[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister based on the report of a speech made by the Hon. Louis St. Laurent, Minister of Justice, at Quebec city on Monday the 2nd instant, in which he is reported to have said in a radio address- that "at the moment and probably for a long time to come conscription for overseas service would harm our war effort."
I now ask the Prime Minister if that statement of the Hon. Mr. St. Laurent represents the government's views, and may it be taken as a statement of government policy? Was Mr. St. Laurent speaking with the authority of the government, and does the Prime Minister support or repudiate this statement of the Minister of Justice?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I have been trying to avoid political controversy and give my thought and time to the effort of the country in the matter of the war, and I do not intend to be drawn into any controversy by the leader of the opposition.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Ternis-couata): Notwithstanding the profound feeling of admiration that we all have for our glorious dead, and in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister on the very first day of this session that the government would grant a committee of investigation in the matter, and in view of the fact that such committee has not yet been named, also in view of the fact that our volunteers should not be on active duty anywhere unless fully equipped and trained, may I be permitted to call the attention of the government and of the house to a poster which may be seen anywhere and which is the worst possible appeal for recruiting volunteers:
Remember Hong Kong. Royal Rifles of Canada will be reconstituted 100 per cent. Follow their glorious example. Enlist now. Apply to the nearest recruiting station in your district.
My question is this: Is it the intention of the Department of National Defence to give immediate and definite instructions that such posters shall be removed at once from anywhere and taken away from the sight of the only ones who have the right to forget-I mean our gallant soldiers, airmen and sailors. It should be for them to forget Hong Kong, although we shall remember it all our lives.
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I did not know of the poster. I do not know who designed it or put it out, but I know this, that a group of very fine patriotic citizens, not only of Quebec, but of Montreal as well, made representations to the department asking that we reconstitute this battalion, with its magnificent tradition, and we gave authority so to do; and recruiting is going on for that battalion. At the moment I do not see what my hon. friend's objection is to the poster. The insinuation that ihe makes, the reflection which he makes against the department, I quite understand; but that is a matter which will be investigated and inquired into in due course. As regards this poster, I presume it was got out by the local recruiting committee, whether by the district officer commanding I do not know, but I am sure with the full consent and approval of the officers of this newly reconstituted battalion, a number of whom at least have relatives and friends among those who were in the Canadian Hong Kong expedition. It seems to me that what was considered by them to be appropriate would be considered by the house and the people generally to be equally so.


Mr. POULIOT:: I rise to a question of privilege. I made no insinuation whatever, and besides that, the minister is my colleague in this house; but I protest strongly when he calls me his friend.



SOVIET UNION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: A few days ago the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked the following question:
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?
I explained the reasons at the time why it was not possible to give an immediate answer to the question. I am now in a position to give the house the following information:

Soviet Union-Consular Services
De facto recognition, of the U.S.S.R. was accorded by the United Kingdom government following the signature of a trade agreement at London on March 16, 1921. Canada adhered to this agreement on July 3, 1922, from which date extends Canada's de facto recognition of the USK.R.
On February 1, 1924, the United Kingdom government granted de jure recognition to the U.S.S.R., while formal recognition by Canada may be dated from March 24, 1924, at which time a communication from the Canadian government was forwarded to the government of the U.S.S.R., stating that Canada was prepared to recognize the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.
Up to the present time, therefore, the Canadian government has maintained diplomatic and commercial relations with Russia in exactly the same way as is done with many other countries with whom direct diplomatic relations have not yet been established, that is, through the British diplomatic and consular services.
In reply to the second part of this question I would like to inform the house that an agreement was signed1 in London to-day at 3 p.m. London time between the government of Canada and the government of the U.S.S.R., providing for the exchange of consular representatives between the two countries. The Canadian High Commissioner in London, the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, signed on behalf of Canada, and the Russian ambassador, M. Maisky, signed on behalf of the U.S.S.R.
I may say that it is the belief of the government that the establishment of direct relations, pursuant to this agreement, will greatly facilitate the solution of common problems arising out of the war efforts of our two countries.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 4, 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. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I realize, on rising to offer some contribution, I hope, to this debate, that as a member of this house I am endeavouring to speak at the most serious time in the history of Canada, the empire and the future of civilization as we know it. I want it

clearly understood at the outset that, supported by the stand I have taken in this house since 1936, I am absolutely and irrevocably and determinedly for an all-out war effort on the part of Canada.
Before proceeding with the observations I have to make this afternoon I should like to make reference to the speech made by my good friend the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray), which I considered a well-developed and well-delivered oration. But I can only say to him, as I can say to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Hoblitzell) who spoke two days ago, that as Voltaire said:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
The first thing we should do, Mr. Speaker, in considering Canada's position is to consider the position of Great Britain at the present time; to consider the position in which the people of Britain have found themselves from the beginning of this war, but particularly as developments have taken place from day to day; to consider the position of Britain to-day as compared with the position she was in during the war of 1914-18. Then there were many places to which Britain could turn for supplies; there was Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Spain, and it is not necessary for me to mention, except to ask hon. members to visualize, the supplies she drew in raw materials from the countries accessible during that conflict.
At that time also Britain had available for her war effort the raw materials and food supplies of Australia, New Zealand and the other parts of the empire.
To-day Britain's position is such that Canada is not only the most important but practically the only reservoir for the supplies she needs not only to carry on her war effort but for the very existence of her people. Situated as we are on the shortest sea lane across the western ocean, we must be ready, as we have been, not only to supply Britain with her food and raw material requirements, but to supply her to the limit of our ability with the implements and equipment so necessary to carry on this conflict. In that regard Canada, a highly industrialized country, a vast agricultural country, with over one-third of her people engaged on the land, occupies an outstanding and essential position in the matter of enabling Britain to maintain her people and to carry on this war.
It has been necessary for the government and the people of Canada, in consultation with the people and the authorities, military and civil, of Great Britain, to work out some

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Northumberland)
plan whereby Canada could1 extend to Britain the maximum contribution to the achievement of our common objective, that is, the defeat of our enemies, the defeat of that school of thought, the defeat of the totalitarian dictators. That is Canada's duty to-day as it has been in the months that have passed.
Anyone who has not had the opportunity to survey 'Canada's war industries, to go into the shipyards, the gun plants, the aeroplane plants, the plants producing parts, plants producing the things that Britain has not been able to mobilize to produce even to this day, cannot realize the tremendous effort that has been made and the great results that have accrued from Canada's industrial mobilization under the direction of the efficient and tireless and experienced Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). If hon. members could, as I have done, spend a month going over the industrial development of Canada, taking into full consideration the time required to turn industry from peacetime production to wartime production, the time required to tool up, to produce dies, jigs, machines, to procure from the only available source the requisite precision tools to produce guns, planes, parts and equipment and munitions, they would marvel at the contribution Canada has made in that respect 'to the war effort of our empire and our allies.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer for a moment or two to a recent issue of the Monetary Times, in which appear page after page of names of those who have been brought into the service of the nation in order to mobilize Canada's industry for our war effort. I hope hon. members will not consider it out of place if I read into the record the names of these men, of all political complexions, from all walks of life but leaders of various branches of industry, who have voluntarily entered the service of the state, to give of their time and experience in the organization of Canada's war industry and the alignment of Canada's economic and financial position in this world struggle. These are the names:
Donald Gordon, chairman, wartime prices and trade board.
R.	C. Berkinshaw, chairman, wartime industries control board.
Allan H. Williamson, controller of supplies.
G.	R. Cottrelle, oil controller.
D. B. Carswell, director general of naval construction.
John H. Berry, motor vehicle controller.
S.	W. Fairweather, director general, economics and statistics.
Colonel D. E. Dewar, director general of arsenals and small arms.
Shirley G. Dixon, K.C., artificial silk administrator.
H.	G. Smith, administrator of knit goods.
Hon. J. G. Taggart, food administrator.
i456t 22
F. B. Walls, coordinator of textiles and clothing.
Edgar G. Burton, administrator of retail trade.
Robert F. Chisholm, administrator of wholesale trade.
D.	J. 0. Meyers, director of purchase branch in United States.
R. B. Whitehead, It.C., deputy administrator of retail trade.
Thomas Arnold, machine tools controller.
W. D. F. Drysdale, director general of industrial planning.
I understand this gentleman has made an unparalleled contribution to Canada's tank production.	[DOT]*
F. M. Ross, director general, naval armaments branch.
Colonel D. Stairs, director general of defence projects.
J. P. D. Malkin, joint director general of purchasing.
Desmond A. Clarke, director general of shipbuilding.
F. H. Brown, assistant director general of munitions production.
Wilfred Gagnon, joint director general of purchasing.
J. G. Dodd, administrator of cotton.
Ralph P. Bell, director general of aircraft production.
J. D. C. Forsyth, administrator, men's and boys' furnishings.
Allan S. Nicholson, controller of timber.
E.	P. Taylor, president, British supply council in North America.
D. M. Farish, director general of personnel, munitions and supply.
H. J. Symington, K.C., controller of power.
C. Blake Jackson, controller of construction.
H. M. Long, special assistant to the Minister of Finance.
Michael Morris, administrator of furs.
Harry J. Carmichael, director general of gun production.
Frederick B. Kilbourn, controller of steel.
Doctor R. J. Manion.
John A. Marsh, Hamilton.
I had the honour of sitting in this house with Mr. Marsh, who is doing one fine job of work on behalf of this dominion to-day. And then day after day we see in the daily press lists of men who have been asked or who have volunteered to give their services to the country to do necessary work in the prosecution of the biggest business in the world to-day, the business of war. These men are not chosen from any political rank or for any particular colour or stripe; they are chosen by the government, and in particular by the department under the administration of the Minister of Munitions and Supply because they are the best men in Canada to carry on that work.
I should like to refer for a moment to statements made in the British House of Commons by Mr. Churchill on January 28, only last week, in connection with Canada's financial contribution to the empire war effort.

330	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fraser (Northumberland)
This quotation is from the Montreal Star of January 28, 1942:
Mr. Churchill himself praised us when he was here, and yesterday in the British house he referred to "Canada's great and growing contribution to the common cause in men, money and materials," as part of his expression of thanks for our financial offer, which he glowingly termed an offer "unique in its scale in the whole history of the British empire."
I wish to place on record1 also another statement, this time from the Globe and Mail, made at the same time by Mr. Churchill, in these words:
We are conducting this war on the basis of full democracy, and this attempt has'nt been made before in such circumstances.
A variety of attacks are made upon the composition of the government. It is said that it is formed upon a party political basis, but so is the House of Commons. It is silly to extol the parliamentary system and in the next breath say, "Away with party; away with politics."
I have mentioned this statement because I want to make reference to it a little later.
Before proceeding further I feel that as a member representing a constituency in the province of Ontario I would not be taking full advantage of this opportunity if I did1 not make some reference to the "total war committee" of the city of Toronto. If I were not firmly convinced that mine was the right stand; if I were not firmly convinced that I had a duty to perform, as a humble member of this House of Commons, to express my innate convictions, I should not be speaking this afternoon; but, since I am speaking, I believe I would be unmindful of my duty if I did not make particular reference to this so-called committee. My roots are buried deep in the soil of Scotland. When the war of 1914 broke out my dear old Scotch father called his three boys into the living room and said, "The empire is at war. Choose what you are going to do, the navy or the army, but get into it." That is but an expression of the loyalty I hold not only to Canada but also to the British empire. I make reference to this incident because I take second place to no one in this chamber, or out of it, in my loyalty to my country. But I am going to maintain that loyalty without subterfuge, without fear, without appeal to emotion, prejudice or class. I am going to maintain it in fair, manly language; I am going to do my duty as I see it, regardless of party, race or creed. And I must Say, Mr. Speaker, that I consider the methods used by the "total war committee" of Toronto embodied subterfuge, deception and hyprocrisy.
I want to place upon record this afternoon the original telegram-"the" original telegram 

sent out by J. Y. Murdoch, Fred K. Morrow

and Charles Burton, inviting two hundred people from Ontario to attend a luncheon for which they paid in the Royal York hotel in Toronto. I shall place the full wire on record.
This wire was sent to Mr. 0. G. Alyea, at Trenton, Ontario. Please take particular note of the phraseology of it:
Would appreciate if you would join us at luncheon at Royal York hotel on Saturday, January 10, 12.30 p.m. to a limited number influential citizens to discuss a matter of urgent national importance which in the meantime must remain confidential. Please telegraph acceptance immediately care of Royal York hotel, Toronto.
Why did they not tell those people what they were there for? Why did they not tell them why they were invited? The great majority of those two hundred people went to the city of Toronto expecting that these outstanding men were inviting them to have luncheon m order to organize on behalf of the Dominion of Canada the new victory loan. They did not expect they were going to be placed under the obligation of accepting a luncheon at somebody else's expense. They did not expect that within the confines of formal etiquette they would be placed at a disadvantage by their hosts. They were invited there to discuss a matter which must be kept confidential. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that anything which has to do with the welfare of Canada is not confidential with me. I can say it from my place in the House of Commons or say it publicly on any platform or at any luncheon, paid for or otherwise, in the Dominion of Canada.
Now, let us analyse the records of these gentlemen. I make this analysis because I shall have something to say about it before I have finished. I make the analysis because I detest underhand methods. Last night I sent down to the parliamentary library and obtained a copy of "Who's Who", which contains the record of every industrialist and financier in Canada. Every industrialist and financier in Canada who wishes to have his picture or photograph published pays $200 to get it in. Let us read it-


An hon. MEMBER:: And writes it himself.


William Alexander Fraser: Yes, as I was going to say, writes it himself. Listen to this:
Murdock, James Y., K.C., LL.D.; President, Noranda Mines; President, Canadian Copper Refiners Limited; Waite Amulet Mines, Limited; Amulet Dufault Mines; Pamour Porcupine Mines, Limited; Hallnor Mines, Limited;

And then there is a company the name of which is in Spanish. The list continues:
Kerr-Addison Gold Mines, Limited; Goldale Mines Limited; The Office Specialty Manufac-

The Address-Mr. Fraser (Northumberland)
turing Company, Limited; Vice-president, Aunor Gold Mines Limited; Director: The Bank of Nova Scotia; The Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada; The British American Oil Company Limited; Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Limited; Canada Wire and Cable Company Limited; Wright-Hargreaves Mines, Limited; Quebec Gold Mining Corporation; Rolland Paper Company Limited and Maple Leaf Gardens; Director, Allied War Supplies Corporation.
That is the industrial position of one of the men who issued the invitations for that luncheon.


Mr. MacNICOL:: A very great man.


William Alexander Fraser: I
shall deal with that later. Now I am going to read to the house what "Who's Who" has to say about Mr. Morrow. This is it:
Morrow, Frederick Keenan, Chairman, Wilsil Limited; President, Essa Securities Company Limited and Loblaw Groceterias Incorporated; Director, Bank of Toronto; Consumers Gas Company Limited; Reiss Premier Pipe Company; The Ogilvie Flour Mills Company Limited-
Yes, Ogilvie Flour Mills-*
-Consolidated Bakeries of Canada Limited; Massey-Harris Company Limited; Robinson Consolidated Cone Company Limited; Federal Fire Insurance Company; Hiram Walker-Gooderham & Worts Limited; Maple Leaf Gardens Limited; Ward Baking Company and Remington Rand Limited.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read Charlie Dunning now.


William Alexander Fraser: If
there is any hon. member who wishes to speak, either I will sit down or he can wait until I finish.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We are
enjoying it.


William Alexander Fraser: Now, Mr. Speaker, these are the gentlemen who make this statement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh, don't
forget Mr. Burton; let us have him, too.


William Alexander Fraser: Well, I have not time to get into a price-control argument debate on the floor of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Don't
renege on him. Don't forget Mr. Burton.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Alexander Fraser: Mr. Speaker, will you ask hon. gentlemen to write me? I cannot hear them.
Now, listen to what these gentlemen say:
There is only one way to meet total war,- by total effort-that is to mobilize all our man-power and material resources under a plan
44501-22i
of universal compulsory selective service. Those who can serve best on the farms must work on the farms. Those who can serve best in the factories must work in the factories. And those best fitted to serve in the armed forces must be trained, equipped, and available for service in Canada or overseas anywhere at any time. That is the only way that our farms, our factories and our armed forces can wage total war. No half measures are consistent with national honour.
And this is what they have suggested should be told to members:
Tell him to inform parliament, and through parliament the whole of Canada, that the people of his riding advocate and will support any measures, however drastic, which will assure the last ounce of effort of which they are capable.
I might add that out of 21,000 voters in my constituency, only 62 took advantage of the opportunity of writing me in this connection.
National honour and the safety of our people demand that every man who wears the uniform of Canada be ready at all times to go overseas to hit the enemy wherever and whenever he can be reached.
Let these gentlemen, who signed the invitation under subterfuge and hypocrisy, if they want to contribute to the war effort of Canada, take advantage of the non-interestbearing loan offered by the Dominion of Canada. Let them say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) "We wish to have equal sacrifice. We wish to have universal compulsory service, but if you wish to take our money away from us we will give it to you, without interest." That is the suggestion I make. It is a grand suggestion, and it would be some indication that these honourable men are sincere.
Let me go further and say to them, that if I owned an empire such as "Who's Who" says they own, I would want to conscript everybody in Canada to defend it. And, Mr. Speaker, if I had their mentality not only would I wish to conscript-insist upon conscripting-every man in Canada to defend that empire, but I would go farther and spend every dollar I could to create in this country in the minds of the people a situation which would delude and deceive them into conscripting people to defend my empire.
It is not often that I agree with my hon. friends who are led by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), but standing here in my place in the House of Commons I want to say that I agree with many of the fundamentals which he has expounded in the last few weeks. I want to say to these men who advertise to the public, that their financial empire will not continue. These people not only want to conscript men to
332	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fraser (Northumberland)
defend their empire; they want to sit in at the peace table. They want to dominate the government and the people of Canada in order that when we win this war, which we surely will do, they can defeat the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and myself and anyone else who is trying to make sure that they will not have that kind of empire after the war.
Let us see how far these people go. They do not just go to the extent that a business man would go; they do not just go to the extent that a true citizen of Canada would go; they do not just go to the extent that people would go who understand that to-day we, like our allies and the rest of the empire, have our backs to the wall. They do not do that; they are not satisfied with that. They are not satisfied to spend their money upon cheap paltry engraved cards; they are not satisfied to sell their country short; they are ready to do what my hon. friend the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation detests, what is detested by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) and by myself; they are ready to besmirch the ballot, to take away the right of free people to stand behind a curtain and put an "X" on a ballot, the right that we won under the Magna Charta. They are not satisfied in their contracted mentalities where a common stock dividend is the most beautiful thing in the world. People with this type of mentality are ready to spend money to besmirch the ballot box and take away the rights of the common people in this democratic country. Not only do they do that; they want to attack democratic government from the pulpit. They want to go farther than that and use the loyalty of hon. members of this house, which I am ready to admit, taking advantage of their sincerity, and attempting to ridicule democratic government. I am sorry the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) is not in his place, because there is no one I would rather face than him. I should like to quote what he placed on Hansard, January 29, 1942, at page 131. He was quoting the words of a certain person, as follows:
I ask you to request our Prime Minister to beg Churchill, Wavell and Prime Minister Curtin to hang on. Canada is voting in three months.
Did the hon. member for Parkdale contribute anything to Canada's war effort by placing that on Hansardf Did he help things by repeating that evidence of cheap prejudice and sabotage of Canada's war effort? If he were sitting in his place there are one or two more references I should like to make, but because of my respect for him I shall not use them now.
TMr. W. A Fraser.]
But they go further than that. According to last night's press a discredited candidate, a man who stood up on the platform in the city of Ottawa to speak in the most emphatic language against the great Conservative party and tried to advise them what to do, has something to say. He nearly sabotaged them at that time. Here is this fellow Herridge, the Honourable Mr. Herridge, stating in London, in the centre of this empire of war, that the safety of Canada depends upon the resignation of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Alexander Fraser: Before this war is over my hon. friends who say "hear, hear" will hang their heads in shame. This man was Canada's representative in Washington, and yet he makes that statement in the heart of the empire. I feel that I can say without fear of contradiction by hon. members of this house, even by hon. members who have disagreed with me, even by my many sound-thinking friends in the Tory party, that everyone will reject that kind of attitude toward Canada at this time.
I should like to make one or two other references. First, let me refer to a statement made upon a public platform, during a byelection campaign, by the premier of the province of Ontario. The premier of Ontario has been a friend of mine of long standing. Perhaps there is no one who has cooperated as much with him, who has done more to have him adopt a moderate attitude than I. Here is what he said on January 28:
-"deliberately attempting to set the French against the British on the issue of compulsory selective service".
"I charge Mr. King with deliberately trying to set the French against the British through his chief lieutenant in Quebec, Mr. Godbout," said Mr. Hepburn.
I read that simply because I intend to refer to it again in a minute or two. Let me say this to my hon. friends in this house:	Make
no mistake about it, there can be no equality of sacrifice in a war. Anyone who uses that phrase is not stopping to analyse its meaning. I ask my good friend, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar: would the union men of Canada leave the production lines to go on our farms? Canada is a highly unionized country; I ask him if they would permit themselves to be pushed and shoved around. Obviously the answer is no. They are doing a wonderful job. They are just like the senior civil servants in Ottawa; they are giving all they have to Canada's contribution to the war effort. There can be no equality of sacrifice during a war. It is with a knowledge of Canada's contribution to the empire war effort

