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

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many sheds or huts have been erected on Toronto harbour improvements, on the north shore of Toronto bay, east of \onge street, by the R.C.A.F. equipment department, under the British empire air scheme, and at what cost?
2.	What is the total expenditure?
3.	How many are occupied and for what purpose?
4.	How many civilian men and women are now employed there and on what work, and who appointed them?
5.	How many returned soldiers?
6.	Who supplies the guards, and for what period are they on duty, and how many ?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Fifty-eight buildings.
2.	Total commitment to date, $959,773.36.
3.	Nine buildings are occupied by administrative offices, and motor transport section, and the remaining forty-nine buildings are used for the storage of equipment.
4.	840 civilians, consisting of 580 males and 260 females. They are engaged in handling R.C.A.F. equipment received and despatched for distribution among units of No. 1 Training Command.
The appointment of these civilians was made through the medium of the Unemployment Insurance commission, Soldier Welfare Committee, Canadian Corps association, Canadian Legion and Welfare department, City Hall, Toronto.
5.	Eighty-five per cent of the male employees are returned soldiers, having served either in 1914-1918 or in the present war.
6.	The main guard is supplied by the R.C.A.F. security guard, and in addition ten civilian watchmen form two shifts, from 4 p.m. to 12 p.m. and from 12 p.m. to 8 a.m. on piers 4 and 6.


SHIPMENTS OF DRESSED. BEEF TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. McKINNON (Kenora-Rainy River):: How much dressed beef was shipped to the United States the first five months in 1942 as compared with the first five months in 1941?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me there was no reason why this question could not be immediately answered, but I am advised that the censorship advisory committee has held several meetings recently to consider the question of the publication of statistical information, and, after consultation with the representatives of the United Kingdom and the intelligence branches of the Canadian armed forces, it is deemed inadvisable to release for publication any statistical information during the war period.
I know that in some cases, such as this one, it appears doubtful as to the possible value of this information to the enemy. The authorities, however, take the most serious view of a question of this kind. I assure hon. members that there is no desire whatever to withhold any information from them, and I am prepared to give any hon. member the statistical information he desires for his own personal and confidential use, if accepted by him on that responsibility.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I want
to register positive dissent from that point of view, especially in relation to a question of this kind, and I believe I shall be sustained by the judgment of the house and the country. What possible good could result to the enemy from giving the information sought in this question? This is the state of mind of bureaucracy. Does it reflect the policy of the government? It would appear that it does. I protest against it.


James Angus MacKinnon: I
do not think any further comment from me is necessary. I expressed not only my own personal view, but also the departmental view. It is veiy difficult to know just where to draw the line in respect to giving information which may or may not be useful to the enemy. This rule has been adopted by the censorship committee which has been set up


SCRAP IRON AND IRON ORE
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	What was the tonnage of scrap iron exported from Canada during 1937-41, inclusive?
2.	What were the countries of destination and what was the tonnage sent to each country during each of the above years?
3.	How many tons of iron ore were mined in Canada during each of the years 1937-1941, inclusive?


James Angus MacKinnon: 1 and 2.
Exports of scrap iron by countries, during the calendar years 1937 to 1941.

Questions as Orders for Returns
1937	1938	1939	1940* 1941*
Country	(Tons of 2,000 pounds)
United Kingdom	
15,824	13,884	8,573	Hong Kong	
34	'Newfoundland	
8	217	Belgium	
629	14	"Germany	
821	'Japan	
46,948	41,033	46,866	....Netherlands	
55	2,363	7,111	Portuguese Africa	
302	....	64	....Sweden	
34	....Alaska	
2	....United States	
80,804	26,962	30,388	....Totals	
143,977	85,122	93,837
* Years 1940 and 1941-country detail not available.
On September 20, 1939, the exportation of scrap iron was made subject to export permit regulations and no permits have been granted since that date, other than for shipments to the United Kingdom, and a certain quantity to the United States, of a type that could not be utilised in Canada.
3.	Year	Ton
1937		 None
1938		 None
1939		 123,598
1940		 Not published
1941		 Not published



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FAIR:: 1.	In the province of Manitoba, how many Raima have been made for bonus under, (a) wheat acreage reduction regulations; (b) Prairie Farm Assistance Act; (c) prairie farm income regulations?
2.	How many of such claims have been passed for payment?
3.	How many claims have actually been paid, (a) in full, (b) in part?
4.	In the province of Saskatchewan, how many claims have been made for bonus under: (a) wheat acreage reduction regulations; (b) Prairie Farm Assistance Act; (c) prairie farm income regulations?
5.	How many of such claims have been passed for payment?
6.	How many claims have actually been paid, (a) in full, (b) in part?
7.	In the province of Alberta, how many claims have been made for bonus under: (a) wheat acreage reduction regulations; (b) Prairie Farm Assistance Act; (c) prairie farm income regulations?
8.	How many of such claims have been passed for payment?

9.	How many claims have actually been paid, (a) in full, (b) in part?
10.	What amount has been paid under each bonus act or regulation in, (a) Manitoba, (b) Saskatchewan, (c) Alberta?
11.	What is the estimated amount still due and to be paid under each act or regulation in, (a) Manitoba, (b) Saskatchewan, (c) Alberta?
12.	Has any decision yet been made as to what constitutes, (a) a rancher, (b) primary occupation ?
13.	If so, what is it?
14.	If not, when will it be made?
15.	Has any decision yet been made to pay individual claims to father and son where they are domiciled under one roof but operating their farms as two separate units, and each owning part of the farm machinery?
16.	Who are the members of the board of review?
17.	Are any of these practical farmers?
18.	Who are the members of the treasury board?
19.	Is the decision of the board of review binding on the treasury board?


CANADIAN FORCES-HONOURS AND DECORATIONS
Mr. JACKMAN:: 1.	Will a general service medal be issued to those sailors, soldiers and airmen who enlist for active service during the present war, but who are retained in Canada?
2.	If so, will the government recognize similarly those soldiers and airmen who enlisted for active service in the great war, but who for reasons beyond their own control were retained within Canada?
3.	If not, how many, (a) soldiers, (b) airmen enlisted for active service overseas during the great war, but who, because of uncompleted training prior to the armistice, or being retained in Canada for the purpose of training others, or for home defence, or because of youth or over-age, or otherwise, saw service only in Canada and were not awarded the general service medal, 1914-1918?
4.	Of these how many are now serving in the armed forces and have no distinction to show that they served in the great war?

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mitchell
5.	How many soldiers or airmen lost their lives in Canada while on active service?
6.	How many George Y jubilee medals were awarded in Canada?
7.	How many George VI coronation medals were awarded in Canada?


WARTIME ADMINISTRATOR, PORT OP HALIFAX
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Has a war-time administrator been appointed for the port of Halifax?
2.	If so, what is the name of said administrator?
3.	What are his duties?
4.	What are his special qualifications for such work ?
5.	Where was he employed before his appointment to his present position, and what was his salary?
6.	What salary will he receive as war-time administrator at Halifax?
7. Was he allowed any transportation expenses to Halifax? If so, what amount?
8. Will he receive any living or expense allowances? If so, what?
9.	Will he be provided with an automobile? If so, state arrangements; if not, state any arrangements entered into with respect to a purchase of automobile, and the taking over of said car at the expiration of period of employment of administrator?
10.	What were the reasons for the appointment of such a person to the port of Halifax, (a) was there a lack of proper supervision of harbour facilities; (b) was there a loss of time in the docking of ships; (c) was there inefficiency in the directing of traffic through the port ?
11.	Will the administrator's authority rank higher than that of, (a) the controller of loading operations in so far as war-time supplies are concerned; (b) the navy in respect to control and direction of traffic?
12.	What, if any, experience has he had in shipbuilding and ship repairs?



PAY OP SOLDIERS WITH DEPENDENTS-COST OP LIVING BONUS TO CIVILIAN MESSMEN

[Stage Direction]
Mr. NOSEWORTHY;
1.	How does the amount of pay now received by soldiers with dependents compare with that received by soldiers with dependents in the last war, when the allowances paid from the Canadian patriotic fund are taken into consideration?
2.	What steps have been taken to provide cost of living bonus for the civilian employees of the air force known as messmen?

Mr. JACKMAN:: On Thursday, May 14, 1942, on page 2648 of Hansard, the Minister of Munitions and Supply stated;-"He turned out a tremendous amount of work, but it was found he had destroyed over $3,000 worth of stock and had produced nothing which would be useful in an aeroplane."
1.	When did the incident occur?
2.	What was the material used?
3.	What form was it in when given to the novice?
4.	What, if any, was the system of inspection of work in process or of parts immediately on finishing?
5.	What part or article was the novice attempting to produce?
6.	What was the name of the plant?
7.	What were the names of the president and general manager?



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-EXAMINERS

Mr. SHAW:: 1.	What are the names of the civil service examiners?
2.	Who is the chief examiner?
3.	What was the occupation or profession of each examiner at the time of his appointment?



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, June 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Roy.
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this has been a very long debate. Almost every point of view on economic and social questions has been aired in this house, and I think it is only fair to say to my friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation that the conscription of wealth is now an inescapable reality. I do not think there is much more to conscript; wealth is down the drain. I would make this short statement, however. I do believe that in the post-war period we shall have this country so organized that we irhall be in a position to abolish want.
Opinions have been expressed indicating the will of the Canadian people on the plebiscite. There is no doubt in my mind that our people definitely placed the responsibility upon parliament and the government to implement any policy including conscription for overseas service if they deemed it necessary for the successful prosecution of the war. It has brought to the surface the driving force of the faith in the future destiny of this country, and the fundamental viewpoints of those in favour of and those opposed to conscription of men for service overseas. I would point out to some who have taken part in the debate that some of the arguments used have been prevalent in countries which have long since fallen under the heel of the enemy, whose people are now suffering from the mistakes of their leaders.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mitchell
This war is different from the last war. In the last war the front was mainly in continental Europe and the allies had almost unchallenged control of the seas. In this war the front encircles the globe and their control of the seas is by no means sure. In the last war our problem was how soon the allies would win; in this war the problem has always been and still is whether we can stave off defeat long enough to enable us effectively to mobilize our man-power and our resources on behalf of the common front of the united nations. In the last war our defeat would have meant some loss of territory and possibly the payment of an indemnity, but even after defeat we would have continued to lead our own lives with the loss of only a few of our liberties. In this war, as the experience of all the conquered nations shows, defeat means the utter and ruthless repression of all our liberties and our institutions and the degradation of all of us to the level of slaves and beasts of burden to the master race.
Let us visualize the position in which we are in this dominion at the moment. Eleven million people are living on what is almost a continent, and by the same token one of the richest parts of the world. Through the genius and foresight of our people we have pushed back the arctic circle so that we can grow things where they had never grown before. We have uncovered mineral riches which have added greatly to our productive powers and without which successful war cannot be waged. As I have already pointed out, we are a small population living in a vast country; but on the basis of our ability to produce the instruments of war, the valour of our fighting men, and the initiative of those engaged in industrial and agricultural pursuits, we are a far more important unit of the united nations than mere population would indicate.
We have heard it said in this house, and also outside, that Canada is not on a total war footing, the inference being that without conscription for overseas service we cannot wage total war. What is total war? Does it mean squeezing the last possible man out of the population and putting him in uniform, or does it mean making the maximum war effort by a balanced distribution of man-power between the armed services on the one hand, and, on the other, agriculture, war industry and civilian occupations? We may well ask ourselves these questions. Hon. members' memories are not so short that they cannot recall the words of Prime Minister Churchill, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job."

It cannot be denied that Canada has moved with the utmost speed to provide the tools of war on every possible front. My colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) indicated this in a striking manner to the house the other day. This war cannot be won with bows and arrows. Dunkirk, Hong Kong, Singapore, Purma, and more recently Tobruk, should have taught us the folly of raising men for armed forces without also providing them with the best and most powerful weapons of war. Let this be clearly understood: we must maintain the level of our war production to ensure the adequate provision of war equipment for our own men and those of the united nations, but we must soon face the question, how long we can continue to increase both the number of our men in the armed forces and war production.
As one of the major arsenals and granaries in the British commonwealth, our Canadian war problem resolves itself primarily into a balance for the allocation of total man- and woman-power to:	(1) the armed services;
(2) production of munitions; (3) production of foodstuffs for war purposes; (4) production of essential civilian supplies. While raising a large number of men for the armed services, we have been able at the same time to achieve a remarkable increase in both industrial and agricultural production. Up to the present we have been able to accomplish this by a process of natural selection, allowing individuals to. find that war-time service in which they feel able to make their best contribution to the total war effort. However, the time has come when we cannot reach the military, industrial and agricultural goals that are necessary to ensure victory without the gradual exercise of some government direction and control. One has only to read the newspapers-and by this I do not necessarily mean editorials. In recent issues of the Toronto and Ottawa papers I have noted almost frantic appeals from war industry for men. Many of these industries are located in ridings represented by hon. members here this afternoon, and they cover almost the whole field of human endeavour. Particularly is there need for men in the heavy industries; and in my judgment, if we are to continue production on the scale on which we are now producing-and of course we have planned for even a further increased production-it will be necessary to pay particular attention to heavy industry, because it is the basic industry of the war, in which few women can be employed. I believe that steps will have to be taken in the very near future to see that the heavy industries of this country are provided with sufficient men

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mitchell
so that we can produce the necessary supplies according to plan. I sometimes wonder whether we have not tried to do too much for a nation the size of ours.
In recent weeks I have received many visits from industrialists who are anxious about the shortage of labour and its effect on war production. I should like to quote two paragraphs from a letter which, because of the nature of its contents, dealing with the war effort, was confidential. This paragraph reads:
Indications are that this condition is going to become worse, since we have a number of production units which will go into production during the summer months, so that unless more labour becomes available by the fall our efficiency will be greatly impaired.
At the present time we have need for between 300 and 400 men, and with the new units going into production we will require by September or October a force of approximately 500 to 600 more than the number we now have working. We are doing everything we can to relieve the situation by picking up labour in the north country and in various other parts of Ontario where we understand non-essential industry is being curtailed.
I could instance many other appeals for labour to take jobs on which women cannot be employed. It is evident that almost all our people who are ordinarily accepted for work in industry and agriculture are now fully employed. From now on we must carefully classify the man- and woman-power of the country so that every individual can be referred to the work in which he can make his maximum contribution to our war effort.
The conclusion is inescapable that we cannot reach the military, industrial and agricultural goal which we must attain to ensure victory without steadily increasing resort to measures of government direction and control, of which I now wish to speak briefly.
Effective utilization of man-power implies that none be wasted by unemployment. Every unemployed male worker is now required to register for work and to keep that registration active as long as he remains unemployed. This will soon be made compulsory for women workers also. It is generally agreed that every effort should be made to offer jobs first to the available men. We do not expect 100 per cent success in removing every local or temporary pocket of unemployment; even Great Britain has not been able to achieve that. But lack of success will no longer be because of incomplete information. We must know of every unemployed worker, where he is and what sort of work he is best fitted for.
On Friday last the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) requested a statement as to the total numbers of males and females recorded at the employment offices across Canada in
compliance with the order requiring all male persons from sixteen to sixty-nine years of age to register. I may say that the employment offices have been reporting the number of persons who at specified dates had applied for work and who on the dates reported had not yet been placed. The following are comparative figures, as at April 30 in the years 1940, 1941 and 1942, of those who had voluntarily come to the employment offices seeking work and have not been placed:
April 1	Men Women Total
1940	
108,257	19,295	127,5521941	
51,580	14,912	66,4921942	
24,879	8,141	33,020
Of course in the day to day transactions of the employment offices there will always be a number of persons who at the end of any given day are unplaced because of the ordinary movement of men and women from one job to another. However, the comparison I have just given of unplaced applicants as between 1940 and 1942 shows that the reservoir of available labour is almost entirely depleted.
An interesting check against the foregoing figures is disclosed by the employment reports secured monthly by the bureau of statistics from firms employing more than fifteen employees. These reports indicate a very large increase in the number of persons employed in non-agricultural employment. The figures are:
March	No.
1940		 2,120,000
1941		 2,678,000
1942		 3,131,000
Hon. members will see that there has been an increase of approximately a million persons employed in these industries over the last two years. It is apparent from these figures that the number of persons reporting voluntarily for work is decreasing rapidly and that the number of persons employed in this group of roughly 13,000 firms has increased by over a million in the last two years.
It is interesting to note that in April, 1942, as compared with April, 1940, the number of unplaced applicants at the employment offices showed a decrease of 74 per cent and the number of wage earners employed by these 13,000 firms had increased between March, 1940, and March, 1942, by 47 per cent.
It was our opinion that the number of employable men who have not registered at the offices voluntarily was very small. However to make sure and to obtain a registration of employable women on a voluntary basis and generally to encourage the use of the employment offices, compulsory registration of men and voluntary registration of women

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mitchell
was ordered to be taken, early in June. At the close of business on June 11, 1942, as a result of the two registrations the total number reported as being unemployed in Canada was:
Women	 8,818
Men	 59,933
Total	 68,751
It should be noted that the number of women who registered is not greatly in excess of the figures for April 30, 1942. Since the registration was voluntary, most of those who registered were women who were actually seeking employment. As the registration of men was compulsory, the 59,933 who registered included many unemployable persons, many only partly employable and many who for various reasons it would be difficult to place in employment. The employment officers are examining the registration, and from preliminary but incomplete returns it appears that some 50 per cent of the 59,933 males are totally or partly unemployable. Accordingly the net figure of employable men registered is approximately the same as the total number of males who had voluntarily registered at April 30, 1942, or something over 20,000, and not more than 30,000 unplaced on June 11, 1942. This is a remarkably low figure, undoubtedly an all-time low for Canada. The registration of all those persons covered by unemployment insurance is almost complete. They are being classified by age, skill, sex, and industry.
It is obvious that we cannot meet our manpower requirements solely from the present small number of unemployed. Women must replace men in very many occupations within the range of their strength and skill; men must be transferred from less essential to more essential industry, and it may be necessary further to contract employment in less essential production. One has only to walk down the main streets of any of our cities to observe that we have not yet touched the fringe of the measure of sacrifice necessary for victory.
One will appreciate the difficulties in establishing a man-power inventory when we are dealing with the records of millions of individuals. The inventory gets out of date before it can be put to effective use. But we are undertaking to maintain a running inventory of our man-power by requiring employers to report all additions to and separations from their payrolls. This is essential to reduce excessive and wasteful labour turnover. The effort to prohibit enticement from war industries was not effective, because employers were free to hire anybody who applied. How-

ever, the wage control policy has restrained employers from putting up wages in their competition for scarce labour. This competition, of course, did not increase the total supply of labour, but simply caused more movement of the available supply between employers.
We intend to channel all transfers of labour through employment offices. At the moment employers are required to notify the national selective service officer of all their vacancies and all prospective lay-offs, and they may engage only persons referred to them or approved by the national selective service officer. This is the beginning of genuine control and direction of man-power. The national selective service officer, as the system develops, will have before him at all times the local demand for and the supply of labour.
As employers and employees grow more accustomed to using the officers, and as the officers gradually learn the details of their local situations, it will be possible, either generally or in particular localities, or in respect of particular industries and occupations, to tighten or slacken the control as circumstances necessitate. This will mean some inconvenience to both employers and employees. A tremendous burden of work and responsibility is imposed on the employment offices, but the procedure if effective will facilitate post-war readjustments in employment of untold ben-fit and value.
The house is well aware of the steps already taken with respect to the maintenance of an adequate labour supply for agriculture. I would like to say this to my farmer and industrial friends. This war in its very essence demands that we improvise from day to day, and as the changing conditions require, the measures necessary to free men for the fighting forces so that victory may be assured.
Last year the province of Ontario, in cooperation with the dominion, was able to organize a farm labour programme that provided an additional 23,000 workers to assist in the peak period of agricultural activities, and a similar arrangement has been made for this year.
It is certain that governments cannot do everything, but I am confident that with the intelligent cooperation of the farmers themselves most of the difficulties of farm labour supply can be minimized.
If I had more time I could discuss the war emergency training programme under which tens of thousands have been trained, and the plan recently adopted to train 15,000 war plant job instructors within a period of three months. We have set in motion, in cooperation with the universities, a course of training

