when he speaks he tell us, as frankly as the situation will allow, of the steps which have been taken for the protection of the British Columbia coast. In the light of the actual war situation as it exists to-day, we do .not expect him to reveal any military information which might help the enemy or jeopardize the safety of our people, but we do ask that he take us into his confidence as far as deemed advisable, believing that a frank statement of the situation will be of inestimable help, looking towards the prevention of any possible war hysteria or panic which might arise.
I have one suggestion to make in closing. It is that the minister bring back General McNaughton from England and have him inspect the defences of both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, and in the light of his experience advise the government in connection with the defence of Canada against possible invasion. General McNaughton has been in England now for some considerable time and not only has witnessed enemy air attacks and bombardments but is in the unique position of knowing what the actual fortifications are in Great Britain against invasion either from the sea or from the air. He is fully conversant also with modern military tactics to be employed against- the enemy should invasion arise. He has first-hand experience, information and knowledge such as few of the military staff in Canada possess. General McNaughton is the most experienced man we have for advice on how modern warfare should be conducted, and apart altogether from the respect in which he is held in Great Britain, the fact that prior to the fall of Dunkirk he stood out against allowing Canadian troops to go to France because of the lack of adequate mechanical military equipment, show's the calibre of this general, who merits, I believe, the thanks of all Canadians.
It is my opinion that if something like this were done, and any recommendations made were carried out, it would not only allay to quite a considerable extent, the fears of many
of our people but also have the effect of placing us in a better position to repel any possible invasion or attack from air or sea on either the Atlantic or the Pacific coasts.
In closing, may I say that like every hon. member I realize the seriousness of war conditions to-day, and so have endeavoured in my remarks to be as fair and tolerant as possible, trusting, how'ever, that some attention will be given by the government to the suggestions made with regard to the problems I now bring to their attention.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Yegreville):: Mr. Speaker, during the past two sessions of the present parliament our task has been directed toward a solution of the problems which confront us in our national life, particularly those which arise in the prosecution of the war. Considerable progress has been made in this initial period, but no effort could have been too great while the destiny of free peoples was at stake. From now on, and until a decisive victory is ultimately won, both on the battlefields and at the peace conferences, not only must we further mobilize, equip and maintain our armed forces as our chief contribution to the cause of freedom, but we must of necessity go beyond this primary requisite.
We must not only -win the war, but we must also make certain that we shall win the peace. To achieve less would be to fail in the trust bestowed upon us, the sacred privilege of delivering to future generations the hard-won liberties of our forefathers. It is our duty, therefore, to study and prevent the weaknesses and recurring dangers of past adjustments-or, shall I say, the lack of proper adjustments-of world problems which gave rise to the present world conflagration. This should be one of our many immediate concerns.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will agree with me when I say that we are faced to-day with problems of first magnitude. Many of these problems have arisen with the present conflict, but multitudes of them find root in the past. We cannot, therefore, shirk responsibility in the solution of this chaotic state of affairs. World problems are our problems; for they have either a direct or an indirect bearing upon our national life-yes, even upon our individual lives.
The Address-Mr. Hlynka

We must necessarily realize that it is not the war alone that we are fighting to-day; we find ourselves also in the grip of two of the greatest revolutions of all time. Nationally we are fighting a war; internally and internationally we are engaged in two prodigious revolutions-one economic, one political. We are therefore endeavouring to survive one of the most critical and dangerous of transitional periods.
Let us, then, examine the role that we Canadians are playing in this struggle, and let us envision the role that Canada is destined to play in the future.
AAre are now in the third year of war. To what extent have we crystallized our views on Canada's foreign policy? What plans are we prepared to advance or adopt as the basis for post-war reorganization and1 reconstruction of the world? How many hours have we devoted in this chamber to the discussion of this problem during the last two years? If none, why not? Can we afford to be caught unprepared in this respect? For, as we know, this war will also end sooner or later as all other wars are supposed to have ended.
Now, when we consider the position that Canada occupies among the nations of the world at this time, it does seem that we have underestimated her importance. As a matter of fact, until recently Canada's position was unique in that it was second only to that of Great Britain; indeed in many respects, even with the entry of the United States into the conflict, Canada still remains a number one ally of Great Britain. I say that with all due respect and consideration to the material aid given to Great Britain by our good neighbour directly to the south of us, and with all due respect and consideration to the entry of the Soviet Union into this conflict on our side.
To amplify my statement: Canada's strategic position makes her the logical mediator between Great Britain and the United States. Her geographical location makes her an ideal arsenal for the turning out of tools of war for the allies. She is admirably situated for the training fields of the empire forces, and especially the empire air training plan. And lastly, because of her limitless potential natural resources and her vast, rich wheat fields, she will undoubtedly be the key to post-war reconstruction of Britain. It is only fitting, therefore, that Canada's foreign policy should be commensurate with her important position.
It is gratifying indeed to find that the broad principles which are intended as the basis for post-war reorganization of the world have been enunciated. I refer, of course, to the now historic Atlantic charter, proclaimed by two of the world's men of destiny-the

Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Church-hill, and the President of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt. I am more than pleased, Mr. Speaker, to hear reference made to the Atlantic charter in the speech from the throne.
Then again, there are the four great human freedoms proclaimed by the President of the United States-freedom of speech and expression, freedom of every person to worship God in his own way, freedom from want and freedom from fear.
These declarations deserve all the acclaim they have already received from all parts of the world, particularly for their universality and noble purpose. We, of course, welcome and accept these principles just as we had accepted the fourteen points of President Wilson after the last war. AVe may be proud at least of the fact that the democratic world recognizes that world stability and enduring peace can be achieved only on the basis of freedom of all peoples capable of shaping and directing their own destinies.
Further, in his address of January 6, 1941, President Roosevelt had this to say on the subject:
No lasting peace can be bought at the expense of other peoples' freedom.
Again, in his speech delivered at the annual dinner of the AVhite House Correspondents' Association, he said:
Humanity will never permanently accept a system imposed by conquest and based on Slavery.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, not only are these statements true, but they are expressions of foresight and vision. We can no longer tolerate a short-sighted plan or settlement. There must be built a new world citadel of freedom and civilization. If we ever hope to have stability and enduring peace, the principles of freedom must constantly be kept in mind and incorporated into the post-war settlement. If this basis is ignored, let us then not expect a peaceful world in the immediate future; the lives spent in this and the last war will then have been given in vain.
Let us look a step further. Should not the democracies, of imperative necessity, formulate a more definite and detailed set of proposals which will give the needed promise of release to all peoples under the domination of the aggressor nations? Should not our proposals be more positive, more dynamic, so that they may add more inspiration to the explosive force of the temporarily subdued peoples? I venture to suggest that in this manner we would change the whole course of the war very much more in our favour. I make this observation because it can well be

The Address

Mr. Hlynka
assumed that the axis powers are bound to offer some enticing formula to subdued nations for the express purpose of giving themselves a breathing moment before they begin tightening the reins on those unfortunate countries. Germany is already trying desperately to consolidate her position in the overrun regions. She is organizing these areas into zones which are to operate in complete subordination to her, and she is totally ignoring all racial and ethnographic lines. It is a sort of forced federal union. It would mean an eventual and permanent enslavement of millions of people. It would become a new and horrible prison of nations.
In view of this increasingly dangerous threat, the allies should, therefore, take it upon themselves to become the guardians of sovereign ideals and sovereign nations. Can we not promise all of them their national sovereignty, which would be in accordance with the spirit of the Atlantic charter, and which would make a revolutionary rebellion on their part worth while? It would be an inspiration and a challenge to them. For, as we know, there is no stronger force and incentive than that manifest in the defence of personal and national existence. I cannot, therefore, emphasize too strongly the immediate need on the part of democracies to make known their foreign policy in as complete and definite form as time and conditions permit. The issues at stake are too important for us not to make use of the incentive of confidence in the future-instead of vague hopes and wishful thinking.
Allow me now to draw your attention to the three items relevant to national sovereignty as outlined in the Atlantic charter. They are points 2, 3 and 6. Here is what they say:
Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned.
Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.
Sixth, after the final destruction of the nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.
These three points deal generally with the phase of the problem which I am discussing. They read well, but I found numerous interpretations of them. One outstanding United States publication interprets the Atlantic charter as being opposed to the setting up of any new organisms. Of course, much depends
on how the word "new" is interpreted. But are we to understand that nations who were not fortunate enough to liberate themselves during the last war shall remain in bondage? More clarification of this point is definitely needed. Then, again, the charter was interpreted as favouring the federal union proposals. Personally, I fail to find in the document any trace of expression of these views. As a matter of fact I find that the charter upholds the sovereignty of all peoples in accordance with their expressed will, which is definitely contrary to ideas propounded by federal unionists.
From what I have said thus far, it is evident that this question of foreign relations policy is an extremely broad one in scope. I wish, therefore, to confine my following remarks specifically to the discussion of a Ukrainian independent state and its importance to the British commonwealth of nations.
The question may arise in the minds of some hon. members as to why should we Canadians be interested in an independent Ukrainian state in Europe. Is it because Ukrainian-Canadians constitute a large group of our citizens, and we owe them that courtesy? Is it because they are so generously enlisting in great numbers in the Canadian armed forces and are ready to give their lives for Canada? Is it because of the heroic contribution of Ukrainians on the battlefields of the Ukraine against Germany? Or, is it because it is in the very blood of the English-speaking people always to stand up for the rights of others as well as their own? Yes, but there is a much more important reason than those I have already given.
Above all, a Ukrainian independent state in eastern Europe would be important to the British commonwealth of nations and the United States as a balance of power. I venture to suggest that in the not distant future the British people and the principles for which they stand will be more closely ' associated with the Ukrainians than they have ever been before.
Furthermore, Ukraine is important because of the extent of its territory, the richness of its natural resources, the size of its population, and its strategic position with reference to the Black sea, the Dardanelles, Iran, Iraq, 1 the Persian gulf and India. Professor G. W. Simpson, of Saskatchewan university, has this to say in his "Atlas of History and Geography of the Ukraine":
Thus the Ukraine constitutes a wide assembling place which could be used either by ambitious dictators as the starting point for sweeping military conquest, or by wise statesmen as a strong wedge-like area of defence which would stabilize all these regions tributary to the Black sea.
The Address-Mr. Hlynka

Consequently, it is definitely contrary to the interests of Britain to permit Germany to take and hold the Ukraine and exploit its people and its resources for aggrandizement and greater power. Again, it would not be in the best interests of Britain to see any other power enslave the Ukrainian people and, with the use of their territory and natural resources, become a dominant power holding this strategic position in eastern Europe.
Finally, a division of the territory after the fashion of the division made after the last war would only complicate the problems of Europe, and the dangerous situation would remain unchanged. Hence the problem of a Ukrainian independent state in eastern Europe is of extreme importance to the British commonwealth of nations and to the stability of the world.
I have before me a handbook prepared under the authority of the historic section of the British foreign office, entitled "The Ukraine", the topic which I propose to discuss briefly. This booklet is numbered 52 of the series of such authoritative information prepared and collected for the sole purpose of having this information available for those who were to participate in the peace conferences. It may be observed from the series number that there must have been at least fifty-one others of the kind, dealing with various important problems. This booklet contains information having to do with physical geography, political history, social and political conditions, and much other useful material. One cannot help but admire the British for their thoroughness in dealing with important matters such as these; on the other hand, the total lack of similar preparation on our part in Canada stands out in striking contrast.
True, many Canadians show a keen interest in the Ukrainian problem. Many of them seek information on the subject, but it is essential that they obtain their information from authoritative and unbiased sources. All those interested in the subject must remember that there is a great deal of distorted information emanating from people who are not totally disinterested in the possession and the control of the Ukraine. This information is usually disseminated with the purpose of obliterating the authenticity of the ethnological and ethnographical existence of the Ukrainian people. For example, any aspiration manifested by Ukrainians looking to freedom and independence in their own native land is immediately given the interpretation of being instigated by an enemy of the British. This method of propaganda is by no means new, but unless one guards against such sources of information he may be hopelessly misled.