The Address[DOT]-Mr. Fraser (Northumberland)
that I am proud to say that 565,000 Canadian workmen are producing the implements of war for the air force, the navy and the army, not only for service overseas but in Canada. I am ready to depend upon the loyalty and the understanding of Canadian citizenship to put this job over without endeavouring to create dissension by conscripting people.
I am watching my time, Mr. Speaker. I have great respect for every member of the House of Commons, but if I did not know them all personally, if they were all strangers to me, I would still have the same respect for them because somewhere, in some part of Canada, they have offered themselves to their fellow Canadians to do the best they could for them as their representatives in this assembly of a democratic country. I have much less respect for men who pile up millions and have never offered themselves for service, men who try to browbeat and influence by prejudice and hate the good people of the Dominion of Canada. I have even less respect for those who have been rejected by the people of Canada as a whole but who insist on trying to dictate the policies of the government of Canada, and I want to spend the next three or four minutes appealing to my hon. friends opposite in this house.
This is going to be an appeal for unity, for understanding, cool heads and clear thinking, and appreciation of the facts. The first thing I want to say to my good friends in the Tory party in this house is that no one has ever suffered to a greater extent than they from the consequences of a house divided against itself. It was the Bennett-Stevens catastrophe of a few years ago that resulted in the position in which they find themselves to-day. Surely that is an example to prove that unity is necessary.
This government is running a three per cent war and a loan without interest war, not a five and a half per cent tax-free war for the plutocratic financiers of Canada under Arthur Meighen. No, this government is running a three per cent war. These are the facts, these are the realities I ask you to take into consideration.
This is a democratic assembly elected by all the people. We have in this house sixty-five members from the province of Quebec. I have not the Reverend Mr. Shields' hatred of religion and race. I have not and never could have the feeling of hate that was demonstrated by Colonel George Drew and Doctor Shields platforms in the East Hastings by-election when they said that the French-Canadians were a conquered race and must expect to be treated that way. I have not that hate and could not have that hate for my fellow

Canadians. They elect their representatives to this demoeractic assembly; they are our fellow Canadians, and you cannot get away from that. I do not care what bitterness, what hate, what passions and emotions others may appeal to, but my appeal to-day, Mr. Speaker, not only to those to your left but to every member of this house, regardless of race or creed, and to my fellow citizens everywhere, is to trust Canadians and the government of Canada by Canadians. This is a time to trust Canadians. You can turn the dial of your radio and listen in to the United States. There you have a government, not as the hon. member for Parkdale states, but a party government, and not universal compulsory service, as the hon. member for Parkdale stated. But there you have a highly-unionized country, a country where recompense and compensation and loyalty are the incentives-not the Hitler labour camps, but unity, loyalty, compensation, understanding, education. That is the guide and slogan in the United States, where you find Mr. Willkie speaking on a platform and over the air, appealing to the people of the United States, and standing shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Roosevelt.
While my hon. friends opposite may not realize this-and I have read or listened to every speech that has been made in this debate-I want to tell them that Mr. Mackenzie King is the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada in accordance with the wishes and the voice of the people of Canada. The hon. member for Parkdale, who came into this house after the 1940 election, day after day has stated that we need a new Prime Minister, but the people of Canada with an unmistakable voice said: Mackenzie King is the safest man to conduct the affairs of this country and to conduct the war. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that he is still Prime Minister of Canada, and all the dastardly-and I say this for the record1-all the dastardly attacks and all the unspeakable epithets that have been hurled against William Lyon Mackenzie King by his enemies cannot change the fact that he is Prime Minister of Canada and the leader of responsible government' in Canada. We had an example in Spain of rebellion against constituted government there which cost over three million lives. We had a similar thing in France, a people divided against themselves-and not only in France but also in the low countries. It was Pearl Har-hour that cemented the people of the United States. Do not let us as Canadians require a Pearl Harbour or a Dunkirk to make us united. I will join with every man in this house and with every citizen of Canada who
334	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Fraser (Northumberland)
will take as his slogan: Don't sell Canada short, because that would be selling your own country short. You would be sabotaging your own country. When you do that, you are not damning the man who is the Prime Minister and the head of responsible government in Canada; but you are damning and sabotaging your own country.
I know that to-morrow morning my name will be on the back page of that sheet, the Globe and Mail, but I trust that the sincerity of my voice and of my determination will go across this country from one end to the other when I appeal to my fellow Canadians to be Canadians, just as the Americans are Americans, and to back the Prime Minister and constituted government.
My time, Mr. Speaker, is up.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Alexander Fraser: I have much more that I could say from the very altar of my honesty and sincerity. This government has brought in a measure as a result of the deliberations and conclusions of the cabinet. There may be features about the plebiscite that are not as we would all like, but I have studied it. I went home and for three days did nothing but turn it over in my mind, and I came to this honest conclusion. I was convinced that if ever in my life I should stand as I have stood this afternoon and appeal to my fellow Canadians to stand behind the man who for five times has been elected by the ballots of the people of Canada to lead this country, now is the time. If an offer was made to my hon. friends opposite to-day to come and join a national government under Mackenzie King they would not do it. They would want a national government of their own making, of the making of the Murdochs.
In closing, I would express my appreciation of the splendid hearing which my fellow members have given me this afternoon, and thank them for the extra time they have allowed me. Finally, I appeal to every hon. member, as I would appeal to my brother: For God's sake get behind Canada. Don't sell her short. Get behind the Prime Minister, and let us put this thing over. We will do it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a point of order, I did not wish to intervene while the hon. gentleman was speaking, but the rules are there; they should not be violated without the consent of this house, and no consent was asked for. Had the hon. member asked for overtime I personally would have cheerfully granted it to him, but I do not think the rules should be used for the purpose of abusing

political opponents or of putting on a burlesque in this house.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When the hon. member mentioned the fact that he was exceeding his time I looked to see if there was opposition, but as a matter of fact the expression that was given by those on the left was that he should continue, and I assumed that he had consent.
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln): It is not my intention to emulate the scene that has been enacted in this house within the last forty-five or fifty minutes or perhaps an hour. Apparently the theories propounded by the previous speaker have met with general approval among the followers of the government. I have not at any time attempted to minimize the war effort of this government, but I rise in my place at this time to urge them on to greater things.
None of us question the loyalty of the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser), who has just spoken, and I want to assure him that there are just as many loyal subjects in Canada to-day as there were in the last war, as is shown by the fact that they have sent sons overseas.
I am not particularly interested in digging up from among the archives anything that might appear to discredit men who have, in fact, been a credit to Canadian public or civil life. Those men on whom a vicious attack was made to-day will be able, I am quite sure, when the last account is taken to measure up with anyone, whether he be Speaker in this house, member of the house, or among those recited in the great list which have given of their best.
I received no telegram; I attended no banquet; but I think it would be interesting to have a comparison made between the records of the men who were viciously attacked in the preceding address, and, perhaps, some of those who are members of this house. This is no time for us to indulge in recriminations. This is a time when every member should express to the best of his ability his point of view and the views of his constituents. A strange spectacle has been enacted in this house in the last week or two-yes, and it is being enacted in many parts of Canada to-day. The daily papers are to-day reporting incidents which I believe it would be better to have deleted from the records of the nation. Canada, the empire, Christian civilization itself is rocking on its foundations, and in my opinion the spectacle which is being enacted in this house-within the last hour-is not a credit to the parliament of Canada in this time of crisis.

The Address-Mr. Lockhart
I listened the other day to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford) denouncing his friends. Not long ago the lion and the lamb lay down together in peace. How things have changed I Then we have another hon. gentleman, the member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), appearing on a public platform in the city of Toronto supporting the candidate of my hon. friends to the left, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, and the next day appearing in the constituency of Welland and urging before the electors the defeat of that same candidate. I say that strange spectacles are being enacted throughout Canada as well as in this house.
We are the elected representatives of the people of Canada, and I think that every representative has a sacred duty to perform at this time. It was hoped, at least I had hoped when I came to the house at this session, that we would be given an opportunity to accomplish something with alacrity in the interests of Canada and of the empire. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley) as a private member spoke to us yesterday at length; as a minister of the crown, a member of the war cabinet, he has also expressed his views. I for one respect those views just as I expect him to respect the views of my constituents or any views I may advance.
He has approved of the expenditure of money on a plebiscite. With this I have to disagree. He has likened it to the spending of money by people on amusement. I would point out that the spending of trust money, raised by the sacrifices of 'the taxpayers of this country, on matters such as a plebiscite is far different from people spending the small pittance they have left after paying these taxes to get a little amusement and recreation for themselves.
The speech from the throne deals specifically with few matters but more particularly with the plebiscite suggested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). In respect to that I had hoped we would have something definite placed before us. The leader of the group with which I have the honour to be associated pressed for that, and others have pressed for the definition of what this plebiscite would contain. The answer given by the Prime Minister is found on page 32 of Hansard:
When my hon. friend goes on to ask me what I am going to do with respect to any expression of view which may be made by the people in connection with any reference which will be made to them, may I say to him that in seeking to get relief from past commitments I am not going to begin by making new and fresh commitments. In seeking freedom on the part of the ministry I am not going to start in by seeking to tie my own hands.
Later on the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 60:
May I add that such attitude as I shall take at the time will be taken in the light of all the circumstances as I may know them as a member of the government, and of all conditions as I know them in regard to this country and, as far as I am able to know something about them, conditions in other countries as well.
This, with some more words, was the answer to a request for more explicit information and direction on this plebiscite. This evasion of responsibility is not acceptable to the voters of my constituency, and I do not believe it is acceptable to the voters of many parts of Canada. It seems to me the Prime Minister is following public opinion entirely, following and listening to see what the effect of his pronouncements may be, without giving the leadership desired in this hour of crisis. I am sure that has been made manifest in the press throughout the country.
I state here publicly that at least one thousand of my constituents have sent me individual messages of protest. Collective groups comprising 75 to 100 signatures each have also sent me communications in considerable number. I have received thirty or more resolutions from municipal councils, service clubs, church organizations and all kinds of kindred groups, which totalled up would represent at least two or three thousand names. These people have protested most definitely against the vagueness of the language used by the Prime Minister in referring to the plebiscite and what he proposes to place before the people at this time.
They urge a complete and total war effort. They urge compulsory selective service, and in no uncertain words they tell me what my duty is as a member of this parliament, sent here as their representative. I am urged to do all in my power to prevent a plebiscite being taken. The reasons given by them, in which I entirely concur, are that the saving of time and money in this hour are essential. I voice, therefore, the opinions of my electors as expressed in the messages they have sent me. And what is more, as a member of this parliament, in making these utterances I am prepared to take my full share of responsibility to see that they are carried out.
I must in fairness say that I received one message, signed by one individual only, said to be representing an executive group, but from an organization I have not heard of before, endorsing the plebiscite but definitely calling for compulsory selective service. That is the extent to which the hundreds, yes, thousands of messages that have reached me approve of this plebiscite. I am urged to do everything I can to put a stop to what they
The Address-Mr. Lockhart

call putting square pegs in round holes in this war effort. I am urged by returned soldier organizations to get more fully behind the thousands of lads who have gone overseas, to make definitely sure that reinforcements will be provided in the hour of need. I am quite sure that other hon. members have received similar communications from returned soldier organizations.
These organizations point out the need of trained recruits. They point out the necessity that might arise following such tragedies as Hong Kong, Dunkirk, Greece and Crete, and all these disasters that have been referred to by other speakers. Who knows, they say, when the next demand may come? We may have to go to Alaska or points close to Canada.
In this connection I think we as members of this house must have appreciated the observations made here by hon. members from British Columbia as to the critical situation there. We cannot be unmindful of the words of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) when he pointed out the position our troops w'ould be in if overnight the treacherous Japs were to strike in the dark, perhaps on the shores of Alaska. What would be our position if we had to go to our armed forces and pick out the men who could leave Canada from those who could not go? This has been brought to our attention by messages received from returned soldiers' organizations in my city. If on the other hand Vancouver turned out to be the vulnerable point, how quickly could United States forces respond to our help? I plead with this government to see that we are placed in the same position as the armies of the United States so that we can give one hundred per cent support whether it be in our own Canada or on shores perhaps not too far distant-yes, even in the remotest parts of the world.
I was home over the week-end, Mr. Speaker, and during that time I received a great many telephone calls; in fact the wires on my telephone w'ere almost burning up.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too bad they didn't.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Too bad they didn't?
Perhaps the hon. member who interjected that remark had better go home himself. That is just another example of the cheap performance we hear in this house all too frequently.
I was repeatedly asked if I would define the proposed plebiscite. Among the questions I was asked was this: Is there any commitment, or what is the commitment, as to what will be done following the taking of the plebiscite? Many people told me they were sick and tired of the delay in parliament and were not even going out to vote. That is

something I greatly deplore, that the electors should be placed in the position of not being sufficiently interested or informed to exercise their franchise. But the onus for that situation rests entirely upon the Prime Minister and this government.
What could I reply to that question? I could only read the Prime Minister's evasive words in response to direct inquiries. Then I was frequently asked another question, which I commend to the attention of the hon. member who interrupted me a moment ago and to other hon. members who were so vociferous in their applause following the address of the hon. member for Northumberland, Ont. (Mr. Fraser). I was asked: When this vague proposition was presented to parliament, was the press report correct in stating that about 175 supporters of the government in this chamber supported the proposal and applauded to the housetops? I had to say that the answer was yes.
I cannot pass on without making a brief reference to the courageous stand afterwards taken by a few hon. members opposite, who seemed to feel that their responsibility was not limited to applause, but who felt they should express their individual views and the views of the people whom they represent. I want to pay my tribute to those hon. members who had the courage of their convictions.
Inquiries came to me from the adjoining constituency, the county of Welland, which is so much in the limelight to-day. The late esteemed member for that constituency was elected to this house by one of the, larger majorities that returned this government to power. He w7as very well thought of, and we regret his passing. But that majority now is split asunder. The plebiscite is the only issue in that by-election; and we have seen the nomination of an independent supporter of the Liberal party in protest against the plebiscite. The electors of Welland who were in contact with me over the week-end not only reminded me that the plebiscite had destroyed unity in that part of Canada, but they also directed my attention to other parts of this country. Only to-day I have been in receipt of three or four letters, containing clippings, referring to statements made in Quebec last Tuesday evening by one of the principal speakers campaigning in that province in the interests of the government candidate. I believe these were the words used by Mr. Taschereau, of Quebec:
There are events happening in Australia at present which more than ever would not only justify Prime Minister King's non-enforcement of conscription for overseas service but "which might even oblige him to recall troops now stationed in England.

