Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What was the cost to Wartime Housing Limited of providing water and sewage to the building projects in St. Catharines and Merritton districts?
2.	How many wartime houses are served by these extensions?
3.	What arrangements have been made with the civic authorities concerning the paying for these extensions?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	St. Catharines project numbers (1) and (2) and Merritton project number (1), $67,549.61.
2.	St. Catharines and Merritton, 325 houses.
3.	These extensions were undertaken by Wartime Housing Limited, direct, with the exception that the town of Merritton installed the necessary water mains and house water connections on the Merritton project, their costs for which were submitted to and paid by Wartime Housing Limited.



WHEAT ACREAGE REDUCTION BONUS

Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many bonuses under the wheat acreage reduction plan for the year 1941 in the province of Saskatchewan are outstanding?
2.	How many prairie farm income bonuses are still outstanding in the said province for the same year?
3.	How many applications approved of under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act for the year 1941 in the province of Saskatchewan, have not been finally settled?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	1,084 as at June 11, 1942.
2.	1,224 as at June 11, 1942.
3.	2,173 as at June 11, 1942.
[Mr. Speaker.!



CONSTRUCTION OP HUTS OR HOUSES IN REGINA

Mr. DIEFENRAKER:: 1.	How many huts or houses is the government building in the city of Regina; who is the contractor and what is the price for each hut or house?
j. Are the building contractors furnishing heating and plumbing? If not, who is?
3. What is the cost for, (a) heating, (b) plumbing, for each of said huts or houses?
,We5e Anders called for, (a) building, (b) heating, (c) plumbing?
5.	If SO, how many tenders were submitted and what was the amount of each?
6.	If tenders were not called for, was any company or person invited to submit tenders?
7.	If tenders were called for, in what newspapers were the advertisements inserted?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The Shoquist Construction Company of Saskatchewan is performing a contract for the government, awarded January 9, 1942, known as the construction of works and buildings for amalgamation of No. 12A district subdepot with No. 12 district depot. The price as quoted for each house or hut is as follows: 1 quarters and mess, 30 officers. .$ 24,300
1 quarters and W.O.'s and N.C.O.'s 16,611
6 quarters and other ranks		98,712*
1 mess, W.O.'s and N.C.O.'s	 11,359
1 mess for other ranks	 16,105
1 Q.M. stores and reg't. shops______	6,048
1 company officers and H.Q		9,413
* (each $16,452.)
Total	$182,581
The above prices are for buildings only and are exclusive of excavation, grading and sewers, etc.
Since the above contract was awarded, two buildings have been added to the project, the work to be done by the same contractor, as follows:
Dry canteen and lecture room, $8,496; guard house and four cells, $4,200.
2.	Yes.
3.	It is impossible to ascertain from the general contractor's tender the cost of the heating and plumbing as this cost is included in the price quoted for each building.
4.	No. Tenders were called for the general building construction, heating and plumbing inclusive.
5.	The tenders submitted and the amounts were as follows:

Questions
Without	With
kitchen equip, kitchen equip.
Shoquist Construction Co.	$191,088	$193,829Bird Construction Co	192,230	No quotationPoole Construction Co.	195,500	No quotationSmith Bros. & Wilson Ltd..	196,967	No quotationW aterman-Waterbury Mfg. Co	200,130	204,0616. Tenders were	invited from	the following
firms:
Shoquist Construction Co., Saskatoon, Sask.
C. M. Miners Construction Co., Saskatoon, Sask.
P. W. Graham & Sons, Moose Jaw, Sask.
Carter-Halls-Aldinger Ltd., Regina, Sask.
Bird Construction Co., Regina, Sask.
Smith Bros. & Wilson Ltd., Regina, Sask.
Poole Construction Co., Regina, Sask.
Waterman-Waterbury Mfg. Co., Regina, Sask.
7. Advertisement in newspapers was not made. Invitations to tender were sent out to all those firms in the vicinity known to be in a position to handle a project of this size. Eight invitations to tender were sent out and five tenders were received.



WARTIME HOUSING-PURCHASES OP MATERIAL

Mr. CARDIFF:: 1.	Are contractors working on contracts for Wartime Housing Limited restricted to making purchases of material from certain companies only?
2.	If so, what are the names of the companies?
3.	Why are these companies the only ones from whom the contractor may purchase materials?
4.	Is this creating a restraint of trade and a breach of the combines act?


Mr. CARDIFF:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have this question withdrawn for redrafting.
Question dropped.



MERCHANT MARINE-ASSISTANCE IN INSTALLING MACHINERY FOR BOAT REPAIRS

Mr. MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1.	Has the government in anywise assisted the Sydney Foundry and Machine Company in placing new machinery in their plant?
2.	If so, who pays for this machinery?
3.	Is the firm of Musgrave and Company Limited, North Sydney, being given any work in the repair of government boats or boats of the merchant marine?
4.	Has the firm of Musgrave and Company Limited been given any assistance in the purchase of new machinery for their plant?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	Musgrave and Company Limited, North Sydney were given several repair jobs on cargo boats during 1941 and it is probable that the services of this contractor will be similarly used during 1942.
4.	No.



CAPE BRETON COAL MINING INDUSTRY-MULGRAVE YARDAGE FACILITIES

Mr. McGARRY:: Has the Minister of Munitions and Supply given any consideration to the advisability of extending the yardage area at the port of Mulgrave, to remedy the transportation problem in the conveyance of coal from the Cape Breton mines ?


Mr. HOWE:: The hon. member's question was referred to the management of Canadian National Railways, who have replied as follows:-
Traffic capacity of railway route via strait of Canso is not determined by yardage capacity at Mulgrave which is ample for current purposes. It is not proposed therefore to enlarge yard facilities at port of Mulgrave.



WAGE RATES UNDER WAR CONTRACTS

Mr. LECLERC:: What is the rate of wages in the following plants on government war contracts, (a) Canada Car Company, Montreal and Hamilton, (b) Small Arms Limited, Toronto, (c) maritime yards at Sorel, Lauzon and Vancouver, (d) munitions industries at Valleyfield (Bouchard & Cherrier) ?


Mr. MITCHELL:: Whilst the government has knowledge of the schedules of wages being paid to workers in plants where war orders are being executed, complete wage lists from all industrial centres mentioned are not available in the department. The schedules above referred to are often established by agreement between employers and employees. Where no such agreements exist, the following labour condition with respect to wages is attached to each government contract:
All workmen, labourers or other persons who perform labour in or upon the work to be performed by the contractor shall be paid such wages as are generally accepted as current from time to time during the continuance of the contract for competent workmen in the district
Questions

in which the work is being performed for the character or class of work in which they are respectively engaged, and if there be no current rate in such district, then a fair and reasonable rate.
To furnish the wage rates prevailing in all the plants mentioned would entail an enormous amount of work, as the number of labour classifications in each plant varies from 50 to 200. This would require extra staff for a considerable length of time, or the diversion of present staff from current war duties, and it is therefore considered not in the public interest to reply in detail to this question.



ICE CREAM RATIONING

Joseph-Hermas Leclerc: Has the government rationed the quantities of ice cream which may be manufactured quarterly during 1942?


Mr. GARDINER:: No, but the dairy products board has by order restricted the volume of sales of ice cream to civilian accounts during any one quarter in 1942 to those of the corresponding quarter in 1941. Volume of sales of ice cream to military establishments, certain charitable organizations operated or managed within the limits of military establishments, Red Cross and military or civilian hospitals are exempt from the provisions of the order.



WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS ENGAGED IN HAMILTON

Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What firms of engineers and architects have been engaged by Wartime Housing Limited for the building of houses in Hamilton, Ontario?
2.	On what basis have they been paid?
3.	How much have they been paid for each housing unit?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Hutton & Souter, Hamilton, Ont. Prack & Prack, Hamilton, Ont.
2.	The basis is 1 per cent of the cost of the houses.
3.	Between $17.21 and $27.59 depending upon the size and type of house constructed.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Has the government authorized Wartime Housing Limited to build prefabricated houses in or near New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, and in or near Pictou?

2.	If so, when was such authorization issued and for how many houses and how many staff houses or other buildings?
3.	Were tenders called or prices asked for?
4.	If so, what firms or persons submitted prices, stating the amount in each instance?
_ 5. Have tenders been let or contracts entered into? If so, state names and amounts with unit costs and total costs?
6.	What offers of land were originally submitted, stating the quantity and prices asked?
7.	What land has been acquired, stating quantity, owners and prices?
8.	Were tenders called in 1942 for construction of streets, water and sewer works?
9.	If so, who submitted tenders or prices stating the amount in each instance, and what is the total estimated cost?
10.	Who has been awarded the contract for building such streets, water and sewer works, stating the unit and total estimated costs?
11.	Who has been engaged to search titles and survey and lay off the site and what payments have been made or arranged for?
12.	When must such buildings be removed and total estimated costs?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.


MILITARY SERVICE-FARM LEAVE-BENOIT TELLIER
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Did Benoit Tellier, enlisted No. D-606356, in March, 1942, request farm leave from his C.O. at Three Rivers, Quebec, his request being signed and sworn to by himself and his father, Eugene Tellier, farmer of St. Elizabeth?
2.	Has this application for leave been forwarded to military headquarters in Montreal in accordance with the requirements of military law?
3.	What is the final decision upon this application?


Mr. RALSTON:: Return tabled.


MILITARY UNIFORMS AND WOOLLEN BLANKETS
Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	Has Canada imported any cloth for men's overcoats and greatcoats from the British isles since 1939?
2.	If so, (a) how many yards, in each of the
years 1939, 1940 and 1941; (b) what total sum in Canadian currency do these importations represent?	[DOT]
3.	Has the government, since 1939, given military uniforms to England or any other of the united nations?
4.	If so, (a) how many to each; (b) how many to each in the years 1939, 1940 and 1941?
5.	Has the Canadian government given wool blankets to England and to any of the united nations ?
6.	If so, how many and to what value?
7.	Has Canada exported military uniforms or cloth for military uniforms to England or to any of the united nations since 1939? If so, to what country or countries?
8.	Has Canada exported wool blankets to England or any of the united nations? If so, what quantity to each country and for what amount?

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gardiner


CANADIAN ARMY-DOCTOR LEBBITTER
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Was Dr. Lebbitter commissioned to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel?
2.	What are his qualifications?
3.	What was his former rank in the army and former experience?
4.	What are his duties?
5.	On whose authority was he commissioned?
6.	On whose request?


James Layton Ralston: Return tabled.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. McGREGOR:: For a return showing the names of all the persons on the staff of the British Columbia security commission and their respective duties and the salary paid to each one of such persons.



CAPE BRETON MINING FIELDS-TRANSPORTATION BY WATER TO CENTRAL CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Moses Elijah McGarry: I desire to direct to the acting Minister of Transport a question of urgent national importance. Can the minister give information with regard to any considered plan by the Canadian National Railways to transport coal by water carriers and rail to the central Canadian markets and thus adequately to supply these markets and stabilize production in the Cape Breton mining fields?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. This is a question which should be placed on the order paper.



RECRUITING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two
Mountains) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). Has he any knowledge of the following excerpt from an address given in a public meeting:
Enlistment figures in Quebec do not represent the true situation because the clergy has been so opposed to enlistment that it has been necessary to bring in soldiers from elsewhere.
Since remarks of this nature are liable to prejudice recruiting and cause disaffection with respect to his majesty, has the Minister of Justice-
Georges Parent: Order, order. This is a question which should be placed upon the order paper.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940.
James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the question before the house is the second reading of a bill to amend the National Resources Mobilization -Act by the deletion of section 3. As is well known by hon. members, section 3 provides the one exception to the powers which were given to the government of Canada under the National Resources Mobilization Act.
I should like to ask in the first instance, in presenting argument in favour of the amendment, why section 3 was placed in the act in 1940, when that measure was brought before this house, and I would answer that question by reading a statement which was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on that occasion, as reported in Hansard of June 18, 1940:
The bill is intended to remove any doubt as to the power of the government and the will of parliament that the whole of the material resources of the country should be available whenever they are required to meet the needs of the war. The operation of the measure will be confined to the period of the war.
Recruitment for service overseas will be maintained on a voluntary basis. No difficulty has been experienced and no difficulty is anticipated in raising by the voluntary system all the men required for service outside Canada.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, in order that some remarks which I am going to make during the time that is allowed me may be fully understood, I should also place on Hansard a statement which was then made by the late Minister of Justice, Mr. Lapointe. He was speaking to an amendment which had been moved to the motion then before the house, and he said, as reported at page 877:
I feel perfectly at ease to explain my attitude on this question. Somebody speaks of the pledges given. I invite all my friends to read the observations I made in this house when war was declared; I invite them to read my speech of the preceding session on the subject of Canada's neutrality.
I am sure that every hon. member who was then here will recall that that was one of the finest speeches ever delivered in the Canadian House of Commons.
I then said to my fellow-countrymen that the province, one of whose representatives I have the honour to be, was opposed to compulsory military service overseas, and that we would fight it, and that I tvould fight it; that if it

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gardiner
were proposed by my government I would resign from that government. That is what I said, and that is what I repeat to-day. But for the defence of my country, for the defence of Canada, no! The defence of the fatherland is the duty of every citizen and it is an obligation for everyone to defend Canada. This bill provides that its powers may not be exercised in so far as the question of compulsion is concerned in connection with service overseas.
I repeat, I read these two quotations to the house to-day in order to place clearly before hon. members and the country the position which was taken by the government two years ago when the National Resources Mobilization Act was submitted to this house.
On Wednesday of last week we had the privilege of listening to a speech from the leader of the government outlining the present position of the government in relation to this matter, a position in which we find ourselves as a result of having made certain declarations to the people of Canada over a period of time, and as a result of having asked the people to release us from the obligations that we had taken upon ourselves by these declarations. It was stated to this house that we had asked the people of Canada to free the government from any restrictions on its actions, and on this occasion I submit we are asking the house to free the government from any restrictions upon its actions in matters having to do with the prosecution of the war. It has been stated in this house, it was stated on Wednesday last, that a "yes" vote on the plebiscite was not a "yes" vote for conscription, and it has been stated in the house and will be repeated during this debate that a "yes" vote on this amendment is not a vote for conscription. This bill is to free the government, to enable it to give consideration to the question whether conscription for overseas service or for any other purpose is necessary for the prosecution of the war.
Having reviewed that matter, may I call attention to this question. What will be the effect of the act as a result of this amendment? Again I read from a speech of the Prime Minister delivered in this house on the occasion when the bill was first introduced. Speaking on June 18, 1940, at page 900 of Hansard, the Prime Minister stated:
I come now to the inquiry as to how we are going to exercise this power. I would say in a word that we shall continue to exercise all the powers we have or may be given, just as we have from the beginning of the war when exceptional powers were first given to us. We are not going to exercise all these powers-put into effect the provisions in their entirety-within the next 24 hours. We need enabling legislation for that is what it is-to enable the government to meet each situation as it arises in the most effective way it can possibly be met. The need to-morrow may be for one thing 
in one place; the need the day after may be for something else in another place. We do not know how the situation will develop in the next little while, but we want to be in a position to take the most effective action in the shortest possible time.
I submit that when the amendment is made to the act we shall be in exactly the same position with regard to everything for which the act provides. The Prime Minister has merely stated that he desires to be free to do certain things now, and also free not to do certain things now. He has stated very clearly to the house that he desires to be free to send men outside what has been defined in the original act as the boundaries of Canada into the areas immediately surrounding our coasts; and I am sure that when the news came over the radio this morning with regard to the activities of the Japanese in the Aleutian islands the necessity for such a change in the legislation was recognized at once. I venture to say that there is not a member of this house who would not consider at this time, as being too great a restriction, the provision which is now in the act that no soldier called up under this legislation can be asked to cross the boundaries of the Dominion of Canada. Under any such provision, if the Japanese were able to force their way to the Alaska boundaiy we would have to stop at the Alaska boundaiy if our men raised under the act were able to drive them back to that point, and we would not be able to cross the boundary. It will be recognized therefore that some change has to be made in that particular at the present time.
As the Prime Minister stated in this house it does not necessarily mean that we shall be sending troops overseas immediately. I believe he even went so far as to suggest that it may never become necessary to do so. We shall have powers under the legislation as it will be enlarged to do certain things that must be done immediately, and, on the other hand, to give consideration as time passes to the question whether other things should be done. In this regard it was emphasized to the house the other day that it would be inadvisable for this house to have to take action on two different occasions in order to get authority to do these two things, one of which ought to be done immediately, and the other of which may never be required to be done.
Having stated that position with regard to the legislation itself and the attitude of the government towards it, and with regard to the statement made the other day to the house, may I be permitted for a few moments to discuss a question which was raised by the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) in his speech a few days ago. On that occasion he