For the benefit of those who may be interested in the subject I wish to place on record just a few authoritative sources of information: "Ukraine, an Atlas of its History and Geography," by G. W. Simpson, professor of European history, university of Saskatchewan, published in 1941; "History of the Ukraine," by D. Doroshenko. professor of Prague and Warsaw universities, which was edited by Professor Simpson, and published in 1939. The third and perhaps the most comprehensive study is "A History of Ukraine," by Michael Hrushevsky, one of the world's outstanding historians. This book was edited by 0. J. Frederiksen, professor of history at Miami university, and published by Yale university press in 1941.
May I now give this house, so far as my humble ability will permit, the fundamental facts concerning Ukraine and the Ukrainian people? First let me deal with the land they inhabit and claim.
Ukraine is a vast rich territory lying in the southeastern corner of Europe on the threshold of Asia, immediately north of the Black sea. It is the second largest ethnographic territory in Europe and fourteenth largest in the world. This territory comprises 362,200 square miles.
Immediately prior to the last world war the whole Ukraine was held by Russia and Austro-Hungary.
By 1923 the Ukraine was dismembered and divided among the four neighbouring nations. The largest portion, comprising 298,610 square miles and containing 35,026,000 Ukrainians, called the Great Ukraine, was assigned to Russia, and was incorporated as one of the republics of the Soviet Union. The western Ukraine, comprising 51,042 square miles and containing 7,500,000 Ukrainians, was made a Polish "protectorate". The provinces of Bessarabia and Bukovina, comprising 6,795 squaremilesand containing 1,500,000 Ukrainians, was placed under Roumanian rule, while Carpatho-Ukraine, comprising 5,753 square miles and containing 600,000 Ukrainians, was assigned to Czechoslovakia.
At the moment almost the entire territory has become the battlefield of the German and the Soviet Union forces. It has been for many months and still is being torn by destructive forces of war, and the Ukrainian people are undergoing the most cruel ordeal of their history. In addition to this tragic fate that befell the Ukrainian people, the scorched earth policy of the Soviet government was mainly applied to the Ukraine. The land which is capable of providing freedom and life to its people has brought nothing but extreme tragedy, with slavery and death.

The Address-Mr. Hlynka
To one who has not the facts about the Ukraine it may seem confusing why so many nations are forever determined to grab a piece of this land for themselves. The answer is that it is one of the richest regions in the entire world. Ukraine is often referred to as the granary of Europe. It is more than that. Her mineral deposits are the envy of all her good neighbours. The 1932 Encyclopaedia Americana points out that in 1928-29 Ukraine supplied the Soviet Union with 80 per cent of its coal, 60 per cent of its iron, 95 per cent of its manganese, 80 per cent of its sugar, the bulk of its wheat, vast quantities of mercury, copper and gold. The striking fact is that its rightful owners share little in this wealth.
There are now in the neighbourhood of 50 million Ukrainians in the world. Numerically they are the third largest group in Europe and ninth largest in the world. They first appeared in history in the fourth century. My time will not permit me to deal with the ethnology and the general characteristics of the people at this time; suffice it to say that C. S. Coon, professor of anthropology at Harvard university, states in his book, "Races of Europe," that Ukrainians are a distinct and separate people.
Perhaps the greatest contribution made by Ukrainians to the world was that of staving off the Asiatic hordes for many centuries from invading Europe. That is what Lord Tweedsmuir meant when he said on September 21, 1936, at Fraserwood, Manitoba, "for it was your race which for centuries held the southeastern gate of Europe against the attacks from the east."
Again, it was through Kiev, the capital of the Ukraine, that Christianity was introduced into eastern Europe in 988. Let me mention one or two other contributions in art, music, and literature. Alexander Archipenko, one of the world's foremost contemporary sculptors, now living in the United States, is a Ukrainian. The immortal Tschaikowsky, in the field of music, was of Ukrainian origin. Taras Shevchenko, the Robert Burns of the Slavic races, was a Ukrainian. These are but a few indications of Ukrainian contributions to the world.
When national states were established after the last world war it was held that the basis accepted was not some remote appeal to historic claims, but rather a clear and unmistakable determination of the people to rule themselves. With regard to the historic claims of many peoples, some, like Finland, had not known complete political independence for many centuries; some, like Esthonia, had never known political independence in the modern sense of the word.
The Ukraine, however, has had a continuous historic tradition extending back for over a 44561-16
thousand years, and three timefc, at least, this tradition incorporated itself in terms of political independence. First, there was the Kievan state, existing from the ninth to the middle of the fourteenth century; then the Cossack state, established in 1648, which lasted to the middle of the eighteenth century, and lastly, the United Ukrainian Republic of 1918-23.
At the time when Alfred the Great Of England was attempting to maintain his Saxon state against the Danes, the ancestors of the Ukrainian people were establishing a large and flourishing kingdom with its centre at Kiev. This Kievan state, with its Slav-Byzantine culture, was the outstanding political state in eastern Europe. It is the fountainhead of the Ukrainian historical tradition. When it disintegrated into principalities and suffered, the devastating blow of the Tartar invasion its traditions lived on in the southern principalities, particularly in the western Ukraine. Although the western Ukraine fell to Poland and the other principalities to Lithuania, which was later joined to Poland, the ancient Ukrainian laws, customs and language persisted and developed.
Again when Oliver Cromwell in England, in the seventeenth century, was striking a mighty blow for that liberty which we are to-day defending, Bohdan Khmelnitsky created on the basis of Ukrainian tradition a free and independent Cossack state. Unfortunately Khmelnitsky had not the advantage of a sea wrall, which Cromwell enjoyed, and the state which he had erected was torn between Poland and the rising state of Muscovy which was then becoming the modern empire of Russia. So firmly entrenched, however, were the institutions of self-government in the Ukraine, that it was more than a hundred years after the death of Khmelnitsky, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, before the imperialist regime could root out the last remnants of these institutions of selfgovernment.
But the love of freedom which is an undying part of the human spirit was again awakened in the nineteenth century among the Ukrainian people as well as among the Czechs, the Poles and others who had been suppressed.
Finally, in the first world war, when the Russian empire fell, then from its ruins, for the third time in the history of the Ukrainian people, there emerged a Ukrainian independent state, proclaimed on January 22, 1918. Nine months later the Austro-Hungarian empire fell, and from its remnants there was created the Western Ukrainian National Republic, proclaimed on the first day of November, 1918, ten days before the armistice. These

The Address-Mr. Hlynka

two Ukrainian areas were proclaimed united on Januar3'- 22, 1919, forming a United Ukrainian Republic.
The Ukrainian patriots fought desperately to defend this state so -that they might live as free people among other nations of the world. They lost this freedom, and one element in their misfortune was the fact that their cause was so gravely misunderstood and misrepresented. By 1923 the Ukrainians found themselves divided among four states, as I have already pointed out.
It seemed that it was the original intention of the Paris peace conference to give the Ukrainians the right of self-determination in the western Ukraine. In 1923, however, the Council of Ambassadors granted to Poland the title to this area, on the distinct understanding that she would eventually grant autonomy to this part of the Ukraine under the stipulated clauses of the Minorities treaty of 1919. Finally, in 1934, Poland formally repudiated this obligation.
The results of these minorities treaties present many interesting angles. It may be granted that it was not easy to divide the territory in question into national states, since there were many conflicting claims; but, allowing even for that, all were not treated with equal consideration. For instance, in the territorial revision after the last war some eleven states were created' that were not on the map in 1914. Some of these were: Poland, with some 20 millions of people; Yugoslavia, with about 15 millions; Finland, with 3,600,000; Lithuania, with 2,500,000; Latvia, with 2,000,000, and Esthonia, with 1,100,000. I strongly uphold the granting of sovereign rights to all these nations, because I am a firm believer in the sovereign rights of all peoples in accordance with their will. It does seem inconsistent, however, that Ukrainians, with over 40 millions at that time, came out of the struggle empty-handed, in spite of the fact that they had been an historic unit in the past. Were not the Ukrainians entitled to the same privilege as others? If not, why not?
Another error in the settlement arose out of the fact that minorities created by this division constituted a dangerously high percentage. According to Mr. C. A. Macartney, a recognized authority on European affairs, in Czechoslovakia thirty-three per cent were other than Czechs or Slovaks; in Poland over twenty-five per cent were non-Polish; in Roumania over twenty-five per cent were other than Roumanians. The important question is, can we afford to ignore racial lines in the future?
CMr. Hlynka.]
The present collapse of the state structure in Europe has again involved the Ukrainian people, along with other peoples, in utmost misery and desolatiou at the hands of the aggressor nations. The Ukrainians have again joined hands with other liberty-loving peoples in a fight for freedom. In Carpatho-Ukraine they fought against the axis partner, Hungary, in 1938. In western Ukraine and in Poland they fought against Germany in 1939, and they are now fighting against Germany with the Soviet Union forces.
Ukrainians fought for their freedom throughout their long and tragic history. They fight for it now, and they will continue to fight for it until they are free. Ukrainians believe that they are just as much entitled to their sovereign rights as any other people are; they wish to contribute their maximum share to culture and civilization of the world. This will be possible only through the restoration of their own independence. A nation can give its best only when free from bondage. These are the tenets of the Atlantic charter; these are the tenets of Christian civilization.
It may be pointed out by some that there appear to be two obstacles in the way of realization of Ukrainian sovereignty. In the first place it may be suggested that after .this war there will be no sovereign states; that some sort of federal union will take their place. Personally I do not believe that the British people would favour any plan that would require the forfeiture of their sovereignty. If they did, they would not be fighting this war.
The second obstacle which may be suggested is one with reference to the Soviet Union. It may be said that, since the Soviet Union is our ally in this war, any suggestion of an independent Ukraine might endanger our relations with the Soviet Union. Let me remind hon. members that, according to press reports, the Soviet government favours the proposals embodied in the Atlantic charter. That this is so, was indicated by the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Eden, after his recent return from Moscow. In addition to that, article 17 of the Soviet Union constitution (1936) says that "Each union republic is reserved the right freely to secede from the U.S.S.R." This should be sufficient assurance that the Soviet Union would be inclined to favour a recognition of the principle of the sovereignty of nations.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to leave with the house the following suggestion. In view of the fact that all the subdued countries that had been sovereign nations prior to this war are now privileged to form their provisional governments in exile