The Address-Mr. Lockhart
This clipping was given me by an elector of the constituency of Welland. On the same evening the present Minister of Labour, speaking in Welland, is reported in these words:
He expressed the opinion that the vote of the Canadian people "will relieve Prime Minister King of his non-conscription pledge in the coming plebiscite." Quite plainly the collective responsibility of cabinet ministers, as well as the principle of responsible government, is being scuttled in Canada.
Such was the direction given me by the electors of Welland. The plebiscite is not only causing national disunity in that part of Canada. We recall that in connection with these by-elections there was supposed to be some mutual understanding; new blood was to be brought into this parliament, and that mutual understanding met with more or less general favour. The electors of Welland stated to me that they accepted that principle; and to hon. members of this house I want to say that members of this party more or less accepted it also. As a result no attempt was made by the Conservative party to place anyone in the field to oppose the Minister of Labour. Who is to blame for the upset that has occurred in that county? I ask this house on whose doorstep can be placed the responsibility for causing this disunity. Do not blame it on the Conservative party. Do not blame it on any members from more remote parts of Canada. The responsibility rests with the Prime Minister and his ministers for foisting on the public such a vague proposal as a plebiscite.
What may be the outcome in that by-election no one can say. It was suggested by one gentleman in that county that perhaps even yet the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario, who is not at the moment in his seat, may have the opportunity to become Minister of Labour, as has been suggested in this house. In any event, the Prime Minister may yet [DOT] have to make his selection from the membership of this -house, and whom can he thank for the mess he has made? That is what I ask this house.
Then on Saturday evening I crossed into New York state, where I have many friends whom I hold in high esteem and with whom I have had many things in common over a long period of years. I looked up some of them to see what was their vie-w of the present situation, now that a menace has sprung up in the southern Pacific. What were their views? I will try to express them. I found a changed attitude on their part. Yesterday the Minister of Finance quoted an editorial from one of the New York newspapers. Perhaps I might be permitted to quote an editorial from a
newspaper published much nearer the Niagara peninsula and the constituency of Welland than the New York Times. The clipping was in the hands of my friends in New York state. When I asked their views, one gentleman produced the clipping which I shall read to the house. He said it expressed their views, and I believe it expresses the views of many people in the United States. This article appeared in the Buffalo Courier-Express in its issue of January 24, 1942. I assume I have the same privilege as was accorded the Minister of Finance; namely, that of reading at length. This is the article:
Announcement by the Earl of Athlone, governor general of Canada, of a plebiscite on raising troops by conscription means that our brothers north of the border have determined to meet squarely their toughest political problem . . . Canada is now faced with the same problem which confronted the United States only a few weeks ago. Our draft law called for the training of men for service within the United States. Pearl Harbour changed all that and congress immediately authorized the use of United States troops in any theatre of war. To-day Canada drafts men, 21 to 24, for full-time defence duties with the active army, and these men, after four months' training period, are posted for home defence duties, releasing volunteers for overseas duty.
The natural question which arises on this side of the border is that if we can do it overnight why does Canada hesitate?
Let me point out that this editorial reflects the feeling of many of my friends in the United States, and a great mass of public opinion in that country.
A full explanation of the political reasons would take this entire page and several succeeding pages, but the answer is always the same- French Canada.
That is what is being said along the border where one of the most bitter by-elections ever fought in the country is being waged. While these spectacles are being enacted, not only in the house but in different parts of Canada we, the elected representatives of our people, sit here and twiddle our thumbs for the next few weeks waiting for some vague plebiscite to decide an important issue. That is the point which strikes me most forcibly. Faced with the same dangers, faced with the same possibilities of attack, why cannot we in the parliament of Canada deal with this matter now, the same as the parliament of Great Britain and other parts of the empire and the United States have done?
Some of my people call it political expediency. Other letters I receive describe it as a political blunder. Others call it lack of leadership. Whatever those opinions are, certainly Canada is being divided over this
The Address-Mr. Lockhart

plebiscite, at a time when more than any other in our history national unity should be our objective.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say that while we twiddle our thumbs the voice of parliament is still. We go on with this spectacle. Let me urge hon. members to frown on all this cheap political-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Burlesque.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Yes, burlesque, if you wish to call it that, which is so evident in the house.
We are faced with a desperate situation. Let me say a word at this point about the effect of national compulsory service on the farmers, a subject which has had some consideration in the house. Let me give a specific example which indicates the extent of the problem in my section of the country. One man came to me recently and told me that he had just returned from one of the largest food processing factories in that vicinity. The manager of the plant had asked this farmer to sign again this year the contract he had signed in past years calling for the production of certain lines of foodstuffs. The man said to me, "I visited that factory about three weeks ago, and learned that I had to buy five tons of a particular type of fertilizer, involving an investment of considerable money. When I came home my only son met me at the door and produced a notice to serve in the army." The father was in a dilemma. On the following morning he and his boy drove to Toronto to discuss the matter with the regional director. The result of their trip was nothing but evasion. They were promised a deferment.
I have no doubt other hon. members have heard similar stories. This is not a new problem, and I could give many other examples. That man urged upon me that his only son was needed at home. I told him that he might obtain a deferment, but he would have to use his own judgment. The man said to me, "The manager of the processing plant is urging me to take this contract, but I cannot sign it if my son is to be taken."
The time has come when each one of us in Canada must be told what he is to do and how he is to do it. The farmer must be told what he is to produce, and he must be given guarantee that at least an only son will be left to help carry through his obligation to produce for Great Britain and our lads overseas.
I shall not detain the house, but when hon. members discuss these matters with their constituents, and when they learn about the 
chaos in the present set-up, surely they should stand in their places and tell the house that we must have selective service of every man and woman in Canada. Every industry and every resource must be mobilized in the most effective way-and now. Evidence of that is apparent on every side. And so I ask:	Why do we delay? Canada
is one of the granaries of the world. We have become one of the chief sources of supply of foodstuffs for Great Britain. We have become one of the main sources of supply for those thousands of our boys who have gone overseas. A clear, comprehensive and constructive policy must be given to the farmers by the government, and given without delay.
I pass on. Thinking back over the references which have been made in this house I realize that there are many hon. members who are too ready to dig up dead horses. They have been ready to go back into the history of the last war and attempt to discredit the public life of men some of whom have long been dead. They bring in all kinds of inferences which have no bearing upon the crisis which now confronts us. I urge hon. members to cease this idle twaddle; let us get down to present realities and accomplish something. When the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon) was making his defence of the plebiscite he told us what he thought of compulsory service two years ago. We know how the President of the United States was swept into power; we know that a few weeks afterwards he went to congress without any plebiscite and said that he must have compulsory service in every part of the world where the enemy might be met.
Why can we not have the same thing in this country? That is what I am urging should be done. We read the newspapers, we know what is happening, we realize the possibilities in Australia and we see the reverses that our armed forces are encountering. Surely the crisis is just as great now. Why should we sit here and talk idly about technicalities or make inferences which have no bearing upon the present emergency?
The Prime Minister must give some thought to the definite demand in this country for compulsory selective service. Let us try to guide him; let us tell him the views of our own people on this matter. That is my duty this afternoon, to try to show him exactly what my own constituents are saying. We should not have any differences of opinion about this, because that is all it amounts to in connection with this plebiscite. It is just a case of one man thinking one thing, and another man thinking something else. But it

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
has created a lot of disunity. If the elected representatives of the people would deal with this question here in the house I believe it could be settled just as well as it will be three months, six months or a year hence. The men who are now overseas are demanding it. Surely all hon. members are receiving letters daily urging that this action be taken, demanding it. These men are wondering, if they have to go to Hong Kong or some such place, whether there will be somebody to step in should they have to make the supreme sacrifice. I say this advisedly because I am receiving scores of letters from overseas.
There is only one important step to be taken-compulsory selective service. What have we in Canada to-day? Industry has been regimented and our money has been conscripted. You may call it what you like, but the fact is that it is being taken from us. Our young men were called up for thirty days' training and they had to go. That training was found to be totally inadequate; some people made what was termed a "war shout" over the cost, and then young men were called for four months. That also proved entirely inadequate for the situation which was becoming more acute. The defence of our own shores began to loom up, and these men were then called in for the duration of the war. Call it conscription if you like, but it is compulsory selective service. They had to serve.
There is only one more step we need to take in this parliament. Instead of calling for service in Canada, we should call for service anywhere in the world. We should not be frightened about compulsory service. The only difference is as to where we have to serve. I am not afraid of its being said that I have been conscripted. I am prepared to assume whatever share of the burden I am asked to take. Those who are overseas are calling for assistance, and there is just one more step which the Prime Minister and this government have to take in order that we may have all-out compulsory selective service. Why hesitate any longer?
We are in the midst of a mad race for supremacy with a ruthless enemy. I think that must be conceded. Let us stop pussyfooting in this parliament which is supposed to be the last word in directing this country. The world is looking upon us at this time, with parliament in session, to give some kind of lead and not play for political positions, not trifle with the great questions that confront us. Never before to my knowledge has there been such a demand upon the courage of men, that they act like men. Surely we have an example in yie men who have
gone overseas. They stand out because of their courageous action. We, the elected representatives of this country, must have the courage of our convictions. I say again that it is a race for supremacy, the supremacy of all that is right and decent. This supremacy cannot be won if we do not strain our resources to the last ounce. Otherwise we may lose. That is the tragedy with which we are confronted. That is what may happen if we do not measure up, if we are hot courageous.
I urge upon the government, I urge upon the Prime Minister as leader of the government, as leader of the war time cabinet, that these possibilities be seriously considered. I urge upon him that he come frankly before parliament and place upon every hon. member the responsibility of doing his duty. In this race he holds the starter's pistol. If he pulls the trigger, we have to go. I say to hon. members: if the Prime Minister will just pull the trigger, let every one of us go to the last ounce of our strength before it is too late.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with much diffidence that I rise to take part in this debate. The issues confronting us are so many and so complex and . the war itself is on such a world-wide scale that it is next to impossible for the human mind to grasp its full extent and implications. But this much I think is clear. We know much better to-day than we did two years ago, or in September, 1939, who our enemies and who our friends are. Yet as I go among the people I find that there are many things which are not clear to them, and some of these will, I believe, have to be clarified before we get a full war effort.
We are being told by the radio, the press, the churches and a hundred and one other agencies that we are fighting for freedom, for liberty and for democracy. Yet we can see every day that there is a never-ceasing struggle, and sometimes I think a losing struggle, carried on in our midst during this time of war. Instead of class conflict becoming less as we prepare to meet increasing difficulties, it is becoming more intense and more bitter. As anti-social employers gloat over victories gained over their workers, with the assistance of a servile and anti-labour government, smouldering bitterness grows in the hearts and souls of beaten and sullen workers. These are some of the important issues in this war, and they are some of the issues that are preventing us from getting a full war effort. As I shall show before I finish, the government of to-day not only has ignored labour, but is fastening more and more tightly the shackles of big business
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

control on the people of this country. The speech from the throne says that this is no ordinary war but a conflict between irreconcilable forces. The government uses these words but seemingly does not understand them. Cannot the members of this government see that the very same conflict is going on in miniature in our very midst? If, however, they do see it, are they doing anything to remove the causes of that conflict in order to leave us more free to fight the common enemy?
I think, Mr. Speaker, we shall have to realize, before we fully understand the nature of this war, that it did not begin in September, 1939, and also that it is, as the speech from the throne says, more than an ordinary war; it is a world revolution. This war began in January, 1933, with the destruction of the German trade unions and socialist parties by Hitler. It was continued and has continued on a score of different fronts, and in a thousand different ways, before Poland was invaded in September, 1939. It was continued by the destruction of the Vienna socialists in 1934; it was continued in 1936 and 1937 and 1938 in Spain, as the hon. member for Northumberland, Ont., (Mr. Fraser), already pointed out this afternoon. In Spain the women and children of Madrid, Barcelona and Burgos were bombed by the war planes of Hitler and Mussolini, and we helped them destroy the loyalist government of that country. I remember speaking in this house on May 26, 1938-and what the hon. member for Northumberland, Ont., said to-day brought it to my mind-and I tried to get parliament to reverse the attitude which this government had taken in the Spanish civil war. But no one cared. I should like to read a few words of what I said on that occasion. It is important now because the democracies could just as easily have had a democratic Spain as they have a fascist Spain. I said as reported at page 3246 of Hansard of May 26, 1938:
I am going to confine my remarks to one aspect of our foreign policy which seems to me to transcend all other aspects, even at this time when we are beset on all sides with questions of very great import. I refer to our policy with regard to Spain. To me our policy in connection with the Spanish situation has been and is devoid of every semblance of equity, justice, fairness or the application of international law.
I do not wish to quote more, but that much was apparent then. I pointed out that the result of our policy would be that either fascism or communism would become dominant in Spain. I have often wondered how some of the members of the cabinet of that day could stay in the cabinet-the present Minister

of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), for instance, or the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie)-realizing as they must have done what the consequences of the policy they were endorsing would be. I may come back, if I have time, to the question of the labour policy of the government.
First, however, I want to say something with regard to the plebiscite. The announcement of the plebiscite is the most important item in the speech from the throne. For myself I am not finding fault with the principle of referring matters to the people for an expression of opinion, but in referring such matters to a popular vote there are, it seems to me, two essential requirements before an intelligent verdict can be given or expected: (1) there must be a clear-cut question which can be answered yes or no and from which predictable results will follow, having regard to the popular decision; (2) the people who are to decide must have reliable information on which to form an opinion. In the proposed plebiscite the first essential consideration is missing, and, so far, there is no indication that the people will get reliable information as to the need or otherwise of compulsory military service for overseas.
No member of the government, as far as I know, has yet said that compulsory military service for overseas is urgently needed or that it is not needed. I was not in the house when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke on January 26, but I have read his speech with great care. It is a good speech until he begins to deal with the matter of the plebiscite. I admit that he has made a good case for a reference to the people, but he has not made a case for the kind of reference proposed-and I reiterate that my objection is not to the principle of a plebiscite even in times of national crisis. My objection is based on the fact that the question to be placed before the people, on which they will be asked to vote, is not the straight question yes or no on conscription, the only question at issue at this time. The question on which the people will be asked to vote was stated by the Prime Minister and has been read in this house a number of times. It is this:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity that that is not a proper question to put before the people of Canada at this time. There is only one matter on which the government feels its hands tied. The government, if it wants to be released, should ask for release without any beating about the bush. A vote

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
taken on the question proposed will in some parts of Canada be a vote on conscription; in other parts of Canada it will not be a vote on conscription. It will depend in what part of the country one happens to be. In places where sentiment is favourable to conscription, people will be told that a favourable vote will result in the government introducing a conscription bill; in parts of the country where there is opposition to conscription, the people will be told that a favourable vote will not mean conscription. The premier of Quebec, as well as other speakers in that province, has already stated that a favourable vote will not be followed by conscription.
This plebiscite, then, is neither fish, flesh nor fowl, but it is a good red herring. It is about as clever-or as clumsy, whichever term you choose to use-a piece of subterfuge as has ever been perpetrated upon a people.
During the past two months the acting leader of this group and I have crossed this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We stopped at all the larger centres of population and at some not so large. We met and spoke with thousands of people in all walks of life. I think we are both convinced that the people are more ready for conscription to-day, if it is necessary, than they were for the declaration of war in September, 1939. I say that they are more ready, but I say it with a proviso. They are ready provided it is not only conscription of flesh and blood, but also conscription of the amassed wealth, industrial capital and financial resources of the country as well. They want an all-out war effort with all the resources which the people of Canada possess.
The fathers and mothers of the youth of Canada are not prepared to sacrifice their sons to safeguard the wealth and special privileges of the Crabtrees, the MacMillan's and the McLean's, who already own too much of Canada for Canada's good. Indeed, the Canadian people are disturbed over the complete control of the economic life of the country which has been given since the war began to these exploiters by the Prime Minister and his cabinet.
The group with which I sit are, as we -have already stated, in favour of a vote on the clear issue of conscription, because we believe it is the real issue confronting the people of Canada to-day. We favour a vote on two questions: (a) conscription of man-power; (b) conscription of material resources, industry and finance. If both questions were given to the people for endorsation or rejection, I feel convinced that they would approve both provided they were told it was necessary.
The Prime Minister in -his speech said -that there were three ways by which the government could seek release -from past commitments-with respect to the methods of raising men for military service: (1) a general election; (2) a referendum on conscription; (3) a plebiscite in which the government would ask for release from past promises. Two of the means mentioned by the Prime Minister are, in my opinion, clear and definite, namely, a general election or a referendum on conscription. The third means, a plebiscite, wooljed up in words, is not clear, and true to form, it is the means by which the Prime Minister asks the people to decide. He asks them to decide without furnishing them with the information necessary to an intelligent expression of opinion.
The Prime Minister rejects the idea of a general election, although he admits that conscription would be the main issue, but other issues might enter. He rejects the idea of a referendum because the vote would be a definite vote on -conscription. He rejects the one because it would not be clear; he rejects the other because it would be clear. It does not seem to me to make sense. I think, really, it is juggling with an important issue, and that is not desirable at this time.
The Prime Minister knows, as every member of this house knows, that only one commitment or reservation was made with regard to military service, namely, that there would be no conscription for overseas service. That reservation, surely, was based upon conditions as they existed in Canada at the -beginning of the war; but if those conditions do not apply to-day-and the Prime Minister indicated in his speech that they do not apply-it is the duty of the Prime Minister and -his ministers boldly and clearly to tell the house and the people of Canada what the real situation is. There is no other way by -which either members of parliament or the -people of Canada can make wise decisions. Let us then be done with this humbug. Let the people of Canada decide whether they want conscription for overseas service and also whether they want effective conscription of industry, accumulated wealth and finance for an all-out war effort.
I wish to make brief reference to our situation on the Pacific coast -because of recent happenings. The question has already been covered fairly well by the hon, member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and also the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). Three main questions are disturbing the people there. The first is, Are the defences on the Pacific coast ade-
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

quate? I do not know; I imagine no one here knows. But I support the suggestion made by the hon. member for New Westminster the other day, that the government should ask General MeNaughton, who is now in Canada, to go to the Pacific coast and make a thorough inspection of the defences there. I am sure that because of the knowledge he must have of the defences built in Great Britain, he will be able to advise the military authorities and the government here wisely.
Another question that is disturbing the minds of the people on the Pacific coast is the question of Japanese nationals and Canadian Japanese. I have made some investigations on my own behalf of what the government has done and is doing in that connection. I am satisfied that the government has the situation in hand. We must always keep in mind that most of the Japanese in British Columbia-the people of Japanese origin- are not Japanese, they are Canadians. Today we heard a plea for tolerance for another minority in Canada, a much larger minority, of course. But minorities must be treated fairly not because they are large but because they have certain rights as Canadians. In considering this question we should remember that we are Canadians and that we also are British, and in dealing with minorities we must not adopt the policies either of Japan or of Germany or of any other country that are not as good as ours. I was pleased with the very reasonable way in which the hon. member for New Westminster dealt with this question the other day, and I do not wish to say a word that would take away from the good effect of his speech. But I was rather surprised to hear him put forward as an example of what we should do with the Japanese in British Columbia the fact that the Russians moved a whole population of some 350,000 people to Siberia. Moving people to Siberia is a habit in Russia. The czars moved tens of thousands of people to Siberia, and thousands of them died there.


Mr. REID:: For the protection and safeguarding of the state.


Angus MacInnis: It was always for the protection of the state.


An hon. MEMBER:: For the protection of the czar.


Angus MacInnis: The czar moved them for the protection of the state, but we cannot save the state by means like that. We save the state by justice or we do not save it. As an hon. member suggests, it is not worth saving if we cannot save it in that way.