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gardiner
had something to say as to the meaning of the vote in Saskatchewan, and it has been suggested that I had something to do with the campaign which was put on in that province. I was in Saskatchewan most of the period during which the plebiscite was being discussed, and during that time I delivered eight speeches in the province. On one occasion I had on the platform with me the member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), who has already spoken in this debate, and the runner-up for the leadership of the Conservative party in the convention of 1938, Mr. M. A. MacPherson. I would suggest that all three of us made practically the same appeal to the people of Moose Jaw. I have before me the appeal which I made in the presence of those two gentlemen at a dinner in the evening, and also the appeal which I made over the radio later, and which was made on each occasion that I spoke to the people of the province. Before reading it, however, I would remind hon. members of what I said in this house on February 10 last, as reported at page 480 of Hansard. I said:
I shall never say that under no circumstance will I support conscription, but I will say that until such time as I am convinced that we can get in Canada a more effective force under conscription than under voluntary enlistment for overseas service, I am against conscription. So far as I am concerned, a vote of "yes" on the plebiscite will leave me free to make my decision, as a member of this government, with all the facts before me, when the time comes to make that decision. I am not called upon at this moment, neither is anyone else in the house, nor anybody else in Canada, to make a decision on conscription at a time when the best authority in Canada states that at the moment it is not necessary.
Speaking on the plebiscite in the province of Saskatchewan on each occasion I made this appeal:
Those who value democracy will, I am sure, agree that nothing should be preserved which can be made an instrument to divide our people. The pledge given by every political party excepting Social Credit, in the last election not to resort to conscription for overseas service is tending to raise issues which tend to divide our people. We are therefore asking the people to release us one and all from any pledge given. We are not asking you to vote for conscription, nor are we asking you to vote against it; we are merely asking you to say-Do not let any past commitment to me interfere with your judgment in deciding what ought to be done under the circumstances which threaten our country. Up to date the government would not have brought in conscription even had it never been mentioned in the last election. But let no one say after April 27 next that the government was bound by our votes and therefore could not have brought in conscription for overseas service even had it desired to do so. Vote "yes".
I think that makes perfectly plain the issue which was before the people of Saskatchewan,
and I do not think it leaves any ground for anyone who took part in the campaign to say to the people of Canada that a "yes" vote on the plebiscite meant "yes" for conscription or meant "no" for conscription. In my opinion it meant neither one.


Mr. ROWE:: It meant nothing.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says it
meant nothing. If we wish to have a decision whether the vote meant conscription or did not mean conscription immediately, I would refer to what has already happened in this house. To start at the lower end of the house, I should mention the speech delivered by the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore). I need only remind the house that it was stated that that group would not vote for conscription immediately, if that issue were placed before the house at the present time, unless upon terms which I am sure my hon. friends who sit immediately opposite could not support.
On the other hand the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Coldwell) has stated to this house that unless the foundations for state socialism were to be established in Canada he and his supporters would not be prepared at this time to vote for conscription either immediately, as I understand it, or in the distant future.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I said nothing about
state socialism.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, we will come to
that. I have read very carefully the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), and I have grave doubts as to whether he would vote for conscription immediately if it were presented to this house. I shall deal with that later as well.
But when I come to this side of the house I have no doubts. The Prime Minister has already quoted to the house the contention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), the contention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), and there is already on the records of this house the contention of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), and the contention of myself as Minister of Agriculture; and the other day there was placed on the records of this house in unquestionable terms the contention of the leader of the government that conscription for service overseas is not necessary at the present time in order to provide total effort. This assures me that the great majority of hon. members on this side of the house, if not all of them, would cast a "no" vote on conscription if the issue were presented to this house for the calling up of men for service overseas immediately.
Mobilization Act-Mr. Oardiner

Having said that, does anyone doubt whether the members of this house who cast their vote on April 27, practically all of them as a "yes" vote, were voting for conscription immediately? I venture to say no one has any doubt about it, that it was not a vote for conscription immediately, although circumstances might develop which would make it necessary for the government to bring in conscription either within a short time or at some distant day.
I repeat that the vote in Saskatchewan and the vote throughout Canada was not a vote for the bringing in of conscription in this country immediately. I can assure hon. members that if the vote had been taken on that basis there would have been a different story, just as there would have been a different story in this house.
Having made that as clear as possible in the time at my disposal, may I refer to the attitude of those who have spoken in this debate up to the present. I will start at the lower end of the house and come up the opposite side and finally arrive at my old friend, the ex-minister, who sits on this side of the house. Following that course I will therefore discuss first the remarks of the leader of the Social Credit group. Towards the end of his speech there were some outstanding remarks which I think make his attitude very clear. He said on June 11, as reported on page 3274 of Hansard:
Can Canada not produce enough meat, fruits, lumber, fuel; can Canada not train sufficient doctors and teachers to provide her fighters and her people with a decent standard of living? The answer must be unquestionably that she can. Reasons would dictate that she do so and then distribute the goods.
Well, it is not quite so simple as that. It is true that we can produce most of the necessary foods in Canada, but it is not true that we can produce all the requirements to make possible the standard of living that the people of Canada would desire to be theirs. And it is not just such a simple matter as calling on our people to produce everything they can in abundance and then distribute it. We must exchange surpluses of the things which we can produce in Canada for surplus goods of other countries-rubber for example. How can we get rubber today by the simple process outlined by the leader. of the Social Credit group? Long before we can again enjoy all the privileges we had a few years ago we must accomplish the defeat of an enemy who today has control of a large part of that commodity.
I could go on and deal with other aspects of the matter, but I shall not do so.
(Mr. Gardiner.]
The leader of the Social Credit group proceeded to quote the views of Mr. Berle in the United States, one of which was the following:
We shall have in our hands the tools by which we can create a greater amount of economic justice, without sacrificing any of the essential freedoms.
The leader of the Social Credit group stopped in the middle of the quotation to say:
May I pause to comment that if the government institutes a policy of owning the industries of this country, many freedoms of Canadians will be destroyed. But it is not necessary to organize on that basis.
In other words, the leader of -the Social Credit group says that what we require to make us all happy in this country is production to the limit of the things we can produce in Canada and then the possession of purchasing power with which to handle them. Then he says: "But we are absolutely opposed to the government ownership and control of many of the things that other political groups are suggesting should be owned and controlled by the government." And he adds further: "I do not want anyone to understand that I am advocating in this house that the government should take control of bank balances."
Well, this makes very clear the position which the leader of the Social Credit group takes with regard to the proposal which would make it possible for the government to control all the natural resources of this country, all the industries of this country, all the financial institutions, and the activities of every individual in Canada.
But when we come to the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group (Mr. Coldwell) we get an entirely different story. The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group says this: "We are in favour of government ownership of industry. We are in favour of government ownership and control of the financial institutions of this country. We are in favour of doing something about bank balances. We are in favour of doing many other things." In short, in spite of the fact, as he mentioned a few moments ago, that the leader of the group said nothing about state socialism, everything he said the other day had some relationship to state socialism.


Major James William Coldwell: Better define state
socialism.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can best define it in the words of my hon. friend himself. When he was leader of the same group in the province of Saskatchewan he issued a platform, and the first statement in that platform was:

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gardiner
Socialization of the banking, credit and financial system of the country, together with the social ownership, development, operation and control of utilities and natural resources.
In the same document this question was asked:
Does this political party consider that this objective so stated gives us a mandate to bring into operation socialism if elected?
The answer is in one word "Yes".


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Not state socialism.


James Garfield Gardiner: Could anything be
clearer than that? The only thing there is to state socialism is ownership of all the resources and the financial and industrial institutions in the country. In other words my hon. friend is an advocate of state socialism.


Major James William Coldwell: I deny that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Here we have two groups sitting in the opposite comer of the chamber, one of which says it is not at all in favour of state ownership of our industries, while the other says it is. That is perfectly proper in a democratic country. It is perfectly proper that such a difference should exist in a country hke Canada. Free discussion is what we want; but I think the people of Canada should understand what is meant when our friends say they are in favour of the nationalization of this, the socialization of that, the ownership of this and the control of that. There is no doubt in western Canada as to what it means. It means state socialism; and, as someone has said, it has been voted upon on that basis on several occasions. If I had time I could read into Hansard some of the things that have been said in that regard. For example, speaking in this house on June 11, 1942, as reported at page 3266 of Hansard, the hon. member said:
But the shouts of reactionary super-patriotism for human conscription are immediately answered. We cannot and will not agree to giving of further powers for human conscription without concrete measures for the conscription of material resources.
This war, with everything which is at stake in it, with the heroism of whole peoples to inspire us, should have been the occasion for building a deeper unity in our own nation than we have ever known.
With that sentiment I am in agreement. Then the hon. member continues:
That the contrary should face us now is a condemnation of the leadership and policies which have guided us since the outbreak of hostilities. I believe the policies which I have outlined could win back that unity, could build_ this nation into a powerful instrument for victory in the war and for a people's peace afterwards. That is why we urge them at this time.
If one takes the six points that were placed on Hansard the other day, during the course
of that address, and examines them carefully, he will find that they contain the fundamental principles of state socialism as understood where attempts have been made to establish it in different countries throughout the world; and I submit that it is not an issue upon which this country could be united, either in peace time or in war time.
If this were all that had been said by the hon. gentleman, it would not be so difficult to understand his position. In the same speech, however, he goes on, at page 3259:
And, what is more, I am profoundly convinced that such a policy would greatly reduce the opposition to conscription for overseas service.
Is there any man in this house who is opposed to the conscription of men for overseas service, who has associated that matter with the adoption of state socialism in Canada?
I venture to say there is not. Then the hon. member continued:
In our view, the problem of conscription for overseas service should not be dealt with on the basis of past prejudices and divisions. It is purely a question of strategy and should be considered exclusively on the basis of how we can make our best and most effective contribution to the defeat of the Hitler axis.
And again, at page 3260:
Every experience in this war-our successes as well as our reverses-has underlined the correctness and, if I may say so, the far-sightedness of the position which we took in this regard at the beginning of the war. It has always been clear that Canada's vital contribution m this war must be the supplying of implements of war and of foodstuffs. . . .
In order to save time I will not read more of those remarks, but I should like to turn to what the hon. gentleman did say at the beginning of the war, to which he referred in making this statement. Here it is in black and white, taken from page 55 of Hansard for September 9, 1939:
Canada should be prepared to defend her own shores, but her assistance overseas should be limited to economic aid and must not include conscription of man-power or the sending of any expeditionary force.
Well, that is plain enough.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Who said that?


James Garfield Gardiner: The present leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, who was then acting leader. Then he went on to enunciate the four planks in the platform for which they stood. I am not going to read the first plank, though I would refer hon. members to it; but these were the second and third planks:
2.	Defence of Canada: Reasonable provision should be made for the defence of Canadian shores. Volunteers for home defence should not

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gardiner
be required to sign also for overseas service. This practice, now being followed, is unwarranted and should be abandoned.
3.	No military participation overseas: Any attempt to send a force abroad would rob us of the man-power necessary for the defence of our shores and for home production, would greatly endanger national unity, would threaten our civil liberties and democratic institutions, and would ultimately lead to conscription.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Surely South York did not vote for that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am inclined to think they did not, but there is no doubt about the fact that they did vote against conscription for overseas service at the present time.


Major James William Coldwell: Why not put on record at the same time statements made by the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend took considerable time the other day to put the government s statements on record, and now in the few moments available to me I am dealing with the statements of my hon. friend. He calls upon the members of this house and the people of this country to read what he said in 1939, and from that to judge what he proposes to do now. So I would ask the members of this house and the people of Canada to pay attention to what was said by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group.
Now I come to the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Hanson). Right at the beginning of his remarks he promised that he was not going to discuss the merits or demerits of conscription, further than to say that he favoured the principle. Then he went on to say that the Prime Minister had made pledges but that he himself had made no such pledges. Well, I recall that at the time the pledges were being made he was not the leader of his party; and but for the fact that the leader of the party at that time has gone on record in recent weeks in regard to this matter we probably would not be in a position to refute what has been said. But the leader of that day, Hon. Doctor Manion, has placed on record what happened at that time, and this is what he says:
Re national government: I personally consulted men considered leaders of the party in all the provinces (including Mr. Hanson, who was not a member of parliament at the time), and not one of them had other than support for the idea, ivot one of them ever put himself on record as opposed to national government.
Then, item No. 4:
Re conscription for overseas service:	This
subject was discussed also at a full meeting of our house members and only one member supported conscription-the Hon. Earl Lawson of South York. He did not run in the ensuing election, but gave me untiring and very loyal support, a fact that appears to be very worthy 
of mention. Alan Cockeram, an old friend of mine, who ran in North York, fully endorsed my position in every way, so far as I know, and he was elected as one of my followers.
Later Alan Cockeram resigned to give his seat to Mr. Meighen, and in the by-election Mr. Meighen, as leader ran for all-out conscription. Ineidentially, in one of his speeches, he said that I had no right to promise that there would be no conscription and, without pausing for breath, or taking time to reflect upon some of his own various promises in Hamilton and elsewhere, he went on to promise that there would be conscription. He was defeated by about 5,000 votes.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the record placed on file by the gentleman who was the leader of the Conservative party at the time he was before the people of Canada in 1940.
I submit that when the present house leader of the Conservative party did accept the candidacy in his constituency to run under the leadership of Doctor Manion, he committed himself to the same undertakings as did the leader of that great party.
So much for his statement. Having made that statement, the leader of the opposition went on to discuss selective national service, and he discussed that subject for three-quarters of the time. I would ask this question: Does or does not selective national service include the immediate conscription of men for overseas? That question was never answered in his speech. But he did go on to say what he meant by selective national service. These were the words of the leader of the opposition:
A:u! what does selective national service imply ? It implies, it means, simply and solely, the practical application of total war in a sensibly, just and effective manner. It means in a word that every man among us shall be called upon to perform the right war job at the right time, in the right place, in the right ' way.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, who is going to tell us what that job is? Who is going to tell us what the right time is? Who is going to tell us what the right place is? I have no doubt he would answer: The government of the day. AVell, we have had governments of that kind in the world, both in peace time and in war time-governments that have undertaken to tell the people and direct the people in everything that they undertook to do. One sponsor of that system was Bismarck, in Germany, and the outcome of that Bismarckian policy has been the modern nazi of to-day, who is operating in different parts of the world against democratic institutions.
My hon. friend said, too, that the only kind of government which could put that kind of policy into effect would be a national government. I am inclined to agree with him; on that one point he might have been correct.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gardiner
I doubt whether any political party with traditions in Canada, which understands the place of the Dominion of Canada in the British empire, and which desires British institutions to continue in force in this country in the future, would place such a policy as that before the people of Canada, with the intention of putting it immediately into effect. I say that, knowing something of the history of this country, knowing something of the traditions of political parties, knowing something of what they stand for, knowing something of their relationship to the representative, responsible, democratic institution of government under which we live. No; the only kind of government which could bring that kind of policy into effect in Canada at present, the only kind of government which would undertake to do so, would be the government with no political past and no desire to have a political future. There are many other things that such a government would have to decide. It is because of those other things that I would oppose it.
There is only one condition under which responsible party government in Canada would bring in conscription for overseas service, and that would be a condition under which, if they did not do so, the democratic institution of government would be threatened with destruction. Under such conditions probably there is not a man in the house who would not support a government which took action in that direction.
If I had time I would go into another matter which is of great importance at this time, but I shall discuss it in committee. It has to do with the distribution of man power as it affects the number of people in Canada at the present time. But I do wish just for a moment to discuss a speech which has been quoted in this house on a number of occasions.