The Address-Mr. Bradette
in order that they may carry on the work in the interests of their respective peoples, and in view of the fact that Ukrainians, who form a larger group than any of these, have not now that privilege simply because they were not an independent nation immediately prior to this war, I humbly submit that steps should be taken by the allied governments to make it possible for the Ukrainians to be represented at the various conferences now being held from time to time. In Great Britain, the United States and Canada, there are in existence United Ukrainian committees, whose primary object is to assist the governments in Britain, the United States and Canada in the successful prosecution of the war. I do suggest, if I may, sir, that since all the allied nations are fighting for a common cause of freedom, that Ukrainian committees to which I have referred be also invited to delegate their representative or representatives to express the view of 50 million Ukrainian people at conferences held by the allied nations.
I believe I have sufficiently pointed out that the stability of Europe and of the world can be achieved only on the basis of universal justice. The European madhouse will remain a madhouse until Europe is reconstructed with freedom written into every word of its constitution. When that is done we may expect a lasting peace.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my remarks I want to compliment the previous speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) upon presenting so lucidly and forcibly one of the great problems which his people living in Europe are facing now, and which we shall have to face and try to solve after the present conflict is over.
It is with a certain amount of trepidation, realizing that all hon. members are alive to the seriousness of the situation, that I dare to speak on this occasion. I believe, however, that this is the time, in the course of the debate on the speech from the throne, as the floor of this House of Commons is the place, for a member of parliament occasionally to express his sentiments on great matters which are agitating public opinion.
I was not here when the mover (Mr. Fournier, Hull) and the seconder (Mr. Macdonald, Brantford City) spoke, but I made it a point to read their speeches, and I join with others in complimenting them sincerely upon the splendid presentation they made. I also listened attentively to the excellent address given by that true Canadian, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) last week, and I might say the same about the speeches given 44561-16*
by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Coldwell) and the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore).
There is one feeling that, I am sure, animates this house. We are all in agreement on the fact that a total war effort is desirable at this time and until full victory has been attained. We all want to do everything we possibly can to prosecute the war successfully. One party may think differently from another with regard to certain phases of our activities, but surely it is possible in the present serious situation, in this critical time in our Canadian history and of the world, for us all to get our hearts and minds together and bring about unity in our own ranks so that we may forge ahead successfully with our war effort.
Let me address sincere felicitations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). In my opinion he gave a splendid, illuminating address, and I hope it will be possible for every Canadian to read, to scrutinize and carefully to analyse that speech. The Prime Minister showed what we have done in prosecuting this war. He made it known to the Canadian people, to the people of the British empire, and to all the people of the civilized world that we in Canada are willing to go further than we have gone and to make still greater efforts, and sacrifices, in time, energy and wealth in order to preserve -all those things that Canadians cherish. There is one thing that surprises me-I have wondered at it ever since the war began-and that is the fact that many members' of parliament find it possible to say, generally speaking, that Canadians do not realize the seriousness of the situation. Indeed, some hon. gentlemen go as far as to say that the Canadian people did not realize the situation at the time of the election in 1940. I suggest that anyone who has read at all carefully the history of the first great war, from 1914 to 1918, as well as some military works depicting not only the horrors of that war, but the horrors of the war which historians at that time foresaw would take place in the future, in other words, the war in which we are at present engaged; anyone who listened at all carefully to some of the speeches that were delivered at that time in the House of Commons by such men as General Ross, who represented Kingston, and who gave so vividly, from personal knowledge, accounts of what had taken place in the last war, and predicted what might happen in the future, does not rate the intelligence of Canadians very high if he stands up in this forum and declares that the Canadian people to-day do not realize, or did not realize, at the time of the election in 1940,
The Address-Mr. Bradette

the seriousness of this war. Our people knew and know of the meaning of this horrible conflict. We all knew how serious it would be. We could not help realizing it after Germany had conquered Poland in a few weeks. We knew what was in store for all the freedom-loving democracies unless we prepared ourselves accordingly.
I protest against this attitude on the part of certain people. There is scarcely a Canadian family that has not some representative in active service on the European side, and if for no other reason that that, I am sure we are all fully conscious of the gravity of the situation and the necessity for combining all our energies so that we may make sure that we shall be absolutely victorious.
May I say a few words now about the plebiscite? I represent a riding in which there are all the nationalities known to the civilized world. Ever since the total war movement started, I have been receiving letters, in some of which I have been definitely told that unless I am absolutely for conscription I should resign. As far as I am personally concerned, let me say that on this important question I shall follow primarily the dictates of my own conscience and what I believe to be in the interests of my own country and of the British empire. I will not be led astray, or I will not be led one way or the other, by other considerations. I believe that every member of parliament must accept responsibility not only for his own political actions, but, to a large extent, for some leadership in his own constituency, and advance his ideas earnestly [DOT] and sincerely.
Before coming to this session I was sincerely convinced that this government had done almost as well as it could do under the circumstances. I believed that it was fully aware of the situation, notwithstanding that in the last three or four months there has been a vicious attack from a small section of the country', of which attack of necessity parliament must be cognizant. I am absolutely in favour of holding a plebiscite at this time, and my chief reason is this. I think that when we read the history of Canada we realize that at all times we have, had reason to believe implicitly in the fairmindedness, the logic and the intelligence of Canadian voters, and they always realized and accepted the fullness of their responsibilities.
Some members of the opposition this afternoon criticized severely the fact that the plebiscite would cost some money. If I mistake not, I heard almost the same sort of criticism a few months ago about national registration, and only a year ago, before the

census was taken, there was a section of the press as well as of the opposition deploring the fact that the government was going to spend money on a census. Everyone now realizes that it is of national service. I do not wish to assume the role of prophet, but I suggest that when the history of this particular episode which we are now discussing comes to be written, the general feeling will be that the government acted rightly in asking the people to pronounce upon this important question.
I have not time to go over the achievements of Canada in this war. Any Canadian who wishes to get the facts can find them not only in the speech delivered by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the session, but in the press of the country. The Canadian achievement has been little short of miraculous. I am the last man to suggest that everything has been done exactly as it should have been done, or that we have done all that we could possibly have done. But we have learned a good deal from the last war; we are learning in this war too, and I have no doubt whatever that our activities wrill be greater as we go on.
Some of our colleagues on the other side seem to make light of the promise with regard to conscription that was given to the Canadian people in the election of 1940. In my constituency, which w'as typical of 244 others, conscription was not an issue, for the simple reason that I as Liberal candidate, my opponent Mr. Crumb, the Conservative, and Mr. Teeple, the Labour candidate, were all in agreement, and decidedly so, that conscription of man-power for service overseas should not bo implemented in this parliament. We have to render an account of our stewardship on that question, and our position in this regard has not changed since 1940. I believe that our young men would always answer to the call of duty voluntarily wherever their services would be required.
Let me quote what was said by Doctor Manion, who became leader of the Conservative party in the last election, on the floor of the House of Commons on March 30, 1939, as reported at page 2440:
In the last war the conscription of men to go to the front caused violent racial antagonisms, much disharmony, bitterness and misunderstanding-conditions from which as yet we have not wholly recovered; and on top of that I believe I am expressing the opinion of authorities when I say that it was of no real military value so far as the empire was concerned.
That statement was repeated on the floor of the house. Doctor Manion stated that as far

The Address-Mr. Bradette
as he could ascertain, only 10,000 men at the most got into the fighting line. He went on to say:
The policy that I suggest is the one which I gave three days ago in an interview: First, that there should be no conscription of Canadians to serve outside the borders of Canada; second, that we should have full cooperation with the British empire short of the conscription of men to serve outside our borders.
Of this I never heard any contradiction from the Conservative party. That was prior to an election. Perhaps there was some personal reason for Doctor Manion making such a statement. But we had an election during 1940, and in the city, of Quebec during the campaign Doctor Manion, addressing a very large meeting, faced a large banner on which was written:
I am absolutely opposed to conscription.
These are the words of Doctor Manion concerning that great issue on that occasion:
I stated on March 30, 1939, just about a year ago, in the House of Commons, that I was opposed to conscription because of its failure in the last war-
Mark you, "failure" is the word he used. -and because it had stirred up misunderstanding and strife in our country when the duty of our public men is to hold this country together, rather than to break it up. I have not waited until I came to the province of Quebec to make this statement. I made it a month ago at Brockville in the opening speech of my campaign. '
When I read the report of that meeting, the newspapers were all in agreement that it was a wonderful omen of Conservative victory. He continued:
I have made it more than twenty times since then in almost every speech which I have delivered as far west as Victoria, B.C. Thus I have set forth my attitude in five provinces of Canada before coming to Quebec, and I state here again to-night that I am against conscription, and that a national government such as I propose will not put in conscription.
These are words for which hon. members have to take some responsibility. It was words of their leader that they all accepted. I am -taking some responsibility myself because I stated then and I state now that I was against conscription in the election of 1940, and no matter how much white-washing you try to do, the Conservative party and other parties without exception appealed to the Canadian voters on that basis in 1940.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Conservatives will still be muddled. '


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Well, I am no judge
of muddling. During that campaign-and I do not say it was done purely for political purposes, but during this time of crisis we
must start our discussions on an even keel- I remember that the late hon. member for Parkdale, Mr. David Spence, for whom everyone had such a high regard on account of his sincerity and integrity, when the Conservative party said they were going to burn their bridges behind them and run as a national government party, stated he was going to remain a Conservative, but they overruled him. They ran as a National Government .party and were defeated.
On February 24 last in this house the then Minister of Justice, the late lamented Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, asked the sitting members of the Conservative party whether they were adherents of the National Government party, and every one of them most definitely answered "No." At the present time they have a leader in the house, and I know his modesty will not be offended when I say he is a real Canadian and a real statesman. But if Mr. Meighen is elected in York South next Monday, what kind of following will he have? Because at the present time he is running as a National Government man, something that was absolutely repulsive to the Canadian electorate in the spring of 1940, and denied by the present sitting members.
I repeat that if we go at it in the proper way we could get by the voluntary system all the young men required for service overseas. In saying that, I am thinking not only of the whole of Canada but of my own constituency as well which has responded magnificently. We may have to put more glamour into the militia; we must improve our approach; but if proper methods are used, they can get the men that are needed. We know that at present great numbers of young Canadians want to get into the Royal Canadian Air Force. If it were possible for Canada and for the United States at the present time as well as Great Britain to send 10,000 young flyers with the proper equipment to Singapore, that great outpost of civilization and of British . power could be saved.
But I will go further-and I do not want to be misquoted; it seems it is always possible during a time of passion for certain newspapers to misquote everyone. During a recruiting campaign in my own constituency last fall I made it a point in speaking with the officers of that recruiting convoy to tell them that the onus and the responsibility rested primarily on their shoulders; that so far I was satisfied that the response had been not only spontaneous but unanimous and very loyal, but that the day might come when more sacrifice would have to be made and that if many did not answer the call of