I have as I say discussed this matter with the people in charge. After discussing it with the Royal Canadian Mounted police, I am inclined to think better of the government, because I have a feeling that a police force can never be better than the government which directs it, and I am satisfied with the attitude taken by the Royal Canadian Mounted police with regard to our Canadian Japanese.
Then there is the question of air raid precautions. I agree with what the hon. member for Vancouver South said in that regard. I believe that while to a large extent this work may be done by civilians, the government must furnish the larger direction and also the funds to provide the equipment. I do not believe that is being done at the present time. In fact I believe it is in a very bad muddle indeed.
I ' now wish to turn to labour matters which I referred to in my opening remarks. I have been trying, trying, trying for the past two years to get this government to take a democratic attitude towards labour. And I have failed. The situation is getting worse. I am going to try now, and I believe I can convince even hon. members opposite that the situation is getting worse. The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mrs. Casselman) asked yesterday, when the hon. member for .Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) was speaking, if we would not consider the appointment of the new Minister of Labour as something on the credit side of the ledger as far as the government's attitude toward labour is concerned. I am going to try to give this house a picture of what about two months' administration of the Department of Labour under the new minister amounts to. I regret to have to do it, but I do it because there is no other way by which the people concerned can get access to the government of this country. They are double-crossed by the Department of Labour, and they cannot get access to the Prime Minister.
For lack of understanding of working-class needs, and for the most colossal ineptitude in dealing with labour problems, I thought the former Minister of Labour was in a class by himself; I thought he had no equal. But without being yet long enough in office to be elected to parliament, I believe the new minister has already shattered the record of my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) in the Department of Labour for doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.
I shall submit to this house two cases and let hon. members decide for themselves as to the fitness not only of the new Minister of

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
Labour to hold that office, but also as to the rightness of the policy that has been followed by this government.
First, I want to refer to the Kirkland Lake strike. It was referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. In that strike the miners used every avenue provided by law and usage to get a conference with the employers, but they failed.
I have before me the report of the conciliation board which heard the dispute between the miners and their employers. This is a unanimous report, signed by the chairman, Mr. Justice C. P. McTague, Mr. F. Wilkinson, the member for the employers, and Mr. J. L. Cohen, the member for the employees. This board had experience; it had tried previous cases; and in making its report on the Kirkland Lake dispute it quoted some paragraphs from a report which was made by the same persons sitting as a board in another dispute and which appeared in the Labour Gazette of February, 1941, from which I shall read briefly:
As industry has grown and developed, the right of work people to organize into collective associations or trade unions, and through such organizations to bargain collectively with their employers as to the terms and conditions of their employment, has been increasingly emphasized. It is a right asknowledged by law, by industrial practice, and by public policy. It has been verified by many important public pronouncements.
That is what the miners were asking. Then the report goes on:
The abstract rights which it is now conceded belong to labour, can only be said to exist in a concrete sense if collective bargaining is practised and collective agreements are concluded.
Then they point out that the employers in the present dispute based their refusal to negotiate with the miners' organization on the fact that its headquarters are in the United States. On that point the board has this to say:
It is our view that this is an erroneous and illogical approach to the matter. There is no law that we know of that prevents any group of workers from joining an international union and constituting it as bargaining agent. In fact it seems to have been recognized policy for a great number of years to encourage the activities of international unions in Canada. Otherwise it is hard to explain section 2 of the Immigration Act-
I need not give the reference.
-in force as far back as 1921, placing accredited representatives of international unions entering Canada for the temporary exercise of their calling within the class of persons entitled to entry without restriction.
Then the board continues:
The problem, if there is a problem, would seem not to consist in discrimination against
particular international unions but rather in making sure that international unions, national unions and employers as well, conform to the laws of this country while carrying on their activities here. In this particular matter the board was denied, on account of the course followed by the mine operators, any opportunity to conciliate the differences betwen the parties at all. At a comparatively early stage in the proceedings counsel for the mine operators informed the board that his clients were unalterably opposed to recognizing the union and wished to withdraw from any further participation in the proceedings. Manifestly, the use of such technique makes completely futile the appointment of conciliation boards to deal with questions of recognition.
I have been telling the Minister of Labour and this house that the question of union recognition should not be a matter for conciliation boards. I find now that this board agrees with me. I quote:
As a matter of fact, it is more than doubtful that the question of union recognition falls within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act at all. The employment of such a technique, together with a doubt as to jurisdiction under the act, would seem to leave the broad question of collective bargaining to be dealt with by parliament or cabinet council rather than by the old process of conciliation boards under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
This government never hesitates to use an order in council when it wants to do something, but it would not use an order in council to compel those employers to bargain collectively with their employees, according to the principles laid down by the government.
Now, just for a moment, I am going to show the position of the present Minister of Labour with regard to this dispute. On Friday, January 16, there was a meeting of the war labour board, and Mr. Mitchell proposed that this board act as arbitrator in the Kirkland Lake dispute. This proposal was immediately sent to the miners, and it was supposed that it was also sent to the mine operators. The miners dealt with the matter on January 18, and informed the minister that they had accepted the proposal. Nothing being heard from the employers after several days, inquiry was made as to what they intended to do. The first reply was that they had not received any proposal at all. Some time later Mr. Mitchell sent another letter to the miners outlining a proposal altogether different from the one he had submitted formerly, the one they had accepted. I should like to read to the house a few words from a letter written by Mr. Mosher, president of the Canadian Congress of Labour, with which the Kirkland Lake miners are affiliated, just to show exactly what Mr. Mosher thinks of the Minister of Labour, and I think Mr. Mosher is right:
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

I acknowledge receipt of a copy of your letter of January 21, to Mr. William Simpson, president of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, local No. 240, Kirkland Lake, and I should like to point out, as I did in my conversation with you yesterday, that I regard the contents of that letter as embodying a proposal which is at variance with that which you requested me to submit to the miners, and which I informed you subsequently had been accepted by them.
Then Mr. Mosher says:
It seems to me that, in the circumstances, I should have been consulted with regard to any change in the original proposal which might be contemplated by you, and that your action in submitting a new proposal direct to the miners was most objectionable from the standpoint of both courtesy and ethics.
It is important that there should be no misunderstanding on the part of the miners or the public in this connection, and I must, in fairness to myself, make the facts known to all concerned.
That is signed by Mr. A. R. Mosher under date of January 24.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I take up another case, affecting another union. The C.I.O., or the unions affiliated with it, may be just as bad as Premier Hepburn says they are; but from what has been said about Premier Hepburn in this house during the last few days by his "friends", perhaps Premier Hepburn's word is not worth much, or is worth just as much as his morals, and that is not very much. The union concerned is an American Federation of Labour affiliate. The facts, however, show the same ignoring of organized labour and the same kowtowing to employers' interests, regardless of whether the head of the Department of Labour is a lawyer, financier or an ex-trade unionist.
In the summer of 1941 the boilermakers and plumbers and steamfitters employed by Morton shipyards in Quebec made application for a board. The board sat and heard both sides in the dispute; but before it had finished its deliberations, the then Minister of Labour, who is now Secretary of State had set up a royal commission to investigate all shipbuilding industries in Ontario and Quebec. Despite the fact that a national labour supply council had been created by the government, and was supposed to be consulted in matters of this kind, the appointment of the royal commission was not referred to it. Three lawyers were appointed to act as commissioners.
Lawyers may be the best sort of people to act on commissions of this kind, but I do not see how lawyers would know so very much about shipbuilding, and the wages of shipyard workers. I do not believe they have much experience in that kind of work. The fact remains, however, that the commission was composed of lawyers.
fMr. Maclnnis.]
The Minister of Labour, Mr. Mitchell, invited Mr. W. J. Coyle representing the boilermakers, and Mr. J. W. Bruce, representing the plumbers and steamfitters working for the Morton yards to come to his office to discuss wages in the Morton shipyards. At that interview wages and bonuses were agreed upon which were acceptable to labour representatives, the Department of Labour and the Department of Munitions and Supply. That is stated in a letter forwarded to Mr. Bruce by Bryce Stewart, Deputy Minister of Labour. The letter is dated December 23, and in it Mr. Stewart suggested that the proposals were made without prejudice to any reference to the national war labour board, in the event of any dissatisfaction. They agreed to vary the findings of the arbitration board, and there was agreement to accept a lower scale- five cents an hour less than the board's award. The representatives, Mr. Bruce and Mr. Coyle, put the proposals before the employees of the Morton shipyards and induced them to accept.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member's time has expired. Unless there is unanimous consent he cannot continue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.
Mr. MaeINNIS:	I shall try to be as brief
as possible, and I thank hon. members for permitting me to finish.
Under date of a communication dated December 29, 1941, Mr. Bruce advised the Minister of Labour that the workers concerned had accepted the proposals of the department. Then there is another telegram dated December 31 from the Minister of Labour thanking Mr. Bruce for his wire. In the meantime it appears that there had been consultation with the employers, and that the employers did not like the agreement made by the labour department. The next thing Mr. Bruce and Mr. Coyle learned about the matter was the passing of an order in council on January 26, while the house was in session, repudiating completely the agreement already agreed to by the Minister of Labour, and attaching a new scale of wages and bonuses to the order. Not only that, but the order in council placed the setting of wages in the hands of the Minister of Labour, without reserve.
Order in council P.C. 269, dated January 26, 1942, contains this paragraph:
2. The Minister of Labour is hereby authorized to adjust the basic wage rates for other classifications of employees of the aforesaid shipyards in such relationship to the basic wage rates specified for mechanics and in such amounts as in his opinion, having regard to all the circumstances, are fair and reasonable.

The Address

Mr. Claxton
Mr. Bruce then replied in a telegram dated January 29, 1942. I draw the attention of hon. members to the similarity of this wire to the letter from Mr. Mosher which I placed on record. The wire is addressed to the Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, Minister of Labour at Ottawa, and is in these words:
On December 22 you requested vice-president Coyle and myself to come to Ottawa to discuss report of the board of conciliation in the Morton shipyards. After considerable discussion with Deputy Minister Stewart and director of industrial relations Crawford it was agreed, and a proposition submitted to us in writing on December 23, that was to be submitted to the men with rates of wages based on reports of the royal commission on shipyards and other provisions of the report of the board of conciliation would be accepted acting on your suggestion and as a war measure this proposition was submitted to the men with our endorsement and adopted and notification was conveyed to you by telegram from myself under date of December 29. I was considerably surprised to-day to receive word that Morton company had posted notices repudiating our agreement vice-president Coyle informs me that Deputy Minister Stewart has informed him that the department had repudiated the conditions we agreed upon. If this is so without any recognition of our rights or consultation with us is an outrageous and unwarranted violation of our agreement and a breach of faith by a department of government and will warrant the disapproval of the workers throughout the whole dominion and bring the government into disrespect for repudiating a written agreement thereby placing myself and Coyle in a very unsatisfactory position as the men accepted our endorsation in good faith. We would appreciate some explanation of the situation.
No explanation was given. Is the Prime Minister going to stand for that sort of thing in the Department of Labour? Does he agree with that kind of double-crossing by his ministers? If he does not, then he had better clean house in the Department of Labour.
As matters stand to-day, wages are regulated by order in council. The government which in 1940 put itself on record as favouring collective bargaining has virtually abolished collective bargaining. Order in council P.C. 8253 abolished the previous order in council P.C. 7440, which recognized collective bargaining. Under order in council P.C. 8253 a national war labour board was set up, with an elaborate system of regional boards. Before this system had properly begun to function, the government abolished-in this case at any rate-the manner of appeal for which they had made provision.
This is a matter that calls for the condemnation of every member of this house. Unless we are able to deal with the small matters at home, we should stop trying to bring a better world into being, because we cannot do it.
He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much; and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.


Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) absolved all lawyers from any special knowledge of labour problems, and I shall take that as my excuse for not following him in the remarks I am going to make. I should like, however, to refer to another lawyer who addressed this house yesterday, making a magnificent speech that appealed to hon. members in all parts of the house as well as to thousands and thousands of Canadians in every province oi Canada. It is exceedingly difficult to follow him with any speech this afternoon. In showing his love of Canada the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) took us right back to the beginning of this debate, which was opened by two hon. members who also showed a similar love of our country.
I am glad to add my quota of congratulations to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) upon opening this debate. They are two of the most popular and respected members of the house, and their speeches were worthy of them. One is of French descent from my own province of Quebec; the other is of Scotch descent from the province of Ontario, but they both spoke only as Canadians. In love of their country, in devotion to its service, in appreciation of its problems they are second to none in this house. They are representative of the great body of Canadians who stand between the two extremes referred to yesterday by the Minister of Finance. One extreme may be said to be represented by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), and the other by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe). The one appears to want conscription for overseas service no matter what it costs; the other appears to want no conscription for overseas service no matter what it costs. There is no hope for the unity or for the future or safety of Canada in either of them.
In what I have to say I hope to follow the hon. member for Hull and the hon. member for Brantford City and speak as a Canadian calling to all of Canada. I must do that because the constituency I represent is made up of people of every race and every station in life. It may be expected that the census of last year will show that Canada is less Anglo-Saxon than the United States. Every day in the week I am reminded that thirty per cent of the population are of French origin and twenty per cent are of neither French nor British origin. I am reminded that the one bond we have in common is our attachment to Canada, that we can make that
The Address-Mr. Claxton

bond as strong and no stronger than we preserve our unity and show our love for our country.
This debate is taking place at the most crucial time in the history of the world and of our country. It is in the minds of everyone that we should do our utmost to see that our country puts forth its greatest effort at this time, so that in cooperation with our allies we may defeat Hitler and Japan as soon as possible and gain the opportunity to work for a better world. I would have thought that this discussion would fall under three heads, that we would have discussed what we have done, what more we can do and how best we can do it. But there has been little criticism from any opposition group as to what we have done, and there has been even less suggestion as to what we should do. The Conservative opposition in the house and the mixed opposition outside the house have concentrated their attention upon how we should do one particular thing in our war effort, namely, the method of raising men for overseas service. They say that we should have conscription now. Why now? Because, they say, voluntary recruiting has failed. Because they want conscription now, they do not want a plebiscite. I shall have something more to say about the position taken by the opposition groups, but I should like to start my contribution to this debate at the right end and refer to what we have done and what we propose to do. '
What have we done? One would think that at this time there would be no need to refer to what we have done, that it would no longer be necessary to tell the Canadian people of the effort that has been put forth by our country. However, the campaign of unlimited detraction that has been carried on makes it necessary that we should go over this again and again so that there may be no misunderstanding on the part of the public about it.
Canada with a population of eleven and a half million people probably has a higher man-power overhead than any other country in the world. By man-power overhead I mean that we have proportionately more people engaged in transportation and other essential services necessary to keep the country going. With our population we have to carry on the services of a country equal in area to the United States but with only one-eleventh of its population. Despite that, to-day Canada's fighting forces total over
400,000	men who have enlisted voluntarily for service anywhere in the world. We have four divisions in England, with over 100,000 in the army alone. We are told that in equip-
ment, training, physique and morale they will stand comparison with any other armed force in any part of the world. They stand at the place of honour in Great Britain to-day.
We are more than glad to welcome back to our shores this week their gallant commander Lieutenant-General A. G. L. McNaughton, and to congratulate him upon his recovery from an illness due entirely to overwork in our cause. In his message to the troops under his command on the second anniversary of the arrival in December, 1939, of the leading elements of the first division, General McNaughton said:
It now is two years since leading elements of the Canadian army arrived in this country. The equipment and training of these formations was completed and since then a steadily increas-ing_ force_has been held ready for any service which might be required; meanwhile other forces have been organized by Canada and dispatched to the far east and to our own western shore, now menaced by a new foe.
So far it has been our principal duty to stand guard in these islands. We recognize the need for this decision for, with the enemy's hordes within a few short miles of this vital centre of civilization, the reason is evident to all.
Nevertheless, through long months on watch and in repeated routine training there have been many disappointments at action deferred and great patience has been required. It has been given without complaint and I count it a privilege and a satisfaction to be able to say so and to thank all ranks for the steady purpose and acceptance or conditions which they have shown.
On behalf of all our force I thank the people of Britain also for their continued hospitality and friendliness, which have done so much to ease our path.
From a very small beginning the Canadian army has now grown to many tens of thousands of men and women. New units and formations and reserves have come to us as quickly as ships could be found to bring them here, and as they have arrived the organization of our military headquarters, reinforcement units, hospitals, schools, repair establishments and many other needed facilities have been pressed forward; meanwhile our engineer and signal and forestry corps have made their contribution to the life and welfare of the community.
Throughout this long period of preparation which circumstances has given us, the corps, divisions, armoured formations and other field units have been completed in equipment and trained together and with squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force assigned to army cooperation. These tasks have been pursued with unrelaxed attention and the whole has been made ready for decisive employment when the opportunity comes to take full effect on the enemy.
That the future holds great difficulties and dangers and much hardship there is no doubt, but we go forward firm in our confidence in the ultimate result-the triumph of justice and right over the dark forces of evil which oppose us.

The Address-Mr. Claxton
I think, Mr. Speaker, the house should have that message, and I count it a privilege to be allowed to read it to the house and put it on Hansard because, when in the last war General McNaughton was placed in command of the Canadian Corps heavy artillery, I was serving in one of the batthries under his command as a non-commissioned officer. The hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Cassel-man), the Conservative whip, who was in the same unit with me will remember that General McNaughton was a fighting general. He was appointed a general at the age of thirty-one. He gained distinction as no other man on the western front did for work as an artillery officer. I am glad now, not only to welcome him back to Canada and to put before the house his fine message, but also to wish him and the forces he commands all possible success in whatever lies ahead.
I was speaking of our army in Britain. In addition to the men outside Canada, we have on the strength in Canada certainly over
150.000	men in the army alone, enlisted for voluntary service anywhere in the world; and including the air force and the navy we must have in Canada alone well over a quarter of a million men enlisted for service anywhere in the world. In the navy we have 28,000 sailors in 350 ships helping to keep the seas open. The air force has over 100,000 men in more than 100 establishments, producing thousands of air fighters a month to keep the planes in action in the air over the enemy. The air training plan has cost us more than the Canadian Pacific railway. It is a major factor in the war and a magnificent achievement.
Few people in this house and few people in Canada realize that in eight months we have increased our armed forces, voluntarily enlisted for service anywhere, by more than sixty-six per cent. Men have enlisted in that period for all the services at an average of
20.000	a month, and that, it may be noted, is more than the average for the whole war, so the last eight months are better than the previous period. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) announced in the house last week that January showed recruits for the army alone of 11,000 men, which I think would make January one of the very best recruiting months since the outbreak of the war.
There is no shortage of recruits for the navy. There is no shortage of recruits for the air force. Canadian boys do not lack courage, and they want action. For this and other reasons recruiting for the army did not compare as well during some months at various periods; but during the last few months, with
the dastardly attack of Japan on Pearl Harbour and the possibility of action, recruiting has picked up, and I would not be surprised to learn that January will be among the best months since the outbreak of the war.
Men have been discharged at the rate of about 1,500 a month. But that wastage has been more than made up. Reinforcements have been built up in England and in Canada. The fact that we have only about 15,000 men called up for service in Canada for the duration of the. war indicates that we are getting all the volunteers that we can equip and train at the present time.
I have spent a moment or two on the subject of our accomplishments with regard to the armed services. Think of what has been done in agriculture. Despite the loss of probably 150,000 farmers and farm labourers to the armed forces and to munitions work, the farmers of Canada have produced three-quarters of a billion pounds of bacon, two hundred million pounds of cheese and immense quantities of other foods for Britain. We have sent all the food that ships can be found to carry.
In thousands of factories, over six hundred thousand workers are producing planes and guns and shells and tanks, practically the whole equipment of an infantry division every six weeks. We are equipping our own forces and also equipping five times as many more.
Of course there are occasional shortages. Everybody has had the experience of going to a departmental store and finding -that they are out of something. Our guns and planes and equipment are sent to the -places where they will do the most good. A shortage in a training camp in Canada may -be caused- by equipment having been sent closer to -the firing line, where it should be sent. I remember in the last war, after four months of service in Canada, we had not seen a firing -weapon of any kind, and we were four months in service in England before we saw a modern gun. To-day we are sending munitions to every corner of the world.
The changed character of the war is shown most dramatically in motor vehicles. In the last war w-e had 153 motor vehicles for a division compared with 2,500 in this war, and those 2,500 develop a horse-power of 400,000, equivalent to that used in the city of Toronto. The difference -between this war and the last is also shown by the fact that for every fighting man we need a motor vehicle and a firepower weapon bigger than the rifle. It is a totally different war, and it is high time that all of us realized this.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The Address-Mr. Claxton