Mr. STIRLING:: On a point of order, if the hon. member has finished dealing with my leader, may I say with regret that I must disagree to his continuing for more than forty minutes, after Your Honour's ruling of the other day.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: The minister began at 3.20.


Georges Parent: I have noted the time as 3.20.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that is the time I noted on the clock.


Grote Stirling: Then I regret to say that the clocks do not agree, because the hon. member began at 3.14 by the clock opposite me.


An hon. MEMBER:: Get yours fixed.


James Garfield Gardiner: I regret to have to disagree with my hon. friend, because usually we do not have occasion to do so.


William Earl Rowe: The clock on your side is as bad as your -war policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: I should be allowed the time this interruption has taken.


Grote Stirling: The hon. member has already gone three minutes over his time.


Georges Parent: The time I took was 3.20, and the hon. member will have concluded at 4 o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I should be allowed an extra minute. If that cannot be allowed, then I submit that hon. members should be prevented from using any of the time of the member who has the floor.
On May 17, 1941, I am reported, and properly so, to have said that it would be possible in Canada to raise and maintain a fighting force over a three-year period requiring three-quarters of a million men. I submit to the house that the plans now presented to it by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) provide for such an army. There are something over 600,000 up to the end of the present fiscal year, and 750,000 would provide us with the necessary troops to carry on during a three-year period of time, if the troops at the front were in action. Under these circumstances we have the possibility of carrying out in Canada the present policy in relation to the army, without conscription.
To conclude, I should like to deal for a moment or two with the statements made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), the ex-minister of public works. I believe I am expressing the view of every hon. member when I say that we regret he found it necessary to resign at this time. I belong to the west.


Georges Parent: The hon. member has spoken forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Georges Parent: There would have to be unanimous consent to exceeding the forty-minute limit.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) upon the consistency of his attitude toward military service overseas. That was his attitude in 1917; that is his attitude to-day. Up to the present time the only two ministers who have spoken in this debate on behalf of the government have been the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie

Mobilization Act-Mr. Diefenbaker
King) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), both of whom have consistently opposed military service overseas, and from whom, having regard to the speech to which we have listened to-day, we cannot ever expect in my opinion to have military service overseas regardless of what -the people may demand. As to the attitude taken by the Minister of Agriculture, he goes much farther than even the Prime Minister did. He says: All that we ask in the removal of section 3 is the opportunity to be free to carry on our obligations as a government, to give consideration to matters as and when they arise and to make a "yes" or "no" decision on the question ' of conscription for overseas service in the future.
The Minister of Agriculture went on to point out one circumstance, Mr. Speaker, which to me epitomizes his attitude towards this question. He said that regardless of conditions, however dangerous our situation as a country and an empire may be, any party government to-day which would bring in compulsory military service for overseas would have no regard for the political future of that party. Surely that is a dangerous attitude to be taken by a member of a government charged with the aspirations of the people of Canada and their right to survival1. However dangerous the situation may be, mark you! He pictured that danger when he spoke of the situation in the Aleutian islands; yet in the face of all that he said: I stand where I have always stood; my consideration,-and no doubt he was speaking for the members of the government around him-is political survival at some time in the future, even though the world may stand in danger of being one great concentration camp. The minister and members of the government who sit around him have made a great contribution in the sending of their sons to fight overseas, and I honour them for that. But great as that contribution is, the Minister of Agriculture nevertheless stands up in this house to-day and says: The ballot box-right or wrong, "yes" or "no"- the ballot box.
I hope and trust that some of the other ministers who have not yet spoken-the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald)-if they speak in this debate, and I think they are challenged to do so, will disavow the attitude expressed by the Minister of Agriculture as not representing the present attitude of the government.

In 1939 and 1940 things were looked at differently from what they are to-day. The Prime Minister himself, speaking in western Canada in the 1940 election campaign, said, according to the report in the press at the time, that there was general agreement that it was extremely unlikely that expeditionary forces from Canada would again take part in a European war. That was his attitude then. The Minister of Agriculture made a speech about the same time which secured a great many votes for his party, and in that speech he divided the people into three groups. Speaking in the town of Markinch, he said, according to the press report:
The entry of Canada into the war had resulted, Mr. Gardiner said, in three groups with varying opinions as to the best method of prosecuting the war. First there was a group that did not wish to do anything, then another that wished to do everything, and a third, a sort of in-between group. He, said Mr. Gardiner, hoped he belonged in the in-between group.
In the first category was the C.C.F. party, from whose platform he read a number of clauses, but referred particularly to the call for the conscription of -wealth for war. In the second group was the party headed by Hon. R. J. Manion, that opposed the conscription of men to be sent out of Canada; they did not mind conscripting men for the defence of Canada. The Liberals, through their leader, Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, had already taken their stand-no conscription of men, and no direct conscription of wealth, but men and money for the prosecution of the war.
That -was his attitude in 1940. After all the changes that have since taken place, can it be true that the attitude of isolationism which characterized some members of the government prior to the outbreak of the war is still the attitude of the government? Let us look at thd record over the years. Let us examine first the record of the government with respect to man-power. It is the record of a government which has been forced to take a stand on the man-power question day by day and week 'by week. The leadership which has been given to this country has been a leadership based on political expediency. Deny it as you will but the record stands-a temporizing and a postponing of consideration so far as the man-power problem is concerned. I frankly admit that the material contribution of Canada has been very great. Our contribution to the navy and to the air force and to the production of munitions has been something of which Canada may well be proud. But so far as man-power for overseas service is concerned there has never been any dynamic force or vision shown by this government. Its attitude has simply been to move step by step as and when it was forced to do so. It has been a record of treating the man-power problem in a

Mobilization Act-Mr. Diejenbaker
piecemeal, uncertain and, I might say, unstatesmanlike manner. A fine war effort has been done in many respects, but in the matter of man-power this government has steadily fought a delaying action against the adoption of any system of national selective service. The consequence has been a lowering of morale all over this dominion. When the Prime Minister came before parliament and pointed out that he and his government had been hobbled by the promises that had been made, we supported him in the country by pleading with the people to vote "yes" on the plebiscite. We went on the platform and spoke over the radio, and all of us asked that the Prime Minister and his government be relieved of those promises. Now what are we to get? The Minister of Agriculture, if I understood him correctly, says that so far as he is concerned nothing is going to be done about this matter, either now or in the near future.
In 1940, two years ago now, when the prospects were dark and fearful, there was introduced for the first time a national resources mobilization bill. Parliament enacted that measure in two days. Speedy action was necessary because it was the determination of the government that there should be no delay. What was the ,result? First there came the national registration for the purpose of ascertaining and mobilizing the man-power of the nation, and ascertaining the skills and abilities of the people in every part of this dominion. A dead letter it has been, except for the calling up of men for service under the thirty-day plan. The next step was the thirty-day plan, and well I remember the arguments that were advanced against it from this side of the house. It has proven to have been extravagant, costly, wasteful, and fruitless. Many of the young men who were called up under that plan are still at their homes, having returned there when their thirty-days' training was over, and so far as Canada is concerned their training is ended.
Then came the four-months plan, finally extended for the period of the war. So far as that plan is concerned it has been unfair, unjust and inexcusable. Quotas have been fixed, not on the fair basis of population or available man-power, but on bases that have no justification. Much is made of national unity, but you cannot build national unity on any foundation other than that of equality of service province by province and equality of service within each province. In the west, as in other parts of Canada, large groups of individuals have been freed as a result of their conscientious objection from giving any equal service to this country in time of war, or at
least from a type of service similar to that given by those called into the army. All they have been required to do is to go to parks as guests of his majesty for a period of three or four months, where they are paid at the rate of 50 cents a day, and are then allowed to return home. There is no equality of service in that.'
The next stage was that enunciated by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), when, speaking I believe last December, he announced the new policy of selective service for Canada. Have we got that policy yet? Well, it took almost four months before the regulations were first handed down or placed before this parliament on the twenty-fourth of March last, and only a few days ago the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) had to admit that it is impossible to say at the present time when men will be called under that selective service scheme, because the system which is to operate in this respect has not yet been determined. All along a delaying action, to satisfy and appease; then a step; then a temporary appeasement; then another step, until now when the government asked to be relieved from its promises, it got that relief from the people of Canada, and now it comes before parliament and says, "AH we intend to do is to repeal section 3. So far as the rest of our intentions are concerned, they shall remain hidden within the council of the government."
I now come to the matter of selective service. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) says that we have conscription to-day in Canada, that the principle had been established, and that his policy is total war. I venture to say that I have read his speech more carefully and thoroughly than has any of his constituents. I have gone over every line of it to ascertain what, in that arsenal of words, is the present intention of the government. What will the government do? What action will it take? I notice that when he quotes utterances of his ministers to support him in the stand he has taken against immediate action he refers to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley), both of whom are believed throughout the country to be men who are pressing for conscription for ovreseas service. As I said, I read his speech carefully and I can find no indication displayed therein as to what the government intends to do. In some places it says yes, in other places it says no.
What is the purpose of the repeal of this section unless there is to be action? Is the submission of this repeal proposal to par-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Diefenbaker
Iiament but another step in the temporizing attitude that has been displayed? Is it real, or is it placed before parliament for its psychological effect? If it is real it will give hope to the millions of Canadians who voted in favour of relieving the government, and hope to our men overseas, who when they enter the battle must realize the necessity of having reinforcements at home, or has it another purpose, namely, to delude Canadians into believing that something will be done, to temporize once more, to beguile the united nations into believing that Canada has an all-out war effort? For you will remember that the Prime Minister throughout his speech maintained that one of the most serious situations in which Canada found herself to-day was the fact that throughout the world her attitude was misinterpreted. His words were these:
If there is any wisdom in removing false impressions surely the sooner they are removed the better.
The false impression is removed when the section is deleted, but so far as action is concerned there is no hope whatsoever. I ask the Prime Minister: in the removal of this section is it the real thing that we now see? Is it selective service for overseas, as was pointed out so brilliantly and eloquently by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) ? Is it the real thing, or is it just an imitation based upon political expediency which the Minister of Agriculture implied should at all times be considered?
To sum up, I say that the record of this government as regards man-power has been a record of promises, postponements, plebiscite, and now procrastination.	.


Mr. McNIVEN:: And 600,000 men on active
service.


John George Diefenbaker: A brilliant record of enlistments; no doubt about that. But that is not the record of the government; that is the record of the people of Canada, who are willing and anxious to serve. Only those who serve can boast of that service.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: And there are not 000,000 on active service.


Donald Alexander McNiven: There surely are.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven) will be able to make his speech in due course.


Mr. HOMOUTH:: Figures don't mean
much to him, anyway.


Mr. McCANN:: They're as good as yours.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister implied that the repeal of this section means

that the government is empowered to act. It may act, and again it may not. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, who was a member of that government when this measure was introduced, says that it means a surreptitious form of overseas conscription. I say to the' government that the Canadian people are aroused, they are angered, they are discouraged, as a result of government inaction. We complain about parliament; we say that parliament to-day is not appreciated throughout the country. How can you expect parliament to occupy the high plane which the British house occupied in the days of Burke, when members were prepared, regardless of the views of their leaders, to stand up for the opinions they believed in; when there was government by parliament, not government by caucus? If there is one redeeming feature of this debate, it is this, that men who heretofore have seen fit to follow their party regardless of personal opinions are going to stand up during this debate and express the views of their constituents and support the things in which they personally believe. I say to the government that it cannot forever procrastinate; it cannot forever fight this delaying action, if the morale of the people of Canada is to be maintained.
What is the policy of the administration? Where are we going? What stand does the government take? "We don't know where we're going, but we're on our way" may be political expediency, but it cannot be or become a battle slogan for a country at war. The Prime Minister in the plebiscite asked for a release because he said the government was hobbled, and he declared that when the release came action would be taken. Well, if action is to be taken on the basis of what was said to-day by the Minister of Agriculture, then the 600,000 who were spoken of a moment ago, three million who voted "yes," have been, hoodwinked. What is more serious, the Prime Minister says to parliament in effect that it will not get a second chance to discuss this matter, having this power in the hands of the government, in the hands of the governor in council, and that so far as parliament is concerned it shall be handcuffed in that it will henceforth be unable to deal with this matter.
It may be said that I am going too far. But what rights have we as private members when we pass this legislation and place this power in the hands of the government of the day? Private members' days are gone. True, we have an opportunity to move the adjournment of the house, but only under the gravest circumstances. So far as parliament is concerned this is our last opportunity to bring

Mobilization Act

Mr. Diejenbaker
this matter of national selective service before the government, because when we pass this measure the government will have the power and parliament will' have abdicated its right to determine the matter. Henceforth it will be a question for the decision of the cabinet. If the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture represents the attitude of the government, and it must, then the men and women who are prepared to give their all have received an affront from this parliament which will not be conducive to building up greater morale in the country.
We are going to have an opportunity of seeing the regulations that will be passed by this government if and when it decides to act. This act as it stands makes no provision for incorporating the regulations therein, and I for one intend, when the bill is in committee, to demand that all regulations designed to carry into effect the provisions of the act shall be embodied in the ' law of the land, so that this parliament will not entrust the lives of our manhood to the caprice of government regulations. We have a right in matters such as this to demand administration by law passed by parliament, and not by law passed by administrative officialdom, and this is the last opportunity we shall have to make that demand, and in committee the demand will be made in the way in which it will be most effective. I do not believe that we as a parliament should give to the government a blank cheque on life itself. What the Prime Minister asks for is the right, the power to act as he pleases without any control on his actions. We want the regulations under the act brought before parliament in order to ensure that there will be uniformity of application and that the rights of individuals thereunder shall be protected. For there is to be no appeal under the regulations; there will be no opportunity to take advantage of the safeguards which have protected Britons for 300 years. All that is done away with under these regulations. I submit that we have the right to have the regulations passed in parliament so that we shall know what powers are going to be taken by the government and how they will be used. We have a right to know how the act will be administered; we have a right to know its mechanics and its provisions. We have a right to see that under these regulations favours will be denied, that favouritism will not be permitted, so that there will be honest administration.
I say to the Prime Minister: arouse this nation. His speech introducing second reading was a masterpiece in language and diction.
But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that to the people of Canada who at this time need the incentive of words that will arouse them and inspire them with enthusiasm, the speech was one that brought little hope. When I think of the speech delivered by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres the other day, I cannot help thinking of twenty-five years of the teaching of isolationism. We were all more or less guilty, but how that boomerang has come back after twenty-five years! I say to my fellow Canadians of the French race, advance your arguments in this debate. Let your viewpoint be known. Canada is a confederation and needs you, and you need us. There can be no confederation based upon the right of the minority to dictate to the majority, any more than there can be confederation wherein the majority will unfairly coerce. This measure is asked for by the people from one end of Canada to the other. If there were any alternative there is not a member on this side of the house who would not place it before the house. We are faced with a fearful position in Canada and in the empire. The days of isolationism and non-participation abroad are over, it may be thought; and yet, are they? In the year 1942 on the Pacific war council Canada has no representative minister of the crown although every other country has. To-day, when we should be united with the rest of the empire, in a great empire war council, Canada remains aloof. One way out of our difficulties has been suggested, namely, to establish for the will of the majority in other parts of Canada, a law applicable only to eight provinces. But can confederation exist on that basis? Can Canada survive unless there is equality under the law? I do not blame the people of Quebec.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have no reason to.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I do not condemn the people of Quebec; I do not endeavour to judge. But I do say to the Prime Minister that the attitude there to-day is due in large measure to the policy carried on for twenty-five years.