The Address-Mr. Bradette
national need for the defence of civilization and Christianity, then the question would be left for themselves to answer; there could be no avoiding of responsibilities.
I want to say a few words about the new leader of the Conservative party. I believe I can do no better than give the charter that has been given to him by his own party by quoting from an article in Saturday Night of November 22, 1941, by the well-known editor of that paper, Mr. B. K. Sandwell, who is well posted on our Canadian life and affairs. This is what he has to say about the new leadership:
The terms of Mr. Meighen's acceptance of the Conservative leadership have revealed in a very clear light the nature of the strategy upon which the authors of the Meighen movement are relying, and which goes considerably further than was at first apparent. It is essentially a repetition of the strategy of 1917, and its design is to split off a sufficient fraction of the normal Liberal strength (first among the leaders of the party and members sitting in parliament, and then among the rank-and-file voters), partly by considerations relating to the vigour of the war effort, and partly by considerations relating to the country's railway problem, to ensure a popular vote against that party as soon as an election can be forced.
Those people who are against the plebiscite know well that their leader at the present time would be in favour of splitting this parliament to have a general election. Would they tell me that a general election would cost less than the plebiscite? I want them to be fair when they discuss such an important question, and tell the whole story.
This article continues:
The possibility of such an achievement, negligible in times of peace, becomes considerably greater in time of war when the dependence of the party on its solid Quebec support compels it to courses which many of its Englishspeaking members find it difficult to tolerate.
And again, further definition of that new charter of the great Conservative party:
One of these was the long-standing disagreement between the Liberals and Sir Clifford Sifton, which dated back to the establishment of separate schools in the newly constituted prairie provinces. But the overwhelming advantage which practically guaranteed the ability of the conscriptionists to win the election, and therefore made it easy for the dissident Liberals to come over to their camp, was the fact that they were already in control of the government and could manipulate the franchise as they wished. The War Times Election Act, of which Mr. Meighen was the author, conferred the franchise upon women relatives of members of the armed forces-
That was fine; that was the only redeeming feature of the whole thing, the only act that was not almost a criminal act.
-withdrew it from a considerable number of naturalized aliens, and authorized the chief returning officer-

I want parliament and this country to note this; I want those who were not old enough to vote in 1917 to listen to this:
-and authorized the chief returning officer to distribute the soldiers' vote among the constituencies at his own discretion. With these instruments at the government's disposal the result, even with a solid Quebec against it, was not in great doubt.
And they expect the Canadian people will fall for that again, as they fell for it in 1917. Once is enough. Some returned men told me personally that when they were in England fhey did not know their votes were going to be pooled; they did not know a reservoir was to be created, to be distributed at the whim of the chief returning officer, in any way that would suit the orders which he would receive. In my section of the country we do not want a repetition of that horrible thing, which occurred in the infamous election of 1917. During that election the fine farmers and citizens of the parishes of Moonbeam and Fauquier were entirely deprived of the right to vote. These parishes were fully nine miles apart, but had no road connection except the Canadian National right of way. The voters in Fauquier were told that they had to go to Moonbeam to vote; those in Moonbeam were told they had to go to Fauquier, and most of them spent all day walking back and forth, without being allowed to vote. In Porquis Junction there were twelve Liberal votes cast. Men wearing the uniform of the constabulary took those twelve votes and tore them up, so they were never counted. And they called that democracy. While the *country was fighting to destroy the principles of autocracy, we were suffering from the worst kind of autocracy this country ever experienced; trying to destroy the principle of free, universal suffrage; and as far as I am concerned, it will never be repeated. A good friend of mine, Eddie Lapierre, was elected in my constituency-it was my constituency at that time, taking in the two Cochranes and Nipissing-by over 1,200, by his own duly qualified electors. But after votes had been taken from that reservoir of soldier votes, he found himself defeated by forty. These are things we must remember at this time. I know no Conservative sitting in this House of Commons would be a party to any such unjust, unfair practices during the present crisis; however, this is the charter, drawn up by a man who is supposed to know, and appearing in a national newspaper read in every section of this country.
I should now like to say a word about the total-war committee. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) who said this afternoon that

The Address-Mr. Bradette
among the two hundred people present at that meeting were some fine gentlemen and fine ladies. But I could also tell the hon. member that many of those people went to that meeting without knowing why they had been called. In some cases-and1 this was told to me personally

they thought they were going to a meeting to promote the next war loan. Many of them did not even vote on the question; they remained in their seats, because they did not want to have anything to do with it. To me it smacks very much of Canada's wonder boy, who started that idiotic leadership movement which was stillborn a few years ago, the. young man who ' was going to run roughshod over every parliamentarian, making us all appear to be crooks and so on, and who eventually would become prime minister of this country. I have no fear of that last eventuality ever coming to pass.
I have tabulated each of these full-page total-war committee advertisements that I received from my constituents; and instead of these fine men and women of that committee spending large sums of money in a foolish effort to poison the minds of our electors in this province of Ontario, I think they should have found it possible to insert full-page advertisements in all the newspapers of Ontario in an endeavour to put over the new war loan, which is to be issued during the course of this month. In doing so, they would have been following some wonderful examples. For instance, I have in my hand a full-page advertisement appearing in that fine magazine Canadian Business, entitled "I Am Resolved." Resolved to do what?
I am resolved to be cheerful and uncomplaining at all times, sympathetic to those who work beside me, and to those in authority over me.
That is a much better principle than any enunciated by the total-war committee. Not long ago some ladies of the town of Timmins called me up and said they wanted to see me. I asked what it was about, and they said they wanted to start a total-war committee. I said, "I do not want one. I am converted to that principle and have been converted to it ever since the war started. Every citizen of this country is in favour of it." Then I added, "You must have some other work you can do, and that is helping the new war loan." Then this advertisement goes on to tell the Canadian people some other things they may do:
I am resolved to be tolerant of the shortcomings of others, realizing that to make an effort is commendable, to attempt nothing is deadly.
I am resolved gladly to do without some of those things I am accustomed to enjoy, for it
is good to deny oneself-even to suffer in a noble cause.
I am resolved that if I am fitted to serve my country best in the fighting forces, I will take my place proudly beside my comrades.
I am resolved to strive with all my power, to press on in my daily task to the limit of my endurance. It may be that my modest effort will tip the scale, and set a great shout of deliverance echoing 'round the world.
In this January number appear similar advertisements sponsored by the Northern Electric Company', Limited; Canadian Industries, Limited; British American Bank Note Company, Limited; Howard Smith Paper Mills Limited; Rapid Grip and Batten, Limited, and others; and on several occasions I have also received some wonderfully elevating, loyal Canadian and British literature from The Universal Life Assurance and Annuity Company of Winnipeg. I take this opportunity of thanking these people, and many others, that slip my mind at the moment, for their constructive work. I know that at least some of them are not political supporters of the present government, but they realize the duty of the moment.
We have a fine newspaper service in my constituency. We receive the Toronto morning papers as soon as they are available in Toronto itself; we know more about Toronto than they know about our section of the country. More than that, in my constituency I have one daily paper, one bi-weekly paper, and two weekly papers. In all these newspapers these full-page advertisements by the total-rvar committee appeared; and all told, I received forty-three letters as a result. This was' in a constituency with a population of over eighty thousand, and these letters would represent about 170 people. I acknowledged each of these letters, thanking the writer for the interest he was taking in our national affairs, in most instances making no comment. Neither did I make any comment when a mining engineer by the name of Stevenson took it upon himself to send an open telegram abusing the Prime Minister of this countiy. I do not intend to reply to that sort of abuse, because it is un-Canadian, it is unpatriotic. In our section of the country one man, whether he is a mucker working in the entrails of the earth, a farmer or a lumberman, is just as loyal as the next man. We know that this government is not perfect; but we also know that no matter what government is in power, we shall give it the same loyal support we gave the government of this country during the first great war.
I said the letters I received in response to these adv-ertisments represented a total of
The Address-Mr. Bradette

about 170 people. Hon. members will not be surprised, I hope, to learn that without propaganda of any sort I received communications from more than three hundred people during that period of time, telling me they were absolutely against conscription; because the only thing they could draw from that advertisement was that the answer to all our problems in connection with the war lay in manpower only. It is an important one, but there are also others. To me that is one very important subject, but there are other very important subjects as well. Canadians have cheerfully accepted many curtailments, and if they should be called upon to make further sacrifices, I know they will cheerfully do so. So far, casualties have been relatively low, but I resent the statement made both in parliament and outside parliament that in order for some to realize that we are in a war, we should have some bombing from the air. Perhaps for some people that might have a salutary effect; but no one who has seen or read or heard of what has happened in Europe, more particularly in valorous old England, is without fear in his heart and his eyes. We know what is going on. I say in the name of my own people that no matter what the. government may ask of us, be it bacon rationing, sugar rationing or egg rationing, we shall be willing to. cooperate.


Mr. JACKMAN:: Why not?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Why not? Does the bon. member put the question?


Harry Rutherford Jackman: The hon. member speaks of sacrifices, but those are not sacrifices.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I said that we are willing to do whatever we are asked to do. I do not want to be misquoted. I do not want the spirit of misrepresentation trying to speak here to-night. I am speaking with all sincerity. I never interrupt the hon. member when he is speaking, and I think I should have the same treatment from him. Last fall I listened to a broadcast by Mr. Donald Gordon of the priceceiling board. I do not have the pleasure of knowing that gentleman, but anyone listening to him would never doubt his sincerity. I should like to quote the last two paragraphs of the broadcast he gave when the price-ceiling policy was started. They are:
All of these probable hardships and mistakes and difficulties I fully realize and freely admit. I wish you to realize them too, because ten days from now, on Monday the 1st of December, you are going into a battle. You, wherever you may live, old or young, rich or poor, man or woman, are a soldier in this army. . . The board of which I am chairman is only the army headquarters. You are going to be the soldiers on the firing line and you must meet and conquer

doubts, fears, uncertainties, rumours, and alarms. You must keep always before you the one clear objective-prices must not rise; the price ceiling must be held; inflation must be beaten.
Forget the reasons why this policy will not work. Remember only that it must work, for there is no alternative except disaster.
This is your part in the war. In every home in Canada there is now a fighting part to play. I believe you can and will save yourselves and your- country in this crisis. I predict that the historian of a future day will record that when this call to duty came to you, you responded, not only with your loyalty but also with intelligence, imagination, and resource.
All Canadians should do whatever they possibly can to prevent inflation. We do not want inflation similar to what we had in 1917 and which brought ruin to every section of the country. If inflation should occur, then the help we are giving so generously and cheerfully to England will be absolutely meaningless, because our Canadian money will have practically no value whatever.
I should like to mention two or three matters with reference to my own section of the country. First of all I want to say that I am an upholder of the law; I believe in the principle of British and Canadian justice that when a man commits a crime, no matter who he may be, he should be brought before the courts. There are hundreds of thousands of young Canadians in training camps all over this country. Some of those from my section of the country are in camps located over a thousand miles from their homes. These boys sometimes go out on larks and do things not absolutely according to Hoyle. I hope it will be possible to have no' publicity given to these pranks. I want to be clear on this. If a criminal act is committed, such as manslaughter, highway robbery or anything of that kind, or wilful damage to property, then I want the law applied. However, many boys from the district of Cochrane are in camps at Ottawa, Camp Borden, Toronto and so on, and they sometimes get into a little trouble. The first thing we know this is spread all over the press in our section of the country. This is not the right kind of publicity to give to these boys. It is bad, not only for these young men but for their fathers and mothers living at home. They worry about this situation. Perhaps it would be possible to have these cases tried by a military court, at least they should be dealt with the same as military discipline is dealt with, and no publicity given to them.
I have one request to make. Like all members of parliament, I have always followed explicitly the lead that was given to us in the fall of 1939, that no political influence would