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mitchell
in personnel work, because of the dearth of qualified men in that field, which I think will be of untold benefit both to employers and to employees in our industrial life. From my experience as chairman of the industrial disputes inquiry commission I am of the opinion that one great defect is the lack of knowledge by some managements of how to deal with the human element in industry. A man may be one of the brightest of engineers, but when it comes to the engineering of men he sometimes is the worst kind of engineer, and we have felt in the labour department that with the development of a personnel force especially trained and skilled in the handling of men much unnecessary industrial friction may be avoided. The British government have taken similar steps, also our friends to the south.
We have arranged with the universities and the provinces to provide assistance to student doctors, dentists, engineers, and scientists who on graduation will be directed to the armed services and war industries. This financial aid will make it possible to continue the courses in the summer months and will speed up training in these most important occupations.
Funds are being made available to meet the transportation costs of moving workers to distant employment.
Negotiations are proceeding with the provinces with a view to the conclusion of agreements for the establishment of day nurseries for the children of women employed in the war industries.
It will be observed that by the adoption of a variety of measures, some still in their early stages, the mobilization of Canadian man-power has been proceeding steadily. The regional and national war labour boards are turning to the problems of wage adjustments necessary to attract and retain labour in distant and isolated undertakings, such as the defence projects in British Columbia.
As the labour supply situation tightens I shall be prepared to recommend, and I know the Canadian people would wish me to recommend, whatever measures of increased direction, compulsion or control prove necessary to meet future requirements. As Minister of Labour I have the task of seeing that there are enough men for our war industries. Hence the setting up of the national selective service branch under Mr. Elliott M. Little, who with his associates are moving faster in the total mobilization of man-power than [DOT]many realize. It is the part of statesmanship in this time to unify the people of this dominion so that our national war effort may reach maximum proportions and efficiency. We 44501-233
cannot maintain our free institutions in these desperate times unless there is national unity. I believe that is the soundest policy to pursue.
May I say this, Mr. Speaker, that I am doing many things to-day which are in direct contradiction of everything I have ever believed in, and I am doing them because I believe they are in the interests of this dominion. Many "shalls" and "shall nots" are going out from the Department of Labour every day in the week, but I trust that it may be said of the Minister of Labour and of the government of this country that no step that we take will endanger the liberties that have been handed down to us, and I hope that at the conclusion of the war we shall speedily return to that way of life where the utmost amount of freedom is possible for the people of this country.
Tribute has been paid to the various racial groups that go to make up the life of this dominion. Basically we have French and British, but we have taken within our blood streams most of the finest races of Europe and have fashioned a nation based on the concept of freedom equal to that of any other country in the world.
Mention has been made of imperialism. The British people, and I speak now in the broader sense, with all their faults, have been mainly responsible for the form of government that has made possible even this debate in the House of Commons. It has been my privilege, Mr. Speaker, to visit almost every part of what is sometimes called the British empire, and I know something of the contributions that have been made to democratic government and justice by the British people. I have also seen things and conditions that I felt were not warranted in any civilized country, but viewed in the broad sweep of history I think it will be said that the contributions made by the British empire have been the greatest in the history of the world.
Members of this house have a terrible responsibility. It is their duty to give leadership to their constituents. Freedom, as we understand it, is in the balance. When the history of our time is written, may it be said that we measured up to our responsibility, and that nothing we should have done, no matter what the cost, was not undertaken to preserve the heritage of liberty handed down to us by those who have gone before.
I do not want hon. members to have any doubt as to where I stand on the question of conscription for overseas service. It has been indicated in certain quarters that I am a con-scriptionist. Be that as it may, I hope it can never be said I am not a realist. I want to say in conclusion that when in my view con-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bruce

scription for overseas service is essential to the safety of the state and the preservation of our way of life, I will express my opinion in no uncertain terms.
In conclusion I should like to quote from a book written by an American. It is called "The White Cliffs", and from it I take this thought:
I am American bred,
I have seen much to hate here-much to forgive,
But in a world where England is finished and dead,
I do not wish to live.
That expresses my sentiments.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) upon the excellent speech he has made this afternoon. I take to myself a good deal of credit for the fact that he occupies his present position. Some hon. members will recall that nearly two years ago I recommended to the house that we have as Minister of Labour a man who understood the problems of labour. I am glad to see that for some little time we have had a man as able as the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat.
After listening to the monotonous, partisan repetitions of set phrases which came to us like a gramophone record of their master's voice, in the form of speeches by one cabinet minister after another in support of voluntary enlistment, and of the Prime Minister's policy of procrastination in so far as the real issue is concerned, it was indeed refreshing to hear the well-reasoned argument of the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) in favour of conscription.
There is no misunderstanding his language when he says:
The need for conscripting those men-
For overseas.
-having arisen, I say frankly . . . the government should have power to apply conscription.
He does not follow the Prime Minister's ifs and whens, or the Minister of National War Services' confessions of an ex-pacifist, but says with conviction that the time is here -now. I congratulate him upon his courage, and the valuable contribution he has made to the debate.
On Tuesday last I listened with much interest to the important speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). I congratulate him upon the change which has taken place in his attitude toward the manpower problem since he rebuked me in the house following my speech on May 12, 1941, when I had the termerity to suggest the

adoption of compulsory selective service. I admit at once that he may have done this from the very best of motives, knowing as he probably did the effect which even the suggestion of conscription would have upon Quebec. I am glad to find that he now declares there is nothing sinister about the word conscription, and that if it comes to a choice between national unity and national security he will select the latter.
On May 12 I spoke in part as follows:
We should have the compulsory selective service which was visualized by the sweeping powers of the National Resources Mobilization Act passed last June, without the hamstringing clause that prevents men who train under that act from being used wherever the need is urgent. Voluntary recruiting has reached the stage where it is slow, cumbersome and wasteful. I am certain that all parts of Canada will respond to the high patriotic call that the situation now requires. Selective compulsory enlistment is the only fair and efficient way to meet the complex needs of Canada. I venture to suggest therefore that this session should not close until we have disposed of this urgent business.
I objected then, as I do now, and as I did in 1940 when the National Resources Mobilization Act was passed, to section 3 being incorporated in the act. I am firmly of the opinion that if the government had courageously introduced conscription at that time, the province of Quebec would have accepted it, and to-day we would have greater national unity. This lack of unity I attribute to the vacillating leadership we have had under the present government.
From listening to various speeches one would assume that the need for conscription has not yet arisen, but that when it comes- and not until then-conscription will be enforced. They seem to lose sight of the fact that it takes from nine months to two years to make an efficient soldier. When the need comes we cannot just go out and grab men, put them into the service and rush them into the firing line. We have had many illustrations of the lack of wisdom of that procedure.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) upon the courage he has shown in casting aside at least temporarily his partisan ties, and upon the able way in which he disposed of the irrelevancies with which the speeches of his political friends have confused the issue. He has offered a correct and logical interpretation of the meaning of the "yes" and "no" votes as applied to conscription. I agree entirely with the hon. member when he says:
The question of conscription cries out for decision, and can no longer be evaded. Let us

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bruce
determine it now. This is the debate, and now is the time. It has already been decided by the high court of the electorate.
And I may say to the hon. member that it was decided by the high court of the electorate in my constituency, as well as in his.
May I also congratulate the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray) upon the admirable speech on conscription he delivered in the house on June 18. He expressed the views held by over 80 per cent of the people of this province, and earned their admiration for his courage in doing so. After all, I submit that in time of war, national defence should be placed before party, and that is just what the hon. members to whom I have referred have done.
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard), speaking yesterday, called for unity and understanding and referred to what he termed the disgusting prejudice against French Canadians. I may tell him that that does not apply to any of the hon. members of this house who are associated with me here. It certainly does not apply to me. I have always advocated tolerance. I should like to quote from a speech I made on April 24, 1934, on our heritage of tolerance. I said:
The priceless heritage of tolerance, the priceless gift of freedom which this dominion, as a part of a great empire holds in trust for this and future generations, will, I know, never be betrayed, never be lost. For it is in this freedom, this tolerance, this true democracy, that the richest life is to be found for all men.
I may tell him also that I have nothing but the kindliest feeling of friendship and admiration for the race which he represents. Many years ago I went to Paris to take a post-graduate course in surgery, because in that city there were some of the most expert exponents of surgery to be found anywhere in the world. I should like to pay a tribute to that great scientist Louis Pasteur, whose discovery that minute organisms caused suppuration has enabled such great progress to be made in surgery. Had it not been for his discovery, many of the successful operations now performed on various parts of the human body would not have been possible.
I believe also that our French-Canadian compatriots are just as loyal as any of us. If they are placed in a false position to-day it is not their fault; it is owing entirely to the perverse education they have received at the hands of the politicians. It is a fact that a million French-Canadian people of Quebec origin who now live in the New England states have responded to the national selective service draft as loyally as any other United States citizens. Our French-Canadian compat-44561-2331
riots would do the same under the leadership of a Roosevelt or a Churchill. Instead they have been misled for political party considerations by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and some of his colleagues. It is clear that the present unhappy situation in Quebec has been due to the spread of anti-British propaganda over a period of years by politicians for their own partisan ends.
The hon. member for Bellechasse has been less than fair in quoting only the statements made by Mr. Asquith in 1915 and 1916, because it was in the latter year that Mr. Asquith was deposed from leadership for his persistence in those views and for following of a policy of "wait and see." There is ample evidence of disunity in this house, as well as a steadily mounting feeling of distrust and despair throughout the country under our present Asquithian leadership, to warn the Prime Minister that he will soon meet a similar fate. I should like to bring the hon. member for Bellechasse up to date by quoting a few passages from a speech made by Mr. Churchill in May, 1939, to be found at page 170 of "Blood, Sweat and Tears." Speaking of the conscription act, he said:
But there is nothing undemocratic about this measure; it is the most democratic thing we have ever done in the islaud. Provided that no exceptions are allowed, it will wear away differences between class and class, and it may also be the beginning of a far more broadly and evenly based society than we have ever known.
And again:
This is a time when prejudices must be abandoned on either side, and a true comradeship established between all parties and classes throughout our loyal anxious land.
Referring to the period of which my hon. friend spoke, he says in part:
This proved intolerable to the national sense of justice. Moreover, the two million households and families whose menfolk had borne the whole burden, were infuriated by the fact that there were very large numbers of perfectly fit men remaining at home, filling at higher wages the jobs of those who had volunteered. It was this sense of wrong and injustice, which spread through the country in the spring and summer of 1916, that alone carried the conscription bill.
How different now! Today, before a shot has been fired, in cool blood we are taking this momentous step, and taking it with a very large measure of national acceptance. Nothing could more vividly mark the manner in which the wage-earning classes-without whom no armies can be formed-have realized the deadly nature of the assault which is being directed at their fundamental right and liberties. What nearly two years of bloody war only attained with difficulty in 1916, is now practically conceded by the will of the nation in a time of nominal peace. This is the point which should impress foreign countries, and-
36S8

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bruce
I interject, "Canada".
-because it is the most explicit guarantee of the resolve of the British people to bear its part in what is now plainly a world cause.
I am sure we were all greatly touched by the pathetic evidence of fog which surrounded the statesman from Saskatchewan when he visited a valley in British Columbia many years ago. One can only conclude that the same fog has pursued him through the years and still envelops him. This is perhaps the kindest way to explain his willingness to sit silent and listen to the aspersions which have been cast upon his former colleague, Bight Hon. Arthur Meighen, in connection with the enforcement of conscription. This would seem to be the appropriate time to get the record straight. Mr. Meighen drew up the conscription act of 1917 in his capacity as Solicitor General, and no one can read that act without agreeing that it is as fair and equitable as a law could be made. All decisions to be made under it with respect to the liberty of the subject were made by impartially appointed tribunals. The bill was introduced by Sir Robert Borden on June 11, 1917. It passed on July 24 of the same year, when it received the practically unanimous support not only of the Conservative members of the house but of a large part of the Liberal party as well. About a month later, on August 28, Mr. Meighen left the justice department to become Secretary of State. On October 2 of the same year he became Minister of the Interior, which position he held until 1919. Sir Robert Borden promised not to give the bill effect until it was submitted to the people in a general election, which was held on December 17, 1917. The actual call for service was not made until January 3, 1918.
The administration of the military service act was entirely under the Department of Justice, whose head was the Hon. C. J. Doherty, of Quebec. From what I can learn there does not appear to have been any complaint at all about its having been unjustly administered, although, doubtless, minor errors were made. The talk, therefore, about the administration of the act being the cause of the opposition is absurd. The opposition, clearly, was to conscription itself, as everybody will realize who has sat in this house during the last week or so.
The present Prime Minister and his Quebec ministers capitalized on it in the most ruthless way. It will be apparent how unfair and untrue it was for the Prime Minister to announce over the radio in seeking the "yes" vote, as he did, as follows:
The pledge not to impose conscription, as everybody knows, was the result of Canada's

experience in the last war. The way in which conscription was then introduced and the way it was enforced gave rise to bitter resentment.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that this statement is the more reprehensible because it was made in what the Prime Minister proclaimed as a non-party campaign, and when Mr. Meighen, a member of the government of 1918, had no means of replying to the audience which the Prime Minister reached, gratis, over the radio.
May I point out that the present Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) and all the Liberal ministers in the Union government at that time, as well as Mr. Meighen, were jointly responsible for what was done. The minister of mines, who has been a member of the present government for many years, had exactly the same relation to the enforcement of conscription as had Mr. Meighen. But the Liberals made a bogeyman of Mr. Meighen because he became the leader of the Conservative party. If there was anything wrong or unjust in the enforcement of the act, the minister of mines had the full responsibility that Mr. Meighen had, but had not the common fairness between man and man to defend either himself or his former colleague. Instead, he proposes sending me -and other critics of the government to a concentration camp- which only confirms the fears of some people that we are soon to have, if we have not already, a dictatorship in this country. In fact, does not the announcement yesterday of the action launched against Colonel Drew point in the same direction?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. FLEMING:: That is before the courts.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I gave a fair hearing to the hon. gentleman who spoke before me, and I would ask my hon. friends to accord me the same treatment.


Mr. SPEAKER:: May I point out that any reference to a matter which is before the courts is not in order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I would simply add that
I consider, as many others do, that the methods of the gestapo were brought into play and displayed for the observation of this country yesterday. Is it a crime for a man to try to find out what caused our troops to be sent unarmed-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: -and untrained to Hong Kong? If not, then some explanation is needed of what took place yesterday.
The present debate on conscription, Mr. Speaker-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bruce


Mr. GOLDING:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. I believe that the rules of the house prohibit speakers from reading constantly from manuscript.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister of Labour read every word of his speech.


William Henry Golding: Mr. Speaker has given a
ruling and so far as the leader of the opposition is concerned he is the first one to create a fuss if anybody interrupts him. I am now addressing myself to the house through Mr. Speaker.


Georges Parent: Order. I have already
stated to the house the rule regarding the reading of speeches. I will not say that the hon. member is reading his speech in a manner that should be taken objection to. It is true that the hon. member is reading closely from his notes, but I think that some latitude has been given to other members addressing the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Postmaster General yesterday read every minute during his speech.


Mr. MULOCK:: That is not correct.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
have had previous interruptions from the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding), and I expected the same thing from him again this afternoon. He has been very restless for some time, particularly when I talked about some of his friends.
The present debate calls to mind the discussions which took place during the crisis which arose over conscription in England in the summer of 1915, when Mr. Asquith was Prime Minister. Mr. Churchill explained that the delays and uncertainty were arousing great disquiet, and then went on to discuss in a general way the question of temporizing in peace and war. The quotation will be found in "The World Crisis", volume I, page 243.


Harry Raymond Fleming: Well, we can read it
there.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I should like to read just
what Mr. Churchill said. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) read a good many extracts yesterday. Surely I can have a similar privilege to-day, without the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and others looking discomfited.


Georges Parent: Order. I must call the
attention of hon. members to the fact that the hon. member who has the floor has a perfect right to give expression to his point of view, whether or not it is pleasing to other hon. members of the house. He should be
extended the consideration to which all hon. members are entitled, and I must insist that he have the right to make his speech without interruption.