Mr. DUPUIS:: By both parties.


John George Diefenbaker: But more successfully by one party. I do not condemn them when they now claim the face value of the policy for which they have paid the premium, election after election, since 1917. I ask the French-Canadian members of this house today, when this measure becomes law, if it becomes law, to go back to their constituencies and ask the people of Quebec province-



Mobilization Act-Mr. Diejenbaker


Vincent Dupuis: We invite you.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall be glad to come. That is the attitude of tolerance. I ask them to place before their compatriots the situation as it is. Let those who misled them admit that the teachings of twenty-five years have been wrong. I suggest that Canada's motto to-day should be, "Everything mobilized to prevent everything being lost." Place men where they are needed in the army. Why was the army expanded from four divisions to eight.? It improved the rank of the higher-up officers, but it made reinforcement more difficult. Now is the time to prepare to train reinforcements, to the end that when casualties come and sacrifices are made, we in Canada shall not be placed in the position of having the government saying "too late." We need men now, and we will now bring in selective service.
So far as labour is concerned, surveys have been made, but little has been done to assure an adequate supply. Labour has cooperated, but its cooperation could be secured in increasing measure by the establishment of a shop steward system similar to that employed in Great Britain, giving to the labouring man who is doing his part an opportunity to suggest means whereby production can be speeded up and the worker given a reward therefor. As for agriculture, utilize the services of the aliens and conscientious objectors in order to assist in supplying the needs of agricultural labour. Give them an opportunity to serve, and at the same time assure agriculture of a proper supply of labour through the mobilization of a land army.
Mr. Speaker, something must be done and done now by this parliament.


Mr. MARTIN:: What does the hon.
member suggest?


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest the immediate promise by this government that there will be action.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What kind of action?


John George Diefenbaker: Action that will ensure proper and complete mobilization of the man-power of this nation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: I have answered the question. I suggest that the time has now come, and I hope the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), who has just interrupted, is not one of those who does not believe in the complete mobilization of the nation at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit a question now?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have been following the hon. gentleman very carefully, and I should like to know whether he believes it is desirable at this moment to have conscription for overseas service.


John George Diefenbaker: I answer that question in this way-


Vincent Dupuis: Yes or no.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman is too good a lawyer to think that such an answer would be adequate. I say that the time has come when there is only one mobilization that will assure equality, and fairness, and unity in Canada, so that each province will know that all are properly contributing and that all within each province are contributing, and that is by establishing selective service for overseas immediately. There is no qualification about that. Although I may not have the opportunity to ask him that question, I hope he will answer it when he speaks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will state it unequivocally.


John George Diefenbaker: The challenge to
us to-day as Canadians, without regard to race or creed, is to unite in a common dedication to our way of life, and our national life itself. If there is one thing that has done more to undermine this dominion and its unity-I do not know whether it is an outgrowth of our history-it is the fact that we as Canadians are too prone to hyphenate our citizenship. In the United States they do not think of Roosevelt as a Dutch-American, or of Willkie as a German-American; they think of those men as great Americans. We in Canada have something to learn from that. We in this country should build up a Cana-dianism that knows no hyphenate. Let us be proud of the racial strains from which we spring, tout at the same time not separate this country on the basis of a hyphenated Canadianism. It has been my hope to see the day when that will come to pass. Coming from western Canada let me say that if there is one thing more hopeful of Canada's future it is the fact that men, the second generation from continental Europe, from enemy countries, are to-day enlisting not as hyphenates but as Canadians. I know of one family of which the father served against this country in the last war and to-day four of his sons serve in the armed forces of this country. The day I hope for is the day when we can be united as Canadians, when

Mobilization Act-Mr. Dechene
party considerations will be forgotten in an all out war effort-it is not yet too late- so that we as members of this parliament, to whom has come the greatest challenge that ever came to a Canadian parliament, will do our duty, not with our eye on the ballot box, but with a sincere desire to serve regardless of whether or not we are returned to parliament at the next election; so that we can look back to this hour and say that out of the trials and tribulations through which Canada passed in the second great war was created a saga of grandeur of a united Canada ready for that new world that Churchill and Roosevelt have pictured. To my French-Canadian friends I say sincerely-


Vincent Dupuis: Talk about Saskatchewan a
little.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know
why my hon. friend objects to that. Does he object to an attitude of tolerance, an attitude of fairness?


Vincent Dupuis: Leave Quebec alone.


John George Diefenbaker: The attitude being shown to-day by the hon. member who interrupts is regrettable.


Vincent Dupuis: "Physician, cure thyself."


John George Diefenbaker: Is it a refusal to
cooperate? As a member from another part of Canada I would say to hon. members from the province of Quebec, let us forget these differences and unite.


Vincent Dupuis: You do your share; we will do ours.


Mr. J. M. DECHENE (Athabaska):: It is with some hesitation that I rise at this stage of this momentous debate, following some of the giants of the tribune and the platform and the bar. But I am consoled by the fact that for many weeks, almost I might say for two years, like many other hon. members, I have been a listener rather than a talker. That is particularly so since there has been so much small talk, loose talk, political talk, and even evil talk. So I think I am justified in taking part in the debate at this stage.
In asking for the privilege of the floor, Mr. Speaker, I was actuated by the fact that I represent a constituency in which may be found perhaps a truer cross-section of the people of Canada than exists anywhere else in this country. Canadians now living in the great constituency of Athabaska have come from all over the world-from every province in this dominion, from almost every state of the union, from practically every country in Europe; and it includes thousands of 44561-2113
French Canadians, from which race I am proud to trace my descent. In speaking this afternoon I only wish I had the proper words with which to clothe my thoughts, with which to express them as clearly as I feel them. I have never read a speech in my life, and I am not going to start to-day, but I would ask to be allowed to read just one paragraph from something I sent to a newspaper in my constituency a few days ago, in reply to an article which was published therein, which article caused a good deal of comment and called forth many letters supporting one side or the other. In my communication I set out the reason why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), brought this amendment before the house at this time. I said:
A few months ago the people of Canada were given a privilege shared by only a chosen few in these chaotic times, the privilege of expressing their opinion and views on a matter of grave concern to their country. Unlike those countries labouring under the heavy yoke of ruthless invasion, where the voice of the people has been silenced, and where a dark wilderness of oppression, of despair and famine has descended, Canada has kept intact the birthright of her citizens. The debate which has just started in this house is a direct consequence of that expression of will by the people. To ignore it would be a denial of democracy itself. I propose to keep that fact ever present in my mind in adding my voice to the discussion on the proposed amendment to the mobilization act-
-which I thought then would be introduced, as it has been. I have not consulted with any party, with any whip, with any minister, or with any leader as to the things I have to say. The thoughts which I wish to express are entirely my own. I will admit, however, that though I was confined to the hospital I did write to every member of the executive in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. This executive numbers some forty-seven and represents every element in that area-English-speaking	Canadians, French
Canadians, central Europeans, Americans, and so on. It is a true representation of the population of the constituency. Strange as it may appear, though the riding voted almost fifty-fifty on the plebiscite, while the members of the Liberal association and the executive almost all voted "yes", with one or two exceptions the replies I received from the executive empowered me to say what I thought. I was told that I had kept the confidence they had reposed in me at the time of the election, and that they trusted me to represent truly the views of the riding of Athabaska on this matter.
I have said, and I repeat, that I take my hat off to no one, if you will pardon the expression, in pride of ancestry or in loyalty to race and religion. When I speak to you
Mobilization Act-Mr. Dechene

to-day I have vividly in mind two pictures which I only wish I had the words adequately to describe. I see first September 1, 1905, in the old exhibition grounds at Edmonton, on the flats, as we used to call them, just below the old Hudson bay fort, when the province of Alberta was inaugurated. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then prime minister of Canada, addressed a great gathering in that indescribable setting. I cannot do justice to the beauties of that spot, which would compare favourably with scenery anywhere in the universe, with the great Saskatchewan river, the hills in the background and a tremendous crowd which had come from every part of the province. The old chief was impressed by the audience that was before him, and he told us things which I will never forget and which we should remember to-day. He referred to the fact that it had taken a century or more to compose the differences between men of the Anglo-Saxon race and those descended from old France. He went on to say how we had come to know and appreciate one another, as I do. May I digress here to say that as a French Canadian I have spent most of my life with Anglo-Saxons, and they have been my dearest friends. We all need friends at times, do we not? No man can live without at some time requiring the help and counsel of a friend, a man to whom he can say, "I am in trouble. What should I do?" Some of my best friends were of the Anglo-Saxon race. Who said that the Scots were stingy? They may be thrifty, but the greatest generosity I have ever encountered has been on the part of Scotsmen.
In the district of Athabaska, which I now *represent, when everything was going Conservative in 1930 we elected a Liberal, a Welshman born in the old country, a returned soldier who had come to that constituency only a few years before, whom the French Canadians of Athabaska had come to love, admire and 'trust. He was elected with the Igreafest majority which has ever been given, either, before or since, in any French-Canadian poll in Athabaska.
To continue my thoughts: The old chief then addressed himself to the newcomers, those who were then pouring into Canada from the Ukraine,. from Lithuania, from Galicia, from Austria, from Poland, from the Scandinavian countries, from every state in the union- ihe made an. appeal to all of them. He said, "In the folds of that flag which flies in the breeze of Alberta you gentlemen from other lands will find freedom and liberty. You can trust, that flag; you can trust the government which exists under that flag. You can depend on what we say.. You. come here to a land of plenty, a. land, of bounty, a generous and a 
fertile land, a land where you may devote the energies of your arms as well as those of your hearts and souls." And he added, "I ask only one thing, and that is that you need not forget the lands of your ancestors. Do not forget those lands from which you originated. I am telling you to remember them, cherish them in your hearts. Remember the glories of those lands from which you have come, because there are glories on every hand. Every nation has its heroes and its history. Remember the lands where your ancestors struggled, lived and died, and, in keeping those remembrances in your hearts, keep your eyes to the future. Think of the future of this great country. Strive to learn our language; strive to become real Canadians, and to love the flag.".
That was in 1905. Since that time, on two vital occasions, one issue has arisen to divide the people of Canada. But it started long before that. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who preceded me in the debate, has pointed out that some of my fellow members are supposed to have raised the issue of conscription in Quebec. I say to him that the issue is much older than that. I know he will grow up some day and read the history of Canada. When he does he will find that the issue is much older; it goes away beyond the time he mentioned. It goes back beyond confederation, but more particularly to 1910 and 1911, when the same kind of organization was developed to destroy the government, a government which could not be defeated in any way other than by racial and class appeal.
If my hon. friend will read history he will find what was said in Quebec by the canvassers and organizers of the party to which he belongs. When he reads that he will not be surprised that it was most difficult to elect a Conservative in Quebes, when they found out how they had been fooled. The year 1917, to which some of my friends across the floor owe their lives politically, was the time when the same kind of pressure was brought to bear. I say that, even if I am the only one to say it, because in my opinion it must be said. That was the time when the same kind of organization made appeal to those controlling the economic power of Canada.
We now have a Liberal government in office. We know that under the terms of the Atlantic charter something radically new is going to develop in the world, a condition under which every man and every class will have an opportunity. That is the new order for which we are fighting. But the organization of to-day, as it did in 1917, is attempting to bring about exactly the same result. There

Mobilization Act-Mr. Dechene
is no difference at all in the methods used, with the exception that at that time a friendly government was in office. Do hon. members think for one moment that if this insidious committee had not been organized to start an invidious propaganda respecting conscription, at a time when conscription was not necessary, we would be facing the issue we are facing in the house to-day? All this is done at a time when French-Canadians are behaving just as loyally as any other group. I say no; that is the way it began. Master minds that they are, they knew they did not control a majority of people in Canada. They knew also that they could depend on propaganda and on part of the press, and that the moment the agitation was started there would be reaction in the Quebec part of the house. Of course that is exactly what is happening.
A few moments ago I spoke about loyalty, and, in my own way, I tried to describe two pictures, one a beautiful picture and the other a dark one. In that connection I should like to speak of the town of St. Paul in which I used to live-in fact I live only a few miles away from it at the present time. It is a pioneer town, one of the finest in western Canada. It was founded by old Father Lacombe. It was first settled by French Canadians, the English-speaking people, Ukrainians and others following in later years. What a wonderful town it was-and still is. But to-day propaganda has split the town.
If I were considering only my own political salvation, my own political life;-and what does it amount to, in this crisis?-if I were thinking only of my own political safety, I would be silent to-day, and as I read a few days ago in Saturday Night, one moment of silence is better than an hour of explanation. I went down to defeat twice for saying things I thought, but I was afterwards elected by the very people who defeated me, because they found I was right.
To-day that town I mentioned appears to be divided. I believe it is the most hospitable place in western Canada. It is indeed a broad-minded, hospitable and lovely town, where the people got along well together. We never talked about religion, if we got together on a Saturday night and made the plans for our community, when the other fellow wanted to speak his mind, we did not question his right. We have done our best to learn our respective languages. To-day however we find this nefarious propaganda- and unfortunately it does not come from only one side. The result is that the town and the surrounding district are divided.
Unfortunately we are divided on an issue which is clear. I am not going to enter into an argument with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). I am convinced that in the county I represent the vote was taken on the issue of conscription. The people voted definitely one way or the other when they voted. By 1,302,000 votes or more the government of this country, which lived up to the democratic principle of allowing the people to express their opinion on this question, has been relieved of its obligation and empowered to have the restriction with regard to service overseas removed. What else could the Prime Minister do in view of that vote? In implementing the demand he has just received, is he not taking the same stand that was taken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1917, by bringing down this bill to remove the restriction which the people of Canada have said must be taken out of the National Resources Mobilization Act?
. I am not unmindful of the vote in the old province of Quebec, and certainly I do not blame the people for voting as they did. But the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister of Canada, not the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan or of Nova Scotia or of any other province. The majority of the people gave him a mandate which he is bound to carry out, and I for one was elected to support the Prime Minister and his government. After the plebiscite was taken I was given a mandate by my executive to carry on and support the government and use my own best judgment, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for the amendment which the government has brought down.
I am going to make this appeal. I have already said once in this house that nothing in this world can be achieved, either individually or collectively, except by sacrifice. A successful life or a great achievement cannot be attained without sacrifice-the sacrifice of our leisure, of our rest, of our vacation perhaps, sometimes the sacrifice of everything. If it be otherwise, it is a different world from the one I have always known. That has been the rule of this world ever since the great sacrifice. It cannot be any other way, and sometimes when we are inclined to agitate for an easy life we should bear in mind this great truth which cannot be denied. I think we are beginning to realize the necessity for sacrifice in this war. Before the war, we were looking forward to a life of ease in which we wanted to enjoy everything. But I hope we have learned a lesson. Nothing can be earned without sacrifice, and that is the foundation of the most admirable philosophy that will ever be taught in this world.
Mobilization Act-Mr. Dechene