The Address-Mr. Bradette
have any bearing upon military matters. I believe, however, it is my duty to mention some anomalies that exist. The divisional registrar for our section of the country is a Mr. R. A. Irwin, located in Toronto. I am told, and I believe that this gentleman is most competent, but the fact that he resides in Toronto makes it necessary for young men in my section of the country who want to lodge appeals to go a distance of 880 miles. These young men want to do their duty, but there are instances where it is felt that an extension of time should be given. Because of the distance they must travel, many of these men do not get the extension and through correspondence the real situation cannot be known. I maintain that our rural, mining, industrial and pioneering population should have the same right of being heard before a divisional registrar as people living in any other section of the country. Again I want to say that I have nothing against this registrar, but I believe that some injustice is being done to those living in my section of the country.
During the debate I have listened attentively to such hon. members as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and other hon. members who live on the Atlantic coast. . I realize that all these hon. members were most sincere in what they said about the defence of the coasts of Canada. My section of the country is nationally and geographically the centre of Canada. Hudson bay and James bay cut this country almost in twain. I do not believe I am divulging any secret when I say that there are some defence works in the Bering strait. I am not going to state here what I stated a few months ago when some officers

these were not Canadian or British but allied officers-came to my section of the country and said that conditions there were not suitable for an air training school. I think that such judgments should be given by members of our own administration. Such a school should be possible in our section.
I should like to say a few words about criticism. We all maintain, and no doubt quite rightly, that criticism is absolutely necessary in a democracy under our parliamentary system. I believe it is, as long as it is constructive and not destructive. Certain sections of. the press, however, seem to be deliberately trying to poison the minds of our Canadian people in connection with our war effort. They are not at all fair to our government. I should like to quote briefly what Mr. Churchill said during a discussion last July. I quote:
I should like to give some facts and figures to show how the improved organization and the smoother running of our machines has overcome adverse currents.
This is rather easy money for critics who can oil a two-day debate with disparaging charges against our war effort.
Over-ardent or disaffected sections of the press can take it up and the whole give cry to a dismal cacophonous chorus of stinking fish all around the world.
Those are the things we have to fight against. I have in my hand what in my opinion is one of the most vicious, unfair and dastardly articles ever written by a newspaper.
I am referring to the Toronto Globe and Mail of January 31, 1942. The heading of the article is, "A disgrace to parliament." This article has reference to a speech delivered by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), and I believe he will highly resent this sort of editorial against our parliamentary system. I quote:
Shortly after he began his address, however, Prime Minister King motioned to his leading Quebec lieutenant-
Was there ever anything so sinister? Trying to intimate that the Prime Minister motioned deliberately to his leader from the province of Quebec to do an unfair act to my hon. friend. The article continues:
-and they showed their contempt for parliamentary procedure by walking out.
At the present moment there are only about half a dozen young men in the press gallery, but I would be the last one among the members of parliament here present to think for one moment that those who are absent are not carrying on their duties in their offices. No one will think of any other motive. It has never come to the mind of any member of parliament to doubt for one moment that the members of the press gallery, as well as the members of parliament, have duties to perform both inside and outside parliament. I continue:
Half the Liberal members present took the cue and followed. Among those remaining the small fry-
We are thankful for that expression.
-got so busy with conversation and heckling. . . .
I took the trouble to look up the record of the speech made by the hon. member for Parkdale, and I found that there was not one single bit of heckling from this side or any other part of the house.
The Address-Mr. Bmdette

There were several questions asked by the ministers, and I know the hon. member for Parkdale gladly answered them. The report in the Globe and Mail goes on to say:
Among those remaining the small fry got so busy with conversation and heckling that the Speaker had to call for order more than once. It is plain that what bothers these worshippers of party first is that Colonel Bruce has been so constructive in his suggestions that he has called the turn repeatedly and accurately on indifference and neglect.
We all agree with that. It goes on:
Not one of those who abused him has anything comparable to show for the time spent keeping the benches of the house warm. It would be difficult for them to indicate that they have done more than serve as rubber stamps.
The article winds up by saying:
This does not detract from the high character of the speech, a quality members of parliament must have learned to look for when the Toronto-Parkdale member gets on his feet. So they walk out lest they hear it, or heckle him in the hope he may falter. It is about as cheap a display of petty politics as could be found in the worst governed country.
If ever democracy is in danger, it is from attacks by that kind of article, the unfairness of which seeks to undermine and poison the mentality. I have been in this house for several years; I have always greatly enjoyed my associations with all the parliamentarians, and I know that I am voicing the sentiments of every member listening to me when I say that it would not occur to any of them to think a member was not true to his duty because upon some occasion he was not present in the house. A member is often called upon to leave the chamber to do something for his country or his constituency, something strictly pertaining to his own office, to attend to committee and departmental work, and that applies with all the greater force to the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet.
I took it upon myself, following this report, to find out what had actually occurred, and the Prime Minister will forgive me for mentioning that when he left the chamber he had an interview with the Governor General, Lord Athlone. I can assure the Globe and Mail that there was no sinister motive in the actions of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), a great Canadian and a fine parliamentarian. Hon. gentlemen opposite are frequently telling us to be easy on Toronto.
I know a lot of Toronto people, and ninety-nine and one-half per cent of them are fine, but this kind of journalism from Toronto is a shame to that city and to the rest of Canada.

There is another matter I want to mention, but I do not want to trespass on the time of the house.


Charles Edward Johnston: I hope the Liberals from Alberta will take a lesson from what the hon. member is saying.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: To sum up my conclusions, Mr. Speaker, this conflict has now been raging for. nearly two years and a half. It has developed into the most gigantic war conflagration that the world has ever witnessed, and nearly all the nations are embraced in its deadly grip.
I ask myself if at the present time we are not witnessing in our national and individual lives, some signs of lassitude, jagged nerves and destructive impatience. We must absolutely shake ourselves out of those unhealthy reactions, because a lot of effort and energy wasted on biased and destructive criticism could be much better employed in helping in the accentuation of our war activities and the surmounting of the problems emanating from them.
At a critical time like this no one should question the motives and sincerity of his fellow-Canadians. Let us put, in all our actions, the best that there is in us, so that the things we cherish so much will be safeguarded.	.
We have differences, we shall likely always have some, and the right to express and discuss them is one of the main pillars of democracy, but surely if we realize the fullness of our duty, we shall never cultivate in our minds the destructive virus of questioning our neighbours' loyalty and profound attachment and love for Canada and the British empire.
To come victorious out of this conflict ail the lovers of democracy will be required to unify their forces, and then, when the hour of victory strikes, we shall have a strong and unified nation that will be in a position to face the problems of our country and also of the post-war world.


Douglas King Hazen: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much interest to the speech which has been made by the hon, member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). He has told us that he favours the plebiscite which his government proposes to take, but he has not told us during the course of his long speech whether or not, if the pflebiscite is taken and the government is relieved from the promises or pledges which it formerly made, he is in favour of national selective service. He has not told us whether or not he is in favour of the conscription of our

The Address-Mr. Hazen
man-power for service overseas in support of our forces over there. If I were to ask him that question to-night he might find it a little embarrassing. Perhaps he would not care to tell us this evening whether or not he favours national compulsory selective service in this country to-day.
I have observed, Mr. Speaker, since I entered this house that it is the usual custom of members who take part in the debate on the speech from the throne to congratulate first the mover and the seconder of the address upon the excellent speeches they made.
I do hot wish to appear unappreciative or impolite, but it is my intention this evening to depart from that practice and in the first place to extend my congratulations and sincere thanks to the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray) for the speech he made in this house last Tuesday afternoon..
Not only was that speech well constructed and well delivered, but it exhibited a courage, an intellectual honesty, a freedom from partisanship and a clearness of understanding that have not since I have been a member been equalled by any other speech to which I have listened.
No doubt that speech was not well received in all quarters, but I believe, sir, that it was acclaimed by the country, and if the hon. member for Lambton West received black looks from some he can find consolation if he needs it, although I doubt if he needs it, from part of a speech which was made on the same day in the British House of Commons by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, who said:
I have frequently -voted against governments which I have been elected to support, and looking back on it I sometimes felt very glad I did. Everyone in these rough times must do what he considers his duty.
It requires courage, Mr. Speaker, and visceral valour to place duty ahead of party but the hon. member for Lambton West has shown us that he possesses both these manly qualities.
A gentleman who once occupied a very prominent place in the press gallery of this house, not a very long time ago wrote a book in which he expressed the opinion that Canadian politicians, with few exceptions, put party politics first and other considerations nowhere. The hon. member for Lambton West has proved that he is one of the few exceptions.
I concur in almost everything he said. I wish I could have said it as well.
This plebiscite means delay; it means heartburning; it means bitterness.
It means also unjustifiable expense.
And when it is all over and the government is released from its pledge, the issue, as he says, still must be faced; and the bogy of national unity will again rear its ugly head.
In fact it has already commenced to do so.
I was particularly impressed with that portion of his speech in which he said:
Much has been and will be said of broken pledges. . . .
Does the hon. member forget that in the mother of all parliaments, Westminster, on April 27, 1939, while the nation was still at peace, and only four weeks after the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain, had renewed a pledge made by his predecessor, Mr. Baldwin, that compulsory military service would not be adopted, Mr. Chamberlain introduced a motion in these words:
"This house approves the proposal of his majesty's government to introduce as soon as possible a system of compulsory military training as announced on the 26th of April."
In the debate which followed the introduction of that motion, the prevailing opinion -was the same as it should be here in Canada: The facts are there and we must face them as they exist to-day. Let me suggest to the Prime Minister that whatever his declaration may have been, as our first minister in this hour of peril he is bound to act in accordance with what he believes is required for the national safety. That is the supreme pledge which he made, though perhaps not in words, when he assumed the high office which he now holds. What of the solemn pledge given by President Roosevelt during his last election campaign, to the effect that the forces of the United States would not be sent overseas? Within one month of the declaration of war we find the president telling congress^and the nation:
"We cannot wage this war in a defensive spirit. As our power and our resources are fully mobilized, we shall carry the attack against the enemy. American land, air and sea forces will take stations in the British isles-" Has there been any outcry in the United States of America against broken pledges?
I might tell the hon. member for Lambton West that I have heard no such outcries, but I have heard in this country a great outcry against the taking of this proposed plebiscite. I have received from my own constituents a number of communications protesting against it. I do not propose to read them into the record to-night, but one of them comes from the surviving members of the 26th battalion, a New Brunswick unit that had a distinguished record in the last war. It expresses strong disapproval of the plan, and states that the expense and time taken are unjustified and the spending of money for this purpose will 'have a decidedly adverse affect on the forthcoming war loan. With that opinion I am in hearty accord.
When I entered this house, Mr. Speaker, for the first time, a little over two years ago now, I
The Address-Mr. Hazen