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Speaker, I object to the hon. gentleman bringing my name into it. I was sitting here just listening to him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A case of mistaken identity.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I thought the minister's
actions portrayed a little more than a kindly interest. Perhaps not; I am sorry if I misunderstood him. Mr. Churchill says:
There is an extraordinary contrast between the processes of thought and methods of management required in war and those which serve in peace. Much is gained in peace by ignoring or putting off disagreeable or awkward questions, and avoiding clear-cut decisions which, if they please some, offend others. It is often better in peace to persist for a time patiently in an obscure and indeterminate course of action rather than break up or dangerously strain a political combination. ... In war everything is different. There is no place for compromise in war. That invaluable process only means that soldiers are shot because their leaders in council and camp are unable to resolve. In war, the clouds never blow over; they gather unceasingly and fall in thunderbolts. Things do not get better by being let alone; unless they are adjusted they explode with shattering detonation. Clear leadership, violent action, rigid decisions one way or the other, form the only path not only of victory, but of safety and even of mercy.
The state cannot afford division or hesitation at the executive centre. To humour a distinguished man, to avoid a fierce dispute, nay. even to preserve the governing instrument itself, cannot, except as an alternative to sheer anarchy, be held to justify half measures. The peace of the council may for the moment be won, but the price is paid on the battlefield by brave men marching forward against unspeakable terrors in the belief that conviction and coherence have animated their orders.
Thus does Britain's great war-time leader set forth in clear and unmistakable language the distinction between peace and war-time leadership, and confirm the attitude which I took shortly after I entered this house when I raised the question, in all good faith, I submit, whether the qualities that commended our present Prime Minister for the job of conventional statecraft in peace-time were not the very ones which condemned him as a courageous war-time leader. At the time I assured the house, as I do now. that this appraisal of the Prime Minister's ability and temperament was not meant to be personal criticism of him as a man of opposite political faith, because, as I have often said before, I do not consider in these grave times that a man's political viewpoint is of any moment whatever. However, my statement
Mobilization Act-Mr, Bruce

that I was apprehensive as to whether the Prime Minister's temperament was such as to qualify him to direct this nation in the greatest crisis in its history was interpreted falsely, and of course the heavy guns of partisanship were trained on me. May I ask again with equal sincerity if the events of the past weeks do not in some degree justify the apprehension which I expresed two years ago.
Briefly, the Prime Minister's philosophy to keep the party afloat and lie at anchor in the stream of time has not worked even sUcessfully for the great party which he has the honour to head. I further submit that this policy of evasion of responsibility has worked disastrously also for the interests of the nation. Without dealing in recriminations, I should like to say that those of us who, from the most honest and honourable motives, tried to prevent the Prime Minister and his party from evading responsibility by submitting the question of mobilization of manpower, to the people in the form of a plebiscite have been fully justified in opposing this method an the floor of the house. I should like also to add that once the plebiscite as a means had pased this parliament and become an instrument through which the nation was to express its views on mobilization of man-power, I, and the other loyal members of this house, shared equally and vigorously in the campaign to bring the vote on this evasively-worded question to a successful result.
It is with some pride that I point to my constituency, Parkdale in Toronto, and to the result which they gave-92 per cent "yes" in answer to the question which was asked. Speaking as a member from the province of Ontario, I wish to say that the result of the vote in that section of Canada is a magnificent tribute to the patriotism and soundness of the Canadian people. However, the plebiscite is past history. That it was a political blunder of the first magnitude goes without saying. The vote, however, established clearly for this government that there is a division of opinion in Canada on the question of conscription. No matter in what innocuous language the question was phrased, the result of the vote was a clear-cut indication to this government that the people went to the polls and voted on conscription, "yes" or "no".
What is the result? In one part of Canada the carefully nurtured bogey of conscription has borne full and devastating fruit, while throughout the nation as a whole a substantial majority of the people have told this parliament through its government to

introduce full-out conscription and have done with this hypocrisy. In the eyes of world opinion the government's unwillingness in the past to face up to this issue honestly and courageously has done us untold harm. This nation won its reputation and carried influence in world affairs far beyond what its small population justified, because of the magnificent achievements of the Canadian forces in the last war. That this reputation and our current effort have been done serious harm throughout the world by the government's policy of conscription, is an unchallengeable statement. This damage is such that only time and deeds can repair it.
Therefore I appeal to the Prime Minister of this nation, even at this late date. Let us have finished with half measures and deception. Let us obey the will of the majority of the people of this great dominion. Let us put ourselves on an equal plane with the other members of the united nations by a straightforward clear-cut introduction of complete selective compulsory service. I hear our present system defended because the voluntary form of enlistment is said to be successful. I submit it is most niggardly and cowardly for this nation to continue a system which obviously brings out all its best and bravest, placing a penalty on patriotism while paying a premium to the shirkers who stay at home. We all as members of this highest court of the nation stand here as trustees for those brave young flyers, those gallant members of our naval forces, and the yet unproven but equally fine mettle of Canadian manhood which constitutes our active army. Let us be faithful to that trust.
I ask the Prime Minister to amend the present bill in committee to provide for the immediate introduction of conscription. He will perhaps draw strength partly from his political adversaries. If there is a defection on the part of his cultivated followers I am sure it will be accompanied with regrets, but I am equally certain that as this war progresses the wisdom of that course will be vindicated and those who temporarily do not see fit to support a policy of honesty and courage will some day thank him for performing what must be considered the first duty of the head of any government, that of taking the proper steps to protect the lives and property of the people who constitute the nation which it is his high privilege to govern.
I have heard much of a political crisis in recent weeks. There need not be one. I address myself to the Prime Minister through the acting leader of the house: by taking the simple, honest, fearless course he can enlist

Mobilization Act-Mr. Slaght
his critics on his side, and the judgment of history will certainly dissipate any temporary dissension within his party ranks. These tragic days of war will not always be upon us. Surely it is consistent with statesmanship and honour that this nation be governed with a view to the future. I am perfectly conscious that the great job in hand is the effective prosecution of the war, and I am not unmindful of the great contribution this nation has made in many spheres under the present government. But I do feel that when that day arrives when all our sacrifices will be crowned with victory it will be an irreparable tragedy if the British empire's war effort should have suffered because Canada failed to adopt a form of conscription equal to that of the United States. Canada's position geographically makes her the show window of the British commonwealth of nations, influencing American public opinion to a far greater degree than her population of twelve million people would in itself warrant. We cannot afford to prejudice the magnificent contribution of those brave people of England, the senior partner of this commonwealth, by causing a chink in her armour. If the comradeship which is being gained in arms among the Anglo-Saxon nations by the sacrifice of their bravest and best is to bear full fruit in the days of peace, surely it is important that this nation leave no justifiable opportunity for individual patriots in any land to say that Canada among the united nations failed to meet the sacrifices of any other country.
Again I appeal to the Prime Minister to consider our obligations to the future, and to give this house at once a clear-cut measure of conscription, which will enable sacrifices to be equally shared so that the laurels which will accompany victory may be worn with equal pride in every section of this dominion.


Georges Parent: Exception has been taken this afternoon to the reading of speeches. At the beginning of this debate I asked hon. members to give strict observance to the rule in that regard. That observance has not been given throughout this debate, and hon. members on both sides of the house are at fault in that breach of the rule. It is clearly the sense of the house that speeches should not be read, and that there should be strict conformity to the rule, no matter from what side of the house or in what language the speech is made. I therefore propose now, knowing the sense of the house, to require strict conformity with the rule, and I therefore ask hon. members to observe it.


Mr. A. G. SLAGHT (Parry Sound):: Before making some observations on this bill I wish
to compliment the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Bruce) on the clearness and tolerance and the excellent manner of delivery of his address. I shall have a word to say a little later as to his introduction into this debate of the name of his honoured leader, but in the meantime I do pay that tribute, a genuine one, to my hon. friend.
Let me say at once that I propose to vote for this bill. Indeed I could find no reason not to do so. I believe I owe it to my constituents and to the people of Canada and to myself to support this bill, in order that the answer given by the people in the plebiscite may have the effect for which they overwhelmingly voted.
What argument can really be found to the contrary? Section 3 of the mobilization act, if it remains the law, is a distinct prohibition against the government introducing compulsory service at such time as they may in the light of all the circumstances of the moment deem it essential so to do in order to maintain Canada's war effort. Therefore I find no difficulty whatever in believing that it is my bounden duty to vote for Bill No. 80.
How can we justify any other course? If occasion arises, if our voluntary system should fail-the contrary is the fact for the moment -the government should, I believe, be free to act speedily and fearlessly by introducing a measure to provide for compulsory service, in order that we may at all times reinforce and support and not desert the young men of this country whom we have sent overseas, whom we have voted money to support, whom we are maintaining, French-Canadian and English, in Britain and elsewhere to fight Canada's battle over there.
I feel that some confusion has crept into this debate because we have not realized the importance of one of the main factors, and I should like to put it to hon. members now. Canada has a budget, or if you like a programme, under which to carry on the war.
We budgeted wisely in advance, not merely for money-we had our money budget on Tuesday and that will be discussed at the proper time-but for our man-power needs in all three armed forces, as all nations do. We budgeted for the fifteen-months period for our man-power requirements, from January 1, 1942, to March 31, 1943; we announced the budget to parliament and received the assent of parliament, practically unanimously, to our man-power budget. Our war cabinet did not do that lightly. You heard from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) that he had consulted the high commands of all our Canadian forces. Next they consulted and received the approval of our much
Mobilization Act-Mr. Slaght

respected and revered chief of the armed forces, General McNaughton, who also approved our man-power budget. Next, as the minister has told you, he secured the approval, although it was not necessary at all to do so, of the British Secretary of State for War to the sufficiency and propriety of our budget.
We budgeted to increase our forces-the members are all familiar with the details- from 27,000 men now in the navy to 40,000 by March of next year. We need 80,000 more young men in. the air force to bring the strength up from 100,000 to 180,000, and we need from 90,000 to 100,000 more men in the army to bring it up to the requirements of the two army corps set out in the manner indicated by the minister, it is on Hansard, and I shall not repeat it. So that the total budget of our man-power by March next is
615,000	men for all the armed forces. I have heard no man in this house or out of it declare that he has any quarrel with those figures or with that objective, with that budget or with that programme. If there is any such, let him indicate to me now that he does not think it is enough, having regard to those who approved this budget, and having regard to the well-known fact that generals as a rule want all the men they can get. With General McNaughton's approval of that budget, I have not heard a man in Canada, not even a newspaper in Canada, say that it was not an ample and proper budget, when you remember what we have to do in the other fields of total war effort.
Those other fields I shall not dwell on, but there is the food supply. We supply from Canada to-day two-thirds of the food of the British isles. We are supplying now three times more food to Britain every month than we supplied during the corresponding period of the whole course of the last war. We have also greatly increased our munitions supply, our supply of automotive vehicles, and of all that comes under the head of munitions. W7e are supplying eight times more munitions for the allies now than we did at any time in the last war. Remember those two facts, and do not let us get out of gear when we attempt to determine whether Canada's war effort is one of which we may be proud, and not one, as I am afraid some hon. members have almost indicated, at which we must hang our heads for fear the United States might laugh at us or sneer at us because our war effort was insufficient. I do not believe that the great majority of the decent people of the United States have any such notion in their hearts or heads at all. Would we be a proper subject for their laughter or 
their sneers when by a purely voluntary effort, without the least compulsion, we have done everything the mother country has asked us to do, and when, in the midst of this budget period, we are over-subscribed in money and in men for all three armed forces? And Canada is doing all that on a voluntary basis!
May I digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to deal with an incidental topic which I am sure you will feel is in order but which nevertheless is a little off my thesis. The United States recently raised the minimum monthly pay of any soldier in the United States army to 850 a month. After listening to the budget delivered in this house two days ago I say that we in this country ought at once to put similar legislation on our statute books. The soldiers of that great country and our own have almost everything in common-their mode of living, their scale of subsistence, their common desires, their common expenditures. All these things make them practically parallel, and I do not want to feel that these boys of ours, when they get over there, will be fighting shoulder to shoulder in a great crisis yet to come with the gallant troops from the United States and be receiving only $39 a month while the soldiers of the United States receive S50. I believe that we can afford to pay them $50, and we ought to do it. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) touched on this subject the other day, and I am heartily in agreement with him. He deserves great credit for bringing it to our attention.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Would the hon. member elaborate for a moment on the dependents' allowance, which makes, I think, a little difference?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: My hon. friend is correct. But dependents' allowance or no dependents' allowance-and what we are paying is not any too much for those dependents

we should raise the soldiers pay to $50 a month as a minimum. If the Minister of Finance has any doubts about it, then the least he should do, although I would prefer that he pay the $50 to them now every month, would be t6 let the difference between $39 and $50 accumulate as savings for the soldier, to be paid to him at the end of the war.
I have a word to say to two types of people on the subject of this debate. They are very different types. The first type is the man from Quebec or anywhere else in Canada, whether in or out of this house-and there are very few in this house to whom my remarks will apply at all-who says: I am against any young man from Canada going out of Canada

to fight. Unfortunately there are some few people in this country to-day who take that position, who say: I will not send any Canadian boy or be a party to sending him outside Canada to war anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances. I am referring now to the absolute isolationist, who says that under no method, voluntary or compulsory, will he be a party to a boy from Canada fighting outside of Canada. That is the old Duplessis doctrine which we fought to a standstill a couple of years ago, when the gallant people of Quebec, to their credit-I had no part in the contest-indicated decisively that they would have no part in that doctrine in this war.
Why did Canada declare war on Germany? When we came here in September 1939 did we put a mushy declaration on the statute book that if Germany came over here we would get out our g ns and fight her? No; Canada declared war on Germany, and Canada said, "We will stand beside the mother country, and we will help her whip Germany to her knees." That in effect was the declaration of war, if hon. members will look it up and read it, as I did this morning. And what else could you expect, in declaring war, than to proceed to send men to fight the enemy outside of Canada, wherever the enemy could be found?
Do you people who say we should not send men out of Canada to fight expect some day to whip Germany in Canada? Is that the theory on which we .declared war-to whip Germany in Canada? To ask the question is to answer it. I say to my hon. friends from Quebec-to the very few I am now addressing -you joined gallantly with us in September, 1939 in declaring war on Germany. You joined with us for three years in voting moneys-to do what? To send overseas our armed forces who enlisted voluntarily. You joined with us in Red Cross activities-not to have bandages waiting down in Quebec, but to send bandages to meet all needs and mercies to the Red Cross overseas. Those bandages were to follow our men, to be ready if disaster should come.
You have also followed us in respect to our air force. Could it be said by the isolationist that he intended only that our airmen should fly up and down over Manitoba and Quebec? Was it intended that they should not go outside the country? What arrant nonsense that would be I We created an air force-the greatest thing Canada has ever done since confederation-which has attracted the eyes of the w'hole world. We created that air force to go over there and fight the enemy where they can find him.
Mobilization Act-Mr. Slaght
We created the air force to whip him in Germany and to fight in Germany-and that is what they are doing.
All over the world our boys are to be found-and 1 shall not give the details, because they were put on Hansard the other day.


An hon. MEMBER:: To China.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Yes, even to China. And
what about the navy? Did we build up that gallant navy in order that they might sail up and down lake Erie, or up and down lake Ontario, or perhaps even down the St. Lawrence river-"but if they get eleven miles out, don't dare let the boys go outside the twelve-mile limit"! What arrant nonsense, again! We created a navy in order that it might brave the perils of the Atlantic to meet the enemy, and we have been doing it, ever since the war started, in the finest and most splendid way. Let us, therefore, have a truce to all these suggestions that the boys should not be sent outside of Canada to fight for Canada and whip Germany, to win the war.
That is the first type of person to which I wished to direct my first observations. The second type of person is the man who says, "Enforce conscription right away. Put it on the books to-morrow. Don't wait another moment." There are some hon. members to whom I wish to pay the greatest credit, because I am of the opinion that they believe that to be the best thing to do. But will they permit me to examine for a moment whether or not we should take that course, having in mind the plight in which we find ourselves on this 25th day of June, 1942.
Let me refer to the observations made yesterday by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White), speaking to this bill. He asked that on the third reading- and I trust I may refer to my notes in this connection-the government should introduce all necessary rules and regulations to make conscription enforcible, and that we should go on and debate all the petty details, every little item, and sit here I suppose all summer, or possibly into the fall-perhaps even up to Christmastide. Meantime Hitler and the Japanese would not be waiting for us. I entirely disagree with the hon. member's suggestion that the house should follow details of that kind. It may be that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) would agree with him.	[DOT]
Let me for the benefit of the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough look a little deeper into his suggestion. It is important to recall that in 1917 a conscription bill was placed upon the statute book, and assent was given to

Mobilization Act-Mr. Slaght

that bill on August 29 of that year. There was provision that the measure should become effective on December 1, 1917. It was introduced by a Unionist government, containing within its ranks splendid Canadians of both stripes of politics, Canadian from both the great political parties. Our new-found friends to the left had hardly come out of their swaddling clothes, or perhaps were not even born at that time-and I make that observation in no offensive way.
I call attention to the fact that in 1917 the government headed by Sir Robert Borden joined with eminent Canadian Liberals such as the late revered Mr. Rowell-I shall not name them, because history has recorded their names-and that government went to the country on the question of conscription. On December 19, having brought in a bill and having wrestled with it in parliament, as my hon. friend would have us do now-the hon. member from the west will recall the occasion-and having settled all the details with respect to it, the people of Canada passed upon it, and declared overwhelmingly in favour of conscription, on a vote of 153 for and 82 against.
In promoting that legislation Sir Robert Borden said to the people of Canada earlier in the year, back in May or June, ''We must have 70,000 more men by December 31." That was one of his great pleas. That was the only way he could get them. What happened? When December 31 came they did not have even 7.000 more men. January, February and March passed by, and they had called up
404,000	men all across Canada, under conscription. It is recorded that 380,000 applications for exemptions had been filed. Of the total registrants called up, the proportion from Ontario was 125,000.
In order to have my figures accurate perhaps at this stage I could not do better than to read an extract from a most revered author who has now passed away. I refer to the late Doctor O. D. Skelton, a man who for fifteen years under different governments was Undersecretary of State for External Affairs, and a man who was held in the highest respect, as was so clearly indicated on the occasion of his passing in July of last year. As an historian of integrity he has had something to say about conscription, an issue which it was his duty to follow very closely. I quote the following from page 545, volume 2, as filed in the parliamentary library:
It failed absolutely-
He was referring to conscription.
-in the ostensible aim of providing greater reinforcements than the voluntary system. The government had had a free hand in framing [Mr. Slaght.1
the measure. No effort or expense was spared in its enforcement. A huge administrative staff was set up, each office with its full equipment of shining desks and elaborate files; forms and instructions and regulations rained from the printing bureau; medical officers and reviewing boards, local tribunals, appeal courts and a central appeal judge (Mr. Justice Duff) were appointed, with militia representatives to check exemptions; police were enrolled to round up defaulters. In Quebec as elsewhere, once the issue was decided at the polls, the act was accepted, and its operation given full scope. Yet the legions promised did not appear. The first shock to the sanguine supporters of the act came when it was found that of the 404,000 of the first class, unmarried men from twenty' to thirty-four, who had registered by the end of 1917, 380,000 had claimed exemption; the next, with the announcement that there were
118.000	claims for exemption from Ontario as against 115,000 from Quebec (out of 125,000 and 117,000 registrants).
Will the hon. member for Parlcdale digest that little morsel?


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Mostly farmers, I should think.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Who were needed on the land.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: My hon. friend is casting slurs on the farmers of my province and I resent it.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Only because-


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I represent a riding where there are as fine farmers as my hon. friend ever had in his riding.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I happen to be a farmer myself.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Only because the farmers were needed on the land, the same as they are to-day.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Perhaps the figures for
Quebec will tell the house whether the farmers were needed on the land in Quebec. Is there any virtue about the Quebec soil that it farms itself? Let my hon. friend show a little reason in this discussion.
Just let me digress to say that he referred to his absentee leader, his remote control leader, whom he sought to eulogize by saying that he was the author of the act of 1917. I want him to listen to how the act of 1917 worked out. Perhaps he did not remember that his revered leader, his remote control leader to whom he pays such a tribute, had a great deal to do with the enforcement of the act of 1917 as well as having been the draftsman of the act.