I admire and love my French-Canadian friends in the old province of Quebec. I wonder if hon. members from other parts of the country know what the population of the province of Quebec is, and something of its culture and traditions. The other day I heard a well educated young lady, smart and well-poised, say pityingly, "Poor old Quebec." How we are failing as a democracy in this country when we do not understand each other 1 I think these things ought to be said now. I am talking, not of the past, because it is gone, but of the present and the future. I am thinking of your children and my children as children of a minority in this country. I say to my children-they were here the other day; some of them are in the army-you cannot get anything without sacrifice, and you should strive to make yourself worthy of the admiration and support of the majority. It was heart-breaking to hear that brilliant young lady talking learnedly about the province of Quebec, about which she really know nothing. We should learn to know one another in this country, and then we should come to admire the great qualities of the Anglo-Saxon race, the French-Canadian race, and all the other races, the Ukrainians, the Germans, and the Scandinavians who have come here to help us develop this great land. If we want to have a truly united Canada, one of the first things that should be taught in our schools in the English-speaking provinces is the contribution the province of Quebec has made to the building up of this country and of what that has meant to Canada. The story of Canada began in 1763 for some of the provinces. Not only should the people of Ontario and of other English-speaking provinces be told of the contribution Quebec has made, but the people of Quebec should learn more of the great province of Ontario. There is a lake a few miles from here that bears the name of one of my ancestors. When Alexander Mackenzie went up the Mackenzie river he discovered a half-breed, Beaulieu, who had been there before him and had travelled all the way from the great lakes to Louisiana. But we do not know each other to-day, and the people of every province should get to know the people of every other province.
The Prime Minister in speaking the other day said that this amendment did not mean conscription, and he thought conscription for overseas service might never be necessary. I hope so. I rose in this house to speak to-day as a French Canadian from an Englishspeaking province, elected by a majority that was not French Canadian. Let us get together. Let us forget about the past and think of the present and the future, that future

for which we are making such magnificent contributions and putting up such a great fight. This country has a great future. I have attempted to describe it to my children. As I seem to see it, speaking to a child of mine, I would say: Let us climb that hill. There is a cross on the field of battle. I can see, Mr. Speaker, just as surely as I can see the sun shining through the window above you, a most wonderful future for this dominion. I can see that the greedy who have been trying to control the wealth of this country are fearful of losing that control. It does not matter if they succeed in driving the Prime Minister out of office. It does not matter if they succeed in driving the present government out of office. They should know, if they ever learn anything-and this kind of people seldom does -that never again in this country, no matter what they do, will they control its destinies as they have controlled them or hinder the wheels of progress as they hindered them in the past.
To our young people, Scottish, Irish, English, French and others, I say, let us walk up our Calvary. I know that in my humble way I am ready to face this ordeal, because beyond there is resurrection, beyond lies happiness, a world in which will flourish peace and friendship and everything that makes worth while the life of men and women. Beyond the summit of the hill new vistas will appear. A young man who has attained this point will find that his progress has only begun. There will be other hills for him to climb, other things for him to achieve. This is the thought I wish to leave with our young people. But it is an ideal which cannot be attained unless we are united.
We believe that under the terms of the Atlantic charter a new order of things will come into existence. I would urge the young men who are my compatriots to forget what has happened in the past. I could speak for a long time on the handicaps which they they have had to sustain. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vereheres mentioned some of them in the economic field. May I remind the house that our people were also kept out of the military field. I hope that others will stress these things, knowing them to be true. The French-Canadian boy who has the inclination and the aptitude for military affairs has had no opportunity since the last war. Since 1930 it has been almost impossible for him to get into the military college or qualify for the militia. The result was plain: when the war broke out we had no officers or very few. It has been said that French Canadians have not enlisted so numerously as they might have done, because of the fact

Mobilization Act-Mr. Dechene
that they were unable to understand the language of training. I have had a young man come to me and say, "I am the butt of the jokes of the men in my battalion because I do not understand English; I make a wrong move or I do not go to the right place," and he was ill at ease. He was just as brave and just as bright as his comrades, but he did not understand the English language. I do not wish to divulge any secrets, but I want to congratulate the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) upon the fact that he has taken steps in the last few months to enable educated French Canadians, some of them Bachelors Of Arts or Bachelors of Law, to qualify as officers, men who are able to qualify in either language, and French Canadians will not be the butt of jokes or a source of amusement to the rest of the forces. When they do understand English, as many of them do, they show no hesitation. Going through the towns in my riding I can confirm what was said the other day by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres; you cannot find a young French-Canadian boy of military age who has not enlisted. Last winter there were not enough to fill the hockey teams; as usual; there are no baseball teams except those composed of the little fellows or the older men. All the young men of military age are either in the navy, the army or the air force. They are doing their share, and I am not particularly concerned whether they are enlisted as French Canadians in an Alberta battalion or elsewhere; if they are doing their duty, why should we worry? But these men had no difficulty because they understood English perfectly; they were raised and educated in the west.
I have forgotten many things I wanted to say, but there is one other matter I should like to mention. Some time ago, when I was talking to 'the gentleman in this city who has charge of my health, he suggested I should take a rest. When I told him I was a member of the house he said, "You are doomed; if you go there and listen to them much longer, I won't have anything to do with you." Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope your health is good, for you have to listen to a great deal, but my health, apparently, cannot stand it.
I have been rather embittered by the terrific criticism which I have read in the press, that great fourth estate which, according to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) makes no mistakes. It seems to me that the older the hon. member gets, the bitterer he becomes, in contrast with the rest of us who, as we grow older, become mellower and more disposed to make allowances for others. But he does not. Let me tell him that his suggestion that the province of Quebec should be taken out of the dominion, cost the affirmative side 200,000 votes in the plebiscite in that province. That is what he wanted.
* I wish to refer, briefly, to criticisms of the ministers. Let us be fair. Men as able as any of whom this country can boast, no matter in what line, are sitting to-day on the treasury benches-I do not say there are others just as able who are not in the ministry-and receiving a very small salary compared with what they could earn elsewhere. Some of the ablest practitioners of law and other callings are sacrificing their health, and some have given their lives, for the country. You and I can go home at 11 o'clock at night and take things a little more easily, but these men do not know family life. They are working until the small hours of the morning, passing orders in council, approving contracts, doing many other things, back again at sunrise, carrying on eighteen or nineteen hours a day. And what do they get? Criticism of the 'bitterest and most unfair kind. Hitler was not altogether wrong in his estimate of the sort of democracies which we have in the world to-day. He knew how unfair a democracy can be. He knew how hard a taskmaster politics can be. But we have lived through crises of this kind. We do not fear Hitler; we can lick him, provided we take care of our own men, provided we look after our leaders, provided we act fairly, no matter what political opinions we hold, towards the men who are sacrificing the best years of their lives, and sometimes life itself. It will not be surprising to learn of other ministers breaking under the tremendous ordeal of administering this terrific business.
I apologize to hon. members if I have said anything which I should not have said, but I am speaking from the heart. Let us from now on dedicate ourselves to one cause. We know that the French-Canadian boy has no more fear of the Germans than of anybody else. Make no mistake about that; once you get a French-Canadian battalion alongside your own overseas you have some real dependable friends. Do not doubt that. Let us dedicate our lives to a better understanding.


Georges Parent: I am sorry to have to inform the hon. member that his time is up.


James Arthur Ross: As I listened this afternoon to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) I was amazed to hear him say that he was opposed to conscription and that no political party with any regard for their political future would ever think of putting conscription in force in this country. I am amazed that a member of the cabinet at this
3340	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Ross (Souris)
time should think for a moment of party before country. Apparently the hon. gentleman is still travelling in the middle of the road as he was in March, 1940. Surely we should endeavour to save the country in manly fashion for our children and for the generations to come, whether as individuals we ever come back to parliament or not, because we should realize that should we lose the war this nation will be disgraced for many generations to come.
The bill before us follows in consequence of the plebiscite. This plebiscite was the strangest and most cumbersome manoeuvre ever conceived and imposed upon the people in the name of national unity, by any country. It has given needless emphasis to a division in the country's make-up which everyone knew beforehand existed, a division that exists chiefly as a result of the attitude and example of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) during the first great world war from 1914 to 1918, and in his leadership and appeal during the past twenty-five years in this country-all for political expediency. This is well borne out in the speech on foreign policy which he delivered in this chamber on March 30, 1939, as reported at page 2426 of Hansard:
One strategic fact is clear: the days of great expeditionary forces of infantry crossing the oceans are not likely to recur Two years ago, I expressed in this house the view that it was extremely doubtful if any of the British dominions would ever send another expeditionary force to Europe.
One political fact is equally clear: in a war to save the liberty of others, and thus our own, we should not sacrifice our own liberty or our own unity. Planning and coordination would be essential, but the necessary coordination could be made, and if this government were in power it would be made, without sacrificing those vital ends and conditions of our existence. Profits could and would be rigidly controlled, and profiteering suppressed. But men's lives and men's wills cannot be put on the same basis as goods and profits. The present government believes that conscription of men for overseas service would not be a necessary or an effective step. Let me say that so long as this government may be in power, no such measure will be enacted.
That is not so different from the speech which the Minister of Agriculture quoted this afternoon concerning the member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell)-very similar in fact. I vigorously opposed the plebiscite as being the negation of parliamentary responsibility; but when the government carried the measure I submitted to majority rule in the house and went out to assist in every way possible to obtain an affirmative vote, and I was pleased to see that Canada voted two to one "yes" on the plebiscite. It is said that the plebiscite was not a vote either for or against

compulsory overseas service. No; nothing as straightforward as that was meant by that vote. On June 11, I listened to that great speech delivered by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). He maintained that when the people of Quebec voted "no" they voted against conscription for overseas service, but he did not think many of those who voted "yes" voted for conscription. Surely by the same token, if those people who voted "no" voted against conscription for overseas service, those who voted "yes," the vast majority, voted for conscription for overseas service. What did the Prime Minister mean in his broadcast on April 7, after pointing out the dangerous situation that existed in Canada, both east and west, and in Europe, when he spoke as follows:
We cannot defend our country and save our homes and families by waiting at home for the enemy to attack us. Every country that has stood behind its own defences in this war has sooner or later been attacked. To remain on the defensive is the surest way to bring the war to Canada. We must go out and meet the enemy before he reaches our shores. If you cannot trust parliament, your own elected representatives, whom can you trust!
On the basis of those words I think we should be entitled to discuss this bill in a mandatory form before this house. The logical conclusion for the people of Canada to arrive at was that if they released the Prime Minister from his pledge, then soldiers would be sent to any theatre of war, as is done by our good neighbour and ally, the United States of America, and we would no longer be looked upon by them as a nation in disgrace, as we are at this time. Here in the House of Commons is the place and now is the time to discuss and determine whether and by what methods the resources and man-power of this nation shall be mobilized. Parliament and not the cabinet in secrecy is the proper body to discuss these measures. I remember reading earnestly the debates during the year 1932, I having lived in the drought area of the west at that time. I wonder to-day if the Prime Minister is the same man who led the opposition during those debates and protested so vigorously over the fact that Prime Minister Bennett should be given a blank cheque to feed and clothe those people who were suffering as a result of the drought, and who were on relief, throughout the greater part of that section. He protested severely, and yet in this debate he asks the people for a blank cheque which enables him, if the occasion arises, to dispose of those same lives that were then being cared for. There is not much consistency in that stand. If the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres

Mobilization Act-Mr. Ross (Souris)
thinks that the Prime Minister has betrayed the people of Quebec, then in my opinion there are many people in eight other provinces who also feel that the Prime Minister has betrayed them to some extent.
I presume that during this debate the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) will speak and endeavour to prove how satisfactorily the voluntary system is working to-day. During the campaign in 1917 for a national government in this country, Major J. L. Ralston, then serving in France, wrote letters to the Halifax papers urging the people to support a national government in Canada at that time. Speaking at Charlottetown during the plebiscite campaign this year, in appealing for a "yes" vote, he said, "We must back up our boys overseas." Speaking in Winnipeg on May 25, 1942, before the Canadian Legion convention, Colonel Ralston promised a relentless war effort. He spoke of our man-power problems, stating that competition and wages had attracted men from one job to another. He said that this had, in many instances, left useful jobs with too few men to do them. Key men from industry and agriculture had, he said, joined the armed forces in many instances. Notwithstanding the splendid speech delivered that day by our senior Minister of National Defence on the achievements of our armed forces and on industrial expansion to date in Canada, the following day that great non-political organization representing the nine provinces of Canada passed a unanimous resolution for total war and asked for immediate conscription for overseas service. I contend that no organization in Canada has done more to assist the government in the war effort than the Canadian Legion.
I have the privilege and honour of representing a constituency that polled the greatest percentage of "yes" over "no" votes of any rural riding in Canada, the proportion being over sixteen to one. The only riding in Canada to surpass that record was Eglinton in the city of Toronto. The constituency of Souris is predominantly Anglo-Saxon, but there is one solid French polling division in it, and they voted "yes" in the proportion of well over two to one. There is a predominantly Mennonite polling division; they voted "yes", 128 to "no" 12. My home town of Melita polled 531 "yes" and 8 "no". Of two small rural school divisions, Bede voted 71 "yes", none "no"; and Swaffan, 56 "yes", and none "no". Fifty-four polling divisions in the constituency voted 8.043 "yes", and 484	"no". The municipal officials, legion
officials, church and other community organizations, along with the general public, 44561-212
demonstrated a keen sense of citizenship and of public duty in so doing. At every meeting which I addressed in the riding during that plebiscite campaign I referred to my plea to the government on November 10, 1941, in this house for immediate national selective service in any theatre of war. At the same time I told them that the Prime Minister had said that they were not voting for or against conscription and that I had no idea what they might get as a result. While the people considered the plebiscite useless they now expect some immediate action.
The province of Manitoba voted "yes" almost five to one despite the isolationist and non-conscription views of our two federal cabinet ministers.
The press of Canada on June 3, 1942, quoting the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Winkler), which constituency adjoins mine on the east, said that he had stated:
Many old heads in Ottawa say when the government falls, as all things eventually must, it will not be over conscription. ...
The advice of the government's wartime specialists is going to govern. There is no escaping it. The government only has all the facts, they and only they. Theirs is the responsibility and theirs the decision.
But the opposition is lying awake nights thinking of formulae which by way of amendment they can embarrass supporters in the eyes of their constituents.
The Tories will try to embarrass government supporters before their "yes" (plebiscite) voters.
There is no one in the opposition who could do that job half as well as it has been done by those hon. members themselves. In the constituency of Lisgar during the plebiscite there was an available vote of 14,658. There was a "yes" vote of 4,633 and a "no" vote of 620. Poll No. 32, Rhineland, with 249 available votes, polled no votes either "yes" or "no". Poll No. 32A Rhineland, with 220 available votes, polled no votes "yes" or "no". Poll No. 21A, Winkler, with 287 available votes, polled one "yes", none "no". Poll No. 21 Winkler, with 244 available votes, polled two "yes" and none "no". Poll No. 16A, Horndean, with 187 available votes, polled one "yes" and one "no". Fifteen polls in that area, with a total available vote of 3,432, voted 40 "yes" and 40 "no". These people are a splendid type; there has been lack of leadership somewhere.
Just over a year ago the Minister of National Defence appealed to all federal members for assistance in recruiting throughout this country. What assistance did he obtain from his Manitoba colleagues in that respect? I venture to say his department received more active assistance from the lone opposition member than from all the government members from Manitoba.