ventured to express the opinion that it was no oeeasion for us to indulge either in platitudes or recriminations about past achievements or past failures of -the government, nor was it a time for us to play party politics, but it was our duty as Canadians to unite and, in our own interests, to do everything that lay in our power to bring this war, in which we had entered as a free nation, and in which our allies had suffered great reverses, to a victorious conclusion.
As time passed, I found no reason to change that opinion. As time passed I became more firmly convinced that party politics should be set aside if we were to make an effective allout war effort, and that this -war should not be carried on under any form of party government, but that it should be carried on under some form of union government which would have the support of all the parties in this house and would be free from petty partisan criticism, which has an adverse effect on our war effort.
As time passed, Mr. Speaker, the German army overran Denmark, Holland, Belgium and France. The British army, after sustaining heavy casualties, was forced to leave Dunkirk without arms or equipment. Italy declared war. France collapsed. The battle of the Atlantic was joined. Japan became a member of the axis. Italy invaded and Germany conquered heroic Greece. The allies were forced to withdraw from Crete. Germany, Italy and Roumania declared -war on Russia.
This is a very brief outline of the cavalcade of events which had presented themselves to members of this house before parliament reassembled in November last. It was not a reassuring picture. The situation that we faced as one of a group of nations fighting for our existence and the freedom of mankind afforded no ground for placid satisfaction. The situation demanded strong and courageous leadership. It demanded united action if an all-out effective effort was to be made.
On Wednesday, the fifth day of November last, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) made a report to this house on the work of his department. He had recently returned from England and had not had time to prepare a written address, but he made an excellent statement, and it was apparent to those who listened to him that he was a serious and determined man-two qualities which a minister of national defence should possess in war time. He told us-and to me this was the most important part of his address-that in the previous four months
37,000	men had been required for our army overseas and only 24,000 had been obtained. This meant that there was a shortage of about

thirty-five per cent in the numbers required to support our army overseas, and that at a time when there were no battle casualties.
Since then-if I may divert for a moment- our army has suffered heavy casualties at Hong Kong. But the courageous battle put up there by the Royal Rifles and the Winnipeg Grenadier Guards will rank, I believe, with the heroic defence made by the Rifle Brigade at Calais prior to the evacuation of Dunkirk. It was not a defeat, but it was a contribution to ultimate victory. The government was asked to send that force overseas on the 19th day of September last. It decided to do so ten days later, and I want here to-night to congratulate the Minister of National Defence and the government on the fact that they so promptly sent that force overseas when asked to do so by the army command.
A special committee of this house is to be set up at the request of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) to inquire into the reasons why untrained men were sent with that force, why those battalions lacked universal carriers, why their mechanical equipment, which means so much in this war, did not reach them in time. This should be done without delay, and if the committee find that there was negligence, complacency, military inefficiency, or lack of proper organization, appropriate action should be taken. But, sir, plans seldom work out perfectly in war time, and the work of this committee can in no way detract from the fact that the government sent that force when it was asked to do so; nor can it becloud the glory of these brave men who unflinchingly went forth and courageously did their duty. The people of this country and the members of this parliament must be firmly resolved that the sacrifice which those men made was not made in vain, and that we shall go on at all costs and all sacrifice until the evil thing which they fought against is destroyed. We cannot let our army that is overseas down. We must keep faith with those who die on foreign fields.
But to return to the report made by the Minister of National Defence on November 5 last; it was apparent from his report that the voluntary system of enlistment for overseas had fallen down, that it was not furnishing the men required. It was apparent that the situation should be reviewed and that a new policy should be adopted if we were to play our part as a nation of free men and women, if we were to hold our heads high in the world and meet total war with a total effort.
I realize that a new policy could not be brought about without courageous leadership, for it meant the breaking down of some

The Address-Mr. Hazen
political friendships and some old political ties. It meant also that certain old political ideas would have to be abandoned.
While we sat here in November I lived in the hope that something would be done. I hoped that the majority of the members of parliament, irrespective of party and of politics, could get together, forget party prejudices, and solve the problem of man-power for our army overseas.
Whatever hopes I had were dashed to the ground on the afternoon of November 12 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), late in the afternoon, came into the house-there were not many present at the time-and said that the people had decided against conscription at the last election and that, so far as he was concerned, without any consultation with the people on the subject, he did not intend to take the responsibility of supporting *any policy of conscription for service overseas.
That statement put an end to any hopes I had that action would be taken when action was needed.
I felt after that statement that I, as a Canadian, could no longer walk with pride among the nations of the world who were fighting for the freedom of mankind.
On my way home after the house adjourned on November 14, I had two experiences that did not raise my spirits. I met in Montreal an officer from the city in which I live, who was stationed at camp Petawawa. He told me that a short time previously a call had come to that camp for a draft of men for overseas service. The officer commanding the camp had about 600 men paraded. He told them of the order; he explained to them the situation; he asked for volunteers, and just nine men volunteered-nine of those men who were in uniform.
The same day in Montreal I met a young man, a connection of mine by marriage. His father was an Englishman, and his mother an American. When war broke out he was sixteen, living in England, and he came with his mother and sister to New York. When he was eighteen he came to Canada to enlist. He was turned down by the air force, enlisted in the army, was stationed at a camp near Montreal, and he expected to go overseas soon. He told me that soon after he arrived at that camp a draft for overseas had marched off. Eighty men had been called for to compose that draft, but eighty men did not leave that camp. If I remember his figures correctly-I did not write them down, but I think T have them approxi-[DOT] mately-that draft consisted of two Englishspeaking Canadians, twenty French-speaking Canadians, and thirty Americans. He told me the hut he was in held sixty-four men, and thirty of them were Americans.
Those Americans had joined the Canadian army when their own country was not at war, with the intention of going overseas to take part in the battle of freedom.
What could they have thought of those Canadians in uniform who held back after Canada had declared war and was fighting for her very existence?
And what would they have thought of those Canadian students in Montreal, who the other night, at Premier Godbout's meeting, opposed compulsory selective service, and kept qrying, "Canada, Canada only"?
There has been something very wrong in this country in the last twenty or twenty-five years. There has been lack of leadership of the right kind. There has been lack of clear thinking. There has been too much appeasement. There has been too much of the north American complex in some quarters.
But this is no time to rehash these matters. As I have said, I do not think we should indulge in recriminations about the past. I will put on the record no quotations from public men which are better left unsaid at the present time. This is a time when it is our duty to get on with the war and make an all-out war effort.
We adjourned here, as I said, on November 14 last. We reassembled on January 21, not very long ago. But modern war moves fast, and during that period while we were at home Japan treacherously attacked the United States and seriously damaged its navy; Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. Japan invaded Malay, attacked the Philippines, sank two of our capital ships, invaded Borneo, captured Penang, Wake island, Hong Kong, the Celebes, Tarakan, invaded Burma, the Bismarck archipelago and other islands and threatened Australia. The war in the east was going badly, and it is still going badly.
When we came back here we were told in the speech from the throne that this was the time of greatest crisis in the world's history. We were told also that unless the enemy were defeated, the free people of the world, one after the other, would be reduced to a state of bondage.
I find no fault with those statements; I agree with them.
But what did the government propose doing in view of the situation?

The Address-Mr. Hazen
It proposed to take a plebiscite! It proposed to ask the people of this country, after a certain amount of time has passed, a question to this effect:
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?
Does the Prime Minister of this country take that course because of a pledge he has given? Does he take it because he has to be scrupulously consistent in all things? It has been pointed out during this debate that English and American statesmen did not let consistency stop them from taking immediate action when the safety of the state was in danger. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he ponder the words of one of America's greatest teachers and writers; it was Ralph Waldo Emerson who said that a foolish consistency was the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines. And I might say that I once read somewhere that the only completely consistent people are the dead.
The Prime Minister in the statement he made on November 12 last said:
I do not intend to take the responsibility-
There have been other occasions in the past in which he got out of taking responsibility by referring his difficulties to a royal commission or a judicial tribunal. He cannot do that on this occasion, so he proposes to take a plebiscite. I protest against it. I consider it unwise; I consider it dangerous.
I appeal to hon. members, irrespective of party, and particularly to those who served in the last war, and who are willing to serve again, to the members who are in uniform, to the men who have sons overseas and relatives overseas; to the men who want to make an all-out war effort. I appeal to them and ask them if there is no way that we can go to the Prime Minister and ask him to abandon this plebiscite that he proposes taking.
There are a number of reasons why this idea of a plebiscite should be abandoned. The most important one I think is that if it proceeds we run a very grave danger. That danger is this, that it is quite possible it will seriously injure the object that all of us, or almost all of us, have in mind and want to achieve; that is to have Canada make an all-out effective war effort, and1 support our army overseas. That danger should be avoided. The government should take a firm grip of the situation, tell the people what they have to do and then see that they do it. All that loyal Canadians are asking for in this crisis is leadership.
*Mr. Hazen. 1


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: As a, member from the city of Winnipeg I think it both natural and appropriate that my first words in this chamber during this session should be a tribute to those fellow townsmen of mine who fought the Canadian fight in the city of Hong Kong. I wish publicly to pay my respects to them and to offer my sympathy to those who wait with anxious hearts to know the fate of those whom we sent there.
I should like to say to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Power) that I believe anybody in Canada faced with the decision that he had to make would have agreed to send two battalions to Hong Kong and I am quite sure that that decision was a matter of complete agreement on the part of the government and would have been completely agreed to by any hon. member.
While I am on the subject of those men in Hong Kong, I should like to say further that I think it is contemptible that the agony of heart and mind which the loved ones of those men who went to Hong Kong are suffering should have been aggravated to help in a by-election, by what I consider unwarranted assumptions about the inefficiency of at least one of those battalions. However, the matter is being investigated, or will be, and I hope that when the investigation comes, it will not be trial by newspaper as has been the situation in some instances in Canadian political history. I hope that if anyone was culpable in the preparation for sending those men to that far-off battle field, the culpability will be made apparent and suitable punishment meted out, not in a spirit of revenge, but in order that that type of thing, if it happened, shall not happen again to the thousands who will follow them to the battlefields of this war.
I wanted to begin that way rather than in the conventional way of addressing congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, because naturally that expedition and the fate of those men are uppermost in my mind. But I should like to say to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply that I have at least paid them the, for me, unusual compliment of having read their speeches, as I was not in the chamber to hear them.
It is, however, not of the glory of the dead, or of the accomplishments of the living that I wish to speak for a few minutes to-night, but rather of the Canadian soldiers, and not so much of what we can rightly expect from them, but of what they in my opinion have a right to expect from us. I have a special contempt for the cheap, shoddy device of the demagogue, the tvpe of parish-pump politics