An hon. MEMBER:: The lost leader.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Slaght


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Lost leader is right. I admire the affectionate way in which the hon. member for Parkdale referred to his leader. It was touching. It was almost bridal in its effect. Let me say to him that since February 9, when the people of York South had something to say, the honeymoon has been over for my hon. friend and his great leader.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: May I just interject a word?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Will time come off for this?


Georges Parent: No.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Then my hon. friend will have to pardon me. I think I will be able to keep within my time; if I do I shall invite him to ask any question he wishes before I sit down. If not, no. Let us see what happened in Quebec. A total of 117,000 were called, and out of the Quebec registrants there were
115.000	applications for exemption.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Not bad.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Not bad, but is my hon. friend saying that the discrepancy between the figures for Ontario and Quebec justifies the language we heard yesterday across the floor of this house? No. I continue with Doctor Skelton:
Local tribunals, particularly in Quebec, were charged with being farcically lax; on the other hand, the military representatives appealed nearly every exemption in Quebec, but allowed
90.000	in Ontario to go unopposed. Exemptions were reviewed by the appeal judges and later by Justice Duff: by the end of March, some
364.000	out of 372,000 cases had been decided.
In Quebec 108,000 exemptions had been finally approved, and in Ontario 104,000. Sir Robert Borden had insisted in June inat :t was absolutely essential to have 70,000 men by December 31, 1917. By March 31	1918, the number
ordered to report for duty was on'y 31,000, of whom 5.000 defaulted, the net yield being less than 26,000. Supporters of conscription were slow to admit its failure, 1 -t in the face of this breakdown criticism could not wholly be suppressed.
Then there is a quotation from the Montreal Gazette. I think this is one of the newspapers loudest in support of conscription. It was not playing politics when it said:
The spectacle offered by the operation of the draft system has not been encouraging. The government appears to have established a system which if it gets the men at all, will get them so slowly that whatever military advantage depends upon expeditious reinforcement will be lost.
I am sorry the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) is not here, for thr Toronto Globe referred to the widespread feeling of disappointment, while it is said that Mayor Church of Toronto stated:
The Military Service Act will cost the country millions and is getting very little results. If 44561-2345
the government had spent one-quarter of the money in voluntary recruiting, they would have got more men.
I am not quoting this to annoy my hon. friend from Toronto. I believe he is as loyal a man as there is in this house. If I may say so, I think he has been rather misled by his absentee leader.
I have just a few more quotations from Doctor Skelton's book. This gives the worst side of the picture. I want to be fair, because there is another item. I quote from page 548 as follows:
The military crisis caused by the German drive for the channel ports in March gave occasion for a change in policy. The government decided to cancel all exemptions granted to men of twenty, twenty-one and twenty-two years of age. A resolution sanctioning an order in council to this effect passed parliament by a vote of 114 to 65.
The matter was carefully reviewed in parliament, and this order called up men who were entitled to stay home. Parliament did that, and parliament had the right to do it. Doctor Skelton continues:
When the end came in November, 1918, some
83.000	men had been enrolled under the act, or had reported voluntarily after its enactment; of these, 7,000 were on compassionate leave and
15.000	on farm leave, so that the actual yield was 61,000 men, of whom few ever saw France.
What does that mean? We were to have
70.000	men by the end of December, 1917, but at the end of March, 1918, we had only 26.000. While the figures show that 61.000 were obtained as a result of that compulsion during the whole period up to armistice day, November 11, during the same period 101,000 men enlisted voluntarily.
I suggest that our fight must go on. A man who talks of peace now ought to be stuck up against a wall and shot. It would be nothing but a German peace; we would be putting our people into slavery for the rest of their existence. To my friends from Quebec, for many of whom I have the highest personal regard, let me say this in the friendliest spirit. The one sure way to avoid conscription for overseas is to continue the good work that you are doing of voluntary enlistments in ever-increasing numbers. That is the solution. Let all our provinces unite in friendly competition to supply men for the armed forces in this great struggle.


Mr. GRANT:: Like Prince Edward Island.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Like little Prince Edward Island. We shall have a hard time, in any province, to beat their record.
I have referred, perhaps insufficiently, to the fact that Quebec has done well in the armed forces under the voluntary system.
Mobilization Act-Mr. Slaght

Thousands and thousands of our best boys in the navy, guarding and convoying and doing all the dirty work of the seas, come from Quebec, and you may be proud of them. Thousands and thousands of the young men in our air force-those who are over the channel, over Great Britain, over Germany-come from your province, and you may be proud of them. I had the privilege some ten days ago of attending a function, just outside these noble buildings, when two young French Canadians, Robillard and Morin, were acclaimed by a multitude of
20,000	people. French Canadians came in thousands from the other side of the river and we English-speaking people joined with them in a tribute to these two young heroes. They did not spend their time in the air over Manitoba or Quebec; they were over Germany, and we should not overlook the fact that the youth of Quebec turned out on that occasion with us and paid the greatest tribute to boys who were willing to go and did go and fight overseas, and were decorated by His Majesty the King. Let us keep up the tradition those two lads have set for the province of Quebec.
I conclude with this suggestion. Let us live our Canada as we believe she should be lived. Let us ban all those sayings which come so readily to the lips, and set race against race. Let us understand that we have had a wonderful history and record as a nation under the most difficult circumstances. Let us not forget those wonderful words which Winston Churchill uttered more than a year ago, and which apply with even greater force to-day: "There is grave reason for vigilance and concern, but no room for despair." I say to you, my fellow Canadians of the House of Commons and any across Canada who may hear or learn of what I have said: Let us join together in unity. The danger is terrific. What might happen is unthinkable unless we make a common cause, unless we show a common front, unless we go out to stop the enemy from destroying the motherland. Were the British fleet to go-I am not uttering these reflections as a harbinger of evil, but we must think of what might happen-how long would it be before the enemy's ships and their dastardly agents of destruction would be up the St. Lawrence river, through the fair province of Quebec, desecrating your cathedrals, blasting your schools, ravishing your loved ones? I say to my hon. friends across the way, as well as those by my side: Can any of us afford to do anything but adopt a course which is all for the greatness and glory of Canada? Let
[Mr. Slaght.l
us not forget that little sentence which I like so much: "There is always a far horizon for forward-looking men."


Mr. J. R. HURTUBISE (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this allimportant resolution, but I experience some timidity in speaking after the eloquent member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) who has just resumed his seat.
I think it is my duty to say a few words on this matter on behalf of my riding and the good electors whom I represent. Much has been said in this house; many speeches have been made-many of them read. Mine has not been written: I shall just utter a few expressions on this important subject.
I consider it a great honour to represent the constituency of Nipissing, which extends, on the direct line from east to west, stretching from the Ottawa river to Georgian bay, a distance of two hundred miles, and another two hundred miles from north to south. In the election of 1935 there were nearly 63.000 voters on the lists, and without boasting I may say that I held eighty-six meetings during the campaign. In other words, to be the member for Nipissing is a full-time job. The riding is composed partly of rural and partly of urban people. We have a nice farming country; we have also the cities of North Bay and Sudbury, containing populations of 17,000 and 34,000 respectively. Of my electors, about 40 per cent are of Anglo-Saxon origin, about 40 per cent French, and the remainder of other nationalities.
Since this war began I hav" been astonished to see the patriotism, good-will and generosity of all those citizens, regardless of race, creed or politics. It would have been the wish of the people of North Bay and Sudbury to have separate regiments of their own, as they had in the last war, which did such marvellous deeds then, but we were told by the military authorities that this was not possible in view of the fact that uniformity in training was highly desirable. We therefore accepted their decision. Nevertheless, in the constituency of Nipissing our citizens have enlisted by thousands from the very start, and regardless of race or religion they have come forward- English, Scotch, Irish, French, Italian, Greek, Finns, Ukrainians, Poles, Jews, Serbs, Croatians and Indians. Some of them have ' joined Scottish regiments, the Royal Engineers, the Grey and Simcoe, the 14th Forestry Tank Corps and many other units. In the first Scottish regiment that was recruited, there are to be seen, I am proud to say, men of many nationalities wearing the kilts. They have continued to enlist in this way until the present

Mobilization Act-Mr. Hurtubise
day. Every time the military authorities have asked for a quota in my district the best young men have come forward. There has been complete cooperation on the part of everyone. Our citizens have accepted the situation with patriotism and generosity. They have been willing to bear the restrictions that have been imposed from time to time. They have willingly paid their taxes and have made various contributions to the war effort. We have played our part. All our public bodies have cooperated. I might cite one example of generosity and patriotism. At the time of military registration in North Bay, that city did all the work gratuitously. I do not know that this was done in many other places, but it shows the spirit of the people in that part of my riding.
In 1930 the electors of Nipissing did me the honour of returning me to represent them at Ottawa. I am not so credulous as to suppose that they voted mainly for myself. They voted for the party led by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and for those supporting him. Since that time they have voted for the same party as a government, and they have done so with increasing majorities. Again, I do not take credit for this; I give it to the Prime Minister and his government. In 1930 the majority in my district for the government party was 2.000; in 1935, 12,000, and in 1940, almost 16,000.
In the plebiscite, those who voted in my constituency returned 4,868 of a majority in favour of the affirmative. Many things have been said about the plebiscite, and I have taken the trouble to go around my constituency in order to find out the sentiments of the people. I want to be perfectly frank with the members of this house as well as with my electors. I admit that many voted "yes", for conscription, while many voted against conscription; but a great mass of the people voted neither for nor against conscription but simply as a means of expressing confidence in the present administration and so giving directions for a continuance of the present war effort. They voted to release the government from its past commitments. That was the attitude of a great part of the voters in my county, and I am sure that if a straight vote had been taken for or against conscription the result would have been different.
The question of conscription has been brought up in different campaigns that have been held in my district. It was discussed during the plebiscite, and it has been the chief topic of discussion during this debate. Widely different opinions have been expressed, but the conclusion I have drawn from the
discussion, from all the speeches and the different statements that have been made, is that there is no great necessity for the immediate imposition of conscription. Why should there be pressure for the immediate imposition of conscription when we had the experience, as stated a few moments ago by the member for Parry Sound, which we had in the last war, when the results that w'ere obtained were so unsatisfactory. It proved altogether impracticable. Judged by the results, the method was then a failure.
Since this question first came up we have-had statements in the house from the different war ministers indicating that until now we have filled all our quotas; that, indeed, we have been in advance of our quotas, in regard to the army, the navy and the air force. The various ministers have proved this beyond any doubt. We have complied with the demands of our own military authorities and with the demands of the combined allied military authorities. Mr. Churchill made the statement that our contribution to the war effort was magnificent, and yet in spite of that we have heard a good many speeches-and violent speeches at that-in favour of conscription. I cannot understand it. For some days now we have been hearing from different ministers that for the present there is no necessity for conscription. I believe that Canadians are generous enough, loyal enough, to continue to answer the call in numbers great enough to fill the needs, and this voluntarily. But no one knows when the war will end or what the necessities for Canada or for the rest of the world will be in the future. However, I have confidence in the Prime Minister and in his cabinet, and I believe that they will act wisely under the circumstances that exist at any time. That is why I intend to support the present resolution, because I have full confidence in the government. I know they will not act unwisely. I know they will bear in mind always, as they have done from the beginning, that a total war effort means a well-balanced war effort. They know that if they should throw this total war effort out of balance! it would be disastrous for Canada and would greatly impair our contribution in this war.
The question of conscription has given rise to a great deal of discussion against my compatriots. I am a French-Canadian anc I am proud of the fact. Although my father and mother were born in Quebec, I was bon in Ontario and I was brought up and educated in that province, except for my arts course. I have lived in contact with the English speaking people of my part of the country- I might say mainly with the Scotch people-
3698	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Hurtubise
I have got to know them, and I think we have always co-operated well together. With good-will we can go very far. Yes; I was brought up among Scotch people. I remember very well that my mother could understand English but could not speak it, and our neighbour-Martha Campbell-was a good old lady who cound understand French but could not speak it. They were, however, great friends and used to visit each other and have long conversations together, one speaking in English and the other in French, and they understood each other very well. That shows that with good-will we can always work together in a friendly spirit.
After my university course in the good Scotch Presbyterian university of Queens I went north to what I think is the most cosmopolitan part of the whole of Canada; it is about 40 per cent British stock, 40 per cent French and the remaining 20 per cent of various racial origins. Yet I may say we have always agreed together very well. I have been there for about thirty-five years; I grew up with our chief towns and cities, and I know the mentality of the people. We agree together very well although we differ in race and religion. I remember that before the last war there was some antipathy between different groups-and let me say I believe that such antipathy between people of different race or religion is always due to ignorance, lack of contact, nothing else. I have seen proof of it. In my own constituency before the last war there were groups that looked upon one another with some antagonism, but the contacts made during the last war between men of different races and religions did great good in bringing those men together and creating a real national ideal and unity. I know men of both races who went to the last war very narrow-minded and who came back real Canadians ready to cooperate in a fraternal spirit with their fellow citizens.
The question of conscription, which has been talked of so much in this debate, has been approached from a very bad angle, mainly, I would say, by the extremists. If we are broad enough to take the people as they are and treat them as they are, we shall have greater cooperation and less friction. Those who understand the French Canadians and have the right approach to them have always found 100 per cent cooperation. I want to cite one great Canadian who sat in the seat now occupied by the hon. member for Parkdale.
I refer to Mr. C. H. Cahan of Montreal. I think he was one of the greatest of Canadians; he was Canadian first and all the time. This is what he had to say in March, 1939, speaking 
of foreign policy, as reported at page 2497 of Hansard of that year. I think it covers the subject very well as far as the mentality of the French Canadians in the last war and the reason for that mentality are concerned. He said:
Therefore as far as I am concerned I stand by and support the attitude taken this afternoon by the Minister of Justice.
That was the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe. Mr. Cahan continued:
I could go on and say many things in support of his suggestion that at the time of the outbreak of the last war the province of Quebec and the people of the French-Canadian race were placed in a very difficult position indeed. But I could write a volume to show, I think, that the great body of sentiment in that province was in favour of cooperation; but it resisted coercion at a time when coercion was not necessary.
As was proven by the hon. member for Parry Sound a few minutes ago. A little further on Mr. Cahan said, as reported at page 2498 of the same Hansard:
That, after all, is the spirit of the French people; but you must treat them with the consideration, respect and esteem which they deserve and which we often fail to give. If that is done, and it comes to another great conflict, if it comes under this government I am sure other methods, more conciliatory, will be followed; and if they are followed you will find the young men of the French Canadian race-I know them better in the country districts, perhaps, than in the cities-ready and anxious to play their part and do their share of service alongside their Canadian fellow subjects. Coersion will not be necessary in Quebec if you exercise conciliation and respect the mentality and traditions of the great people who founded that race, particularly-and I hope this will not be offensive to any person-those of the Norman race to which so many of us actually belong. I can make that statement with some pride, because my grandmother on one side came from the Huguenots and had strong French sympathies.
This great decision, if it has to be made, may have to be made suddenly. If so, the whole matter of Canada's active participation in war must be decided by the Canadian parliament, and, through parliament, by the Canadian people. But if that issue is raised, if my fellow Canadians in the province of Quebec realize that the question of neutrality involves the severance of Canada from the British empire and from the British crown, I have no doubt as to the decision that the thoughtful people will make.
I sometimes talk to the leading clergy of Quebec and to those men who lead public opinion on various sides of politics in Quebec, and I am persuaded that the thoughtful and intelligent men of that province believe that the preservation of those religious and racial rights which they hold sacred depends upon Canada remaining a part of the British empire, because in no other state in Europe or in America is there the same freedom of religious opinion and of religious worship as is to be found throughout the British empire under the crown.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Howden
I heard those words across the floor of this house in 1939. Mr. Cahan, I think, knows the people of Quebec province as well as anyone. I have known Mr. Cahan by reputation for many years; I have followed his writings in books and papers, and have always thought he was a great Canadian; and I think his opinion on this subject should be worth something.
He said that the question of conscription should be decided by parliament. That is something I was always led to believe. I have confidence in my leader and his cabinet, but we have a right to our personal opinions and I may disagree on some points. I say here and now that I regret very much that this question is not directly submitted to parliament for decision. That is what we were promised in the past. Still I have enough confidence in the present prime minister and his cabinet to do the wisest thing under the circumstances, for the reasons I stated a few minutes ago.
Some might think that as a French Canadian I have spoken in a queer manner on the racial question. But I was brought up under different circumstances and had the opportunity of seeing both sides. There is not very much difference between French Canadians, and when I say that I really mean those of Norman descent-and, let us say, the Orangemen of Ontario. The difficulty is that we do not know each other. Anybody who has read history knows that the Normans were descendants of the Norwegians, of the Norsemen. In the revolution under the Vikings, those who were defeated emigrated to the south shore of the English channel and some to the east coast of England. Later the Norman kings conquered England. They were people of French education; they gave to England Magna Charts and its form of government, and there in England they found their brothers on the east coast who had left Norway many years before. We French Canadians of Norman descent have been separated from France for a long time. France in the meantime was progressing through an evolution, and England came over and took possession of Canada and implanted here British institutions. We French Canadians have adopted those British institutions and have learned to love and cherish them and to defend them. Yes; we are lovers of British institutions, though probably the great majority of French Canadians do not know why. It is because we have found in those British institutions the ideals of our forefathers, who themselves were lovers of liberty. That is why I cited this afternoon the words of Mr. Cahan, when he spoke of
coercion versus cooperation. With our mentality, French Canadians are lovers of liberty and freedom; we do not like coercion, and it will be hard ever to make French Canadians swallow it. If, however, they are approached in the proper way, they will be found just as loyal to Canada and to our king as anybody else. But they will not stand coercion. With the proper approach you will find among the French Canadians as much cooperation and enlistment and fighting for king and country as among any other Canadians.
I had no speech prepared, Mr. Speaker, and have made these few remarks because I thought I might help in these difficult times to bring us closer together. Every individual, every nation has made mistakes in the past. Why spend this precious time in mutual reproaches. Let us forget our little difficulties, our little racial and political animosities because, after all, we have all the same ideals, the same ambition and the same end in view-to win this war. So let us put aside this little political fight that has been going on. I think the time has come when we should cut short all this discussion and give a free hand to the government by passing this bill. Let ils members of parliament show our confidence in the government as the people of Canada showed their confidence in the government in March. I for one am sure that the government will do the right thing at the right time, and without throwing out of balance our present war effort.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: to say that immediately on rising. The hands of this government must be freed to employ Such measures as will best meet at the time any emergencies which may arise. When we See gaps in the lines of our men who at present are protecting our land and our lives, and those gaps not being filled as they have been filled in the past, undoubtedly the government must have authority to proceed along such lines as it may deem best.
The great tragedy of war is that it demands the best of everything, the best of manhood and the best of material. And all to what end? Mostly for slaughter and distress. I am very sorry that this should be so. Men of my age and generation feel useless at a time like this. We have neither the strength nor the stamina nor the courage to be of any use to our country. Only the young men of strength and vigour, the hope of the next generation, are taken out of the land to carry on the work that must be done, while we who have had a run for our money, have used up the most of our three score years and ten, and have enjoyed largely of life, are left at home in comparative safety and comfort. The young go forth to lay their lives on the altar of patriotism.
The other night I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Quebec West and South (Mr. Parent), one which was most excellent and full of force and eloquence. He indicated that his compatriots from Quebec were willing, if necessary, to give their lives for this Canadian country, as it stretches from the green meadows of Prince Edward Island to the pine-clad mountains on the Pacific coast. But he pointed out that when Canada was ceded to Great Britain, French Canadians had been given assurances that they would not be asked to fight outside this country for Britain, and that they w'ould never agree willingly to do so.
As he spoke I felt sympathetically toward him. In my opinion much of what he said was true, and I thought at the time that I should like to vote as he will vote. But at the same time I had a vision of a man who lived in a house in a city. One night he heard the sound of running feet, and cries of "fire". After a time he noticed that the confusion appeared to concentrate round his own house, and there appeared to be loud and excited conversation. Hearing this, he went to the window and saw a great throng of people talking excitedly. Looking round, he observed that his neighbour's house, not many feet from his, was on fire. But he said to himself, "Oh, well, it is not my house; I do not need to be particularly concerned; I shall just go back to bed and settle down." Then,