3342	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Ross (Souris)
The Winnipeg Tribune of June 6, 1942, had an article entitled, "No Complacency". It stated:
The number of recruits for the armed services coming from Manitoba towns is a constant source of amazement. The record for enlistment in rural Manitoba has been consistently high ever since the war began, yet every call is quickly answered.
Here is a sample of what rural Manitoba is doing. The air force mobile recruiting party visited four communities and this is how the young men flocked to the colours:
Deloraine, population 850, joined up... 150 Killarney, population 1,000, joined up.. 250
Glenboro, population 500, joined up___	70
Souris, population 1,600, joined up.... '300 This rural response is the reason why Manitoba is at the top of the recruiting list for Canada with one volunteer for every twenty residents. It is also a clear sign that there is no complacency in the country.
The same might be said of the population of many other towns in southwestern Manitoba.
However, as a result of this there is a decided shortage of efficient farm labour. National selective service for any theatre of war would have avoided many of the conditions now prevailing in industry, agriculture and the armed forces in this respect. I have discussed this matter on previous occasions with both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell). The Minister of Agriculture published a speech on September 12, 1941, as a press release from the bureau of public information, in which he stated:
If we are required to muster a million men for our armed forces we would still have seven million people left in Canada over sixteen years of age. These seven million, properly organized and determined to stand behind the armed forces, can operate all our farms, our factories and places of business, in a manner which will give us the production required.
The same minister during August, 1940, was Minister of National War Services when the registration of man-power of this country was made. During that period of almost two years, what has been done properly to organize the people of this nation? Speaking on June 9 I referred to the matter and pointed out that the Prime Minister made his man-power speech on March 24 about national selective service, but that to this date nothing has been done about applying it to agriculture. We are simply drifting into a hopeless muddle.
It may be argued that the voluntary system is obtaining sufficient men while our troops are not in battle, but I would urge the government not to wait until a military crisis is upon us so that again it will have to be said: "Too little and too late."

We have the report on the Canadian expeditionary force to Hong Kong. I do not wish to refer at any length to that, but there were some parts of the report not referred to when the Prime Minister put a portion on Hansard on June 5. On page 42 it is stated that:
. . . men without previous military experience served in the basic training centre for periods varying from three to eleven weeks.
Some had served only three weeks.
It was stated that:
These steps were taken with speed and secrecy. . . .
The Grenadier Guards were reinforced from military district No. 10. A number were taken from Dundum camp, military district No. 12. They ran around the country getting men who were untrained. On page 39 the report says:
Colonel Sutcliffe estimated on October 10 that between 150 and 200 additional men would be required.
And permission was obtained from headquarters to take these men. On page 45 it says:
On the whole matter I find there was no dereliction of duty or error in judgment from the mere fact that approximately 120 men were included in the expedition before they had completed their prescribed periods of training.
I have already found that the addition of these men did not impair the efficiency of the expedition nor did it constitute an injustice to these men themselves.
Would any ex-service man believe that untrained men taken under these conditions constituted no injustice?
On another page it states that they went without mechanical transport and other equipment; and the reason why they did not get at least a portion of their mechanical transport was that one of these controllers misunderstood orders and did not send it. I say to the country that this report, which suggests that it does not matter whether troops are trained or whether they have sufficient equipment, was a fine piece of whitewashing. Let us not be misled in this way at such a time; let us act immediately to have, on a basis of equality of sacrifice, armed forces with proper and sufficient reserves and equipment which will be second to none in the world. Let us raise those forces as they are raised in Great Britain and the United States of America to-day. Then we shall not have to hang our heads in shame, as many of us must do these days.
Perhaps we suffer from too much provincialism of the past. In my opinion we require in this country a federal system of education. In the past too much was left to provincial

Mobilization Act-Mr. Maclnnis
departments. I trust that we may study and appreciate the problems of the Canadian people irrespective of our racial antecedents. Canada has vast possibilities for the future if we win this war. Can we not discuss and deal with these matters as Canadians, from the Canadian viewpoint? If we do so, may I be so bold as to suggest, in view of what is happening to-day, that the manly course for the Prime Minister under these circumstances would be to hand over the reins of government to either the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) or the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and ask either of these hon. gentlemen to form a national government composed of the best and ablest men in Canada, representative of all shades of opinion, but united in the common, single purpose of waging a total war by a total effort. Canada is distinctly held back during these days by party limitations. The limitations of party government must be thrown off before the will of the Canadian people can be translated into more effective national action, which is so urgently needed at this time. I thought there was a great deal of merit in the appeal made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) this afternoon to his compatriots in the province of Quebec, and I should like to join with him in that appeal. We should all try to solve the problems which are confronting us to-day by dealing with them as Canadians, irrespective of our past racial history, on the basis on which these matters have been dealt with by our great neighbours to the south. A great deal still can be accomplished if we go at it in the right manner.
The hopes of Canada now rest with the conscience of parliament. The people have spoken, and it is the business of their representatives to give effect to their voice. Surely members of parliament on the government side will not remain silent and unconcerned while the birthright of the young men who are now awaiting the zero hour in England is sold for a mere mess of political pottage.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, we must all take our part in this debate according to the way we view what is happening in the world to-day. My first word will be that in my humble opinion this debate is the most important we have had in this house since September, 1939. It is important not only because of the conscription issue itself. I think the mere question of conscription for overseas military service is relatively unimportant in comparison with the stakes at issue in this world struggle in which we, together with the other free nations, are engaged. I believe that if we face the facts 44561-2121,
with minds as free as possible from prejudices both old and new, we shall find first that in each of the united nations the paramount need to defeat the axis powers has produced a degree of unity that is magnificently inspiring for the present and gives hope of great accomplishments for the future. I do not think it is necessary to draw to the attention of this house how a decade of struggle against a ruthless, cruel enemy has unified the warring factions of the sprawling population of China. We also have the example of how a realization of the dangers confronting them has for the time being almost obliterated class and party barriers in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. The right to criticize of course has not been relinquished, but it is exercised in such a way as not to interfere with the task at hand, the defeat of the enemy. That unity in some of these countries, however, was not gained without some persons, who for long had been high in the councils of the nation, having to step aside.
If we face the facts, I think the second thing we shall find is that where unity could not be achieved because of the selfish machinations of a privileged, profiteering class, and because of the loss of faith in democratic institutions by some sections of the working class, a great nation, France, lies prostrate under the nazi heel.
If we face the facts, I think the third thing we shall find is that for Canada the need for unity is just as important as it was in the case of the countries I have mentioned; and may I say again that it is important not only because of our part in this war but because it is necessary if we are to meet the problems which will confront us when peace is made.
One of the problems confronting us in Canada is how we are to bring about unity within the country itself. I believe the essentials to the creation of national unity in Canada are that the people everywhere should have a clear understanding of:
1.	Why we are in the war.
(2)	why and how we went into the war of our own free will, and
(3)	what we as a people expect to get out of the war.
The last and the first are particularly important, because unless we understand why we are fighting and what the results of our share in the fighting will be, or what the results of the sacrifices we are called upon to make will be, we cannot carry on with the enthusiasm and fortitude necessary in a struggle of this kind.
The reason why we have not the desired unity in Canada to-day is that no real

Mobilization Act-Mr. Maclnnis
effort has been made 'by the government to give the people an understanding of the three factors I have mentioned. There has been a holding back on the part of the government, a refusal to accept and proclaim the revolutionary nature of the war as a complete break with the political and economic policies of the last twenty-five years-policies which led inevitably and inexorably to war.
Last Thursday all hon. members listened to an eloquent and moving address by the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vereheres (Mr. Cardin). For myself, there was much in his speech with which I agreed, and I believe there was much with which we all agreed. I agreed with him when he condemned the government for lack of honesty with regard to the subject of conscription. I mentioned that matter myself in my speech on the address. As some other hon. members have quoted from other debates in this session, I crave the privilege of quoting a short paragraph from my speech on that occasion. I pointed out that, because of the way the plebiscite was introduced, in one part of the country it would be taken as a vote for conscription, and in another part it would be taken merely as a vote to relieve the government of any pledges which had been made. The group to which I belong proposed that in dealing with the question of conscription the people of Canada should have before them a clear and definite issue. It was with this in mind that I said, as reported at page 341 of Hansard:
The group with which I sit are, as we have already stated, in favour of a vote on the clear issue of conscription, because we believe it is the real issue confronting the people of Canada to-day. We favour a vote on two questions: (a) conscription of man-power; (b) conscription of material reosurces, industry and finance. If both questions were given to the people for endorsation or rejection, I feel convinced that they would approve both provided they were told it was necessary.
They were not told it was necessary. They are not being told to-day that it is necessary. The government is saying, "Give us the power, and when we think it is necessary we will put conscription into effect on the terms and conditions we think fit, without any reference whatsoever to parliament. We have asked the people to free our hands. We now ask you, parliament, to free our hands and let us carry on, as if parliament were not here at all." That is not good enough, in view of the past record of the government.
I fully agreed with the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vereheres when he said, or implied, that the cry for conscription of man-power, without regard to the nature of Canada's contribution to the total war plans of the

united nations, came mainly from a small group of profit-seekers. These people have been shouting for the conscription of manpower and the regimentation of labour almost ever since the war began. Yet they oppose every move which seeks not only to conscript, but to give the government definite and reasonable control over the material and financial resources of this country.
I have nothing but contempt for this group of short-sighted reactionaries in Canada, who are more ready even to sacrifice their own sons than to give up a tittle of their wealth,
* privilege and power. It was the refusal of similar reactionaries at the heart of empire to make any concessions to the colonial sections of the empire which has brought that empire to the very verge of dismemberment. That class of people has always acted too late.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when the
house rose at six o'clock I had made reference to the fact that there was a small group of people in this country who were calling for the conscription of men and for the regimentation of labour but were not prepared themselves to give up the smallest fraction of their wealth or privileges. A concrete example comes to my mind. I remember that one of the first of these gentlemen to call for the conscription of man-power was James Duncan who, just prior to the incident mentioned, had been deputy minister of national defence for air. He made the demand for conscription in a speech that was reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of November 1, 1941, but just a short time before, this same James Duncan, when the Massey-Harris company called him, abandoned his important war post as deputy minister for air and went back to his private business. The men whom he would conscript, once they are called to their posts, stay at their posts for the duration. They cannot desert their posts whether family or business reasons call.
The hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) this afternoon referred in scathing terms to the control exercised by a small group of industrial and financial pirates, I think he called them, and gave it as his considered conviction that when this war was over, the power exercised by these gentlemen would be a thing of the past. I do not know where he got his information-possibly from the stars-but certainly he did not get it from

Mobilization Act-Mr. Maclnnis
a study of conditions as they are in Canada to-day because, if there is one thing that has been clear beyond anything else ever since this war began, it is that these people are becoming more and more powerful. I saw it put very nicely in the last issue of Maclean's magazine. A gentleman in business for himself and also occupying a high position with the government wrote from his own business office a letter to himself as a government official about some matter. Next morning he went to his government office and found the letter he wrote to himself waiting for him. Then as a government official he replied to himself as a business man, and then going back to his own office the next morning and getting the letter he had sent to himself, he was greatly pleased with the efficiency of government departments. That is what is happening, and I am afraid that the hon. member for Atha-baska is going to be greatly disappointed if he sticks to the notion that once this war is over, these gentlemen are going to let go their strangle-hold on the people of Canada.
I have already made reference to the speech made on Thursday last by the former Minister of Public Works and Minister of Transport (Mr. Cardin) and indicated some points in his speech with which I agree. I also agree with the hon. gentleman when he warned the house that the deletion of section 3 from the National Resources Mobilization Act means conscription for overseas service, in spite of all the sophistry of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). And not only that; it means conscription for overseas service without any further reference of the question to parliament. Further, I think the hon. gentleman was also on solid ground when he protested against the undemocratic procedure of conscription being imposed by the stealth and secrecy of order in council. From his long association with such methods his words should cariy weight with this house. In all of this serious criticism I think the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres was definitely in the right. But even before he spoke, on the same day, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of this group, had pointed out the same facts. We of this group I think may be pardoned if we feel perhaps gratified'-that is not quite the proper term at such a time as this, but I cannot think of a better one-that our criticisms and suspicions of the government's methods have been confirmed by one who himself has had so many years of experience in the cabinet.
There were, however, points in the exminister's speech with which I did not agree, with which, indeed, I must take issue. He
was seriously wrong, I think, when he implied that the support of English-speaking Canada for the war is mainly because of our British connection. I do not deny that there are small groups in this country to whom our British connection is sufficient reason for support in this or in any other war. There are similar people in all countries, but their kind is getting less and less each day. I think my hon. friend was wrong there, but there may be justification for his statement, and that justification lies in the fact that the government of which he himself has so recently been an influential member has fostered those ideas. I could give a thousand illustrations, as could any man in this house, of how such ideas have been spread and fostered by the present government-that is that Canada is at war because Britain is at war. But I think one will suffice-I believe, an outstanding one. Some months ago the Prime Minister published a book of his war speeches. The title of the book, "Canada at Britain's Side", is sufficient justification for the statement made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres. That title to my mind is as good an expression of apron-clinging colonialism as any imperialist could wish for. Taken as the title of a collection of his war speeches by a man who, since the passing of the statute of Westminster, has continually reminded us of Canada's equality with Great Britain as a member of the British commonwealth of nations, it is bad enough; but when one learns that the title of the French edition of the same book is "Le Canada et la Guerre", which is, I believe, translated into English, "Canada and the War", the thing is beyond comprehension. But it does explain to some extent why to-day we have disunity in Canada. It is and has long been the accepted policy of this government to say one thing in the province of Quebec and another thing, though not always the same thing, in the other provinces. It depended upon whether they were going east or west. When they went west they were monetary reformers; when they came east they were the most orthodox of the orthodox.
I wish again to emphasize that the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres is seriously wrong when he says that the people of English-speaking Canada, in giving support to the war, are motivated by emotion rather than reason. In saying that, he does Englishspeaking Canada a great injustice, and I do not think he wanted to do that.
I am of British stock. Usually when a person says that he follows it up by saying that he is proud of it. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres said the other day that such things