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Brooke Claxton: When the house rose at six o'clock I was speaking of our war effort and giving some figures. In addition to what I have indicated, we are shipping to Britain all the munitions and food that ships can be found to carry, and we are building the ships too. We are building this year one million tons of cargo ships, about as much as Britain will build herself. We are raising enough money in taxes to meet our own war costs, and this year we are borrowing from the Canadian people a billion and a half dollars to meet ordinary costs of government and the expense of what we are sending to Britain.
This year we are sending to Britain, without receiving payment except by way of a book entry, twice as much as we ever sold to her in any year before; and in proportion to national income or population the tax burden on the Canadian people is comparable with that in Britain to-day.
Mr. Churchill said not long ago that in the twenty-sixth month of the war Britain was employing her resources to a degree that was comparable with what she had accomplished in the forty-ninth month of the last war. In Canada, because our effort is relatively so much greater than it was in the last war, in the twenty-sixth month we are spending at a rate which is nearly ten times as great as it was in the forty-ninth month of the last war, in terms of the same money. This year we are spending on the war nearly twice as much as we spent in the entire period from 1914 to 1918, and we are getting more value for our money because the government had the foresight and courage to take steps to stop inflation and prevent profiteering by more drastic measures than had ever been taken before in any democracy.
There have been no disorders m Canada, no sabotage, no panics, no shortages, no scandals and no irretrievable mistakes. Canadian industry, Canadian labour and Canadian organizing skill have been equal to every challenge. It has been an orderly, steady march even though it has had no brass band. We have every reason to be proud of our achievement; we would have every reason to be dissatisfied if it stopped there.
So I come to the second head, namely, what it is proposed to do to-day, what policy or plan the government has laid out for the future. This was indicated in the speech from the throne and in the Prime Minister's speech. We are to have a Canadian army of two corps, one of three infantry divisions and two tank brigades, while the other corps will

consist of two armoured divisions. The army will be a force of terrific hitting power.
Now, has there been any criticism of this plan in this house? Has there been any other suggestion put forward by the opposition? I have not heard any. They have said that we should have a much larger force-much bigger. How much bigger? We all know the "For God's sake do something" school of criticism, the people who say that we must do more, without saying how it is to be done or indicating what the inevitable limits of anyone's efforts are. They do not say how we can equip and train and reinforce a force in England bigger than an army and, in addition, maintain the air force with recruits at the rate of tens of thousands a year, and a navy and land forces to defend Canada, and supply munitions and food in ever-increasing quantities.
These critics do not strike a balance and say what is possible and what is not possible. They just say they want more, and more, and more. When this kind of pressure is put on, there is danger that we may be stampeded into biting off more than we can chew, stampeded into getting the war effort out of balance, so that we have an army when we have not the men to make the munitions to outfit that army.
The cry for conscription now is based on the assertion that we are not getting sufficient recruits by voluntary methods. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), in his speech, said that he was basing his plea on recruiting statistics, but if you look through his speech you do not see a single sign of anything in the way of recruiting statistics. There is not one there. If the facts and figures given us in the house by the Minister of National Defence (Mr, Ralston), are true, we do not need conscription to-day because of any shortage of recruits, for the reason that we are getting them in sufficient numbers.
The leader of the opposition quoted speeches made by recruiting officers, and those speeches indicate that recruiting is going on. They do not indicate that recruiting has failed. In recruiting speeches would you expect the recruiting officers to say that they do not need men? They are asking for recruits because they need them, and recruits have been coming forward in adequate numbers. In support of his argument the leader of the opposition cited a comment which Lincoln is reported to have made-and "reported" should be put in quotation marks, because that was the language of the leader of the opposition, which will be found at page 25 of Hansard. I ask the leader of the opposi-

The Address-Mr. Claxton
tion where that reference came from. It begins:
Voluntarism is the unprincipled dodge of cowardly politicians.
This language has been used in a number of newspapers, the first reference to it having been found in the Canadian Airman; and when we tried to track it down we found that the man who had written the article had lost his notes. I have in my hand a letter from the library of congress indicating that the most careful search has been made of Lincoln's speeches, correspondence and books, and there is no reference to any such statement in anything that Lincoln ever said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not detract from the logic of the statement just the same.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Synthetic logic.


Brooke Claxton: Let me, however, quote
words that Lincoln did use in 1863. He said:
It is the people who in the end must decide.
The question of how Canadians are to deal with this matter is one for Canadians; and references, whether accurate or inaccurate, to what Lincoln said or may not have said in 1863 have not much significance for us to-day. We have to tackle this question as a Canadian question, and that is the way we are doing it.
The problem of conscription has hung like a cloud over Canada for twenty-five years, and the government is making an effort to remove the shadow of that cloud from Canada, to remove the method of raising men for overseas service from the emotional entanglements in which it has become involved. To accomplish this, the government proposes to ask the people in a plebiscite one question:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
It is said and said rightly that the mandate given to the government in the election of 1940 was a mandate to carry on the war. But that mandate was subject to the limitation, to the restriction made expressly by every leader of every party, that there would be no conscription for overseas service. The object of the plebiscite is to remove the limitation and restore responsible government. If the answer to the plebiscite is "yes", the question of the best method of recruiting our soldiers for service anywhere may be placed before parliament, free from any shackles should the question arise.
It is asserted that in resorting to a plebiscite
the government is denying responsible government. The government say that the place to decide the question how to raise man-power is in parliament. It is not evading responsibility, but is asking for more responsibility.
The hon. member for Vancouver East said the question should be put in the form: Are you in favour of conscription? But that would be an abnegation of responsible government. Here we are seeking to be released from the pledge; nothing more.
The most extraordinary line of argument taken by the opposition and others outside the house is that we should not have given these pledges.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Brooke Claxton: I hear someone say
"Hear, hear." I ask hon. members to go back to the outbreak of the war. We have already heard references to that and to what happened then, made by the Prime Minister and others in their speeches. I ask hon. members to go on a step to the Quebec election of October, 1939. I ask them to put themselves in the position they were in then when Mr. Duplessis called an election for the purpose of testing whether or not the province of Quebec would cooperate fully in the war; I ask them to think with what relief they heard that the late Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Cardin) and the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) were going to Quebec to fight out there the issue whether or not Quebec would fully cooperate in the war. Was there a word of protest heard throughout the land when Mr. Lapointe gave pledges and repeated the pledges already given? Was any person or any newspaper heard to say that he was wrong? And that was the same Lapointe who in a speech that I heard myself at the Montreal Forum on October 21, 1939, speaking to an audience that was almost entirely French-speaking, said:
In this campaign I am defending Canada, I am defending the future of our country, I am defending the future of my children and yours.
Je eherche i defendre, a maintenir, k soutenir, l'oeuvre de Cartier et de Macdonald.
And switching into English he said1:
I am trying to defend, to maintain, to uphold the work of Cartier and Macdonald. We want to preserve their -work. We want to make this a great nation inhabited by a united people.
The crowd rose as one man. The election was won; every man in Canada was glad. I hold in my hand clippings from newspapers from end to end of Canada; every one of them was more than relieved. The Ottawa Journal said:
Let us accept it as a great healing, a healing of prejudices wherever they may live.
The Address-Mr. Claxton

Not a word that Lapointe was wrong. The Winnipeg Tribune began its editorial with "0 Canada" in French and English, and it said:
Mr. Lapointe is the man of the hour. . . . If he were to die to-morrow he would be ranked, along with Laurier, among the greatest of Canadians.
The greatest monument to his memory is the contribution he made to Canada's unity and to Canada's cause in the last two years of his life. Are we now going back on that word? Are we going back on the series of most solemn promises ever given to any electorate? Some people say we should, that our word should be broken. In another place it was said:
Their pledge is no more important than others that have been given in the past in election time and thrown into the scrap basket immediately after.
Can we break faith? How can the electors of Canada believe anything said by these people who now urge that such a solemn pledge should be broken? They do not trust the people, and the people will not trust them.
Conscription is no ordinary question. It is difficult to explain it to English-speaking Canadians from outside Quebec. It is no ordinary question; there is no other question in Canadian life that has been anything like this in the history of Canada. And the reasons are very difficult to explain; they go back three hundred years. For three hundred years the citizens of Quebec have been isolated; they have had to fight for their survival; they have had to fight their environment, and at times the fight has been bitter, made bitter often by the people they had to fight to preserve their integrity. They are a different race. It is exceedingly difficult to explain how they feel about a question like this, particularly to a Conservative opposition that has not a single French-Canadian member in it. I could go back to 1917; I could go in detail through the terrible history of those years-


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I would not suggest that.


Brooke Claxton: -if it were not for the fact that then I would be accused1 of raising passions and prejudice.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: What else would you be doing?


Brooke Claxton: I would be disclosing what happened.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the things you have kept alive ever since.


Brooke Claxton: What are they trying to do? They are trying to get us to break our pledges in the same way they broke their pledges in 1917. If the government broke its pledges now, who would believe a politician again? Who would believe a political leader again? People have faith in their leaders if their leaders keep faith with them.


John Ritchie MacNicol: "Politician" is right.


Brooke Claxton: It looks sometimes as if Hitler and some extremists in Canada want to save us from the horrors of self-government. They talk about the delay in recruiting. Recruiting is going on; I do not believe the people know what the figures are. I have said something about that. But if there were conscription to-day, how many more men would be taken into the armed forces? The Minister of National Defence may answer that, but I would be surprised if there would be any more. They talk about the expense. We are spending three billions to defend democracy; surely it is worth spending a few cents per capita to maintain democracy, and the basis of democracy is faith in the integrity of public men.
The hon. member for Parkdale asked: "Are we going to abandon them now?" Colonel Cockeram, a former member of this house, said: "We are telling our men overseas that they need not expect reinforcements, that they are left to fight the battle alone." Where do you find that? How can you possibly read that from the fact that we are holding a plebiscite? Those statements condemn themselves. The strain, this emotional tension that has been built up in Canada, has not been created by Hitler or by any crisis of the war; it has been created in Canada by Canadians, and it has been created for the purpose of upsetting public confidence in this government.
We are going to have this plebiscite, and the question is what we are going to do about it. If we want to get on with the war, then I suggest that we should vote "yes". I am very glad indeed to see that the vice-president of the Canadian Legion in Montreal, Colonel Nicholson, a friend of mine, in a speech yesterday urged that everyone should vote "yes".


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did he approve of the plebiscite?


Brooke Claxton: He said nothing about that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He has already said he does not approve of it.


Brooke Claxton: He said to vote "yes"; he is not reported yesterday as saying anything about the plebiscite itself. I will ask my

The Address-Mr. Claxton
electors, and I urge the people of Quebec to vote "yes". They have reason to know, from what I said in this house last year, that I am sympathetic to them and that I am trying to understand and to explain them to our fellow Canadians in other parts. I do so for reasons I set forth in a letter to Le Devoir, part of which I should like to read:
We are in this war, not as a satellite, but as a principal. We are fighting this war not because some other country is in danger but because Canada is in danger and because the welfare of Canada is bound up with the defeat of Hitler. Wherever there is a front against Hitler or Japan, there we are defending Canada, as surely as we would be on the ramparts at Quebec.
This is why Canadians of all races and creeds and ages want Canada to do her utmost in the war for Canada and for humanity. Differences of language, differences of background and outlook, make it difficult for all Canadians to feel alike and to act as one. But to-day we are all challenged. Everything Canada has stood for through three centuries is at the hazard.
If there ever was an occasion when all Canadians can have the same feeling and act together it is in our desire to defeat nazism. We may differ on the means. There can be no room for uncertainty that we are united as to the end.
Quebec is a vital part of Canada. Quebec's history and distinctive character make what it says and does in the war of supreme interest to the world. For three hundred years people who speak the French tongue have kept their integrity in a fight against their environment. At times the fight has been bitter. The lingering recollection of that bitterness must not be allowed to blind any Canadian as to where their interest is to-day. It is of vital importance to all of us that there should be no misunderstanding anywhere in our fundamental attitude in the array of civilized feeling against Hitler.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I may ask the hon. member a question, has Le Devoir replied to that letter?


Brooke Claxton: As far as I am aware, the only comment by Le Devoir was made in a footnote to the letter, which I should be glad to show my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose the hon. gentleman knows that Le Devoir says, "No; never."


Brooke Claxton: It was because I knew their attitude that I wrote what I did.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my time has gone.


Georges Parent: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carry on.


Brooke Claxton: If I had not devoted so much time to this question, perhaps I might have dealt more usefully with some other aspects of the war. I should like to have said something about man-power and the means of organizing it; about the difficulties yet the
necessity for making the utmost use of our resources, and of ways in which we might do that. If I had time, I should like to have said something about the better mobilization of parliament itself, following along the line of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). I think there is a good deal in their suggestion that we can do far more useful work if we get down to business in committee, and that we do creative work in committees of parliament. I should like also to have suggested that we might do something more in connection with the organization of debate. The Minister of Finance will remember the debate last year on the war appropriation bill, on which we spent twenty-eight days. During that time there were usually nine or ten cabinet ministers present, among them always the Minister of Finance. I think something more should be done in the way of organizing debates in order to prevent a recurrence of the free-for-all which took place on that occasion. It may interest hon. members to know that in the course of those twenty-eight days the leader of the opposition had no less than 954 separate innings.
I should like to remind the house to-day, Mr. Speaker, that this year is the seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation. Seventy-five years ago to-day the delegation representing the two provinces of Canada and the two colonies were in London working out the draft of the bill which was to be presented in the House of Lords on February 12, 1867. This year we celebrate the seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation. It is a challenge to us, a challenge to meet the emergencies, the urgencies of this terrible time with the same courage, the same foresight that the fathers of confederation displayed back in those early days.
Ours is a great country. Good people came before us, all from across the seas. They discovered, cleared and settled the land, harnessed nature, brought the colonies together, built railways and industries. Nothing stumped them; but before this war we were not responding so well to Canada's challenge. We were putting our problems on the shelf. Now and then we took them down, dusted them off before a royal commission, and put them back on the shelf again. We were zealous in finding reasons why things should not be done. Every time we failed to deal with a problem we lost faith in ourselves. Some of us became frightened of freedom and disliked new ideas because they were new. We need now a new birth of the democratic faith; belief in the people; belief in each other; faith in our own ability to hoist ourselves by our own

The Address-Mr. Claxlon
boot-straps, if we have to do it. "A vital democracy is a community of people working out its own salvation." We must change frustration into creative, buoyant enthusiasm, and give Canadians everywhere the joy of achievement again.
Concluding a speech made in the debates in the first session of the first parliament in Canada, in 1867, the Hon. D'Arcy McGee made certain remarks which I am now pleased to repeat because the constituency he then represented, namely that of Montreal West, was the seat which is now divided between the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Abbott) and myself. His words on that occasion might be applied to-day to that class of people described by the Minister of Finance as "smearing Canada". These were his words:
The policy of self-abasement I cannot see in the light of policy at all. I trust this first parliament of the dominion will stamp its reprobation upon every mention of such a policy, and that while avoiding all bravado on the one hand, as unbecoming men in our position, we will in this place endeavour to elevate, and not to depress, the public spirit of the country. Mr. Howe said the other night he would not take back anything he had said as to the extent of these provinces. He leaves us. unabridged, our square miles, and I trust also that he will leave us unshaken, what is more essential the faith of our people in their own future, the faith of every man, of every Canadian in Canada, and of every province in its sister province. This faith wrongs no one, burthens no one, menaces no one, dishonours no one. As it was said of old, faith moves mountains, so I venture reverently to express my own belief that the pure, patriotic faith of a united people will be all-sufficient to overcome and triumph over all difficulties that lie ahead.
The fathers of confederation left us a legacy of courage. They moved the frontiers back. The only new frontier now is what lies ahead. We are fighting for the chance to make the future not Hitler's, but our own. We are united with our allies in our determination to save humanity and set it on the forward march again.


Mr. H. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, speaking in support of the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), which states that this house regrets that his excellency's advisers "have sought to evade their responsibilities by holding a plebiscite, which, in the view of this house, is the negation of responsible government," I wish first to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address, my very good friends the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald). They, like myself, had an unrivalled opportunity last November 
to see Great Britain at war. They have seen the peril which that nation is facing, and they have seen the sacrifices which every British man, woman and child is called upon to make. They have come to a visual realization that the defence of Canada lies on the coast of Dover. While I might not agree with the action which they would immediately take to face the common danger of nazi domination, nevertheless I compliment them upon the able manner in which they expressed their point of view.
The main aspects of the unshackling measure, called a plebiscite, mentioned in the speech from the throne, are, as I see them, two in number. First, will conscription for military service overseas become necessary and, second, how is it best brought about? As to the latter aspect, I can only say at this time that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had, under constitutional practice, no right to bind the hands of parliament. What, under section 106 of the elections act, he could not do in writing, he has attempted to do orally. It is a breach of the spirit of the act, if not the letter. Under the greatly changed circumstances admitted by all, he is not even morally bound by any alleged pledge. On the other hand he is morally bound to provide leadership and security to the state.
I believe it is the duty of every representative to speak for his constituency. Lord Asquith said that a referendum would impair, if it did not destroy, the sense of parliamentary responsibility. To quote from him, he said:
It would really destroy the law of government by representation.
The armed services are only one form of contribution. As to the industrial side of our war effort, time will only allow me to say here that I believe in the mobilization of industry and resources, which is referred to by some as conscription of wealth, to the utmost extent necessary to the winning of the war. I believe our industrial effort is notable, but it is impossible that we should have increased civilian consumption as measured by retail sales 20 per cent in 1941 over 1940, and claim that we are having a full-out industrial war effort.
This government has not seen fit to put in the address anything in black and white which would suggest conscription for military service overseas. Even the microscope used by the Prime Minister when reading the Conservative amendment fails to disclose it. But since conscription for overseas is the only limitation placed on our war effort by a so-called party pledge, and the Liberal government wishes to be relieved of that pledge,