after a time there was a knock on his door, and someone said, "Do you know the house next door is on fire, and the wind is blowing in your direction?" But his reply was, "Oh, that is all right; I need not worry about that; it is not my house." He retired again. After another short time there was a loud banging at his door, and the people said, "Do you know your house is on fire?" Then, indeed, did he bestir himself. Then, indeed, did he dress in a hurry, get his family out, and do what he could to save his possessions. But it was too late; his house was burning.
It occurred to me that that was about the position in which many people from French Canada are placing themselves to-day. They are not willing to get out and bestir themselves when the houses just opposite are burning. They seem prepared to wait until their own house is in flames. What chance will there be if the people of Canada wait until the invader is at our doors?-and he is at our doors. If they wait until the invader is at our doors, what hope is there? There is none whatsoever.
The issue under debate is plain enough. I need not refer again to the various elements which enter into the discussion. I might say briefly, however, that on the one hand there are many strong elements of British extraction who demand immediate conscription. On the other hand we have many French Canadians- not all of them, it is true-who steadfastly resist the application of that principle. I would preface my further remarks by asking two questions which seem to bear on this subject. First, why are the French Canadians so bitterly opposed to conscription? Second, why are other people so determined to have immediate conscription?
Let us turn to the first question, as to why the French Canadians are so bitterly opposed, and consider the corollary as to why Quebec and French Canadians should require pledges, more than others. In that connection I would refer to the remarks of the former Minister of Transport and Public Works (Mr. Cardin) who, in his observations, sought to explain the first question in these words:
But when we come to consider problems such as the one confronting us at the present time, immediately any man who has any elementary knowledge of psychology will understand that your response is going to be much quicker than mine. Why? Because I have to reason in my mind why I have to support the British flag and spend my energies for the defence of British race in this conflict, or perhaps elsewhere. It is the result of thinking, the result of reasoning, if I come to that conclusion; with you it is the impulse of the heart. Your heart becomes inflamed as soon as the name of England, of the British empire, is mentioned.

Mobilization Act-Mr,. Howden
That is very largely true. We people, although common citizens of Canada, differ greatly in some respects. After all, the French Canadians are French. They came from France	hundreds of	years	ago-about	four
hundred years ago, history records. Their tradition is French; their language is French; their education and their religion are of the French Catholic church.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Catholic.


John Power Howden: Their religion is Catholic, and their education is of the French Catholic type.	The	French	people have no	realregional connection with Great Britain. Their minds undoubtedly go back to the land of France, the land of their great forefathers. When Canada was conquered by Britain the French	were	given a	good	deal-there	is nodoubt	about	that.	After	the conquest of
Quebec the French Canadians were allowed to retain their possessions and to carry on in precisely the same manner as they had prior to the war. Not only that, but I believe they were very much better used by their new English masters than they had been by many of their French governors. They were satisfied, and they played the game with Great Britain as is shown by their actions at the time of the revolt of the United States, in 1775, and again in 1849. For the next hundred years after the conquest of Canada the French Canadians were well satisfied.
The patriotic zeal of the French Canadian swung away from old France at the time of the revolution when that country forsook royalty and religion. However, when the patriotic regard of the French Canadian for old France was withdrawn, it was not turned to Great Britain by any means. At this time the people of Quebec transferred their allegiance from the fatherland in Europe to their own home in Canada. Canada became their new country. Canada was their only country. They owed allegiance to no other land than Canada. I may be wrong, but it is my opinion that with all the respect and loyalty that remained in the hearts of the French-Canadian people, with regard to the British empire, there was never any indication of filial love for the great empire. So long as the people of French Canada were not asked to take part in British wars which might take them out of the country, everything was all right; everything was quiet. This afternoon we have heard of the great number of young French Canadians who have enlisted voluntarily in this war, as well as of those who enlisted voluntarily in the last war. However, on every occasion when there was any suggestion of coercion or compulsion or
domination, the French, who are a fiery, sensitive and proud people, resented it and fought against it as they are fighting to-day.
The hon. member for Riehelieu-Vereheres was only half right. He referred to the Canadian people who were burning with patriotic fire. I should like to point out the difference between the French people with their French traditions and those of British origin. I never learned it at school, and I certainly never learned it at church, but I always thought of Canada as being a member of a great British family. I thought of Canada as being a family herself and as being one of many other families. When any one of those families got into trouble their relatives and their friends came to their assistance. I well remember 1884, when I was not a very big boy, when the young men of Winnipeg went on the Nile voyage to the siege of Khartum. That is my earliest international memory. Then the next year we had the northwest rebellion, and I remember the redcoats from Toronto in the old Canadian Pacific Railway depot who had come out to help our 90th battalion, the so-called Little Black Devils. That seemed only natural to me.
When I first heard it said that the sun never set on the British empire I thrilled with pride. I have always had that feeling about Canada and about Great Britain. After all, we are one of a great conglomeration of people with like sympathies and a like purpose in life. This seems to me to be perhaps the most outstanding difference between us of British origin and those of French origin. The latter came from France, and they had a filial connection with that country which they threw off after the conquest of Canada. On the other hand, we are of British extraction. I am the fourth generation of my family in this country, but I am afraid that I have never been consumed with this so-called patriotic fire. At any time that the British empire has become involved in trouble I have felt a decided sense of duty and obligation, but it has been a well considered idea.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Power Howden: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was speaking to the question, why are the French so bitter against conscription? Why this question should be addressed only to the French I do not know,

Mobilization Act-Mr. Howden	.
because I believe there are in Canada a great many of racial origins other than French who would probably resent with equal force the application of conscription. I believe that if the recent plebiscite had been submitted to the people in the form of a question such as, "Do you favour the application of immediate conscription?" many thousands of our young men, their mothers and perhaps their fathers, and probably a number of industrialists who had engaged young men whose services they particularly wanted to retain, might have thought twice before they answered that question, and their answer might have been different.
I was seeking to explain the reason for the resentment of French Canadians toward conscription. Of course we all know the real reason; there is nobody in this house who does not know it. It is that French Canadians resent coercion, which is a form of domination. They claim and, I assume, with entire truth, that they were given to understand by the British, a hundred years ago or thereabouts-


Mr. MacNICOL:: In 1763.


John Power Howden: -actually, in 1760, that they would not be called upon to fight British wars overseas. Unfortunately, since that time they have been compelled to do so. Probably that instance has been the outstanding occasion of offence to the people of French Canada. While not seeking to make a complete answer to the question, I wish to present a few relevant circumstances from our past history.
To begin with, French Canadians have been in this country for about four hundred years. They were the pioneers. They lived here for two hundred years before the country passed from the control of France. I believe that with French Canadians it has always been a case of Canada for Canadians, Canada for French Canadians, Canada and Canada only as their homeland, and they recognize no filial obligation to any other. As the Jews, after two thousand years, still look for the day when they will repopulate Jerusalem, so in the hearts of French Canadians there lives the hope, as well as the half-belief, that the day will come when Canada will come back to French Canadians and to the French Catholic church.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Never that.


John Power Howden: My hon. friend behind me says, "Never that". Well, I would not blame them, and certainly I am not blaming them. It is, perhaps, a worthy hope. But let me suggest that to-day we are living in the immediate present, and if Hitler and Japan have their way, the day in which Canada returns to the French may be long delayed.

The reason why the French detest conscription dates back, of course, to the conquest of Canada. No one likes the humility of defeat, and the French are a proud and sensitive people. For nearly two hundred years they owned this land, which had been, in the words of of the former Minister of Transport and public works (Mr. Cardin), wrested from the wilderness and the savages and given to Christianity by their forefathers. Through the early terrible years they suffered many hardships and privations. They defended the land against raiding Indians and against the invasion of the English colonists. Often their early settlements were wiped out with fire and massacre. But they persisted; they held on. They turned forests into farms; they built roads, villages, communities and fortified cities. After two hundred years their land was handed over by the crown of France to that of Great Britain. Fortunately, their new masters were, comparatively speaking, easy and much less offensive than some of their rulers from the old land.
Now, sir, at confederation the people of French Canada received, in my opinion, a very satisfactory arrangement. About a hundred years passed, during which they were quite satisfied and contented; they had very little to complain of; but when, in 1885, when Riel was hanged, Quebec was not so happy. Riel was a French Catholic. He was a dreamer, an impractical dreamer, who had visions of setting up an independent republic in Rupert's Land, with himself as president and the local archbishop enthroned as the pontiff. That may sound ridiculous, but that is the fact.


Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: It does not sound ridiculous, but it sounds strange.


John Power Howden: May I tell my hon. friend that I have the intimate friendship of many of Riel's compatriots, that I have been family attendant physician for his brother's family, and that I have had those words from them. So I did not get that in any history book.


Mr. McIVOR:: I know it is right.
Mr. HOWDEN; When trouble arose in 1870 between Riel and a man named Scott, resulting in the death of the latter, Riel had to flee and thereafter was exiled. Later he came back to lead the rebellion of 1885; and although the massacres at Frog Lake, Duck Lake and Battleford were probably not under his control, he was the leader, and he suffered in consequence. There was certainly just cause for the Canadian government to send aid to the threatened people of the northwest, for by this time the northwest was part of the Dominion of Canada and the white

Mobilization Act-Mr. Howden
settlers were Canadian colonists who had gone to pioneer the new land. Quebec looked upon the whole western move as an extension of empire, and many felt that Riel had come to an untimely and unjust end. Probably that is the first incident in the history of Canada since confederation that estranged the people of Quebec to some extent.
At the time of the South African war Quebec looked with disfavour upon the sending of Canadians to assist Britain. We remember that the British interests were roughly discriminated against in the South African Dutch republic and that the Jameson raid was in the form of a rebellious protest; but it is questionable if it justified the government of Britain in later attacking that republic and subjecting it to British rule. In any event, it was the beginning of the French-Canadian nationalist movement which was in protest, first of all, against the extension of British imperialism and also against Canadians being called upon to fight Britain's imperialistic wars overseas.
The next trouble came during the great war. It was well known by this time that the people of Quebec, while prepared to fight and die in the defence of Canada, had no sympathy whatever for British imperialism and disavowed any responsibility or obligation in relation thereto. When, therefore, Russia backed Serbia, France backed Russia and England backed France against Germany and Hungary in 1914, it certainly looked like a war of conquest for national aggrandizement. When a bill for conscription was brought into this house in 1917 by a union government preponderantly British, and a union government preponderantly British was used to push it through, Quebec opposed it fiercely and sent a solid phalanx to oppose it. Quebec took the attitude that we were in reality an independent nation, that there was no obligation to send men overseas, and fiercely resented compulsion in the matter of securing men for the army. I am disposed to think that the people of Quebec were not far wrong, particularly when defeat in the last war could not likely have made so much difference to Canada, and when one feels that the union government had more fish to fry than one, and that besides the provision of men for the army there was the little matter of the Canadian National and Grand Trunk investments to be considered.
At the outbreak of the present war no political party in Canada felt that conscription was necessary or that there was any need indeed for sending men overseas, and they so stated in this house and out of it. Pledges were given to Canadians everywhere that there would certainly be no conscription for
overseas, and when this pledge was challenged by the Premier of Quebec we all know what happened. Small wonder then that when the government sought release from this pledge and used the preponderance of the British vote by way of the plebiscite to overrule the French, and when now this government seeks to remove the last barrier, the French people feel that they have been betrayed and look with distrust on the action of the government.
I would now turn to question number 2 and ask why other Canadians, as typified largely by members of the official opposition, are so set on immediate conscription for men overseas, when there is at present no apparent need. That there has been a well sustained effort in this house and out of it by members of the opposition and their friends to force the government to apply conscription will hardly be denied. Then, conscious of the well-known aversion of French Canadians, and of the fact that with two exceptions the French Canadian group in this house are supporters of the Liberal government, and the further fact that the application of conscription will probably-at any rate possibly if not probably-bring about national disunity, why do the members of the opposition insist on a measure of this kind? Do they seek to create a cleavage in party support in the chamber?


Georges Parent: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but this afternoon attention was called to the reading of speeches and I would ask him to refrain from reading
his speech.


John Power Howden: I will do my best to address the house without referring to my notes so closely; but with all deference to Your Honour, I do not think this ruling is quite fair, because I see leaders of all parties, and very many members too, being permitted to peruse their notes very closely. There is no irritation whatever on my part, and no rebellion; but I must say that the thoughts I have set down here have received extensive consideration before being put down, and while I hesitate to do so, I would remind Your Honour that I have spent many years in this house with yourself and that there were occasions when it was desirable apparently for Your Honour also to use a written text.


Georges Parent: I realize the accuracy of the hon. gentleman's observations, but to-day the house expressed its opposition to the reading of speeches. There is a rule, and that rule I must enforce. It is distasteful to me to have to call attention to that rule, but from now on I must insist that it be observed.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lockhart
Mr, HOWDEN: I was asking whether the opposition are seeking to create a cleavage in the government's following in this house in order possibly to defeat the government or force it to form a union government. I would remind the house of a drive some four years ago against the government for the formation of a union government.
I find that my time has expired.
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln): I shall humbly bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and endeavour to the best of my ability not even to refer to my notes, any more than I can possibly help.
At the outset of my remarks I wish to refer to the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) who, when giving, during this debate, his review of the accomplishments of his department, gave us a very clear description of what had been done, for which I think he deserves a great deal of credit, in giving leadership to such an accomplishment as has been developed by the industrial forces of this country. I am sure the minister knows that I have no animosity toward him and will do anything I can to help him; but I must say this, that not many months ago an urgent demand was made to members of this house -it was to myself and, I know, to other members with whom I have conferred-urging that industrialists and the great army of industrial workers be given an opportunity to make tanks and aeroplanes in Canada. The minister, improperly advised I think, said that this was impossible on account of lack of technical men and for other reasons which were stated. I know that answer did not please the great body of industrial men in this country; it did not suit the army of industrial workers who are so capable of carrying on this work, and I know considerable pressure was brought to bear upon the minister, so that in due course they were able to persuade him that these things could be done. I wish that the minister had, in his report, made reference to the loyalty of the heads of industiy and the great body of workers in industry, because I believe that was due them, as I think the minister will probably agree. The minister rather gave the impression that what has been done was largely as a result of the efforts of his department; but I want to say publicly, knowing something of the situation, that it took some persuasion on the part of heads of industry to make, probably not the minister, but his department realize what could be done in Canada, as shown by what has eventually been done.
Passing on to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald)

and referring briefly to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), I think this house was deeply appreciative of the clear and concise statements given by the ministers of those departments, on whom rests so much responsibility. I do not believe that the country at large or this house were particularly enthusiastic about the explanations given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) although I pay him this tribute, that he is now, at long last, doing a better job in trying to coordinate the interests of the farming community. I have, however, heard a good deal of critcism of the tactics employed by him in his address. That criticism was made to me both by letter and in person. Then, when we come to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar)-well, I think the press said enough about that. Those of us who observed the attitude of the minister when he spoke in the house the other day, and compared that with his record, realize that it does not carry much weight with the Canadian people.
This debate awakens strange thoughts in our minds. The security of this country is threatened from both without and within. It is threatened from without by the fiendish activities of the nazis and fascists and by the atrocities that are being perpetrated in the world. I fear it, threatened as it is from within by the practice of political expediency right down to the present moment. No nation can survive when it is attacked from without and from within; no nation, young or old, can survive attacks of those kinds.
I rise in my place in this house for one of several reasons. I read carefully the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the second reading of this bill. At page 3237 of Hansard for June 10 I find these words:
It is not only the right but it is a duty of hon. members to interpret the view of their constituents, but it is equally a duty in so doing to see that a construction is not placed upon their views which was never and could never have been intended.
That was the first challenge thrown out by the Prime Minister to the members of this house. Then, as reported at page 3235 of Hansard the right hon. gentleman said:
What really is important is that the government's policy should be fully known, presented to parliament, and agreed to by parliament before any action is taken. In this way and in this way only, the people's representatives in parliament can be afforded a full opportunity to discuss the whole subject upon its merits.
The only exception I take to that statement is that here we have a bare bill purporting to give the government an authority which the people of Canada undoubtedly wished the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lockhart
government to have; yet in the words of the Prime Minister we are told that it may never be necessary to have any form of compulsory service for overseas.
I now pass on to another remark by the Prime Minister, dealing with the plebiscite. These were his words, as reported at page 3231 of Hansard'.
If there be any wisdom in removing false impressions, surely the sooner they are removed the better.
With that I entirely agree, and I say there have been altogether too many false impressions attempted to be put over on the Canadian public.
I now quote briefly from page 3233 of Hansard, where the Prime Minister, after saying that the government had full power to deal with this matter as and when it desired to do so, notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act, went on to say:
Why then, it will be asked, does the government come to parliament for powers which it already possesses? The answer to this question is the sense the executive has of its responsibility to parliament.
After this address by the Prime Minister I thought perhaps it would be advisable for me to state what I believe to be the interpretation that was placed upon the plebiscite vote in my constituency, and also to make some brief observations on the general situation that has developed in this House of Commons. As reported at page 3231 of Hansard the Prime Minister stated that it was difficult enough, in some quarters, to have the people sue the wisdom of trusting the government, and he went on to ask, "Why arouse suspicions?" That is what I find in the hearts of a great many of the people. They are suspicious, and I do not believe the debate which has developed here has done much to remove that suspicion.
But let me pass on and state what I believe the people felt was the correct interpretation of the plebiscite vote. They appeared to feel that it was an evasion of responsibility. That statement has been made several times in this house, and I believe that was in the hearts and minds of a good many people. Personally I opposed the taking of the plebiscite. Had the Prime Minister agreed to add the words, "in any theatre of war", as one amendment suggested, the whole situation would have been clarified in the minds of the people. Notwithstanding the fact that the question was vague and uncertain, after it was decided to hold the plebiscite large numbers of my constituents said to me, "What do you propose to do in connection with the vote that is to be taken?"
I must confess, Mr Speaker, and I readily admit, that I was somewhat at a loss to know just what one should do. When I told them that I felt a "yes" vote was absolutely necessary, of course I was immediately asked, "What does a 'yes' vote mean?" Naturally I could not answer that, but I urged my people to do their utmost to get out and vote, and the results were quite obvious in my constituency. The thing I deplored most of all was the loss of a month of valuable time, when Canada's very destiny was hanging in the balance. But then, when I contemplated how that month was being used by members of this house and citizens at large in certain parts of Canada, it dawned upon me that there was the possibility of a "no" vote throughout this country unless the people who would vote "yes" were stirred to get out and cast their ballots as they were expected to do. I say the indifference of the people up to that point was appalling, but it would have been a national tragedy if a decisive "no" vote had been recorded in one part of Canada, while the people in the rest of the country remained indifferent to the whole question.
In any event, the plebiscite was held, and the results have been published. I suppose all hon. members have copies of the Canada Gazette of June 23, which indicates where the "yes" vote was recorded and where the "no" vote was cast. I do not know of anyone on this side of the house who evaded his responsibility. I know that personally I consulted with the other groups represented in my constituency. We held joint meetings, and did our utmost to get the people to vote, notwithstanding the feeling of suspicion and the many criticisms that were voiced against such a vague question. In that plebiscite eight of the nine provinces voted "yes" with a very large majority. I believe approximately two out of three people across Canada voted "yes", while in my constituency the proportion was nine out of ten, and I believe about 28,000 votes were cast there. But even after that vote was taken, we continued to have evasion and equivocation, which were apparent even in the Prime Minister's speech in support of Bill No. 80. I am going to join with the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) by saying that not only in my constituency, but in very many others with which I have been in touch, that was the feeling they had. They were voting on the definite principle of conscription, "yes" or "no", and they expected there would be some definite action in the light of the circumstances developing in this country almost hourly. So I say that the hon. member for Trinity stated quite clearly the condition with