Mobilization Act-Mr. Maclnnis
were accidents, and I am willing to leave it at that; no one needs feel proud of an accident. My father came to this country over a hundred years ago. My mother's people have been in Canada for over a hundred and fifty years. In my love for Canada I yield place to no one. But for an intelligent man to-day love of country is not enough. One must love freedom. One must love humanity. One must love progress. One must love decency. These are the things which are involved in this struggle, and it is for these reasons that the people of my race have given and are giving all that they can. I, therefore, want to assure the hon member for Ricbelieu-Vercheres and my other French-Canadian friends in this chamber that I have, like many other Englishspeaking people, passed through many troubled days during the past seven or eight years. We saw the menace of fascism coming nearer and nearer. We saw the reactionaiy Tory government of Great Britain making concession after concession to the dictators of Rome and Berlin. We saw the government of Canada spinelessly following the vacillating footsteps of a Baldwin and a Chamberlain. We saw collective security sabotaged and aggressors appeased in the hope of saving for a little while longer the right of a privileged class to rule and exploit. For me, for hundreds, for hundreds of thousands of Canadians this war did not begin in 1939. It has been going on for years-in Abyssinia, in China, in Spain, where the strategy and the implements we find to-day on every war front had been used and tested and perfected and their deficiencies, if any; found out.
The people of English-speaking Canada may and do feel pride in the courage and determination which the people of Britain have shown since May, 1940, but we support the war because of the issues at stake. These issues can be put very briefly. We are fighting to. maintain the position won by us and others through years of sacrifice and struggle. We are also fighting to maintain the right of the common people to enlarge and enrich their lives by their own efforts, through their own organization, and to live under the rule of law. We of this group made that abundantly clear in the very first statement just before Canada's declaration of war, in the session of September, 1939. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) speaking for this group, said on that occasion, as reported in' Hansard, page 55:
* Nevertheless, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation recognizes that Canada is now implicated in a struggle which may involve the survival of democratic institutions. We consider that in the cause of the allied powers lies, a hope of building European peace on a
	.
more secure foundation because, in part at least, the people of Britain and France are waging a war against aggression.
We could not, Mr. Speaker, be unconcerned as to which side would win, and consequently we favoured Canada's participation in this war. In this war to-day we are proud to associate ourselves not only with Britain but with every free nation in the fight for survival, in the fight for freedom, and in the fight for the right to progress in our own way.
It is not necessary for me to elaborate on the causes which led to war; it is not a part of this debate. It is sufficient to note that the position of the world to-day is like that of a city in which dangerous gangsters are at large. No individual is safe until these gangsters are put under restraint. If the war has taught me anything, it is that the world to-day is a huge city. There is no longer isolation for nations any more than there is in an ordinary city isolation for the individual. The various nations are only the various sections of the city; the Chinese nation is the Chinese quarter, the Italian nation the Italian quarter, the British nation the British quarter, and so on. Consequently every nation must be concerned with what is taking place, and every nation must do its part to bring about a better and more orderly way of life.
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, in common with the Labour parties of other sections of the commonwealth, has condemned British imperialism as vigorously as any other and perhaps more vigorously because we felt we had more right to do so. It is our belief, however, that the British commonwealth of nations as a league of self-governing, independent and equal partners will play an important part in the new world which will follow this war. I have stressed these points because I want to make it clear beyond the possibility of doubt why this group wants an all-out war effort.
We cannot, however, support the government in what it is now asking unless we get from the government some guarantee that will convince us that the sacrifice asked of the people will not be in vain. Past experience, as the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) pointed out the other evening, is a justification for asking the government for these guarantees. For that reason, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy):
That all the words after "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor;
"this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that the principle of the bill before the house is inadequate and inequitable, permits the governor general in council to conscript men for overseas service without

Mobilization Act-Mr, Graham
reference to parliament, and is, therefore, contrary to the peace, order and good government of Canada."
When, Mr. Speaker, you were giving the reasons the other evening for ruling out of order the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) Your Honour quoted an amendment moved by the present Prime Minister, who was leader of the opposition at the time, in 1934, that amendment being:
This house, while prepared to support legislation or assist in the orderly marketing of natural products, is unalterably opposed to the enactment of any compulsory measure which delegates to unnamed and undetermined individuals, groups or organizations, sweeping powers over the production and trade and commerce of the nation.
This same right hon. gentleman is asking now, not that this house give him power over trade and commerce, over the natural products of the nation; he is asking parliament to give him power over the lives of the individuals in the nation. Surely, if the amendment I have just quoted was justified in 1934, when this house was dealing with inanimate things, the amendment I have just moved is much more justified on this occasion when we are dealing with the very lives of the people of the country. I submit that no better argument could be used for the appropriateness of this amendment.
There seems to be a wide difference of opinion even among members of the government as to whether or not this is a conscription bill. If I heard aright this afternoon, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said it was not; but the Prime Minister said the other evening very definitely that it was. I quote from page 3288 of Hansard of June 11:
Mr. Mackenzie King: What is my hon. friend talking about right now?
Mr. Douglas (Weyburn): May I ask: are we discussing conscription?
Mr. Mackenzie King:	Yes; the question of
overseas service is now before parliament.
But once this bill is passed, it will no longer be before parliament and all the power will be in the hands of the government. I noticed a quotation in a speech delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), at the legion convention in Winnipeg recently:
If the trumpet give an uncertain sound-who shall prepare himself to the battle?
By the sounds the trumpet is making I think it is badly cracked.
In the few moments left at my disposal there is another point I wish to make. I do so to support a statement I made a few minutes ago, that the policy of the members
of the government changes as they go east or west. In Ottawa it is, of course, stationary and absolutely reactionary. When my hon. friend was at the legion convention, speaking of course not as Minister of Pensions and National Health, but as a member of the Canadian Legion, he said:
You are to have a serious debate to-morrow morning on the conscription question. If I had my way, the first conscript in Canada would be money.
When my hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar moved a motion to conscript money the other day, the Minister of Pensions and National Health-he was not then speaking to the legion in Winnipeg-was the first one to rise in his place and draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that the hon. member was out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I tell my hon. friend that in 1925 I moved a resolution, the first one in Canada, which was carried unanimously by a vote of the Canadian Legion.


Angus MacInnis: Yes but my hon. friend was on the opposition side of the house in 1935. To-day he is on the government
benches.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I said 1925.


Angus MacInnis: Oh, 1925. That is still further back, and there was no hope of anyone doing anything about the matter then. That is the reason, Your Honour, why we have so many difficulties to-day. I imagine my time has expired, and so I leave these thoughts with you.


Mr. R. T. GRAHAM (Swift Current):: The bill which this house is now discussing has excited a debate which it is quite apparent is seriously claiming the attention of hon. members. That is rather strange, Mr. Speaker, because I do not think you can find in the bill itself anything that should create the feeling of tension that has been quite obvious during the course of the debate thus far. There is no doubt that the importance the house is attaching to the bill arises, not from the terms of the bill itself but from the possible use of the authority given the government as a result of the removal of the restriction now contained in the National Resources Mobilization Act; and I think we should pay particular attention to the fact that this tension was made much more apparent by the address which was delivered by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), which we all realize constitutes a threat to the unity which has, so far at least, during the course

Mobilization Act-Mr. Graham
of this war characterized all the people of Canada. I believe the seriousness of the matter properly justifies the consideration being given this debate. The opening address by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the addresses of the leaders of the opposition parties, and in particular the address of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, bring home to us not only the seriousness of the world situation but also the serious state of our internal, domestic affairs, which is a very important matter in relation to the other, larger question.
In the time allotted to me I propose to deal with some of the matters brought up by the leaders of the opposition parties in this house. First I should like to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group. Hon. members of course will remember the manner in which that address was dealt with to-day by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I come from Saskatchewan; and hon. members will not be surprised that those of us who come from that province take perhaps a greater interest than others in the utterances of the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group. The policies which he enunciates in this house, and which he repeated so cleverly and so ably on Thursday last, are not new to the people of Saskatchewan. Though the speech of the hon. member was thinly disguised to make it appear an attempt to assist in the war effort, I do not believe that was the real purpose of the speech delivered by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is imputing improper motives. I say on my word that my speech was an attempt to assist the government and the country in the war effort, and a very deliberate attempt at that. I ask that the statement be withdrawn.


Roy Theodore Graham: If I have offended against the rules of the house, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw; but I challenge the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group to tell this house of a single principle included by him in his six points which his party have not supported in the past, when there was peace in this land, and which they do not propose to support after this war has been brought to what we hope will be a victorious conclusion.


Major James William Coldwell: If I am asked that question I can answer it very briefly. Certainly that is true; but is it not a fact that the Liberal party itself carries its peace-time

policies into its war effort and its policies relating to the war into the peace effort? If not, there is a complete break with all that goes before and all that comes after.


Roy Theodore Graham: Using the premise which has been established by my hon. friend's answer, I propose to deal with his speech as I think it should be dealt with; because I believe that to propose at this serious moment in the history of this nation a policy which would fasten upon Canada not only in time of war but in time of peace a system of state socialism would be fatal not only to the war effort but to the happiness, contentment and liberty of our people.


Major James William Coldwell: Who says it is state socialism, to begin with?


Roy Theodore Graham: I think also, while I hope I would be the last man in this house to bring up old controversies merely for the sake of bringing them up, it would be proper to examine the speech of the hon. gentleman in the light of the past performances of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. As the Minister of Agriculture pointed out this afternoon, away back in 1933 the group which my hon. friend now leads enunciated the very same principle, only in different words:
Socialization of the banking, credit and financial system of the country, together with the social ownership, development, operation and control of utilities and natural resources.
That was then part and parcel of what they called "planned economy." It was part and parcel of a policy which they suggested had in mind production for use only.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he is quoting from something? If so, I wonder if he would table it.


Roy Theodore Graham: My hon. friend has interrupted me several times. I did not interrupt him when he was speaking, and I ask that he accord me the same treatment.


Major James William Coldwell: I am sorry, but if the hon. gentleman alleges that he is quoting from some of our literature, I am asking him to table the document so that I may see it.


Roy Theodore Graham: Does my hon. friend suggest that this is an incorrect statement of the policy of his party?


Major James William Coldwell: That has nothing to do with the matter. Will the hon. member table the document?


Roy Theodore Graham: As I say, included in that policy was the "production for use" programme, and at that time they also had a "use-lease-land" system which envisioned the

Mobilization Act-Mi. Graham
taking over, the nationalization at least in part, of the farm lands of that province-


Major James William Coldwell: That is not true.


Roy Theodore Graham: -and in turn leasing that land back to the farmers of the province, on terms that might be thought fit.


Major James William Coldwell: That is incorrect.


Roy Theodore Graham: Yet the verdict of the
people of that province, as might be expected, was wholly adverse to the policy, and to the leadership that sponsored it. I suggest that since that time the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group has acquired greater wisdom, for I do not think anyone in this house has ever heard him use the term "use-lease system", nor has he used the term "planned economy".


Major James William Coldwell: Yes. I never did use the term "use-lease system".


Roy Theodore Graham: I noticed that to-day the hon. member interrupted the Minister of Agriculture and said he had never used the term "state socialism".


Major James William Coldwell: Quite right.


Roy Theodore Graham: Then what is the basic root of the policy enunciated by my hon. friend?	.


Major James William Coldwell: Cooperation.


Roy Theodore Graham: Is it not the transfer to a centralized authority, to be known as the state, of all the rights, powers and authority that now reside in the people?


Major James William Coldwell: Absolutely not.


Roy Theodore Graham: Then am I wrong in interpreting the policy which he gave to this house as meaning that it would have the effect of clothing the centralized authority with the constitutional power which we, as a free people, have given our government; that is to say, authority over the appointment of the judiciary, authority over our police forces, power and authority over our army and militia? My hon. friend now suggests that in addition we should transfer to that centralized authority control over our finances, which of course includes the issue of currency and credit, and control of our war industries, as he described them in his speech of last Thursday, though in ordinary times he describes them as simply "industry" or "key industries," and in addition all those powers which my hon. friend suggests should be given to the centralized government in this country.


Major James William Coldwell: Does my hon. friend
not think that is better than having dollar-a-year men controlling everything?


Roy Theodore Graham: My hon. friend went
further; he warned us that that was not an exhaustive statement of their policy, and he left to our imagination just how far he and his group are prepared to go in the matter of the transfer of the rights of the people to a centralized government.


Mr. GILLIS:: The rights of what people?


Roy Theodore Graham: I ask him now, would
the people of the province of' Quebec who have historically and jealously guarded provincial rights, who set great value on the rights guaranteed them by the treaty of Paris, who see in minority rights a cause that they constantly champion and protect, ever dream of giving to any group-


Angus MacInnis: They have given it
already. What about the Montreal light and power companies?


Roy Theodore Graham: -not only the power to
control the ordinary processes of law and order but almost absolute control over the spiritual, cultural and economic life of the people?


Angus MacInnis: That is good political talk for Quebec.


Roy Theodore Graham: I have a book that I
would recommend to hon. members. It is entitled, "Socialism Critically Analysed," written by Doctor O. D. Skelton, a man whose memory is honoured in this house and this country. Although that book was written some thirty years ago, he sets out clearly the propositions enunciated in this house by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, and he examines them with the keen analytical mind which we all know that Doctor Skelton possessed. Therefore I suggest that all who are interested in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation policy read and digest that book.


Major James William Coldwell: And then listen to
the Hon. Walter Nash.


Roy Theodore Graham: He warns us exactly what would happen if such powers were granted to a centralized authority which would make the state not a servant of the people but the master of the people. Is that not one of the essentials for which we are fighting, to retain the liberty of the individual as against any fascist or collective state?


Angus MacInnis: What about the
monopolies?


Roy Theodore Graham: Surely the policy which
my hon. friend attempts to persuade this house should be accepted is the policy against which we are fighting.
Mobilization Act-Mr, Graham


Mr. COLD  WELL@: What about Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain?


Clarence Gillis: And Kirkland Lake and
Dumarts in Canada?


Roy Theodore Graham: I was surprised at the
statement of my hon. friend when he accused the Prime Minister and members of the government of sowing disunity and creating confusion in this country. I thought that charge particularly inappropriate in the mouth of the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. I do not wish to recall except for the purpose of my argument the attitude taken by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party prior to the outbreak of the war. We all remember it, and I would have been prepared to hear the leader of the group after the outbreak of the war announce that he had seen the error of his ways, show a reasonable measure of repentance and make a declaration that he had been wrong and that the party had changed its attitude toward the war. Instead of that, as late as Thursday of last week he attempted to persuade this house that the attitude he took then is still the proper one for this country to take.
Let me go further, because I think it is important. In July, 1940, in the city of Regina, the capital of Saskatchewan, the provincial Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group met for the purpose of electing a leader. The then leader, Mr. G. H. Williams, who had at that time I think become a member of his majesty's forces, challenged that convention to defeat him as leader on the ground that he supported the war effort of this country. I am proud to say that the convention did support his leadership, although I think he was opposed by a Professor Carlyle King on grounds not quite as certain.


Angus MacInnis: Was there no opposition to the war in your party?


Roy Theodore Graham: In the same city at the same time and under the same auspices, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation youth movement met for the same purpose, and my hon. friend knows that at that convention, meeting in July, 1940, after Dunkirk, after the fall of France, they passed a resolution calling upon the government of Canada to recall all troops sent to England and to confine Canada's war effort to the supply of material.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: No, not that I know of.


Roy Theodore Graham: Perhaps my hon. friend does not have to accept full responsibility for something done by the youthful wing of his party.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I know nothing about it.