The Address-Mr. Mutch
by means of which any man in parliament, or in a newspaper, or anywhere else attempts to further his own ambitions or those of his party, or to give expression to his own malice, in the name of service men.
I have some recollections of the last war. As a youngster of nineteen or twenty I remember those all too infrequent occasions when we got hold of newspapers from Canada and read some of the profound remarks of the barber-shop strategists; I remember something of what we thought and felt. I am sorry to say that not only in some newspapers, but also in places where they should know better, we still encounter some of that same kind of platitudinous tripe. I think I speak for all the nearly a quarter of a million, perhaps more-we do not give figures -of Canadian-born soldiers who are on active service in this war when I say they share the feeling of distaste which I experience when I consider the antics of certain people in Canada who I think are best described as "Little Canadians." I refer to those belittlers of Canada and Canada's contribution to the war effort. People of this kind thrived and multiplied during the dirt and despair of the depression; and with the outbreak of war they multiplied again. They see only the efforts of someone far away and turn a jaundiced eye, if they look at all, toward the miracles of accomplishment that have taken place in their own country.
I am not one of those who think we need fear to boast a little about what we as Canadians have accomplished. If I have any fear at all, it is only that some of us, looking at those accomplishments, may fall into the equally dangerous and perhaps more natural folly of being too easily satisfied. Neither am I one of those who think the government did it all, even though I would include in that the whole House of Commons'. I realize, as I think it is realized by every thinking person in Canada and everyone outside Canada who knows of our effort, that what has been done could not have been accomplished without a high degree of cooperation between the ordinary man and woman on the street and the government. It would have been simply impossible; and when we brag a little, as I think we might, we should remember that. It is the work of all Canadians. And if, instead of making a cult of criticism, w'e would look about us once in a while and see how we can help our general effort, then magnificent as it has been, that effort might be made much greater yet.
If I might make a personal reference, Mr. Speaker, I have worn his majesty's uniform for nearly five years. I do not profess to be a soldier. I do not know that my personal
loyalty has been attacked, nor would I stoop to defend it if it were. What I have to say is of my own determination, the result of my own experience and thought. I begin by saying that in my considered opinion most of the organized-and I ask the house to note that word "organized"-effort for the adoption of the slogan "selective service" is pure humbug. I do not question the sincerity of thousands of persons who have been caught by the unanswerable, reasonableness of that slogan. To them it has become a sort of magic formula, and many of them have the thought that without that formula being brought into operation, Canada cannot measure up to that other slogan, "an all-out effort."
I do not pay very much attention to the clamour of some public men, or to the propaganda of a subsidized press. I am of opinion that much of the effort behind this slogan of selective service is either an insincere political effort or a sort of half-hearted sabotage, not of Canada's war effort but of those who are attempting to administer that war effort in these trying times. The promoters of the current political ramp-because we are all well aware that this is just what is in the process of organization to-day-are all much too well informed to believe that this catch-phrase can accomplish those things which are promised for it. They know as well as any member of this house knows, and better than most, that a big army policy for Canada, for instance, is pure lunacy; but they make an emotional appeal in order to cloak their real motive, which is to tear down a government which believes, and practises the belief, that a generation which makes war should pay for it.
There are thousands of men in this country who fought during some part of the last war and who came home to help pay for it. They have made a magnificent contribution in helping pay for it. Perhaps at times they have been a bit cynical about it, but during troublesome times in every part of the country they have been a sort of safe and sane centre, a. hard core of realism and reality. They have paid generously and generally willingly, but many of them have also determined that as far as is humanly possible they will go along with the policies of the present administration to the end that the legacy of debt and depression may be at least less than it was after the last war.
Then in times like these we hear a great deal about equality of sacrifice. I do not propose to say a great deal about that, but once or twice before in this house I have made the remark that the expression has no reality.
The Address-Mr. Mutch

War is not cricket or baseball; it is not a sporting event, or anything of that kind. War is the brutal business of destruction on the one hand and self-preservation on the other. The only possible sort of equality of sacrifice in a situation like this is when every man and woman in the country is voluntarily giving everything he or she has to give. And because that definition does not admit of realization is no reason why we as Canadians should not strive toward that goal. There is no reason why in our individual and governmental enterprise we should not do what we can to level the burden. War is not a question of taking what one can get with the least possible sacrifice. It is a question of taking what one needs wherever he can get it, and not paying for it unless he has to. That is the spirit of it; that is the ruthless basis of war. It is extermination or survival; and if that was perhaps only figuratively true in other wars, most of us should be convinced by now that it is literally true in this one.
I said that this ideal was perhaps not capable of realization, because the rich young man of biblical times who turned sadly away, has too many descendants in this modem, imperfect world. The poorest and most unhappy of his descendants are not blessed with worldly goods, as he was, but are poor. But, though poor in worldly goods, unfortunately their greatest poverty. is of the spirit; and any conception of an all-out sacrifice, about which we talk so glibly and of which the editorial writers and even some of our newsmen speak with such facility, is simply meaningless, because we have not reached the point where mankind is equal to it. If we are realists, selective service boils down to conscription for overseas service. I know that many earnest, well-meaning people will disagree with that statement. They will argue that selective service means taking the right man and putting him in the right place, eliminating all square pegs in round holes. We may not have another five or seven years of war to accomplish that, and in the meantime the war is catching up with us.
I should like to make one or two personal statements with respect to the policies enunciated in the speech from the throne and the methods undertaken by the government to cany them out. First I want to say that as a member of this house, as a soldier with some experience in the last war, as one who was born in this country of purely British descent, I am perhaps one of the most reluctant conscriptionists. Further, should I be convinced, or when I am convinced-I admit freely that I foresee the probability, or
tMr. Mutch.]
at least the possibility of that time coming

I would take the last son from the last widow in Canada and send him away if I were convinced that, by doing that, Canada would be making her greatest contribution to the winning of this war.
I do not believe that there are many people in this country who disagree with what I have just announced should be done in that circumstance. There is an honest difference of opinion as to the desirability of conscription now. I am prepared to give to those who believe that there is an all-out urgency for conscription for overseas service now- that is what I am talking about-the right to their opinion, but at the moment I stand unconvinced. If we vrere all agreed that we did not need conscription now, it might happen that within forty-eight hours we would be shown that we were wrong. If we have learned nothing else as a result of the progress of this war, we should have learned that there is no finality of decision with respect to how we should proceed. Only amateur historians or those who have been called barber shop tacticians have the effrontery to assume any finality for their plans in a conflict which is world-wide and ever shifting.
I should like to say to the members of the cabinet here to-night that the government should give us an inventory and a plan of our man-pow'er, and it should be given to us now. It must be elastic, but it could be given within reasonable limits. They must know our resources, and it is only when we know what our potential objectives are with respect to production, that we can measure the success or the failure of the methods which we are presently employing. As far as I am concerned, my only assets are a good name and the respect of my fellow men. In my election of 1940, either through what I said myself or what was said on my behalf, I believe that conscription was not a factor.
If I agreed, which I do not, that to-morrow, or within a matter of days or hours or short weeks, conscription was essential and that had been the decision of the government, speaking for myself my conscience would be perfectly clear in supporting the government in that decision. But, because my leader elects to trust those who have trusted him so often, I shall not help to throw him to the political jackals, if you like, who thirst for his political blood. I think I speak fairly when I say that my constituents would favour conscription to win the war, and I believe I am correct when I say that many of them favour it now.
Speaking in this place to which they have sent me, I have this to say to them: Make

The Address-Mr. Mutch
your support of the plebiscite overwhelming. In the hour when my judgment and conscience says that we must change any policy so far as I am concerned no sense of loyalty to person or party will deter me from what I conceive to be my duty. I say to them that such a majority as I have requested from them, and from all Canadians, will clear the way for any eventuality.
Because war is a function of government it does not necessarily follow that members of parliament are military strategists. One of the first and most important things which we who attempt to give some guidance to the new recruit coming into our army have to do is to teach him to think as a soldier. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the difference in thinking between the man who is a good citizen as a civilian and the man who is a good soldier is as wide as the poles. The measure of our success and of the usefulness of the recruit who comes into the service is very often the measure of the degree to which we succeed in teaching him to think as a soldier. I think some of us have forgotten that there is a difference between the thinking which goes with military effectiveness, with campaign effectiveness and that which goes with civilian effectiveness.
Some of these military strategists have spoken to us of sending a division to Australia.
I should like to address a few questions to those who hold that view. Have they ever determined how many ships it would take to transport one division of men and their equipment, to say nothing of how long that tonnage would be tied up in transit? I should like to ask them, where are the ships to take them, and where are the ships to convoy them? Then I would ask them: Have you discovered for yourselves where the equipment is? Then I think we might add one more question: Who has asked for the men?
Remember France, Greece, Crete, Libya, Hong Kong and now Singapore. I think in each and every case the reverses which our forces have suffered have been due not so much to lack of man-power as to lack of an aeroplane roof over their heads and lack of communications. I wonder how long Australia would be worried about a Japanese invasion by sea if she had at her disposal a really adequate air force. I wonder how many strait of Macassar battles the Japanese invading forces could stand up to if that was their daily dish. I wonder what Australian cities would be bombed, even from aircraft carriers of the Japanese fleet, if Australia had the formidable air support which she will need, and which, please God, she will have before this battle is over. I wonder when people with the best
intentions in the world will stop expecting the miracle of David and Goliath to be reenacted on every fresh front. I wonder when we are going to stop asking our brave and courageous soldiers to step into the breach with only their courage and rifles and small automatic arms and stem the mechanized might of our enemies who have a preponderance of attacking air force.
I doubt the wisdom of any considerable expansion in the Canadian overseas army. In this war of wide sweeps and deep objectives, with failures of communication and mechanical failures and casualties, such as we have seen in Hong Kong, one hundred per cent losses are not an impossibility. I wish I could think that they are not even a probability.
I urge that the government decide now whether our young men between the ages of nineteen and twenty-nine, which is the age when they are most- valuable, shall serve Canada in the armed forces of Canada or whether they can make a greater contribution to the war effort of our allies and ourselves in the air. I do not know the answer, but if the government has not determined it, I do urge that they determine it and then let us know what their policies are. Having decided in which branch our young men shall serve, we should then determine what strength of forces we can raise and equip; and having determined that, I would expend every ounce of Canadian energy to see that those men were given the chance that brave men deserve in the way of providing them with proper equipment and adequate reinforcements so that they can meet on equal terms men, no matter whether they be lesser men than we are, who, if they are better equipped than our forces, will present difficulties which will make our losses out of all proportion to what they should be. Some day somebody in this country will have to do a little simple arithmetic. Why not now? Let us know the objective with respect to our military development and what our maximum effort can be. That can easily be determined if one takes out of this question all the sentiment and emotional drivel with which it is wrapped up, and look instead at the vital statistics. Then tell us what the answer is in terms of war effort with respect to our army, air force, and navy, and with respect to our industrial effort and the production of food. These facts are not unobtainable. Just a little simple arithmetic would give us all a better idea of where we are going than we have now. When this is determined I am prepared to support a policy which will stop at nothing to see that these men have everything that is necessary to achieve our share of victory with
The Address-Mr. Mutch