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lockhart
respect not only to his own but to other constituencies. I know of some other constituencies in Canada the representatives of which, if they had the courage of their convictions to tell the story as they know it to be back home, would speak definitely in this debate.
The great criticism I found had to do with the inequality of service being developed. It had to do with letters being received from overseas referring to men with very little training being sent-and they are still being sent to fill the ranks over there. It was only two or three weeks ago I received a letter from a young chap who lives in Windsor, and who is now in England, pointing out that for some reason men were being sent over who had scarcely any training. I would say that this does not represent a healthy state of mind for our men overseas, when the enemy is coming closer and closer to our very shores -in fact, has now reached our coasts.
This all develops into a question of leadership in Canada. I am a comparatively new member in the House of Commons, but I have read a good deal of the past debates. After the Prime Minister made his long speech in moving the second reading of the bill, I spent some time studying the plebiscite of 1917 to which reference has been made by some hon. member's. In one article I found that the great leader of that day, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was then leading the Liberal party-and I think men of all political affiliations will agree he was a great statesman-used these words with respect to the plebiscite of that year:
We do not believe that conscription is necessary to our war effort. But we are part of Canada, and if the majority of the country believe and declare that conscription is necessary, then we will submit loyally to the verdict.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Would the hon. member
allow a question? I should like to correct a statement he has made. It was not a plebiscite, but rather a referendum.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: 
John Power Howden: I should like to correct that allusion of the hon. gentleman. I said nothing about French Canadians not wishing to fight for England in the present war; I was talking about their earlier history.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I am sorry if I misinterpreted the hon. member's remarks. His statement clarifies the situation. I do not think that any French-speaking Canadian could possibly hold such a view at the present time.
The Prime Minister is reported on page 3242 of Hansard as having said:
It is no military secret that willing men make better soldiers, on the average, than those who are compelled to serve. Moreover, the army overseas is composed entirely of volunteers.^ Its spirit and morale will undoubtedly be higher if its reinforcements are also volunteers.
I am simply voicing the sentiments of the people whom I represent. I spent a long week-end in trying to acquaint myself with their feelings. One person, whose opinion I value, sent me a press report dated Washington, June 10. I shall not read it, but the gist of the article is that the United States, having an all-out compulsory service, apparently is taking exception to the words used by the Prime Minister, that "it is no military secret that willing men make better soldiers, on the average, than those who are compelled to serve." There are many members of this house who served in the last war, and I think they will agree that after the conscription bill of 1917 was enforced, no one ever differentiated

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lockhart
between the man who volunteered and the man who was obliged to serve. The Canadian army as a whole covered themselves with glory, and how proud we were of them. I know that French- and English-speaking alike can do it again. References of the kind to which I have referred only cause suspicion and resentment, and they do not befit a leader, in a crisis like this, in Canadian history.


Mr. McLARTY:: Has the hon. member information that the Prime Minister of Canada ever made such a remark as he is now quoting?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That is right in Hansard. I just quoted it from Hansard.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: He is hardly the man to make the statement, but it is there.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Would the hon. member like to have it?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member would not like to have it. He would like to suggest that the quotation is probably a misquotation of the Prime Minister's remarks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What page is it?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Page 3242 of Hansard of June 10:
It is no military secret that willing men make better soldiers, on the average, than those who are compelled to serve. Moreover, the army overseas is composed entirely of volunteers. Its spirit and morale will undoubtedly be higher if its reinforcements are also volunteers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hear, hear. It is right there.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Oh, well, Mr. Speaker, to lift it from its context is hardly fair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not removed from its context.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The suggestion is, after all, that if a man volunteers-


Georges Parent: Order.


Norman Alexander McLarty: All right, Mr. Speaker.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is the end of a paragraph. It is not taken out of its context.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: It is just at the end of the paragraph.
There are other quotations here I could give which are exactly along the same line. If the minister will read page 3524 throughout, he will see there are several references to the same thing.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Mr. Speaker suggests that I should not further interrupt, and I shall adopt his suggestion.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I have received from members of the veterans' associations of the last war definite exceptions to such an attitude. I say that these things are leading to public distrust and misunderstanding.
I do urge that we try to bury our differences. There is no question about it; we must pass Bill No. SO. I want to make my position clear; we must pass that bill. If it is to remove a moral obligation, well, it is all right: if the whole thing developed on that ground, as the Prime Minister has indicated, that is all right. But I know the feeling across this country. Perhaps it is borne in upon me more clearly because my people voted in the affirmative more strongly than some other sections; but they voted clearly that we must have a definite equality of service right now in Canada in order to make our proper and most efficient war effort. Upon that point my people were explicit; they have been repeating it continually since this bill came up. I urge upon the Prime Minister that that is the feeling of one hundred and seventy-nine constituencies as against sixty-five, and I believe it is the feeling that the great majority of the people had when they marked their ballot "yes".
So I say to my French-Canadian friends, there has been definite evidence that the majority favour this bill; do not sta:t. a filibuster against it. Then the Prime Minister must accompany it with something which will convince the Canadian people that he is still not trying to evade the issue which they have presented to him. He must follow it up, maybe not to-morrow but in the very near future. This bill must be passed. I hope that the whole of the membership of this house, acting in the spirit of the speeches the honi member for Parry Sound, the hon. member for Nipissing, and others have made, will drop petty differences and let us have a united effort, not only by our personal activities outside the house, but by trying to persuade the Prime Minister that the people of Canada are asking him to develop a universal, selective, compulsory service which will eliminate a lot of present inequalities and what may be called unfairness. I urge this upon the government as the view of nine out of every ten people I represent. They are asking me to bring it to the attention of this house, and I am very glad to have had this opportunity to do so.


Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken

Mobilization Act-Mr. Brunelle
(Mr. Lockhart) has graciously given the poor province of Quebec some advice, and in a few minutes I shall refer to the same question. Before making my remarks on Bill No. 80, I wish to refer to the speech which was made last Friday by the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald). Undoubtedly the plebiscite and conscription, taken together, constitute a very complicated subject. Some light has been thrown upon it by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and several ministers of his cabinet since the beginning of this debate, but I am afraid that the minister for naval services has complicated it more than ever.
At the beginning of his speech he gave us the impression that the plebiscite was not conscription, and in that he was in agreement with most of us. But in the next breath he proceeded to argue in favour of conscription, and at a given moment, linking the plebiscite and conscription together, he made the following statement as reported in Hansard at page 3509:
If conscription is of no value and cannot be of any value, then the plebiscite was of no value.
Again, he said, at page 3512:
We have had a plebiscite on it-
That is, on conscription, because he was discussing conscription.

and I must confess that I felt that if the vote on the plebiscite was in the affirmative, there would be very little further debate on the matter.
Evidently the minister for naval services believed that if the plebiscite was in the affirmative, it meant conscription. Now I ask the minister for naval services why he did not say this, or did not express this opinion, before the plebiscite. If he had, I think his word, as the word of a minister, would have made a great deal of difference in the vote that was given.
I wish to express in these few words my disagreement with the minister for naval services, and my surprise that he should disagree on such an important question as much as he does with the Prime Minister and with most of the other ministers who have spoken thus far in this debate. The minister for naval services received the repeated applause of the members of the Conservative opposition, and, speaking for myself, I do not envy him that honour. He received the applause of almost the same people who last night listened almost religiously to that shameful, arrogant and provoking race cry which the hon. member for Hastings-Peter-borough (Mr. White) sounded in this house. I wish to protest, publicly and now, against
that conscripbionist speech of the minister for naval services, because I do not wish it to be said later that I approved it by my silence.
There is another matter which I wish to discuss briefly. We have heard a great many speeches-interesting, substantial speeches- in this house since the beginning of this debate. Practically every speaker in this house, whether he belongs to one party or another, Social Credit, Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, Tory or Liberal, has devoted a good portion of his speech to the province of Quebec. There was a profusion of advice, and, if I may say so, prescriptions.
I believe that most of the speeches were made in good faith, earnestness and sincerity, and therefore I thank the members who have so graciously given us much sympathetic advice.
This debate will soon be brought to a conclusion, and I believe it will have had some good results. It will have made us much better known to one another; it will have made us acquainted with the local difficulties and the affairs of members; and particularly it will have shown that every member of this house is imbued with an admirable spirit of tolerance and good-will. Of course, there are exceptions. I wish to refer to the exception who represents the constituency of Hastings-Peterborough. That hon. member, speaking as he did last night, made himself the champion of one of those miserable, but not strong castes of Canadian citizens who are to be found in all races and nationalities and who thrive on religious and racial prejudices, who seem to think that the religious and racial issue is just as important as any in our country. I do not intend to dwell very long on this subject. I will simply say that the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough and his speech deserve only utter contempt, and everybody whom I met since the hon. member made that speech, whether he came from the maritime provinces, whether he was Frenchspeaking or English-speaking-


Mr. WHITE:: On a point of order, I would point out that in my speech yesterday the word "religion" was not mentioned once, nor did I at any time make reference to religion, Protestant, Catholic or any other. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his remarks in that regard. As far as his other remarks are concerned, I expect nothing different.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I must give the hon. gentleman credit for that much.


George Stanley White: I do not wish credit from the hon. member.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Brunelle


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: The hon. member says he did not mention religion last night, and I withdraw my remark in that regard. Every hon. member whom I have met since last night, whether he comes from Quebec or Ontario, from the west or the maritime provinces, had the same words on his lips; he said, "Shame on the hon. member for Hastings-Peter-borough." But I must come to the rescue of the hon. member.


George Stanley White: I protest. Heavens above! I do not want to be rescued by the hon. gentleman. I am capable of taking care of myself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order; sit down.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I say again I must come to the rescue of the hon. gentleman-


George Stanley White: I do not want the hon. member to rescue me.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: -whether he likes it or not. I am going to help him out. He did not interpret correctly the vote on the plebiscite as given in his constituency, nor did he give a proper picture of his electors. In his speech last night he said he had helped during the plebiscite and that he had advised his constituents to vote "yes". He said that in voting "yes" they were voting for conscription, and that his electors understood when they were voting "yes" they were voting for conscription and that when they were voting "no" they were voting against conscription. He said further, as reported at page 3661 of Hansard:
The electors in my part of Ontario have always been 100 per cent for a total war effort, and they are to-day.
Note that. Well, I have in my hand the dominion report on the results of the plebiscite given by constituencies, and I note here that Hastings-Peterborough gave the following results: 5,764 votes in the affirmative, 1,357 votes in the negative; 51 ballots were rejected; 7,172 votes were cast in all, and there were 14,980 people on the voters' list.


George Stanley White: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. Sit down.


George Stanley White: On a point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


George Stanley White: I will not sit down.


Georges Parent: The hon. gentleman is rising to a point of order.


George Stanley White: On a point of order I wish to say that the difference between the number who voted-
IMr. White.]


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not a point of order.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Figures do not lie, and I would much rather rely on figures than on some people.


Georges Parent: The hon. member must withdraw that statement.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I will, but I insist on helping my friend with his electors. In Hastings, which is very suggestive of loyal citizens, they were very far from being 100 per cent for a total war effort, if a total war effort meant conscription for overseas service. In the first place, 25 per cent of those who voted voted "no", and half, if not more, of the whole number of people who were on the voters list did not vote at all.


George Stanley White: Because they were in the army.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Now I wish to tell this to my hon. friend; he is a very convincing talker, a very clever man-he never convinced me though-and he tries hard to drive his point home. He pleaded with his electors to vote "yes"; he told them that in order to have a total war effort we must have conscription for overseas service, and that if we are to have conscription for service overseas, they had to vote "yes." But half of his electors did not pay one bit of attention to him and did not vote at all.
Knowing all this, the hon. member last night insulted the people of Quebec because they voted "no," and he was almost insulting to hon. members representing the province of Quebec because we were not going to support the bill to amend the mobilization act. He knew all the circumstances; he knew that his own electors had not done much better than we did in the province of Quebec. But he had the audacity to ask when and how injustices were imposed by the majority upon the people of Quebec. That was one injustice that he himself committed last night. He did not need to ask. Mr. Speaker, there is one term which I' should like very much to apply to the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough, but I cannot; it is unparliamentary. The Bible, however, applies it to the Pharisees.


Georges Parent: I think that remark conveys exactly what the hon. member said he could not state. I ask the hon. member to withdraw it. There is only one implication that can be drawn from his reference to the Pharisees. The hon. member is not entitled to make such an implication.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Brunelle


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I am sorry; I shall have to withdraw it, but I thought using the words of the Bible would make it good.


Sarto Fournier: I do not see that words taken from the Bible can be regarded as unparliamentary.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I hope these interruptions will not be counted in my time.


Georges Parent: The interruptions were provoked by the hon. member himself, and they will be considered in his time.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: They have no right to interrupt me. However, I wish to thank all hon. members who have been kind enough to give advice and to prescribe to the province of Quebec. But I think I could give advice to the hon. members who advised me. However,
I shall not do it, because, seriously, I think it is too late. A situation has now been created. It took a number of years to create it, and now it has to be faced as it is. I for one gave warning in this house, and some of my colleagues did the same thing; some of my friends outside this house gave warning that certain causes of discontent and friction should be made to disappear, but nothing was done. I say it is too late now to change the situation, and it must be faced as it is.
I cannot refrain from recounting a conversion which took place between two friends, which may have some bearing on the present case. Two friends met; one said to the other, "Do you think the medicine of Doctor Jones is good?" The other said, "I do not think it is unless you follow the directions very closely." And the first one asked, "What are the directions?" The answer was, "Always keep the bottle tightly corked."
(Translation): Before concluding my remarks on Bill No. 80, I wish to refer to the speech delivered here about two weeks ago by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy). The house undoubtedly listened with sadness, as did all the representatives of the province of Quebec, to the hon. member's inopportune, unjustified and harsh denunciation of the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). Attacking without the slightest provocation, the hon. member for Gaspe worked himself up to a rage where, lacking parliamentary expressions, he resorted to others less dignified. More than once was the Speaker compelled to make him retract his words. Now in critical times such as these, when political partisanship should rightly disappear, at a moment when it is disappearing from the discussion of an essential problem, we can only deplore that the hon. member for Gaspe should have seen fit to depreciate the independence of mind and moral courage shown by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres in quitting his post as Minister of Public Works in the federal cabinet.
The hon. member for Gaspe struck a sour note. He merely succeeded in lowering himself in the esteem of his fellow-citizens of Quebec* both Liberal and Conservative. He has turned himself into the symbol or prototype of that far too numerous class of people who always decry those who meet with success, who cannot suffer one of our men to succeed, and who never miss an opportunity of reviling those who surpass them or of belittling that which God has made great.
These same people, Mr. Speaker, even criticized the sensible, energetic and appropriate speech that the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) recently gave in this house. They criticized that speech of the Minister of Justice in which he was noble and impartial enough to advise his followers, his colleagues and his friends in the house to vote according to the dictates of their conscience instead of urging them to follow his lead, an advice he might very well have given them. I wish to protest against these malevolent and unbecoming criticisms which can serve no useful purpose.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need of speaking at length to explain our stand on the amendment to the Mobilization Act. Indeed were the length of the speeches measured by that of the amendment, it soon would be disposed of; in fact, one short sentence is the object of this debate, to wit: section 3 of this act is repealed. Our participation in the war in 1939 and the Mobilization Act in 1940 were willingly accepted by all of us following official representations and statements by our ministers, which I shall not quote, precisely because of section 3 of the Mobilization Act which reads as follows:
The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
That clause shut the door on conscription for overseas service. We were satisfied and quite prepared to continue making sacrifices. I see a grave danger in the disappearance of that clause notwithstanding what the government give us to understand. I may as well say, Mr. Speaker, that the Quebec people, if I am to judge by the feeling in my constituency, under no consideration will accept compulsion for service overseas; I repeat under no consideration. Being anxious to