The Address

Mr. Jackman
the purpose of that release must be in order that compulsory military service for overseas will be contemplated, should the need arise.
This government desires to be released from any obligations arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service. Their request is for a blank cheque, when in the opinion of many, none is needed. Nevertheless I am alarmed by the preamble to the speech from the throne, which states:
My advisers believe that the magnitude and balanced nature of Canada's war effort is being obscured and impaired by controversy concerning commitments with respect to the methods of raising men for military service which were made prior to the spread of the war to all parts of the world.
Surely the Prime Minister is not asking to be relieved of the so-called pledge in order only to remove the cause of controversy. If the government would place on the statute books a measure for compulsory service wherever it believes the defence of Canada lies, it [DOT]would do much to remove the feeling of national dishonour. Examination of the requirements of total war might then be made, if it has not already been made, to determine where our man-power can most effectively be used.
What are the present military proposals of this government? According to the administration's figures there are now more than
260.000	men enlisted in the army for overseas service anywhere. Of these, 120,000 are already defending Canada outside Canada. The Prime Minister has laid down the programme for the army overseas, for the year ending March 31, 1943, which will require the services of 200,000 men. This figure includes reserves and reinforcements. If there are any casualties, the figures may have to be increased. But is this programme a really full-out contribution by Canada even allowing for the greatly increased contribution through our navy and air force, now amounting together to more than 130,000 men? March 31, 1943, will have seen us in this war for a period of three and one half years. In the last great war, what was the contribution of Canada in man-power after three and one half years? By the end of 1917 Canada had serving overseas 258,893 men, and the Royal Air Force was noted for the numbers and quality of its Canadian pilots. In addition, casualties who did not see service again, probably' amounted to another
100.000	men. These comparative figures would of themselves be startling enough; but when one recalls that the population of Canada has grown in the interval between the two wars by no less than 43-6 per cent,
or from 7,879,000 to 11,315,000, it looks as though the scales were out of balance. The size of this proposed army overseas requires a most careful examination by a committee of the house aided by military experts.
What answer is there to the contention that the Prime Minister is playing politics, which he dignifies by the terms "national unity" and "not getting on with the war." Has he evaded the issue by wasting a month's time in debating whether we are to have a plebiscite, with another three or four months to find out the results. He has thrown the total-war supporters a sop, and now they need only trust in him to do the right thing. Other parts of the country are free to expect him to follow the opposite course. He has done something; he has held a plebiscite; surely that will keep them quiet for a few months longer while he thinks up other dodges to placate the people, while the nazi-Japanese hordes draw ever nearer to our Canadian shores. Is it to be the policy of the government -to keep down our military contribution overseas so that the need for conscription will not become clamant, because if the need for reinforcements becomes urgent and is unsatisfied, as in the last war, there can be only one answer? The Prime Minister knows it, as does the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), as well as every member of this house.
The Prime Minister has made some caustic and uncalled for remarks about the committee for total war, which committee has its headquarters in Toronto, a city truly great in spirit and in stature. Two incidents with respect to opinions held about this total-war movement have been highly amusing. A group of my fellow Conservative members, seeing a preponderance of Liberal names on the committee, felt that the movement was a sly and cunning Liberal trick to embarrass the Conservative party or to help the Liberal party in some way or another. Then to hear from the lips of the Prime Minister that it is a political move against his government is to reel with laughter between the pillar of suspicion and the post of cynicism. The truth is that there never was a committee more non-political, there never was a committee more Canadian, there never was a committee better apprised of Canada's danger, Canada's need and Canada's duty. The Prime Minister, in setting an example for the members of the house, referred with innuendo to the fact that the

The Address-Mr. Jackman

movement was highly financed. In looking over the names of those who instituted the movement, I find that most of the highly financial ones are personal friends of the Prime Minister.
I was amazed this afternoon, to hear the hon. member for Northumberland, Ont. (Mr. Fraser), saying things about the various members who signed that petition. I recall that one very good Liberal friend of mine from Toronto who signed the petition has no less than four sons serving in the forces, and yet men of that character have to be subjected to such things in this house.
In order that they might realize the true nature of Canada's peril and the fact that England, ten hours flying time away, is Canada's outer rampart, I wish every hon. member of this house could visit the beleaguered isle of Great Britain. Only to refresh our memories may I point out that in area Great Britain is no greater than a narrow strip of land running from Windsor to Montreal and contains 46,000,000 people. In this overcrowded little island country which _ is the workshop for those from whom she imports raw materials and foodstuffs, the members of the empire parliamentary association delegation, drawn from all parties in this house, as well as the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), and others who have recently visited that country, saw for themselves, in the brief time at their disposal, something of what a country once totally unprepared can do to meet total war.
Here may I pay a tribute to the United Kingdom branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association for having the foresight to give to the representatives of our various parties an opportunity of seeing how our only line of defence was being maintained. My special thanks are due to the secretariat of the association, Sir Howard d'Egville, Sir Drummond Shiels, Mr. Spencer-Hess, to Doctor Beau-chesne, and to our Prime Minister for wishing us godspeed.
Only viewing the situation with our own eyes could make us realize how near the forces of freedom came to defeat at the hands of Germany when France fell and the evacuation of Dunkirk by a miracle saved the lives of 300,000 British soldiers, including Canadians; with what intrepid bravery and valour the battle of Britain was won when the pilots of the Royal Air Force, single-handed, attacked whole enemy squadrons and beat them off; and how Britain must remain guarded by a great army, with our own Canadian troops holding one of the most important positions facing the enemy. One realized as

never before that if England fell, nothing, not a thing, stood between the shores of Canada and slaughter and worse by the nazis.
There on the coast of Dover we saw the enemy in occupied France, only twenty-four miles away, with his guns pointed on that city, and we saw where his shells had killed many of its defenceless citizens. Twenty-four miles is but a step in an age of modem transportation, and one wondered where and when on that coastline the enemy might land in the darkness of the night, or in the thickness of a fog. One trembled not alone for England, but for Canada; and when one saw the steel work defences in the sands with the barbed wire entanglements behind that, and the cement blocks staggered to prevent the landing of tanks, one said: Is this all that stands between Canada and the hun?
In Great Britain all hearts and all hands are directed against the nazi invader. Food, clothing and shelter are limited to the minimum human requirements, thus releasing all possible man-power. In agriculture, farmers cannot sow their lands to crops which are unsuitable, and labourers cannot leave the farms for the factory, if their services are required for food production. There the state has called upon every man and woman to serve wherever he or she is best fitted. Is Canada willing to do less in a common
struggle?
On June 18, 1917, as reported on page 2392 of Hansard, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, discussing the principle that the state has the right to call upon the service of every citizen in its own defence, and the particular application of that principle to the laws of Canada said.
That is the way I understand the existing law And in this the law of this land, is not singular, for such has been the law of civilized nations everywhere. It was the law of France when Canada was m possession of France, it was the law of England when Canada came into possession of England. In France that law remained unaltered until 1798 when compulsion was introduced for the first time; it remained the law of England until last year If ever there was a principle which was embedded in the very soil of Britain, it was that the king could demand no service of his people except for the protection of their land and the repelling of invasion. It is well known that the King of England could not for any other purpose claim the service of any of his subjects. The English people were always afraid of permanent armies; the English people again and again have fought against their kings, to vindicate the principle that large permanent armies be not established in Great Britain.
TturfVipr on. at Dage 2393, Sir Wilfrid Laurier
said;	,
I sav that he could not under the act as it is, send anybody across the ocean to serve m the war. He said the other day, and he has

The Address-Mr. Jackman
just repeated it, that the first line of our defence to-day is in Flanders and France. I claim against him that there never was any danger of invasion of Canada on the part of Germany. If I have taken the position I have hitherto taken it is not because I feared an invasion of Canada by Germany. Nobody could say consistently that at this time, or at any time within the three years of the war, Canada was for one instant in danger of invasion. If I have taken the position I have taken, if I have been, as I was and as I am, in favour of our participation in the war, it was not because I feared invasion but because I believed that the victory of Germany would mean for Canada, as for the rest of the world, envelopment in the black shroud of German hegemony with its insolence, cruelties, and barbarities.
Surely in essence Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that he was in favour of Canada's participation in the great war because of the disastrous effect a German victory would have on Canada, but he limited our participation overseas to the voluntary system, arid in support of that position he said:
I claim against him that there never was any danger of invasion of Canada on the part of Germany. If I have taken the position I have hitherto taken, it is not because I feared an invasion of Canada by Germany. Nobody could say consistently that at this time, or at any time within the three years of the war, Canada was for one instant in danger of invasion.
Would Sir Wilfrid Laurier or any thinking man or woman to-day say that Canada is not in fear of invasion, not only by Germany but by Japan? Those who were privileged to hear the great speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) know how imminent is that danger on the Pacific coast. I have endeavoured to show how imminent is that danger to our maritime provinces and to Quebec unless we help to hold the Japanese and the Germans at bay. It would be futile to wait until the enemy is on the shores of Canada if we can stop him across the Atlantic or across the Pacific. We must be realistic and destroy the enemy abroad before he destroys us. Canada is fortunate because our allies have fought and held the enemy on their own home lands, fortunate that the forces of righteousness have been saved from defeat by the forces of evil. The road ahead is long and hard. We are far from victory unless all the allied nations wage total war. We must not minimize our potentialities. Great Britain, with 46,000,000 people, has held the fort against Germany's 85,000,000, Italy's 45,000,000, together with the industrial production of France's 40,000,000 and Poland's 37,000,000, to say nothing of the industrial production of Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Holland.
How can we expect our friends to answer our cries for help if we refuse to put ourselves in a position to go to their help when needed?
Should the enemy attack us on Canadian soil, let us entitle ourselves to call on our friends, both in America and abroad, by first fighting the common enemy on their homelands. He who does not put out his neighbour's fire, his own house shall be consumed.
Are we still going to follow the policy of "divide and be conquered"? Belgium, Holland and Norway are all examples of countries that refused to throw in their lot with France and Great Britain until it was too late. At the very moment that Norway was being overrun by the nazis, the Norwegian foreign secretary was drafting a note of protest to Great Britain over some alleged technical violation of her neutrality.
May I appeal to my French-Canadian compatriots to realize that this is Canada's war as well as Britain's. I could not help being startled when my friend the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) stated, in describing his visit to Great Britain, that he came back with some impressions, the strongest of which was the love of king, flag and country shown by those people. Then he said: "They do not speak about aggression." It seemed incredible that anyone should have thought that this was a war of aggression on the part of Britain. I do not suggest that my hon. friend ever entertained such an idea, but it does give one a conception of the background held by some of our French-Canadian compatriots. There was an age, but certainly not in this century, when new lands of the world were subject to exploration and conquest, but that age has long since passed, and force as an instrument of national policy gave way to disarmament programmes until Germany made it otherwise.
One is always learning something new in parliament, and I was struck when the hon. member for Hull said in relation to the plebiscite:
r ^ .'IF1 supporting the policy of the government. I will say to the people of my province: "If you want national unity now, make this sacrifice " I do not know whether those who have spoken against the French-speaking people in Canada would make the same sacrifice.
I am sensitive to his feeling, but not to his logic.^ Possibly we fail to understand each other s backgrounds, but may I assure him that the people of British origin in this country have no desire but to live in peace and harmony and cooperation with their fellow French-Canadians, and have nothing but the sincerest wishes for their welfare.
We fail to understand why the element of sacrifice in conscription is peculiar to them. We would never ask them to do anything, to assume any obligation or perform any duty which we would not first exact of ourselves. We believe we are fighting in a common
The Address-Mr. Jackman

cause and that just as the enjoyment of Canada is as much their right as it is ours, so is the protection of Canada as much their duty as it is ours. Rightly they will say that such a principle goes without saying, and it does. Whatever difference of opinion there may be between us arises because of different conceptions of wherein lies the defence of Canada.
There is a feeling on the part of some French-Canadians that those of British origin still have close associations with friends and relatives in Great Britain. To some extent that is true, but it can be greatly overestimated. I confess that when the Prime Minister was in England and was given a banquet at the Mansion House and he said that Canada would never have entered the war for the sake of Britain alone, a shiver of shame ran down my spine. It was not something to boast of at a public dinner.
French Canada has not the affinity of racial ties that those of British origin have, but it has the same strong attachment to British institutions, which are to everyone of us the surest guarantee of liberty and freedom.
June 18, 1940, was a very revealing day in this house. I am wondering what the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) would report as the present opinion "of the entire rural population where there exists a strong sentiment in favour of annexation to the United States, or at least of a formal alliance with our powerful neighbours." Are his constituents who were willing to join the United States willing to be led by their laws now just as are the million or more French-Canadians in the New England states? What is the opinion of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) who stated:
Why not continue with our voluntary participation and wait at least until the United states enact conscription of men?
He was then taking shelter under the Monroe doctrine. Is he now willing to fight for it? National unity is a phrase which has arisen in the province of Quebec to describe an attitude, the attitude of one player in a game who says, "If I cannot make the rules I won't play." We have had war forced upon us, whether we like it or not. We cannot make the rules; we must conquer or be conquered.
One great reason for the difference of opinion which still seems to obtain between Quebec and the rest of Canada on the question of conscription lies not so much in what should be done under a given set of circumstances as in the appraisal of what the present circumstances of the war are. Undoubtedly because of historical background, suspicion, prejudice

and failure to understand the issues at stake, there are many in the province of Quebec who believe the present war to be an imperialistic war and that the vital interests of Canada are not at stake. Does the loss of lives, including those of their fellow-French-Canadians at Hong Kong, stimulate them to a feeling of revenge upon the Japanese? They look upon Hong Kong as a British colony in which Canada should have no interest. They look upon the magnificent contribution which Australia has made to the Libyan campaign as a colossal mistake, particularly now that Australia is herself in fear of imminent invasion. Do the people of Quebec not realize that if northern Africa and the Suez canal were to fall to the axis powers, a short way would be open for the German hordes to invade the island continent of Australia?
We have lived together, we of British and French origin, in happy harmony for generations and centuries. We are struggling against a common foe who would change the lives and institutions of everyone of us. I cannot help but recall a story which I read when I was struggling with the French language to pass my examinations. It was called La Derniere Classe, by Alphonse Daudet, a great French author. In it were described the feelings of the old schoolmaster and the little French children at school in Alsace after the Franco-German war of 1871 when, on the following day, all the lessons had to be taught in the German language. Those hon. members who have read the Black Record by Sir Ralph Vansittart well know that the brutal German methods of 1871 are the same to-day, only worse.
Hitler's promises to Vichy are as all the false promises he made to all the other countries; the supremacy of the German herrenvolk is the supreme objective, and, in his view, the end justifies the means, however base, however cruel.
Is Canada going to subscribe to the theory of all those peace-loving and neutral nations of Europe who succumbed to the siren song of Hitler, allowing themselves to be divided and conquered? Only by meeting force with greater force can the enemy be overcome. What possible hope have we in Canada of successfully meeting an invasion? Consider the extent of our coastline. Consider the smallness of our population. Consider the extent of the enemy's forces. Should they once break through the island fortress of Britain or be able to maintain their command of the Pacific ocean, we are lost although hundreds of thousands of us may die in the losing.

The Address-Mr. Jackman
Let me say to my French-Canadian compatriots, that no Canadian, no Britisher wants war. Nobody wants to sacrifice his material possessions. Nobody wants to have to fight; nobody wants to have conscription; nobody wants to lose his life. But these things are forced upon us. They are not of our making, but we are prepared to die rather than to become a slave race. Only a quisling could prefer otherwise.
To no one is his own way of life dearer, more precious, more sacred than to my fellow Canadians in the province of Quebec, and no one is more willing to fight and to lay down his life for what he considers vital. During the special war session of 1939 the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 22 of Hansard:
My hon. friend gave his impression of the prize the Germans would seek in the event of victory. He said the prize would be Canada.
Then later on:
There is no portion of the globe which any nation would be likely to covet more than this Dominion of Canada. There is no other portion of the earth's surface that contains such wealth as lies buried here. Nowhere are there such stretches of territory capable of feeding for generations to come not hundreds of thousands but millions of people.
Even more forcible is the view expressed by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) on June 18, 1940, as reported at page 895:
The people of my province possessed enough vision, enough intelligence to realize that by restricting their participation to the defence of the Canadian soil only, their participation should prove of no avail, that it would prove fruitless whenever Britain and France were crushed. At such a time rhetorical high-sounding speeches and empty words concerning the defence of Canada shall partake only of the theatrical and shall be devoid of any quality of true patriotism to be found among men whose main preoccupation is to forestall possible threatening dangers and to prepare, as intelligent men, for the defence of the country.
If our fellow Canadians in Quebec put anything like the same interpretation upon world events as does the rest of Canada, then there would be little difficulty about obtaining harmony and unity of policy. I believe that the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet put the same interpretation on world events as I do, namely, that Canada's vital interests are in imminent danger and that if they cannot be protected overseas, they cannot be saved on Canadian soil. Why is it not the first duty, then, of the Prime Minister and his cabinet, giving reasons for their conclusions as to why Canada's vital interests are at stake, to instruct the people of Quebec, as to why Canada's best and surest defence lies in defeating the enemy where the war is now being waged. Surely leadership of that kind, since
it is required, is the first and most compelling duty of any prime minister and his cabinet. What has been the effect of Hong Kong? The Prime Minister would probably say his first duty is to keep Canada united. Why, then, is he not in Quebec telling the people something of the nature of this war, something of the issues at stake, something of the imminent danger this country is facing and something as to the best means of meeting that danger, something of the fallacy of falling into Hitler's trap and being divided and conquered rather than resisting and destroying the enemy by a great united effort? If our sister commonwealth of Australia was not being subjected to attack, it might indeed be ourselves. This war is everyone's war everywhere. Can we with honour ask the United States to protect us. as we surely must, if we are not prepared to levy every available man to fight for her protection? Can we face the powers that are fighting with us and refuse to ask our nationals to fight anywhere along with their nationals? Is Canada a country without honour?
The unfairness of the present method of recruiting, even if results were adequate, is manifest for reasons which have already been advanced in this debate. As the great United States nation has decreed, universal compulsory military service is the only fair and democratic method. Why should only the best of our. young men go, those with spirit', those with courage, those who in future years would be the leaders of a greater Canada? Why enlist when no reinforcements are promised, when some slacker will take one's job?
The invidious differences between different parts of the country make for inequality and injustice. Legitimate differences of opinion as to medical fitness make the number of recruits accepted in one centre vary greatly from the number accepted in another centre, because the general war disposition of the people in the respective centres differs. Injustice destroys national unity.
Conscription is inevitable if our armed forces are to destroy the enemy and reserves and reinforcements are not forthcoming. Is there anything in the present record of recruiting for the active army which holds the slightest promise that we can maintain an adequate fighting forces overseas? Even if the rate of enlistment was continuously satisfactory, the method itself is unfair. Great Britain has had its Dunkirk; the United States has had its Pearl Harbour, and Canada has had its Hong Kong. Must we have our Halifax, our Quebec, our Victoria and Vancouver before
The Address-Mr. Jackman

Canada is geared to total effort? If our soldiers get into action on a full scale, then I believe that, dislike it as we may, we shall have conscription. We are being geared to 1943 when we may be lost in 1942.
I have set my course only with the gravest consideration and with heart-burnings that all my fellow-Canadians do not at this moment think alike on the issue of conscription. I know it is unpopular in some quarters; but I believe it is necessary, that honour demands it, and that the people of Canada, if they once realized the necessity, would be prepared to make any sacrifice to achieve victory.


Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: For a number of days now, and probably for many more to come, we have heard and shall hear over and over again arguments for and against the plebiscite and other aspects of government policy. For the Conservative opposition the plebiscite seems to be the only topic which can be discussed. Why? For the sole reason I hat they think they have an issue to confuse and confound, to disturb and distress. Whether it does the same thing to the war effort is not as important to them as party strategy. Why party strategy? Well, there is a by-election to win; a gathering hope of national government, and the smacking of lips as the office-hungry Tories dream of a return to power; by the front door if they can, by the back door if they must. Even a hand-out through the pantry window would be appreciated.
We hear a lot about leadership, about courageous action. In fact the demand for "courageous action" seems to have been adopted as the party slogan by the Tories; Tories in name, Tories in nature, including the new mascot for the party, Mitch Hepburn. Speaking of Mitch, the mascot, here is what he has to say about the plebiscite:
Special to the Gazette.
St. Thomas, January 22.-"I was astounded by the announcement from Ottawa to-day in the speech from the throne that a plebiscite of the Canadian people is to be taken on the conscription issue. I think this is one of the most dastardly, contemptible and cowardly things ever perpetrated on a respected and dignified people by any government.
"I appeal to Grits and Tories of Canada alike to show their indignation quickly and forcibly against this cowardly suggestion from Ottawa to-day, which will make Canada and Canadians the laughing-stock of the allied nations fighting our battles for freedom."
There is a ringing declaration for you! Mitch the man of courage who is reported in this week's press as saying that he is "dropping the idea of lowering the school age to aid the war effort"-Why? Because there was too much opposition to it. Another courageous and ringing declaration!

Incidentally this is the same courageous leader, the only man in public life in Canada to-day whose courage is such that he employs, presumably at government expense, a personal bodyguard. Perhaps he is trying to emulate the late Huey Long of Baton Rouge further in his political life, or perhaps he got the idea from some of his stiletto-handling friends.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Maybe he is afraid some of his friends will stab him in the back.


John Gordon Ross: Yes, he stabs many in the back. He is trying to stab your party in the back right now.
But we are used to Mitch's ringing declarations, to his high patriotism, to the subordination of his personal interests and those of his friends to the cause of country. I shall not take time to go over Mr. Hepburn's war record; it is pretty well known in this country. Put briefly, he talks big and acts small. While scuttling the Sirois conference he did his utmost to prevent the all-out use of Canada's financial resources in our war. Why? The reason is plain. He wanted to keep the money flowing into the treasury of Ontario, which he controlled. We all remember the speech he made last September in New York, when he dragged the name of Canada in the mud, to the delight of the isolationists of the United States. By that speech he not only hurt Canada, he injured the whole allied cause. Let me quote what was said about that performance by a leading isolationist newspaper, the Boston Daily Record, on September 30, 1941:
A great many correspondents ask: what will happen to us in case Germany wins the European conflict? That is a natural and legitimate inquiry. It seems at the moment to be within the possibilities that the Germans might defeat the Russians and completely occupy Russia, including the Ukraine. And since the rest of Europe is already in the hands of the, axis powers, there is point to the query.
What would that complete control of Europe mean to Europe, to us, and the world? Mitchell F. Hepburn, the distinguished Premier of Ontario, Canada, is not dismayed by the prospect. He predicts a triumph of Germany over Russia, but sees as a result closer relations and collaboration between the United States and Canada until "ultimately there will be no boundary line between us, because of the need and necessity of national defence." .	.	.
"Germany is going to overrun Russia," says Premier Hepburn, according to the dispatches, "and will have all Europe in a state of subjection." . . . "Germany will have at her command industrial resources, the mineral reserves, and the oil and the loot of a nation populated by almost two hundred million people. But," continued the premier, "we will win the war with our resources." . . . "We have resources-man-power, brain-power and money." . . . "Great Britain is the outpost of America,"

The Address-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
and "I speak on behalf of Winston Churchill, the great Prime Minister of Britain, who has asked us to supply him with the tools in order that he can carry on the war for us."
There is a good deal of sound sense in what the noted premier of Ontario says. We can give Britain the tools with which to fight. But there is not much sense in giving Russia the tools with which to surrender.
And further:
Why not save something to defend our own democracy if, as Premier Hepburn says, "Germany is going to overrun Russia" and "will have all Europe in a state of subjection"? To be sure, Canada and the United States and all the Americas "have resources", as the premier states, if we husband them . . . Finally, as the premier says, "we have man-power." . . . Yet we do not want to fertilize foreign battlefields with the blood and bones of our fine young Americans.
That is the comment which was prompted by a speech delivered by Mitchell Hepburn in New York, while this war was in progress. Does anyone think that helped the allied cause?
There is an old saying, that you may know a man by his friends. Here are a few of Mitch's boon companions: "Sell-'em" Ben Smith, Wall street promoter, arch-isolationist and appeaser, whose trail from Vichy to Wall street to Bay street to St. Thomas, Ontario, is well known to Mitch; Franceschini, exinternee, reported to be the angel of Mitch's tour to Australia; and', as the latest bed-fellows, George Drew and Arthur Meighen, concerning whom Mitch has often held forth in his usual vigorous style. I need not repeat what is already on the records of this house on this subject, but I might add a bit by giving you George Drew: colonel, military expert extraordinary, world traveller, author, man about town, and what have you. There is little time to deal with "Gorgeous George" except as a military expert, and in that capacity chief adviser by remote control to the opposition. Let us listen to George, the expert, the man who wanted to close up the Bren gun factory as his contribution to the war effort. We all remember George of "the broken-down boiler factory, run by a friend of the minister." That "broken-down boiler factory" has turned out to be one of the greatest assets of Canada and the empire in this war. The excellent guns made in that factory are blazing at the enemy to-night on every front from Singapore to Libya. But even "Gorgeous George" should be allowed one mistake. He still claims to be an expert. Let us hear him in that capacity on Russia, as reported in the Toronto Telegram of January 21, 1939. Speaking at Sault Ste. Marie, "Gorgeous George" is reported to have said: "Russia would not be a vital factor in any
war." He had seen the Russian troops when he visited that country, and in his opinion the Russian army was a "broken reed." Even after war broke out "Gorgeous George" was still an expert on Russia. At a meeting of the Toronto branch of the Queen's Alumnae on November 17, George said:
Russia's troops are disorganized, sloppy. The guns and tanks you see pictured in great display in Moscow's Red Square are mostly of German construction. Russian soldiers have no ammunition, except for the purpose of their own execution squads. The propaganda of Russia's might is merely amusing.
I have not time even to go over "Gorgeous George's" amazing record as an expert. But with such an adviser, it is little wonder that the opposition do so much muddling meddling in military matters.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are an expert 1


John Gordon Ross: And now, spotlight, camera, action!-little Arthur himself the new leader, the white hope of the party' Oh, I am not going to be unfair to the right hon. gentleman. I shall not go back to 1914 and give R.B.'s reference to him-that is, R. B. Bennett-as the gramophone of the Mackenzie and Mann interests. I shall not bring up the speech-the "Ready, aye, ready" speech of 1922, or the semi-ready speech of Hamilton, in 1925. I shall not embarrass the opposition by reading the bitter denunciation of Meighen by the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, the former Conservative Premier of Ontario at the Winnipeg convention in 1927 when, for the only time in history, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen stood before a great convention of Conservatives of Canada, and they discarded him as a leader-and those same Conservatives have never asked him to come back.
Even less will I go over the sordid tale of the Ontario power service corporation bonds, so ably set out by Mitchell Hepburn in 1934 and 1936, and referred to in this house the other day by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Fulford). No; I will be kind to Mr. Meighen, and refer only to his record within the past few days, when he was reported on January 27 as having said, "If we have to conscript wealth to win the war. we will. But people of common sense do not advocate that until the last gasp."


An hon. MEMBER:: Was it a Liberal who said that"


John Gordon Ross: Arthur Meighen. There is a real leader for you! How the embattled barons of Bay street must have rejoiced as this knight in shining armour tilted his lance against the approach of total
360	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
war toward their castles, and their money bags. The last man, certainly; the last dollar, never-until the last gasp.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Quote his last night's speech along with that.


John Gordon Ross: Don't worry, I will finish with that. The bell-wether of Bay street! Well, they ought to know something about wethers up there. They have fleeced more people in Canada than any other outfit. I see that after ten days, as my hon. friend remarks, the effect of this statement has been borne in on the right hon. gentleman, and he has given a belated denial, terming it inconsistent with his by-election campaign. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I have known the gentleman in politics as long as most people in this house. It may be inconsistent with his election campaign, but it certainly is consistent with the record of the man during his whole political career.
I for one believe the statement was made. In any event, the issue still stands. Let us see how our hon. friends opposite stand on the same issue-our friends opposite, who want courage, who want leadership, who demand clear-cut pronouncements of government policy and attitude! Where do they stand? It is a poor rule that does not work both ways. I ask them now: Do they endorse the "last gasp" speech of January 27; or do they slip out from under, on the inconsistent speech of February 3? Do they in their zeal for total war, and in what they claim to be the intent of their amendment, repudiate the amazing policy of conscription of wealth only as the last gasp? The people of Canada want something more than the denial of Arthur Meighen in a by-election campaign. They have a right to know whether the members of the Conservative party in this house are ready to conscript men, but consider the dollar sacred. Does their amendment clearly and unmistakably mean that they are prepared to urge, in fact demand, that the full conscription of wealth must come if and when we conscript men for overseas service; or do they favour total conscription of men's lives and voluntary methods of raising money? Let me have an answer from them. Do they join their leader in Toronto?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which night?


John Gordon Ross: Yes, which night -January 27 or February 3? What has the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) to say about it?


Mr. PERLEY:: Read our amendent.


James Arthur Ross: He cannot read yet.
[Mr. J. Q. Rnss.l


Mr ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Do you agree with your leader in Toronto, or do you not? Silence!


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Give
him the same answer as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave this afternoon.


John Gordon Ross: Will any member of the Conservative party answer?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The same answer the Prime Minister gave this afternoon.


John Gordon Ross: No, they dare not answ-er. Yet these are the men who are pounding day after day at the government, and asking them to take a stand on matters.


Ernest Edward Perley: Where do you stand?


John Gordon Ross: You sit; you say nothing; you do not dare take a stand. And if you did, from the speeches I have heard you make in this house-and others-in the last few days, could we consider that a pledge before the people of Canada, when you make it in the house? We cannot consider it when you make it in the country. These Tory leaders-first of all Arthur Meighen, who has again been given the leadership of the Conservative party, by a clique, not by Conservatives in Canada in convention assembled, with delegates from the people, -and then these men who have been voicing views in this chamber-are not portraying the thoughts in the minds of Conservatives of the Dominion of Canada. There are -many thousands of Conservatives in this country who are to-day taking their part in this war alongside Liberals and others. They are not endeavouring to cause turmoil and strife in -the country at this time. They are serving on committees, working hard to raise money to buy bonds from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) to carry on the war. They are in the was savings certificates drives, and they are in the Department of Munitions and Supply, as the hon. member for Northumberland, Ont. (Mr. Fraser) said this afternoon. They are in the foreign exchange control board, in the wartime prices and trade board and everywhere else where they can aid in this effort. They have forgotten politics; they are not playing politics now, and all glory and power to them for that.
Then there are those w'ho think they portray Conservative opinion in this country. They come to this house, and we see what happened the other day. We had just opened the sitting when an hon. gentleman rose in his place and suggested a parliamentary inquiry into the Hong Kong affair. Everyone knows there would not have been a Hong Kong if

The Address-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
there had not been a Pearl Harbour. Everyone knows they are not playing polities to-day in the United States. Pearl Harbour was investigated by a judicial committee, and those who were found to be negligent are to be punished. That is what should be done with regard to all these matters. Hong Kong should be investigated, not by a parliamentary committee where political capital could be made out of everything, but by a judicial board. If any negligence or any guilt is found, then those who are responsible should be properly punished.
We are getting sick and tired of hearing gentlemen on platforms throughout the country and in this house running down Canada's army. Canada has a good army, one of the best. The men who are running it can be depended upon; they are as good as any other men running any other army anywhere. We are proud of that army. They are doing a first-class job, and we should give them every credit, not try to make out that we have not a large enough army or a good enough army or that it is deficient in either men or brains.
For some time I have heard talk of a total-war effort. A total-war effort for this country should be the effort that this country can make of every kind, the effort which will go farthest to aid in winning this war regardless of what direction it may take. Some people think we should have a blueprint of exactly what is to be done in the way of defence for the next six months. If we had had one, it would have all gone to pieces two months ago because this war is changing every week. Some men still say that there must be plenty of. munitions and supplies now. In proportion, there are not as many munitions and supply as there were. The battle fronts of this war have opened up faster than the factories of the allies can keep up with providing munitions and supplies.
Since December 7, when Pearl Harbour was struck-this is not a secret because Winston Churchill has said it in the open-we lost command of the Pacific. Since we have lost command of the Pacific, it is quite likely that our sister dominions, Australia and New Zealand, will be unable to supply Great Britain with many of the things with which they have been supplying her up to the last two months. What does that mean? It means that the only countries which can supply Great Britain are Canada and the'United States.
There is a bigger job to-day for the Canadian agriculturist than has ever before faced him in his history. All kinds of foodstuffs must be produced in greater abundance than
they have been produced in the past to help to carry on and feed Great Britain during this war. The Canadian farmer will have to get up a little earlier in the morning and go to bed a little later at night, although at the present and in the past he has done better at this than any other citizen of the dominion.
The Canadian farmer should be given fair treatment. A few days ago we had a large delegation here from western Canada making a most reasonable request of the government. They asked for a fair price for their wheat. Surely the Canadian people should be able to give it, not for all that they can grow but for what can be sold. If you go into the facts and figures with regard to this matter, you will find that wheat is the only thing that the people of Canada are asking the farmers of Canada to give to the government in the war effort for which a reasonable and fair price is not being paid. I think grave consideration by the government, by this house and by the people of Canada should be given to this question.
I hope that this drive for political purposes will stop, that these people will realize finally that no matter how much they drive the Prime Minister, the more often he has gone to an election, the bigger the majority he has received from the people of Canada. I have every confidence in the Prime Minister as the leader of this country at this time. I have every confidence in the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and in the army officers under him. I have every confidence in the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), and in the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). I know that we could not get a better man as Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) than we have. Where could you pick up a man in whom the people have more confidence than they have in the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley)? Where could you get a man who has done more and will do more for the farmers of this country than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)? Yet these people have been saying day after day, "Throw the government out, get new leaders." They have asked the Prime Minister to bring men into the government from the outside. He has done that, and two of them are now fighting for all they are worth in by-elections. Why? Because the very people who asked him to bring them in from the outside are now trying to defeat them.
With regard to the plebiscite, I want to say that I gave my pledge in the last election, and as yet I have not broken the pledge to the people of this country, and do not intend

362	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
to. I ask the people of my constituency and in other parts of Canada to vote "yes" on this plebiscite and relieve the government and hon. members of their pledges. I ask my people to do that in order that I may follow the Prime Minister and the ministers I have mentioned, all of whom have full knowledge and are in complete cooperation with the allied commands and will do what is [DOT]ight. to win this war for Canada and the Canadian people.


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne, explained and completed by the speech of the Prime Minister, defines the government's war programme for the present session.
The programme comprises a non-interestbearing loan of $700,000,000 to England; an outright gift of $1,000,000,000 to England for war purposes; a war budget of $3,000,000,000 to be raised by taxation and loans; a national war effort extended to the country's utmost capacity, and, finally, a request to the people, by means of a plebiscite, to release the government from any previous commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service

in other words, a request for freedom to enact conscription for military service overseas if it sees fit.
This simple outline gives an idea of the extent of the war effort contemplated for a small nation of Hi million still in the development stage.
If the two opposition leaders, the one who sits in this house and the other who is waiting at the door, have been able to call the $1,300,000,000 appropriation requested last year for certain war expenditures a "crushing burden, staggering in its proportion", what words will they find this year for the appropriations required by the programme I have just outlined? The least that can be expected of them is that they cease making unfavourable comparisons between our war effort and that of other allied countries, notably Australia -Australia which does not even pay the expenses of its own troops outside its territory, while we not only meet the expenses of our troops abroad, but contribute to the equipping and feeding of the troops of other allied countries. It is high time to start keeping criticism within the bounds of common sense.
Leaving all further comment on this subject for a later occasion, I shall deal at once with the question of the plebiscite on conscription, which is the most important question of all, because of the immediate consequences it will inevitably produce in the country.
The mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member
1 Mr T G. Ross.]
for Hull (Mr. Fournier) has pointed out that the plebiscite represented "a reversal of policy" on the part of the government, and he added: "The three and a half million French-Canadians of my province are being asked to accept one of the greatest sacrifices that the country has ever requested of them."
It would be impossible ' to describe the present situation more tragically.
What are the facts?
A group of citizens calling themselves the committee of 200, gathered in Toronto, have decided to impose their will on the Canadian people. With little regard for the country's future, they have organized at great expense a campaign of propaganda and intimidation with a view to forcing the government to enact conscription for overseas service, in defiance of the plighted word and of the will of the people expressed on the 26th of March, 1940. And strange to say, while advocating the adoption of coercitive measures for the sending of men overseas in order to defend democracy and punish the violators of treaties, these people ask the government to violate the pact entered into on the 9th of September, 1939, at the time of the declaration of war, and to disregard the mandate received from the people on the 26th of March, 1940, not to impose conscription for overseas service.
I wish to recall briefly the circumstances and conditions under which participation in this war was decided and to draw the conclusions that necessarily follow therefrom as regards the plebiscite and the question of conscription.
On the 9th of September, 1939, Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe expressed in the following terms the conditions under which "a most important section of the country, comprising the province of Quebec", would agree to Canada's participation:
But, sir, I believe that at this time there are two extreme sides of opinion which we should avoid and which would make for the disunity of Canada at a time when we need the very opposite. First, there are those who . . . say that Canada can and should remain neutral. ...	.
The other school consist of those who . . . are promoting courses which would disunite Canada-because such measures will never be accepted or enforced by and in a most important section of the country. The whole province oi Quebec-and I speak with all the responsibility and the solemnity I can give to my words- will never agree 'to accept compulsory service or conscription outside Canada. I will go farther than that: When I say the whole province of Quebec I mean that I personally agree with them. I am authorized by my colleagues in the cabinet from the province of Quebec . . . to say that we will never agree to conscription