Mr. LIONEL BERTRAND (Terrebonne) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, in March, 1940, six months after the declaration of war, the Canadian nation gave the Liberal party a majority unprecedented in our political history. On that occasion the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was elected on a platform whereby Canada, engaged of its own free will in war at the side of Great Britain, was to provide a voluntary and moderate cooperation commensurate with its resources and financial capacity. This platform also contained a pledge that no union government would ever be sought by a Liberal administration and that compulsory military service would never be enacted for overseas. This programme obtained the overwhelming support of the Canadian people.
For the past two years the Prime Minister has conducted the ship of state with a mastery which does honour to his great qualities as a parliamentarian and to the confidence placed in him. Together with the late Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe, whose passing is still deeply regretted, he has worked to keep the country united and to guard against the errors and abuses of the last war. Never has the Canadian nation been more united than during the past two years. Never has there been enacted legislation better fitted to paralyze the appetites of war profiteers and to protect the lower classes of society. The system of voluntary enlistment, endorsed by the electors, has given excellent results, since 400,000 Canadians are at present ready to serve voluntarily in any theatre of war anywhere in the world. In the face of the Hitler menace which was spreading even to the new world, the Prime Minister proposed in 1940 his National Resources Mobilization Act for the defence of Canada which was accepted if not with alacrity, at least with the patriotism which every citizen owes to his country in time of peril. When this act was brought down it produced certain reactions. But the Prime Minister is able to say now with pride that he gauged the situation correctly. If this act had not been passed at that time and if measures for the defence of the country had to be placed in hand now, what a problem would we not face to-day?
The Prime Minister asked of the people of Canada for sacrifices of all kinds in contributions and in taxation; the Canadian people accepted these sacrifices with pride and patriotism. Millions of dollars have been spent in direct aid to the allies. Canada has generously exceeded the collaboration she promised. Millions of dollars have been expended to levy and equip troops for service overseas. I greatly admire those volunteers who are serving abroad and I salute those who have died, less
for their own country than for the great cause of world freedom. Millions of dollars have been spent for the construction of immense munitions plants and for the organization of our own'defence in every domain. The free, voluntary and moderate effort promised in 1940 has certainly broadened out, but can the government be blamed for that? I voted as a free and honest man in favour of the mobilization for the defence of my country.
In refusing to form a union cabinet, the government respected a solemn promise. It would have been a sacrilege to allow the politicians of the list war, on whose policies the people have already passed judgment, to share in * the administration of the country without having received a mandate 'therefor.
I consider that the government have accomplished a great task for the allies, a task so great that I sometimes wonder if it has not jeopardized our national defence. However, we must to-day face the fact that we shall have, from now on, to look more carefully after our own defence. Canada has a vast area to defend and has by no means a large population to do it. We shall soon enter the fourth year of war, with the spectacle of a convulsed world. Whither are we going? No one can tell. We are told in the speech from the throne that this is a time of gravest crisis. I believe that. I also believe that Canada is threatened. It is possible and even probable that our countiy may soon feel the horrors of war. More than ever Canada must think of the defence of her own territory, and proceed at full speed with the work in hand. I for one am not prepared to support any measure or legislation which would not have that primary object in view.
Can I, then, accept the idea of a plebiscite, as expressed in the speech from the throne, and especially the question which is to be put before the electors? In all frankness I say no. Is the question as asked a clever move on the part of the government to dodge the attacks of persistent enemies and perhaps also to silence those who, even in the government itself, oppose the 1940 programme? The question looks so much like camouflage that, in spite of the deep respect I have for my party, I cannot accept it. There is perhaps no member of this house-I do not say it boastfully-who, during the last two years, has contributed more than I to the war effort of this country. I have given my active and unqualified support to all war organizations: loans, war savings certificates, Red Cross, Canadian war services fund, salvage campaign, and so forth. I have given my full moral support to the soldiers who have been trained in my constituency, and I have frequently visited
252	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
and encouraged them. During the last year, I have given all my attention to the creation and organization of extensive shops at Sainte-Therese. The Allied War Supplies Corporation and Defence Industries Ltd. c&n vouch for the unselfish cooperation I have given them. 'My paper has been used in the furtherance of the common cause, and everywhere in my constituency I have never ceased to advocate cooperation with the allies and the defence of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am neither a nationalist nor a separatist. I love my province, and I am proud of it, but I consider myself above all a Canadian. I hate racial strife and prejudice, which in the past have only served to destroy the harmony necessary to the national development. That is why any movement based upon a narrow nationalism is contrary to my conception of true patriotism.
I admire Great Britain, which for the last two years has given the world a wonderful lesson of courage, steadfastness and patriotism. In her misfortune I sympathize with France, and I still admire her. I believe in her resurrection, because France, like England, can not die. That resurrection will come through the united effort of all the democracies. I do not begrudge the old world the ammunitions, the food, and the volunteers we have given it during the last two years; we have done all that because we wished to see democracy survive as the leading force in the world.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, 400,000 of our men may, through the terms of their enlistment, serve anywhere in the world. In two years only, we have spent many billions of dollars for war and our national debt is increasing at such a rate that we shall perhaps never be able to straighten it out again. What of it? I would rather see my country come out of this war impoverished but proud and free. That conscription in Canada for overseas service will change the world situation is something I do not believe. That conscription for overseas, at this critical stage of our history, can prove advantageous, I believe still less. To impose it would* be a crime. The defence of the country calls for our undivided attention. Being vulnerable on every side, has not the country first claim to our solicitude? Our country needs all its man-power for national defence, at home, on the farm and in the factories. Must we have to face invasion without sufficient military strength to defend our shores and our land? What has Australia done? The world over, to every battle front, for two years now, she has sent her best soldiers; to-day, lacking sufficient man-power to meet impending dan-
ger, a stern reality to-morrow, she calls out for help. What a mistake!
Conscriptionist Conservatives, indeed, have not departed from their wonted doctrine. The members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are almost fully in accord with them. They will not get my vote. Nor will the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). For this is 1917 all over again. For with these Conservatives, ten times more conservative than the ordinary Conservative, we find ourselves, just like in 1917, before the same setting, the same programme, the same zeal, the same enthusiasm. They hold the same prejudices and the same fanaticism. Indeed, we find. the same faces and the same interests. Had this party been in power, conscription for overseas service would have been on the statute books long since. What is unity to them? Why should they not approve voluntary service? Were it a good thing, still would they turn away from it and* endeavour to prevent it. Nevertheless, they are aware of the opposition existing against conscription for overseas service in every section of the country.
The only objective of their whirlwind campaign is conscription and power with a return of the shameless patronage of 1917. Instead of propaganda for overseas service, instead of millions to win over public opinion, why should not Mr. Meighen, Mr. Hanson and their friends devote the same zeal, the same enthusiasm, the thousands of dollars in publicity for voluntary service, to promote it and improve its results? Their bad faith stands out too clearly to require that it should be unmasked now. Conscription? Why, it *would set Canadian against Canadian in every province of this Dominion; it -would at one fell blow destroy national unity forged through years of concession, effort and mutual understanding; it does not add anything to the valour of our troops, for experience teaches that ten conscripted men are not worth one voluntary soldier. I intend voting, therefore, against the sub-amendment proposed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and against the amendment presented by the hon. leader of the opposition, because conscription for overseas is a measure both unpatriotic and contrary in every way to Canadian security.
Nor am I in favour of the question proposed for the plebiscite. A plebiscite is indeed a democratic form of consultation and the government shows, in taking such a course, a desire to know public opinion in the land. We are invited, however, to release the government of its commitments. This I cannot do, because I am satisfied with them. I am

The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
requested to obtain, release from my own commitments; my constituents, whom I know well, are opposing this already. The government wishes to be released from its obligations. Why? Does not its term of office extend to three more years? Or should it abdicate to please certain dissident Liberals? Has it weakened under pressure from the imperialistic group from Toronto who, without mandate, wish to govern the nation? Do they wish to gain time? The government states they desire release from previous commitments in order to be free to adopt all necessary measures dictated by circumstances. I understand that it is not implied that the present administration will necessarily enact conscription if released from its commitments; however, there is always the danger and the possibility that it will be enacted.
What will be the result of the plebiscite? If the Canadian people answer "No", so much the better. If the answer should be "Yes", the imperialistic press campaign, imbued with prejudice, armed with threats and invectives, will be revived, stronger, more irreverent, more audacious than before. What then? The government, released from past commitments, may have to yield to renewed pressure both from within and without. This is giving the government a blank cheque together with the power of filling it at discretion. If this cheque were handed personally to the Prime Minister or the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) or some other minister, I state, for the benefit of my constituents, that I would be willing to take the chance. But, who could be sure that the war will be over in two or three years? Who will promise that Mr. King will still be with us in six months? Who will give assurance that Mr. Cardin will be there? Men may disappear suddenly and this truth has been brought home to us only recently. Those men gone, could I be positive that the new incumbent, armed with the blank cheque, would not be too willing, with the consent of a parliament become amenable, or a parliament transformed and favourable to him, to use it at will? I cannot risk such a contingency. I will possibly be accused of forsaking my party. Still I should have the satisfaction, which neither fame nor honours may replace, of having been faithful to my mandate and my conscience. I am a Liberal and a Liberal I shall remain, for, in my opinion, this party stands for freedom of speech. Moreover, I am convinced that my frankness will be useful to my party. I was elected in 1940, because I was supporting a certain political platform; the sincerity of those who elected me left no room for doubt. I am not going to organize a new party, nor
to join any new group whether under the name of "Canadian" or "National" party. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to support sub-amendments which, after all, would have the same effect as the main motion and are consequently useless-and above all, when they are moved by hon. members sitting on the other side of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I shall return to my constituency, but I am too well acquainted, with the opinions of the voters there to ask them to release the government from its past commitments. I am already too positive that they have enough faith in Mr. King to answer the plebiscite in the affirmative and that he is the man whom they wish to see in power. However, I shall say to my constituents: "consider first your country which you are bound to defend. Remember Australia. Do not repeat the same mistake. What you must defend is your homes and your rights, every inch of Canadian soil, from Vancouver to Halifax," and they will not fail to understand. I shall say to them: while some of our sons stand guard over our country, ready to make the supreme sacrifice, our soil must produce food for our armies and those of our allies; I shall say to them that farmers and their sons must stick to their ploughs and furrows and they will understand. I shall also tell them that our factories must have men to produce the tools of victory, and everyone, man, woman, girl and *boy will understand. I shall instruct the young men to rally to the defence of their country, worthy of the best we have to offer, even life itself. If you wish to try your luck, if you think that it is your diuty to go over there, overseas, if you want to go into action, do not hesitate, enlist voluntarily, and they will understand. All my people of the "highlands" whose courage has been sung by Valdombre know that the defence of one's country is a sacred obligation. They will not say that their country ends with the confines of the province of Quebec, but that along with their own province they hold dear all of their country from the granite boulders of the Rocky mountains to the sod of the plains of Nova Scotia.
I shall therefore vote against the address in reply to the speech from the throne and express the wish that the country's answer to the plebiscite be "No." I hope that from this negative answer will be born the sincere desire to serve our country better. I hope that the Prime Minister will continue to stand by the platform of 1940 which, to my mind, expressed the true aspirations of the Canadian nation. Let us collaborate with the allies but with all our will keep our man-power for the noble task of defending Canada first.
Committee for Total War"

On motion of Mr. Turgeon the debate was
adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.53 pun.
Tuesday, February 3, 1942