Mobilization Act-Mr. Brunette
state the views of my electors and quite unwilling to deceive those who have been conscripted solely for home defence, mindful also of the pledges I gave my electors, I cannot agree to the repeal of clause 3, our sole guarantee against overseas service.
I supported the holding a plebiscite because it was a means of sampling the opinion of the people, a substantially democratic measure allowing the people to express their will freely. I can now say that at least 95 per cent of my constituents decided not to release the government from its pledge nor to free me from my own commitments. Had they done so, I would nonetheless vote against conscription, for I believe in persuasion and not in compulsion.
I am not ashamed of my own or my electors' stand on this issue, neither am I afraid of voicing my opinion because I feel that we are not alone in that position. It has been pointed out repeatedly, and I wish to recall it once again, that Australia, Northern Ireland, South Africa and India do not have conscription for service outside their borders. When embittered, fanatical and evil Canadian citizens, of the same ilk as Dr. Shields, of Toronto, who does not hesitate to use his church pulpit for the purpose of raising the year round, on fifty-two consecutive Sundays, the race cry in this country, when Canadian citizens preach hatred, discord and intolerance instead of charity and harmony, such people should ask themselves, before blaming the Prime Minister for not enforcing conscription in Quebec, if the province of Quebec does anything to prevent them from adopting conscription for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I find it quite strange that a congregation of serious and intelligent people should let their pastor use his church pulpit every Sunday of the year for the purpose of raising the race cry, of delivering political speeches and slavering over a quarter of our population at a time when unity is so necessary in this dominion. Mr. Speaker, there are many kinds of fifth columnists. Racial conditions being what they are in this country, the actions of Dr. Shields, of Toronto, are those of a fifth columnist. I know it is not advisable as a rule to publicize the doings of miscreants, but I believe it is high time that this notorious pastor were denounced because our silence might be misconstrued as an admission of the truth of his statements.
If conscription does not follow the passing of this amendment, so much the better, and I pray God that the Prime Minister may hold his ground and succeed in silencing the advocates of conscription in this country. I do not hesitate to say that I shall always trust the 
Prime Minister but unfortunately he is not the only member of his cabinet and he will not live forever. For those reasons I am quite dubious about this amendment.
I notice with much regret, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative and conscriptionist opposition, so talkative and politically-minded, is winning another hand in the conscription game. Though that opposition is not powerful, it has but a handful of members, it proves once again that the least useful wheel is the most creaky. I am prepared to admit that some of them are sincere but I believe that most are prompted by other motives and that political sonsiderations have much to do with, if they not wholly explain their attitude. Since 1939 they have been complaining about everything and everybody and they always fall back on conscription with the sole object of embarrassing the Prime Minister whose views in the matter they know, and of dividing the Liberal party in the province of Quebec. Their efforts are well known.
I would even state that in the province of Quebec there are rabid politicians who, while they fear conscription like -the very devil, would be satisfied to see the government enforce it so that they might derive some political advantage therefrom. What a shame to deal so lightly with such a grave question! But our Conservative friends in Quebec have once more chosen the wrong path, for the Liberal members from the province of Quebec, almost to a man, wishing to honour their promises, will keep the pledges given to their constituents, will oppose this conscription measure to the bitter end by voting first of all against the amendment to the mobilization act. Sincere opinions deserve to be respected as does a firm attitude consistently held. For perseverance and tenacity are often a proof of sincerity. But what spectacle are the Conservatives giving us? Their only evident consistency since 1939 has been a ceaseless attempt to destroy the Prime Minister and to belittle Canada's vast and admirable war effort.
A wise man makes no statement without substantiating it. I intend quoting evidence gathered at random in the several sessions held since the outbreak of hostilities, to show that while regularly urging the adoption of conscription, the Conservatives mainly attempted to play politics and to have the Canadian people lose confidence in the present government. You shall see, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservatives are opportunists and seek only political advantage.
During one of these sessions, while offering us a side-dish of conscription, they launched their main attack or offensive to form a national government. And we saw the Con-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Farquhar
servatives, who could not reach power the normal way, endeavour to get there through charity's door. They clamored that the best men should be placed at the helm, in order that they might obtain at least a part of the spoils of war they had found so fruitful in 1914 and 1918. But they were on the wrong track and got nowhere.
At another session, they criticized the government because it did not send a sufficient number of men overseas and because our war munitions output was not high enough. After the matter had been debated for at least a week, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) made his statement and I can still hear the opposition leader (Mr. Hanson) confessing that he had spoken rashly and that Canada's war effort was, after all, an admirable one.
Later on the conscription issue was raised again. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, those bitter denunciations of the Prime Minister. How comical they all appeared, rising one after the other to say that the Prime Minister was a great man, an honest man and an able administrator to boot, but adding that he was not one to wage war, not a wartime Prime Minister; he lacked the necessary qualities of leadership.
However, the Prime Minister has succeeded in being elected three times to his present high post and the third time he commanded the greatest majority obtained since confederation.
At another session, the interim leader of the opposition, sickened by his failure and aware, after a tour of the country, that the Canadian people opposed conscription for overseas service, tendered his resignation which was immediately if not blithely accepted by his colleagues. The Hon. Arthur Meighen, branded as a thoroughbred conscriptionist, left the Senate well determined to come to this House so as to set things in order and hasten the passing of conscription for overseas service. This was a cause of great rejoicing for the loyalists and the opposition. The campaign in York South was memorable. There were severe accusations against the government for their sluggishness, and against the Prime Minister because he had not assumed the portfolio of war; this was followed by a thorough defeat and the complete crushing of the hopes of the Hon. Arthur Meighen.
At another session, the debate was on selective service. No more was said about conscription for the word had become a bogey. Mr. Speaker, I shall give you my candid opinion on this matter. I feel that selective service, might be a very good system, in a country as populous as the United States, but
that, in a country like Canada, whose population is limited, no legislation is necessary to effect a well-balanced distribution of the man-power between army, navy, air force, agriculture and industry.
At still another session, the opposition complained that the Department of National Defence was not putting the Canadian army to work. They claimed that our army was shamefully idle, that our men did not compare with the Australian soldiers; then, England invited the Department of National Defence to send a contingent to Hong Kong. We all know what happened then. Some of our men have died, some have been taken prisoners, all have endured severe hardships. At the next session, the opposition blamed us for having sent troops to Hong Kong.
Mr. Speaker, whatever the calibre of the opposition, they have made considerable progress and I must admit that the idea of conscription has had some success. They keep repeating that our fighting troops overseas are not numerous enough and in the same breath, they complain of the lack of men on the farms and on the industrial front.


Georges Parent: The hon. member's time has expired.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I will
finish my remarks another time.


Mr. THOMAS FARQUHAR (AlgomaEast):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill No. 80 to repeal section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act has, in my opinion, taken up altogether too much time. I intend to touch briefly on only two or three points.
Speaking in the house on the plebiscite bill on March 12, I said that I was not opposed to conscription, if and when conscription became necessary. I stated further that I did not think conscription was necessary at that time. I know of no reason why I should change my mind now.
I have listened carefully to the address of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and those of many other hon. members, and I find no suggestion that the voluntary enlistment system has failed in xny way. Nor have they given any reason to show that conscription is necessary at the present time. I wish every person in Canada would read the address delivered by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) on Tuesday of last week. If his observations were read by all our people, I believe they would be convinced that what we need and what we have is a well-balanced war effort. The minister pointed out that conscription was not the all-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Farquhar
important factor. He showed clearly that one of the great problems was the manufacturing of war munitions, and the building of ships to transport those munitions to our allies who are in such great need of them.
All hon. members know that Russia has far more trained men in reserve than Germany has. If Russia to-day could get enough heavy equipment such as tanks, heavy guns and aeroplanes, she could drive every German out of her country, and defeat Germany on her own soil. I read a report recently which stated that China has five million men at the battle front, and that she has ten million trained men in reserve. But these men cannot get the arms with which to fight. Just think of it! Ten million men, equal in number almost to the population of Canada; all these men, but unarmed 1 They are crying for arms, but cannot get them.
The same is true of Libya. If our armies in Libya to-day could have had all the heavy equipment and tanks and guns and aeroplanes they required they would not have been driven back, sixty miles into Egypt, as is reported in to-day's press. India is in the same position. She has unlimited numbers of men, but cannot get the equipment. The United States is raising an army of ten million men. That country is shipping all possible war materials out of the country, and sending them to India, China, Libya-almost every country in the world. If Great Britain could obtain the heavy equipment, tanks, heavy guns and all other necessary war equipment, we would have a second front to-day, and would be closing in on the Germans from the west.
In these times the all-important task in Canada is not the conscription of men for overseas service. There is something to be proud of in the fact that over half a million men have volunteered for service anywhere in the world. Two days ago the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) had this to say:
I always prefer to see our Canadian army overseas a purely volunteer army.
Would not anyone be proud to say that our army overseas was entirely and purely a volunteer army? I trust that when this war is ended Canada will be able to say with pride that not one man had to be forced into service; that every man overseas was a volunteer.
It has been said in this house that there are two extreme views on this question of conscription. To my mind both are wrong. As has been pointed out, the one extreme view is that there should be conscription at any cost, regardless of what effect it may have upon our unity or war effort. The other 
extreme view is that we should not have conscription under any circumstances. There are many who are opposed to this system of conscription. Sir Wilfrid Laurier held that view; the late Ernest Lapointe held that view; the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) holds that view, and many other outstanding leaders in the province of Quebec are of the same mind. Will anyone doubt the sincerity or the loyalty of these men? Can it be expected that men of French origin will have the same feeling toward Great Britain as Canadians of British stock have? I often feel that people in other provinces are most unfair in their judgment of the people of Quebec.
It is difficult to understand the attitude of the opposition group on this question of conscription. When the plebiscite vote was taken Liberals, Conservatives, the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation-I am not so sure of the Social Credit group-all united in an effort to convince the people of Canada that they were not voting on the question of conscription. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Hanson), and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group (Mr. Coldwell) said so. We said so in our broadcasts; we said so in our letters to the press, and we said so from the public platform. We did everything we possibly could to convince the people of Canada that they were not voting on conscription.
Having some confidence in us, the people of Canada came out and voted "yes" in large numbers. It is true that those who were voting for conscription voted "yes", but it is also true that thousands and thousands of people voted in the belief that we were sincere. Many, if not all of the members of the opposition, and the odd Liberal member interpreted that vote as a vote for conscription. What changed their minds over night?
I do not know, but I do know that they must admit one of two things. They must admit that they were sincere but that their people had no confidence in them, or they must admit that they were not sincere and tried deliberately to mislead the people of Canada.
That is one reason why the Conservative party is in the position in which it finds itself to-day. Can any party expect to have the confidence of the people of Canada when their word does not mean anything? Speaking in this debate, the leader of the opposition brought up once again the question of a national government, and he is reported on page 3249 of Hansard as follows:
I believe now, as I have believed from the outset, that the highest efficiency in carrying

Mobilization Act-Mr. McDonald
out such a programme can be guaranteed only by the establishment of a truly national government, a government composed of the best men in Canada, representative of all shades of opinion, but united by a common and single purpose-the waging of total war by total effort.
I have urged this view many times in this house.
I emphatically reiterate it to-day. More than ever am I convinced that unity of purpose and action will be achieved only under such a policy and position.
I have no doubt that there are capable men in the Conservative ranks who would be qualified to fill the positions they might be called upon to fill in a national government, but in discussing this question of a national government there is one thing that the leader of the opposition and his followers overlook. In order to form a national government it would be necessary to elect the members. If the leader of the opposition is honest-and 1 believe he is-he will agree with me when I say that it is very hard to elect a Conservative anywhere in Canada to-day. Surely the leader of the opposition and his followers have not forgotten how the people of Canada refused to accept national government at the last election. Surely they have not forgotten how the people in one of thte strongest Conservative ridings in Ontario said of one of the strongest and ablest men in the party, "We do not want him at any price." In the face of these facts, I suggest to the leader of the opposition and his followers that they forget forever the question of national government. The Conservative party can never expect to regain the confidence of the people of Canada so long as they use the tactics they are using at present in connection with this question of conscription.
I said that I was going to be very brief, and I shall close with these words: Any member of this house, I care not to what party he belongs, who now interprets the affirmative vote on the plebiscite as a vote for conscription-after he and his party definitely said that it was not-and advocates conscription on the strength of that vote, has broken faith with the people of Canada and is ho longer worthy of the confidence that his electors placed in him.


Mr. W. R. McDONALD (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, like all the other bon. members who have spoken, I consider it is clearly my duty on this occasion to present my views on this important issue and to state what will be my attitude toward the amendment at present before the house.
As you know, I am one of the members from the province of Quebec. I am not a French-Canadian member. There is not a drop of French-Canadian blood in my veins. But I do know something of Quebec and of
the French Canadians whom I have had the privilege to represent in the legislature of my native province as well as in this house.
On the plebiscite issue I did my utmost in my humble way to obtain, if possible, a "yes" vote, with a pretty good idea beforehand what my efforts would mean. The result was that there was a large "no" vote in my constituency. I was not disappointed. During the Easter recess I made several speeches over the radio in connection with the plebiscite vote, and I took occasion to tell the people of my riding that a "yes" vote on the plebiscite did not necessarily mean a vote for conscription. I went further; I told them distinctly, for reasons which I shall explain later in my speech, that I had been opposed to conscription in the past, was opposed to conscription at that particular time, and would continue to be opposed to it. So you can conclude, sir, from these remarks that, since the amendment contained in the bill before us to-day involves the principle of conscription, I cannot in conscience vote for that amendment; and when I say that, I do it with the utmost regret, because for the first time in my public life of-now-twenty-three years, I shall have to cast a vote of want of confidence against my party and against the leader in whom, apart from this particular issue, I have confidence.
I have said that I am a member from the province of Quebec, and I have sat and listened to derogatory remarks made by members of the opposition-I am sorry that more of them are not in their seats at the present time, because I have something to say to them-about Quebec and the attitude of its members and its people with regard to the war and to conscription.
The hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) yesterday afternoon said, among other things:
. . . the view of national unity held by hon. members from Quebec is that the other eight provinces must bow to their will.
Evidently we members from the province of Quebec are supermen and are quite capable of exercising our will and superiority over the great majority of the members of this house. I appreciate the compliment, coming from the hon. member. He also made some other allusions to the province of Quebec, and I shall answer them as I go along in my speech.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), in his usual ingratiating manner, referred this afternoon to Quebec's perverse education at the hands of politicians. I am quite willing

Mobilization Act-Mr. McDonald
to admit, sir, that Quebec has received perverse education at the hands of certain politicians, not, however, members of the Liberal party, and I intend to prove that from certain historical papers which I have before me.
The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) said to-night that the leadership of the province of Quebec is such that the people of Quebec are to-day paying the price for it.
Let us see something of the so-called leadership on this particular issue that the people of Quebec have been receiving, these hon. members say, for the last twenty-five years. I hold in my hand excerpts of articles taken from Le Devoir under date of May 29, 1913, signed by Henri Bourassa, who at that time was the owner and editor of this newspaper. Mr. Bourassa was at that time also the leader of the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec. He had broken away from Sir Wilfrid Laurier over the South African war and formed a party of Nationalists in our province. In 1910 a by-election was held in the constituency of Drummond-Arthabaska, in the province of Quebec, in which by-election the Nationalist party for the first time presented a candidate. The doctrine that they preached to the people of that constituency in the by-election was not one of participation in the wars of the British empire or in wars outside Canada; quite the contrary. They said, "If you return Laurier and Laurier's candidate to power, you encourage him to car-y on his naval bill", which at that time he had before parliament; "he will conscript your sons, place them on these vessels which he is going to build, and send them over all the seas of the world to fight in England's wars, and they will be engaged in every war in which the empire takes part." The appeal went home. While the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier at that time was very strong, particularly in the province of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa's candidate was elected by a majority of something over 200 votes. That was the first test of the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec.
Then came the general election of 1911. It was supposed to be fought out on the reciprocity issue, but the issue in the province of Quebec was not reciprocity; it was Laurier's naval bill, and Mr. Bourassa and his candidates of the Nationalist party took part in that election. Now we get the story, as printed in this newspaper Le Devoir, of what occurred. Probably it would have never come to light had it not been for the fact that, when these gentlemen eventually were elected and attained power, they forgot the promises they 
made to Mr. Bourassa and, in order to retain office, remained within the ranks of the Conservative party.
Then the plot was exposed. That is the reason why for some time we have been able to know what took place. We know now about the loyalty of the Conservative party; we know what party flag-wavers they are, and we know that in the election of 1911 their candidates were strutting up and down Ontario, with a flag wrapped round them, saying to the people of that province, "No truck or trade with the Yankees; President Taft says that if this treaty passes, Canada will become a political adjunct of the United States." But, Mr. Speaker, that was not what was taking place in the province of Quebec; it was something entirely different. Here is part of the story. The first article is on May 29, 1913:
The Conservatives solicit the help of the Nationalists.
Mr. Bourassa is writing:
Not being a party, we will not have a candidate in the ranks; but we will support any candidate, Liberal or Conservative, for or against reciprocity, who will at first hand promise to fight any policy of participation, direct or indirect, in the wars of the empire outside of Canada, or at least who will promise to repulse any measure of this kind before the people have been consulted by means of a plebiscite; and in such a case we will consult neither the wishes nor the interests of one or the other party. We wish-and this is no secret-to obtain the election of enough independent members to overthrow the navy bill and all other means of contributing to imperial armaments just as long as the people have not stated their will in the matter.
There was the first step towards the agreement with our friends the Conservatives. He goes on:
It is up to Mr. Borden and his lieutenants to decide whether they will allow the election of the candidates we support or begin a tripartite fight which will assure the election of the ministerial candidates. In those electoral districts where the fight will take place between orthodox Liberals and Conservatives we will let them fight amongst themselves.
They were not interested in that. They arranged that no candidates should be placed in the field under the name of Conservatives or anything else, except these Nationalists,
, and he goes on to state that one good Conservative had to make room for a Nationalist candidate because the organizer of the Nationalist party arranged for his withdrawal. You know the old saying, Mr. Speaker, that elections are not won by prayers, and the Nationalist candidates were quite able men on the platform, but they were not gifted overmuch with this world's goods. Hence, finances were somewhat of a necessity. Mr. Bourassa says:

Mobilization Act-Mr. McDonald
Besides the protestations of faith, the speeches and courtesies of the candidates, there remained the very important question of electoral funds, that festering sore of politics. In this regard the Nationalists were of no help. They furnished the ideas, the enthusiasm and the popularity, hut that was all they could give. The organizers of the autonomous party