The Address-Mr. Raymond
and will never be members or supporters of a government that will try to enforce it. Is that clear enough?
Then he added:
Provided these points are understood, we are willing to offer our sexwices without limitation and to devote our best efforts for the success of the cause we all have at heart. And those in Quebec who say that we will have conscription in spite of what some of us are saying, are doing the work of disunity, the work of the foe, the work of the enemy. (House of Commons Debates, second session 1939, page 68.)
Could anything be clearer? Participation without conscription.
Such is the compromise proposed by Mr. Lapointe and accepted without reserve by all the conscriptionists, including the whole imperialist and conscriptionist newspapers of the country, on the 9th of September, 1939.
This compromise was ratified by the people of all Canada on the 26th of March, 1940, at a general election. It therefore constitutes a pact, which cannot be set aside without the express and explicit consent of all the parties to the contract. And this pact was concluded not for a month, not for a year, not for two years, not even for the duration of a parliament. but for the entire duration of the war. For this "most important section of the country, comprising the whole province of Quebec", which Mr. Lapointe referred to, entered into the conflict for the duration of the war and would never have agreed to participation therein without the express condition which is: No conscription for overseas service at any time throughout the whole duration of the war.
It is therefore a compromise for the duration of the war, and it cannot be set aside until the war is over.
What is being sought is not the complete setting aside of the pact of September, 1939, ratified by the people in March, 1940-this being impossible, since one of the parties thereto has already fulfilled its obligation and the parties can no longer be replaced in their previous state-but the setting aside of the obligation of one of the parties, the sole condition which the abstentionists set to their participation, namely, that there should be no conscription for service overseas.
Now that one party to the contract, the abstentionist group, has unstintingly fulfilled and even gone beyond their pledge to participate in the war-for our participation which was to be moderate and commensurate with our means has become unlimited, and we know that Mr. Lapointe, as he had promised on September 9, 1939, "devoted to it his best efforts"-now, as I say, that one party has fulfilled its pledge, the other party 44561-24}
to the contract, the conscriptionist group, would like to repudiate their sole obligation, which was to abstain from demanding conscription for overseas service.
To all the sincere advocates of conscription in this house I say:
On September 9, 1939, a compromise was made whereby you agreed not to demand conscription for overseas service, provided those who opposed participation in the war, especially in the province of Quebec, consented to participate in that war. On the strength of that agreement, the important part of our population which opposes war has consented to participate in it. Were you sincere at that time? I dare not question your sincerity. Did you wish to obtain that consent through false representations? I dare not believe it. Now that those who opposed war have liberally and generously fulfilled their pledge-and God knows how much fervour and devotion Mr. Lapointe brought into the fulfilment of his pledge- will you refuse to fulfil yours?
If I may ask you, would you consider that it would be fair and honourable?
You would conscript men for fighting overseas those who do not honour their pledge, while breaking yourselves the contract you made with an important part of the population, and you would claim to advocate national unity. No, no, that is not possible.
But the plebiscite implies something more unusual. Not only will the party towards which the pledge was made be asked to relieve the other party from its obligation, but those who favour conscription will be asked to relieve themselves from their obligation. for, mind you, the question bears on a single point: "discarding the pledge whereby conscription was not to be enforced". Since when is a debtor left free to decide himself whether he will pay his debt or not? A creditor may be requested to waive his claim, but a debtor is never asked to decide himself whether he must pay his debt or not. And in justice only those who oppose conscription and towards whom the pledge was made, should have the right to relieve the advocates of compulsory service, or the government, from the pledge whereby they agreed not to enforce conscription.
Apart from the fact that such a request would constitute a breach of contract, and the violation of a pledge, I can see no justification whatever for it.
In the first place, the reasons for which that pact or compromise was made still exist to-day to a degree even greater than in 1939.
The Address-Mr. Raymond



PRIVILEGE-MR. THORSON STATEMENT BY MR. PAUL BOUCHARD

Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The newspaper La Presse of this date contains the following item:
At St. Frangois d'Assise, where he spoke last night in the crowded parish hall, Mr. Paul Bouchard, one of the candidates in Quebec East, read an extract from a letter written by Mr. Liguori Lacombe, member for Laval-Two Mountains, stating that Hon. Messrs. St. Laurent, Thorson and McGibbon-
He probably means Mr. Gibson.
-are members of a subcommittee of the war cabinet which is at present studying the problem of conscription for overseas service.
I deny this statement. A subcommittee of the cabinet is at present studying the question of man-power.
The Address-Mr. Lizotte


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) (Translation):: And it is not a subcommittee of the war cabinet.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: There is no subcommittee studying the problem of conscription for overseas service. No one is studying the question, neither Mr. St. Laurent, nor Mr. Gibson nor myself. If such a statement is contained in the letter from the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. La-combe), it is entirely false.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


Mr. L. P. LIZOTTE (Kamouraska) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to add my congratulations to those already tendered to the mover of the address, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the seconder, the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) on the high standard of their speeches.
More particularly do I congratulate the hon. member for Hull, who is a native of Kamouraska county, on the form of his speech, without insisting on the substance thereof. Every time I meet him and see once again his calm, smiling and restful countenance-typical of familiar faces at home-I indulge in the illusion that he still is an elector of the fine county of Kamouraska which I have the honour to represent. Because of the warm feeling I have for him I regret all the more not being able to share all the views he has expressed in his speech.
I am fully aware, Mr. Speaker, that we are going through one of the most momentous periods which our generation has known. The problems facing the members of this house are difficult, embarrassing and fatally dangerous for the internal peace of the country and for the national unity which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has so far been able to maintain at the cost of the most praiseworthy efforts.	.
Whatever action is taken by hon. members will have a profound effect on the present and future life of the nation.
We therefore realize at this time the gap left in our ranks by the death of Ernest Lapointe and the extent of the loss which the Canadian nation has sustained. In times of stress we of the province of Quebec used to turn to this great Canadian who is no longer here to strengthen our confidence and point out to us the road to follow.
Some days ago I heard the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) correct the leader

of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) by stating that Ernest Lapointe was bom not in the county of Kamouraska but in that of Temiscouata. He was right. But it must be admitted that it is the electors of Kamouraska who were intelligent enough to adopt him as their own and give him to the country.
As the representative of the county which gave this great servant to the nation, may I pause for a moment in sorrow and in respect for his memory.
We now have to look to the Prime Minister, his companion in the battles of old, who, knowing through Lapointe the mentality of Quebec, has so far always been a friend to our province. I am confident that he will receive good advice from the present representative of French-Canadians in his cabinet, the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) and in the near future from the hon. the Minister of Justice. May Providence grant to the hon. the Minister of Public Works the health needed for carrying on his work.
Whether they come from Quebec or from other provinces, all the members of this house harbour the same feeling of loyalty towards their country, notwithstanding the fact that some may look to Canada and others to England. Our views may differ on thq means to be taken, but all of us here agree that the victory of our arms must be ensured, and that whatever sacrifices are necessary must be borne with fortitude, so that good may triumph over evil, and democratic freedom may prevail over totalitarian slavery. But while fighting for democracy we should cause no one to lose confidence in it, and the people, who are the fountainhead of all authority, should not lose confidence in the pledged word of their leaders, to whom they have entrusted their most cherished interests.
The problem which this house faces today must be dealt with in the light of these facts.
The question with which I intend to deal as briefly as possible in the course of my remarks may be put as follows: is it advisable, at this time, that the government should consult the people in order to know whether they are willing to release the government from their past commitments with regard to conscription for overseas service, and authorize them to adopt whatever recruiting policy they may deem necessary?
It must first be clearly stated that in principle the government in power may, without any other formality than the concurrence of parliament, enforce at any time compulsory military service for overseas. That is what would have happened, many months ago, if the Conservatives had unfortunately been

The Address-Mr. Lizotte
returned to power in 1940. The speeches of their leaders have made us aware-for those people seem to have lost all sense of decency -that in spite of the oath they have taken before the electorate in March 1940, we would have had conscription in May of the same year.
If the Liberals were to act to-day in such an arbitrary and high-handed manner, after the promises they have made, I would say that their party is no longer worthy of its great name and that my leaders deserve to be ranked among those undesirable people who are called "Tories".
Fortunately that is not the stand that was taken by our leaders. The policy adopted by the government is unquestionably a wholly democratic measure, since its object is to consult again the people, from whom all authority and power is derived in this country.
But is that measure necessary? Is it not obviously fraught with danger? Those are points on which I am not in agreement with the government. In my humble opinion, the government should continue to direct their policies in accordance with the mandate they hold. I believe that I can remain associated with my party, which is the party of free speech and free opinions while respectfully submitting that such a measure is neither necessary nor timely, that it is fraught with serious danger, and this for reasons different from those advanced by the opposition.
As far as I am concerned, I was satisfied in 1940 and I still am today with the opinion that was clearly and freely expressed by the electorate less than two years ago.
The Prime Minister himself had stated, on the floor of this house, in November 1941, that he was satisfied with the verdict rendered by the Canadian people at the last election.
In my estimation, it is not necessary to go back to the polls every season. On the other hand, do the people wish to be consulted? I have never heard anything to that effect.
When the elections of March 1940 took place, this terrible war was already in progress and the electors then gave the government direct authority to wage war, on condition, however, that, as long as they remained in power, compulsory service for overseas would not be resorted to.
Neither the shrieks of a few Toronto newspaper editors, royally paid to criticize through Mr. Meighen and his gang, neither the threats of a handful of financial barons, boosting Mr. Meighen's candidature in an attempt to realize scandalous war profits, as they did in 1917, will convince me that our people,
courageously doing their share, silently accepting all sacrifices, voluntarily offering their sons to their country, request that they be consulted anew.
Would then that the government, fearlessly carrying on with the authority granted them, continue, as heretofore, to follow the lead given by our population.
I stated that, in my opinion, the plebiscite announced by the government is not necessary. I shall go further and say that it is ill-timed. Mr. Speaker, you may be sure that this expression of public opinion will create all the excitement of a general election, which the government is desirous of avoiding so as to concentrate on the war effort. I fear that this popular vote may, on account of the various and contradictory opinions expressed in different provinces, revive racial and religious controversies which we had been fortunate enough to quench. The next six months will show whether I am right or wrong.
I claim further that this plebiscite is dangerous. Anyone may foresee that, in the event the government is released from its past commitments-which personally I hope it will not-it then would be forced to adopt this useless compulsory method, in order to silence the criticisms, to block the intrigues and stop the blackmailing of the Tories. If the Canadian people do release the government from past commitments, this verdict will be interpreted as a request by the public for the immediate adoption of conscription for overseas service irrespective of its reactions on the effort made to protect our own shores; then you *will witness all the astuteness of the Tories in exerting pressure on the present administration.
In certain financial quarters, if it be found necessary, subscriptions to the victory loan will be refused, in order to blackmail the the government: threats to that effect have already been made. Unfortunately, in this country, there are people who would risk even defeat at the hands of the enemy, to hoist themselves into power and slake their thirst for vengeance against our present leader and his friends. They camouflage under the cry for conscription their hunger for power and vengeance.
Personally, since the last war, and consequently for the past 25 years, I have been opposed to any form of compulsory service for overseas. This way of thinking has been inculcated in me by the leaders of my party, who have persuaded me that Canada should be my first and foremost consideration. Laurier, King and Lapointe have always refused to entertain the idea of conscription for over-
The Address-Mr. Lizotte

seas service. As the hon. member for Beau-harnois (Mr. Raymond) said a few minutes ago, there was a compromise on that subject between the different racial groups which make up the Liberal party. That compromise was the foundation of national unity. Is the destruction of that solid basis of internal peace now desired?
In 1940, along with the majority of the members of this house, I spoke against conscription for overseas service. I am still the same man and I hold the same view in 1942. I was, I still am and I shall remain opposed to conscription for overseas service.
With the prime minister of the province of Quebec, the hon. Adelard Godbout, whose courage is to be admired, I declare that our first loyalty must be to our country, Canada, the defence of which must be provided for right here. Now is the time to barricade ourselves within our coasts, just as England has barricaded herself in her island. Let us continue the building of airplanes and ships for the protection of our coasts, but let us also keep here the defenders of the country. I do not want to be pessimistic, but I fear that before very long we shall need here all our resources, all our munitions and all our brave soldiers. The countries we have equipped and armed, to whom we make contributions without regard to our means, may be slow in answering our desperate S.O.S. calls. Let us prepare for the worst, hoping that God will protect us.
The sentiments which I express with all the calmness and moderation at my command are shared by the vast majority of the electors in my constituency and I shall never have the audacity to ask them to modify their views when I have not yet altered mine.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


Louis Philippe Lizotte: If they are called upon to vote on a plebiscite I know their answer will be "no". However, I intend leaving them perfectly free to express their views according to their conscience and I will ask them to avoid any useless agitation.
A Quebec newspaper, L'Action Catholique, in an editorial dated January 30, 1942, recommends calmness and peacefulness. I quote:
There is, therefore-without the least thought of partisanship-nothing to gain by involving and jeopardizing King's position in the country, in parliament and in the allied councils. There is no need for agitation in Quebec province to fan public sentiment against conscription. In agitation lies the road to conscription.
Such reasoning, Mr. Speaker, is common sense itself, in my humble opinion.

Let us remain calm, but let us be fearless however, in a clear expression of our views.
In conclusion, I would remind the house, as a citizen from the province of Quebec, that there is one thing not to be overlooked in the heat of discussion. And that is that Mr. King is our only safeguard, that in no one else can we rest our hope, and that the greatest calamity that coxdd befall the Canadian people and particularly the province of Quebec in this tragic hour, would be that power be taken from Mr. King to be handed over to our worst enemies, Messrs. Meighen and company.


Mr. J. W. McGIBBON (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, like practically all those who have taken part in this debate before me, I feel my first words must be those of congratulation to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I thought both the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) and the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) did exceptionally well, and I feel it is freely admitted in the lobbies that these were the best speeches of this kind for a long time.
I wish also to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) upon his fine effort. There was a sense of restraint and moderation running through his discourse which I thought sounded just the right note for a leader of the opposition in war time. I wonder whether the man who so earnestly seeks his position would not have done a whole lot of harm to our war effort, had he been in his position.
As one who has not been active in the debates of the last two sessions, it occurs to me that many hon. members, and especially the newer ones, would not know anything about the historic old riding of Argenteuil which I have the honour to represent. Argenteuil is a happy combination of English and French-speaking Canadians, all working together, all working harmoniously. I think we set a model for many other electoral districts in Canada to follow. But no one can think of the constituency I have the honour to represent without thinking of one of my famous predecessors, the late Sir George Perley. Sir George represented Argenteuil for many years, and his sound judgment, sagacity and ability to deal with things directly, and, above all, the fine representation he gave to our constituency in parliament year after year, constituted an outstanding contribution to this parliament. I am personally as proud as a Liberal to pay tribute to the late Sir George Perley as any member of this house. When

. The Address-Mr. McGibbon
the people of our riding sent Sir George to Ottawa, they did not do so because he was eternally speaking, but rather because he was not. Sir George saw no need to be eternally speaking; he felt that there were many times when thinking rather than talking made a sounder contribution to the situation. Therefore I would hope in some respects to follow in his footsteps.
First of all, we do not believe in recriminations. It seems to me that there has been far too much talk of how Quebec feels about Toronto, and how Toronto feels about Quebec. In Argenteuil riding, where French-speaking and English-speaking people live in amity and spend their lives working with and cooperating with each other, all this controversy seems so needless, so useless. I am sure the people of Toronto want to win this war just as earnestly, just as sincerely, as we do. I am sure the province of Quebec and Toronto have the same aim in mind-the destruction of Hitler. I think no man can guarantee that we in this country could stand independently against the enemy, but on the other hand, we all agree that with united effort of this country along with that of our formidable allies we shall be successful. We all wish to travel to the same goal, but are arguing over the different routes.
It seems, too, that this debate has narrowed itself down to partisan limits. I do not think the war can be fought in that way. Nor do I believe that what we say will in itself settle the war. I think we are looking at too small a corner of the picture. This war has got beyond the narrowing frames into which some of the debaters would like to confine it.
In reviewing the war, I am bound to notice a few milestones. The first one I would mention is the Ogdensburg pact. Here surely was a strong contribution to our defence, and to our ultimate safety. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), because of his long and valued friendship with President Roosevelt, was able to arrange a mutual defence programme of immense value. Out of that came the joint defence board of Canada and the United States. Thanks to the efforts of this board, in cooperation with the two governments, we have made some notable achievements, not only in defence but as a means of offence also. But our government did not let it rest at that. The Ogdensburg pact was followed by the Hyde Park agreement, and the defence of the continent was further strengthened. I have no doubt, however, that the conversations of President Roosevelt and the Prime Minister ranged far beyond that, and I have no doubt, in view of what has happened since, that considerable thought was given to a war of offence as well as a war of defence.
Another milestone, perhaps the most important of all, was the visit of Mr. Churchill to this continent, during which visit at almost the same time that he described ourselves as the lynch-pin between Britain and United States came that outstanding document which was evidently in part the result of the labours of our Prime Minister and one which I regret to say has been little emphasized in this house. I refer to the Washington pact, of which Canada was a signatory power. This is a new magna charta of freedom, agreed to by -twenty-six free nations of the earth.
The reason why I mention the Washington pact is this: out of that document has sprung a supreme war council in Washington. This council is planning the destrucfion of the axis, not on any small scale but with a panoramic perspective that takes in the whole world. If I ma3r then jump from this broad conception of the war to our own House of Commons, does it not seem absurd that we should be trying to settle allied war strategy right here? Yet that is what some people are trying to do. I myself feel that it is no longer entirely up to us what we are going to do, it is up to this war council. With our relatively small number of soldiers, even by extending our present legislation far beyond its present limits, we may not have nearly enough soldiers to turn the scale. Mark you, I have not the information to argue this point at all, one way or another.
But I ask the house this: how do we know that it is troops the supreme powers want from Canada? Might it not be food, or munitions? Might it not be ships? Are our airmen a paramount consideration? Could it be that our contribution in tanks, guns, merchant ships, corvettes, or something else vital to the war is needed from Canada more than anything else? Again I say, I do not know, and I doubt if some of those who have debated so vehemently know either. I am told it would not be the first time that members of this house were not certain of what they are talking about. But there must be a few people who know better than others. In the light of the general success of our war effort so far, I consider that my chief, the Prime Minister, knows. He has been Prime Minister of this country for a long time. He has been Prime Minister of Canada for the past seven years. During that time, as a result of his position and his personal friendships with people in high places, he has gained an insight into the situation that ordinary members of parliament cannot possibly hope to have. He has been through many important historical moments, and these experiences have all been valuable to him and to the country. Then, too, from day to day, the Prime Minister is
The Address-Mr. McGibbon

receiving the very latest reports on the situation all over the world, as it has developed up to the present. Surely no one has clearer vision and is better versed in the war situation than he.
In the light of all this background, having regard to the long experience the head of the government has had, remembering the personal contacts this administration has had with the great nations and great personalities of this war, it seems to me that the present government is in a better position to know what is best for Canada. Under those circumstances, and hoping to be able to face any future emergency, the government now asks to be relieved of its commitments of the 1940 election period, and I personally believe the government should be relieved of them. To ask the people, to whom the promises were made to relieve this government of those promises is the democratic way. To do it any other way is to emulate the dictators, whom to-day we are fighting with all we have, to destroy.
I have personally sufficient faith in the government to believe that if it wants to be relieved of its commitments, then that is the best thing for Canada. I have sufficient faith in them, too, to know that when the time comes to choose any new or different course, that, too, will be the right course. Again I have sufficient faith in the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to feel that he is the man to guide us through to victory. Talk of supplanting him with somebody else is idle and foolish. The farmers of our constituency have been taught from infancy the danger, yes, the folly, of changing horses in midstream. That applies in Ottawa just as much as it does back in Argenteuil and the rural constituencies.
Let us approach this question, then, without political bias. Here is a man who has been elected with an overwhelming mandate from the people, and elected not in the unthinking days of peace but when the war had been in progress for more than half a year. The Prime Minister asked at that time for a mandate to carry on the war, and the people of Canada gave him that mandate; indeed, it was the greatest mandate ever given to any prime minister in this country. This is not the time for petty politics. I think we should be put in a position to give our best, realizing our duty as a united nation in the allied cause to defeat the common enemy.
On motion of Mr. Bertrand (Prescott) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Friday, February 6, 1942