That is the Nationalist party.
-had offered their moneys, those willing and able to subscribe to the opposition's election funds. There were a certain number who shared Mr. Monk's opinions on the naval question; others thought only of reciprocity; the shade of the candidates they helped was a matter of indifference to them provided they were opposed to the customs convention; others only wished the overthrow of the government, no matter what the ideas or principles of the opposition, whether with regard to the navy or reciprocity.
So they contributed their funds to help the Nationalist party to be elected; and when the regular funds were exhausted another gentleman who had a long purse, a man prominent in the' Conservative party in Quebec, appeared upon the scene with some additional funds. He wanted to take notes payable from candidates and they refused to deal with him; consequently he had to accede to the wishes of the candidates and supply the money without receiving the notes. Mr. Bourassa goes on to say:
The fact remains that the Conservative party funds and the imperial treasury helped to defray the election dues of from thirty to forty candidates for or against reciprocity, who denounced the navy bill, and the "no less nefarious" policy of Mr. Borden, and who solemnly pledged themselves to vote against any government that refused to allow a plebiscite on this question.
The Tories at that time went about their work very thoroughly. They had contributed directly to the funds, but they saw another opportunity. Mr. Bourassa, as I have stated, was also proprietor and editor of a newspaper, Le Devoir which is still in existence, but which at that time had not anything like the circulation which it has to-day; nor had it the weight or the importance which attaches to it at the present time. So they conceived the idea that it would be good 'business to get a more extensive circulation of the newspaper in the province of Quebec in order to extend the propaganda through the paper, in addition to the speeches on the platform, and Mr. Bourassa relates how this was brought about. In an article dated Tuesday, June 3, 1913, he says;
Some days afterwards one of the most important heads of the Conservative committee, armed with electoral lists of all the eastern counties, obtained subscriptions to Le Devoir for the duration of the campaign from a few thousand of these brave electors. At any rate, we were princely. Par from taking advantage 44561-235
of the situation and holding up these gentlemen, the paper gave them generous terms; we only asked for the price of the regular subscription-
They did not charge them anything extra, just the regular subscription.
-minus the commission usually paid to regular solicitors.
They were generous.
We thus remained free from anything that looked like political subscription and we had the paramount satisfaction-
This is rich.
-of having the mammon of Tory imperialistic iniquity served to spread the good Nationalist doctrine in full columns.
Mr. Bourassa was making such good progress in the province of Quebec that his fame had spread even to the loyal province of Ontario. I am surprised to read-but of course I knew of it at the time, because I was taking part in that campaign-that he had received an invitation to visit the good loyal province of Ontario and propagate there his good loyal doctrine of nationalism that he was preaching in the province of Quebec. He had a visit from certain gentlemen of Ontario while he was attending a meeting at St. Hyacinthe. His answer was not quite satisfactory to the delegation that waited upon him, so one day he was shown a telegram which was addressed to Mr. McCrea. Mr. McCrea had been told that Mr. Bourassa would not go to Ontario unless certain explicit promises were made by the candidates, so Mr. McCrea evidently wired the candidates and received replies reading as follows:
Mattawa, Ontario,
September 8, 1911.
I certainly am opposed to the reciprocity pact and the navy policy of the government and will support a request for repeal of naval policy and a referendum to the people no matter who is premier.
That was signed by George Gordon, the senator who died recently, who was then a candidate for Nipissing. A similar telegram was also sent by a Mr. Smith.
Being assured by these gentlemen that they would carry out their obligation, Mr. Bourassa consented to visit Ontario and propagate his good, loyal doctrine in that good, loyal province. Here is his reference to the effect of his visit there:
I spoke in Sudbury on September 18. This was the most clearly nationalistic, the most flatly anti-imperialistic speech of all those I delivered during the campaign. Since that time the Hon. Mr. Cochrane, known to be sparing of words and praises, honoured me by saying that my arguments made an even more marked impression on English-speaking electors than on French Canadians.



Mobilization Act-Mr. McDonald
He made more converts in Ontario than in Quebec.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They were pulling his leg.


Wallace Reginald McDonald: The result of the elections in Quebec was as follows. On the dissolution of the house the Liberal party had fifty seats; all other groups had fifteen. After the election the Liberals had thirty-seven seats; the Nationalists had twenty-seven, and there was one Independent, making a total of sixty-five. So that victory in Quebec brought about the balance of power which overthrew the Laurier administration and elected Mr. Borden.
More striking than that are the figures of the popular vote. The Liberal party in that election obtained 164,281 votes. The opposition, the Nationalists, had 159,299. The popular vote in the province of Quebec was split practically fifty-fifty between the Nationalists and the Liberals.
That is what we have had to contend with in the province of Quebec from 1911 down to the present time. That is the element we have to fight, and that is the element .which is responsible for what the opposition accuse us of, the wrong leadership in the province of Quebec. My charge is that in 1911 they betrayed every principle of decency; they sold out their party in order to gain a cheap victory, and to-day they are trying to cast that onus and aspersion on the Liberals because, they say, Quebec does not measure up to their expectations.
In a moment I am going to refer to some of the things that were said by one of those men who was afterwards taken into the cabinet. These men who preached doctrines in the province of Quebec which were practically seditious, financed by Conservative money, were taken into the cabinet of Sir Robert Borden in 1911: L. P. Pelletier, Postmaster General; T. D. Monk, Public Works; Bruno Nantel, Minister of National Revenue; and P. E. Blondin, Deputy Speaker, who had a particular flair for shooting holes in the British flag.
Before- the term of that parliament had expired, war had broken out. But before that time, Mr. Borden introduced his naval bill for a contribution of $35,000,000 to the British navy. In view of the speeches that these men and other supporters of the Borden administration in the province of Quebec had made, they should have resigned their seats, unless they had a plebiscite of the people. But they hung on to office; office was sweet; they stayed until the expiration of parliament in 1917. There were

changes in the administration during that time. Mr. Nantel, who had been Minister of Inland Revenue, had been named a judge; he was replaced by Mr. Blondin, who became Minister of Inland Revenue in 1914. He was introduced into this house in 1915 by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, a great imperialist, Sir George Foster. I am going to leave it to Sir Wilfrid Laurier to say how he, Mr. Blondin, was introduced. Sir Wilfrid said, in a manner that only Laurier possessed, as reported at page 209 of Hansard of 1915:
Mr. Nantel also has been called away from the floor of parliament and removed to another sphere. It is not my intention to say anything of the removal of Mr. Nantel from office, but I may have something to say as to the choice of his successor, the present incumbent of the office, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin). It seemed an evidence of the irony of fate that the hon. member for Champlain, the arch-Nationalist, should have been introduced to the house by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), the arch-imperialist. When on the opening of the session, I saw the new minister walking into this house leaning upon the arm of my hon friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I thought the Minister of Trade and Commerce showed by the way he seemed to be limping that he had a heavy load to carry. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce has always been an insistent advocate of imperialism. I cannot say as much of his new colleague; but perhaps, after all, there may be within the ranks of the Conservative party, as there is somewhere else, some joy over the conversion of one sinner. The Minister of Inland Revenue was introduced by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. When he told you, sir, that the hon. gentleman had taken the oath and had signed the roll, I thought he would add that the hon. gentleman had filled up the holes in the flag and that he would now breath the atmosphere of liberty. But he did not, and really there was no necessity for his doing so. The hon. member for Champlain is now breathing the atmosphere of office; he has found an atmosphere which is suitable to him, and he can breathe freely, whether there are holes in the flag or not. I have only this to observe: when my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue, then the hon. member for Champlain, was making the speeches which he did make in the province of Quebec; when he was threatening to destroy the Canadian navy when he had an opportunity of doing so, I never believed that he meant one-half of what he said. I always supposed, and rightly supposed, that what he was after was to create advantage for himself and for his party. He has succeeded. He is now in office, but to attain office he has travelled a very dangerous road. He has sown the seed of discord-and these appeals to passion are always sure to bring forth a crop of prejudices. My hon. friend, the Minister of Inland Revenue, is a young member of this house; perhans he will permit me to say, since now he has the responsibility of office, that he had better always stand by true principle.

Mobilization Act-Mr. McDonald
May I direct those words to the Conservative party. It might be better for them to stand by true principle, and lay the responsibility for wrong leadership in the province of Quebec where it properly belongs, instead of attempting to lay it upon the ministers and humble members of the Liberal party who come from that province. Personally I have been fighting the battles of the Liberal party in Quebec for forty years, and I have no apology to make to anyone for the sort of fight I have put up there. I have used conscription as an argument because conscription was imposed upon the people of Canada, and especially upon us in the province of Quebec, in 1917 for no other purpose than to win an election for a government that had lost every vestige of the confidence of the people of Canada. The shameful arguments that were used in the other provinces against us; the shameful announcements which were made,, some of which I quoted during my speech here in February, as I said on that occasion and repeat to-ndght were seared' into my memory. I have had no apology to offer, nor have I to-night, for any statement I have made in the past or for any statements I may make in the future in carrying on that campaign in the province of Quebec as long as there is a Tory who shows his face in that province. Little did they dream in 1911, when they were carrying on this campaign to split our people in two on this question of the naval bill and the contribution to imperial wars, that in 1914 war would break out and that between 1914 and 1917 they would be asking the people of Quebec to support the war effort and enlist as those in the other provinces were doing. To-day they are reaping the results of their actions, and theirs is the responsibility.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the present war. In my speech in February I stated that since the declaration of war Quebec has done its share in comparison with the other provinces. I am just as firmly convinced of that to-night, and as a member from Quebec I have no apologies to offer, nor am I blushing over the part my province has taken. I have before me the speech of the late lamented Minister of Justice, Mr. Lapointe, delivered in this house on September 9, 1939, in which he outlined the programme, the sentiment and the feelings of the people of Quebec; not with the idea, as the hon. member for Hastings-Peter-borough suggested yesterday, of imposing the will of the people of Quebec upon the other provinces, but as the feelings of a sister province, willing to take her share of responsibility along with the other provinces of this dominion. As reported at page 68 of Hansard for 44561-2351
September 9, 1939, Mr. Lapointe used these words:
The whole province of Quebec-and I speak with all the responsibility and all the solemnity I can give to my words-will never agree to accept compulsory service or conscription outside Canada. I will go farther than that: When I say the whole province of Quebec I mean that I personally agree with them.
Then he went on:
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it not worth while to the Canadian nation, when the nation is at war, to preserve unity on the side on which Canada will be-this unity which is represented by the province of Quebec in the government- behind the measures being taken to help our mother country and France? . . .
Provided these points are understood, we are willing to offer our services 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.
Again that same fall of 1939 when the then Premier of Quebec dissolved the legislature and attempted to obtain a new mandate from the people by asking them not to take part in the war our ministers from that province, including Mr. Lapointe, the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), and the present Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) took part in the campaign. I have before me a newspaper report of a speech delivered by Mr. Lapointe on October 10, 1939, in which he is quoted as having said:
But I have faith in my province. I am confident that it will not render a verdict that will be acclaimed in Berlin and Moscow on election night. Nazi and communist agents have stirred up dissension in all the countries of America. Quebec will not allow itself to be influenced by such propaganda.
And further on he said:
Canada must remain united. Any attempt at breaking that unity is fratricidal and criminal. We must have tolerance and mutual respect.
And again:
I have succeeded in healing many wounds. I have steadfastly held up Canada's banner, convinced as I was that the sacred interests of my province were linked with the preservation of Canadian ideals.
Those were the sentiments of the late Minister of Justice; those were the sentiments of every true Liberal and every Canadian citizen of the province of Quebec at that time; and, Mr. Speaker, those are the sentiments of the true Canadians of Quebec to-day. We do not want or need conscription in the province of Quebec. Quebec is doing its share in this war.
Let me quote an extract from an address given by the Hon. J. Arthur Mathewson, the provincial treasurer of Quebec. It will be

Mobilization Act-Mr. McDonald
noted that he is not a French Canadian. This address was delivered in Montreal on November 25, 1941, and was in part as follows:
So much for what we are doing in a material way. Now what about man-power? Quebec can justly boast that it provided the first full regiment of infantry in all Canada. It was a Freneh-Canadian regiment. It was recruited to full strength under its gallant leader, Colonel Robert Bourassa, himself a veteran of the last war, and who unfortunately, after proceeding to England with his unit, has now been invalided back and lies here paralyzed. He led the van of Canada in recruiting and the sympathy of all Canadians must go out to him now, to console him in his suffering.
His was the first regiment. The two regiments which followed in recruiting to full strength were one from Ontario and the other one again from the province of Quebec. Several other regiments, both English-Canadian and French Canadian, have gone from this province.
When the recruiting drive was launched last spring, an objective -was set for the province of Quebec. The province met its requirements. The city of Quebec surpassed its quota and achieved 122 per cent.
It would be interesting to the enemy to know exactly how many troops have gone from Quebec. They will not be told. On the other hand Quebec cannot be accused of complacency. We are not complacent.
He concludes with these words:
The French Canadian loves Canada through the province of Quebec, just as a Scotchman loves Britain through his affection for his own native hills. The Grampians and Loch Lomond are to the Scotchman what the Laurentians and the spruce-clad banks of the St. Lawrence are to the French Canadian. That affection for his native - heath is not a detriment-it is a source of vital strength.
Quebec will not fail. Depend upon us and we will not let you down. Know above all that here in Quebec are three million Christian consciences, each one a bastion, a fortress, that Hitler's hordes and their supreme commander, who is Satan, will never conquer.
My time has almost expired, and I should like to conclude with two quotations from a book written, by Pierre Georges Roy and entitled "Les Petites Choses de Notre Histoire." Two articles struck me forcibly while reading them. The first is headed "Nos coeurs a la France; nos bras a l'Angleterre"-"Our hearts belong to France, but our arms belong to England," and is as follows:
What is the origin of these words which express so admirably the feeling of the great majority of French Canadians since the day when providence broke the bond which united Canada to France?
On July 13, 1885, for the first time since 1760, a French corvette La Capricieuse entered the port of Quebec. The older people, greatly moved, said that their people had come back and the French officers were welcomed as heroes and applauded wherever they went.
The captain, monsieur de Belveze, visited mademoiselle de Lanaudiere, the daughter of one of the leaders in the battle of the Plains of Abraham-an old lady of eighty-five, with a

very good memory and a wit as sparkling as in the days of her youth. They spoke mostly of France, non' allied by treaty with England, in what has been known during recent years as an "entente cordiale". But like most French naval officers, the captain did not like England, and could not understand the faithful allegiance of the Canadians to England while they professed such a deep love for France. Finally, unable to find a more convincing argument, mademoiselle de Lanaudiere said these words which have become historic: "Our hearts belong to France, but our arms belong to England."
One further quotation from the same source, and I shall have finished. This is headed "Le Dernier Coup de Canon," and is as follows:
During the second session of the second union parliament which was opened on March 29, 1846, by Lord Cathcart, both sides of the house unanimously passed a law to establish the army on a working basis.
Sir Etienne-Paschal Tache, who had fought in 1812, made a patriotic speech in which he assured the house that if the occasion arose, the French Canadians would conduct themselves again in a manner as heroic.
"What our fathers and we ourselves have done to defend the colony," he said, "our children will be found ready to do, if they are considered in a just light. Our loyalty is not one of speculation, of pounds and shillings, and pence. It is not constantly on our lips. We do not make a business of it. Our habits, our laws, our religion, have made us monarchists and conservatives. We only ask to be treated with justice, and if the enemy comes, you will see our battalions, light-hearted and brave, go forth to fight the foe. 'But', our detractors say, 'you are malcontents, it is impossible to reason with you.' "Tou are rebels,' say the ultras, 'we alone possess loyalty to the highest degree.' A thousand pardons, gentlemen, treat us as children of the same mother and not as illegitmate, treat us with more justice in your deeds as well as in your words, and I give you my word that if ever this country ceases to be British, the last cannon shot to maintain British power on American soil will have been fired by a French Canadian."
I commend these quotations to the house.


Mr. J. P. MULLINS (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, for the few moments I have left before eleven o'clock I shall endeavour to make my position clear with respect to the bill now under discussion. I have always been opposed to conscription. On each and every occasion in the past twenty-five or thirty years I have taken the stand I am taking to-night. At every opportunity I have spoken against imposing conscription for service overseas. I have felt this way because I am convinced that the most satisfactory method of recruiting men is under the voluntary system, and I believe that experience gained under the mobilization act has proved I am right.
In Canada the province of Quebec, my native province, and one of which I have a right to be proud, has been accused of not

Mobilization Act

Mr. Mullins
doing its duty. It is clear, however, from figures tabled in the house one day this week that the numbers of French Canadians who have enlisted voluntarily have been very satisfactory indeed. It must not be forgotten that for a country of only between 11,000,000 and 12,000,000 people we have had wonderful success in accomplishing great things in connection with our war endeavour. Other countries have complimented Canada upon the fact that for her size and population she has done more in the way of her war effort than any other country.
It has been said from the opposite side of the house, as well as by other people opposed to this government in politics, that the French Canadians are not doing their share in this war. Such remarks are most unpleasant to the ears of a man who has lived in Quebec all his life and who hopes to pass the rest of his days in that province. I have lived among French-Canadian people, and I do not intend to change my place of abode. They are the finest people in the world. Because of political, and perhaps financial reasons, there are a few in the house and, outside the house, a few in the other provinces who spend their time in knocking Quebec. Why do they seek to divide the country? Is it t<|>
try to ruin the party in power for their own political future?
According to the figures in Hansard, the total enlistments in the three armed forces from Quebec up to the present month were 74,053, of whom 36,140 were French-speaking and 37,913 were English-speaking and all other origins. The total enlistments in the army to serve anywhere from the beginning of the war up to the present month were 29,651 French-speaking and 27,071 Englishspeaking and all other origins. Therefore it would appear that the remarks of these gentlemen are absolutely unfounded and unfair. I repeat that there is only one reason for such arguments, to advance their own political and personal positions, and perhaps in the case of some of them, to ensure their political future.
During the plebiscite campaign I did not try to influence my people. I made no public speeches; I left them free, and they voted 75 per cent "no". I hope that my electors will understand, when I vote against this bill, that I do not do so because of any lack of confidence in my government, but I am confident that the present government will never impose conscription. After section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act has been deleted, there will be no opportunity of discussing this matter before conscription is
put into force. I repeat that it is not lack of confidence in my government or my chief that causes me to vote against the government on this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few words in French, the native tongue of the majority of my constituents.
(Translation) I have always been opposed to conscription. For the last twenty-five years, on every occasion that offered, I have spoken, in public as in private, against conscription for overseas service. It was not that I was averse to defending our country, but because I considered that conscription, far from promoting voluntary enlistment, would hamper it. That is why, for the last twenty-five years, even during the last war, I have declared myself against conscription as being conscientiously opposed to that measure as I still am to-day.
Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec has contributed its large share in the present conflict and there are reasons to be proud of that province, proud of its citizens. Our province is sometimes criticized in this house by members who have not resided very long in Canada, but have come from the other side because, over there, they felt like small fish in a large lake. They came to Canada, where they settled and were welcomed by the Canadians who helped them to succeed and to-day they want.to show us how to run the country and the war. Mr. Speaker, if those people are well intentioned why do they not set an example instead of always criticizing the province of Quebec? Even in this house, there are people of military age who could do their duty by returning overseas as sincere men. They could at least cease criticizing the honest people of Quebec who do their duty courageously and proudly.
I have always lived in the province of Quebec which I hold to be one of the finest provinces in Canada. I am proud to live among Canadians whom I esteem and I hope to have the privilege of spending there my remaining days.
I shall conclude in saying that the repeal of clause 3 will enable any government in power to enforce conscription without consulting even the house and that is why I shall vote against this bill.
On motion of Mr. Fraser (Northumberland, Ont.) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Washington War Conferences
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 26, 1942