Roy Theodore Graham: I suggest that "by their fruits shall ye know them", and that the fact that the youth of this country who have been educated in their political doctrines by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation leaders, in the face of the awful realities of July, 1940, passed such a resolution, is an indictment of the leadership of that party.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I know nothing about it, but I do know what the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) said about it.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask that the hon. member be given fair play.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not wish to interrupt, but the hon. member keeps asking me questions, and when he does so I feel bound to answer. If he will refrain from asking rhetorical questions I will refrain from answering them.


Georges Parent: I think the hon. member's questions are largely rhetorical and do not call for interruption of his speech.


Roy Theodore Graham: If I may now continue, even as a war-time policy I think the argument is all against the suggestions of the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. I do not believe that the leader of that party in this house or any of those who sit with him have any fixed conviction that there is any possibility now or in the near future of the adoption of the programme he suggests as the proper one for Canada to pursue. I think he would agree with that statement. If that be true, does he consider that he is adding to the efficiency of this country's war effort by saying, in effect, to the government, properly elected in a democratic manner by the Canadian people since the outbreak of the war to conduct the country's war effort, "we refuse to support any measure which this government presents unless they will accept the dictation of this party and impose, not only upon this parliament but upon the people of this country, state socialism", which he knows cannot come into existence now or in the near future?
I will go further. I have listened to my hon. friend speak highly-and in that I would join him-with regard to the leaders of the Labour party in the old land. He has often referred, and with approval, to the Hon. Ernest Bevin. Let me bring to the attention of the house the attitude of Mr. Bevin toward the war effort of Great Britain

Mobilization Act-Mr.. Graham
on an occasion of exact similarity to that which is now before this house. On December 4, 1941, the British House of Commons was discussing the extension of the selective service system to women. One Mr. Daggar moved an amendment, similar in its purpose but differently phrased from that* moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Let me read Mr. Daggar's resolution:
Mr. Daggar: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "that" to end of the question, and to add instead thereof:
"This house, while assenting to the extension of the principle of compulsion to the man-power and woman-power still available, is of opinion that, in order to secure the full utilization of national resources in the war effort, it is essential that industries vital to the successful prosecution of the war, and especially transport, coal mining and the manufacture of munitions, should be brought under public ownership and control, and that the necessary legislation should be brought in as soon as possible."
I ask fhe house to notice this, that those who moved that resolution had the interests of the war effort at heart-and it is so stated in the wording of the resolution, because the first words are "while assenting to the extension of the principle".
The amendment attempted to be moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar starts off by saying that this bill be not now read a second time. In other words, it is a refusal to give any measure of support to the Prime Minister and the government who are charged with the task of carrying on this war effort.
What attitude did Mr. Ernest Bevin take with regard to Mr. Daggar's resolution? He took the attitude I would expect a great patriot would take. He spoke against it and succeeded in persuading the house that it was an improper resolution to bring before it. I not only quote him, but I could quote Mr. Shinwell who, I think my hon. friend would agree, is an ardent and enthusiastic socialist in the old country. He, too, in discussing the amendment admitted quite frankly that it was impossible to bring in such a transfer of management and ownership and control of the industries without creating such confusion and, shall I say, almost revolution in the country that it would so disturb the war effort as to be unwise. Let me quote his words, in dealing with all the avenues open to him: Another possibility is to take over all war production, including shipbuilding, and run it as a state affair, using the technical and administrative staffs and leaving questions of compensation to be determined at the close of the war. While this is consistent with the policy of the Labour party, it may be rejected because of the political disturbance it involves.
In order that I may assist the war effort, I want to draw to the attention of the house the difference between my hon. friend's party and those in Great Britain who are held up by my hon. friend for approval. They have been held up on more than one occasion. I would compare their attitude with that of hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in this house, in moving the amendment they did.


Major James William Coldwell: .What is the date of that speech?


Roy Theodore Graham: December, 1941. It is reported in the parliamentary debates, volume 376, November 12 to December 19.
I would invite the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, whose political capacity and whose power to assist the government in this war effort is very great, to forsake the opportunity to advance the fortunes of the political party to which he adheres, and to do as we on this side of the house are doing, namely, surrender for the moment, in the interests of the nation, the right to bring up controversial matters, which can be left until peace comes to us again.
Surely that is the attitude we have the right to ask of every hon. member in the house, when we examine the war situation as it is to-day. My own attitude in this matter is, I believe, very plain and, I hope, a patriotic one. If it becomes a necessity, and if I believe it will help the war effort of the country, I am prepared to conscript man-power for any purpose. If it becomes a necessity, and if I believe it will further the interests of the war effort of the country, I would conscript wealth of all kinds, both annual and accumulated. If it becomes a necessity, and if I believe that it will help the war effort of the country, I would conscript or compulsorily take over all of the industry needed to be taken over.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not concede us the same right?


Roy Theodore Graham: I go further than the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation-at least, if I understand their policy as that enunciated last Thursday by its leader. If it were a necessity and if I thought it in the interests of the war effort of this country, I would conscript labour, f noticed particularly that my hon. friend did not suggest that to this house, when he mentioned conscription of man-power.
On the other hand, if, after giving due consideration to each, and after having, I hope, obtained the information I require from the sources which would have that information, I

Mobilization Act-Mr, Grahtfm
find that that is not a necessity, and that it would not help the war effort, I would vote against any such measure. I believe that is the simple attitude which we can all adopt, because it is the one which holds out the only present hope of speedy victory.
It seems to me that if we could imagine the people of Canada all gathered together in this House of Commons to-night, and suddenly the gentleman usher of the black rod, or some other official, came and announced that the Japanese were at the west block and the Germans at the east block, we would speedily forget all of our political futures, all our political plans and hopes, and would join together under the best leadership available for the purpose of meeting the enemy. I will admit (hat that illustration is somewhat extreme, but I submit that the real and actual situation justifies the illustration. Inasmuch as the Japanese have invaded the Aleutian islands off our western coast, and the German submarines have entered the St. Lawrence river, I think my illustration is not too farfetched. We as members of the House of Commons have a common duty to perform in supporting the government, as well as the duty each one has in carrying out his share of the war effort.
We speak of the patriotism and the sacrifice of the young men who are called upon to fight in the front line. In my day and age we were called upon to fight in the war of 1914-18. The young men and the young women of this day are called to fight in a much more terrible and more serious war in every respect, so far as the results which may possibly flow from it are concerned. If we are asking those young men to risk the sacrifice of their physical lives, then surely it is not asking too much of hon. members to ask us to place upon the altar of this our native land our political lives, and to consecrate ourselves to the duty of giving to this government, the chosen of the people, every possible measure of support, so that we can bring victory- certain, and as soon as possible.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) spoke this afternoon he said that the leader of this group had stated, when speaking on this measure, that we had taken a stand against either public ownership or control of industry. Therefore, in order to set the record straight in the matter I should like to quote what the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) did say in regard to industry. I am sure, had the Minister of Agriculture read the speech, he would not have made the statement he did make.

The speech of the hon. member for Lethbridge is found at page 3273 of Hansard, and from it I quote the following:
Nevertheless this group conceives a state in which industry shall do what the state tells it to do. Why should such an outrage as has been referred to already, in the Dumart plant, continue unchecked? If an industry simply refuses to obey the directions of government, then the government without hesitation should force it to sell its shares to the government or to some other industry which would be prepared to obey the government's will and fall into cooperation. There are other forms of compulsion which could be used. As a result of the application of these devices it would be possible to conscript completely industry in this country, which means to bring it under control so that it will cooperate with the state for the people of the state.
In passing, I should like to stress the fact that this group has consistently advocated the control of industry by government.
To-day it is so obvious that unless we defeat the enemy overseas we shall have to defeat him at home on the American continent, that no sound argument can any longer be presented that Canada ought not to participate to the greatest possible degree in the overseas conflict. That conclusion having been reached, it becomes a question of what is the most equitable way of calling up men for military service. The voluntary system to-day as imposed by this government is a policy of flogging the willing horse. It is neither just nor efficient. A continual appeal is made to a person's sense of patriotism, to his conscience, with the result that the entire personnel of some families is wiped out, while other families make no contribution whatsoever. This policy has been maintained largely no doubt as a matter of political expediency. I would call it appeasement in its very worst form, and appeasement invariably fails. If the objective is, as we have been told, national unity, I think we can say that the government has failed to achieve its objective. If the objective has been unity within the Liberal party, I think one can also say, after listening to some of the speeches that have been made in this house, that appeasement has failed even in that direction.
If the war were a minor operation, or if we had many men wishing to volunteer for foreign service, then I would say that the voluntary system would be satisfactory. So long as we had plenty of men in this country clamouring to be allowed to go overseas I would say that the voluntary system was satisfactory. But as soon as you had a situation where you had to badger men and resort to various questionable practices in order to induce or coerce men to enlist, I would say that the voluntary system had failed and that the time for conscription had come.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Quelch
In war-time it is absolutely essential that we should at all times strive for the greatest degree of equality of service and sacrifice. It may not be possible to achieve that objective. It cannot be achieved, I admit, 100 per cent, but that does not for one minute excuse the government for failing to strive continually to reach that objective to the greatest degree possible, and I would say that is equally true whether we have a voluntary or a compulsory service for overseas. Surely those who enlist on a voluntary basis have just as much right to demand equality of service and sacrifice as those who are conscripted, and I would say that no man should be asked to give his life for his country either voluntarily or by compulsion unless at the same time those who stay at home are prepared to assume their full responsibility in that effort. Just to show that we have been quite consistent in our attitude regarding the war since its declaration, I would quote briefly what I said on September 11, 1939, when we were discussing the appropriation bill. It will be found at page 99 of Hansard. I said:
In time of war it becomes necessary to call upon certain people to be willing to sacrifice their lives. It becomes necessary for some people to make that supreme sacrifice. It is necessary for others to suffer mutilation of the body. Is it asking too much to ask people remaining in Canada, in comparative safety, to be willing to sacrifice the major portions of their incomes? Is that asking too much, at a time when we are asking other people to sacrifice their lives? I say we have every right to demand that those who remain in safety he prepared to sacrifice the major portion of their incomes, that they be permitted to retain only that portion which is necessary for the maintenance of a moderate standard of living.
Again:
We believe in utilizing the Bank of Canada so that we may create the necessary financial credits and currency, combined with definite price regulation so as to obviate any serious rise in prices. We would advocate, further, steeply graded income and profits taxes. We maintain, further, that the only possible justification for borrowing is when our need for goods is greater than our ability to produce them. That condition of course requires external borrowing. We see absolutely no justification for internal borrowing.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that when the men return from overseas they should not be called upon to make any further sacrifice. When they have fought this war and won it they will have made all the sacrifices they should be called upon to make, without being called upon, when they return, to start to help paying the cost of the war. That is our responsibility now.
There would be no question of our overseas forces having to pay the cost of this war had
there been adopted from the outset, as we were led to believe would be adopted, a strictly pay-as-you-go policy. But to say to the men now overseas or in the active service forces: "We asked you to go without that guarantee, but we will not allow reinforcements to be conscripted without it", would in my opinion be a betrayal of our men overseas. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with those who say that we must vote against this bill until the government have adopted their particular brand of conscription of wealth. Furthermore, I consider that the plebiscite vote was a direct mandate to the government for the introduction of the bill now before us. Whether or not we have conscription for overseas makes no difference so far as the immediate conscription of the industrial and financial resources of the nation are concerned. Failure to do this means the loss of -morale, and the loss of morale may easily mean the loss of the war.
There is much that the people have to do in the line of duty. But that is not enough. For an all-out war effort people must be prepared to go beyond the line of duty. However, before you can expect to develop that spirit, before you can expect to instil a greater esprit de corps among the people, you must convince them not merely that you are fighting to defeat Hitlerism, which is simply a means to an end but that the real end in view is to introduce into the world a new social order based upon true Christian principles. As the Prime Minister, however, has said on several occasions, unless that new social order is well on its way before the end of the war, we might well look for that new order in vain.
Speak to the people on the streets; speak to the men in the army; speak to the men on the production lines, and what do you find? You find they are fearful. Fearful of what? Fearful of what is going to happen to them at the end of the war. The depression years from 1930 to 1939 are all too fresh in their memory. They remember the hundreds of thousands of men who were wandering across Canada looking for work, hundreds of whom were arrested on a vagrancy charge when their only crime was that they were looking for a job. They are wandering to-day what is going to happen when half a million men come back from overseas and when one million people now in the war industries are thrown out of a job upon the conclusion of the war. That is not a healthy state of mind for the people of any nation to be in, and so I believe it is high time for the Prime Minister to tell the people in- unmistakable terms, and assure them of it so that
Mobilization Act-Mr. Quelch

they can be certain of it beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a new social order will be brought in at the conclusion of the war. Promises such as those made by ministers sitting over there are not enough.
I remember that the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene), speaking this afternoon, said that people should not be doubtful on this question. He said we are told that there will be a new social order. He said we have had the Atlantic charter. But I would remind the hon. member that, when I was overseas in the last war, we also listened to promises. Members of the government came to us in Prance and told us what would be done; we were fighting to make the world safe for democracy; this was a war to end wars, and everyone when he returned to Canada would be guaranteed a job and his family looked after. Were those promises kept? If promises to the soldiers in the last war were not kept, have we any reason to expect a better fate for the vague promises which are being made to-day? I do not think so.
So I would say that, before calling upon the people to make any greater sacrifices than they have already made-we are led to believe that further impositions will be announced in the coming budget, and the conscription of manpower will mean even greater sacrifices-the government of Canada should issue a declaration of principles for a Canadian charter. In other words, let them issue a declaration which will apply the Atlantic charter to Canada, and show how it will work, especially with regard to sections 4, 5 and 6. Take the section which . says that the nations of the world shall have free access to the raw materials of the world and that all peoples of the world shall be guaranteed freedom from fear and want and freedom from war. I believe that if the government were to issue a declaration such as I suggest and make it clear how the Atlantic charter will be applied to Canada, a long step would have been taken to build up the type of morale which is so necessary in war time.
I want to give a few examples of what the government might tell the people of Canada at this time in order to build up confidence. May I here remark that if such a declaration were issued, it would not be necessary to hire cheer leaders such as Mr. Hirst to go and try to build up the morale of the aircraft workers.
Let the Prime Minister tell the people of this country that the policy of not allowing financial restrictions to impede our war effort will apply equally to our post-war reconstruction period.
Let the Prime Minister say, giving it the widest possible publicity, that anything which can be achieved in the physical sense to bring

in a new social order will be made financially possible. I am satisfied that in that event the morale of the Canadian people would be greatly improved. I am somewhat doubtful whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to make such a statement.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: So is everybody else.


Victor Quelch: I have in mind a discussion which I had the other day with Doctor James, who is chairman of a seven-man committee for reconstruction. I pointed out to him that the Liberal party had been unable to solve the pre-war problems. I pointed out that we had had half a million unemployed, and that our group had continually urged in the house that these unemployed should be put to work on national projects so that the money paid out on the projects would create a demand for the goods which industry can produce, but that always we were met with the same argument, that there was no money available for such a purpose. Then Doctor James said, "Oh, but don't you realize that there has been a tremendous change of opinion regarding monetary policy since 1939?" I will agree that in so far as the people of the country are concerned there has been a change. I do not believe the people will ever be satisfied to be told again that they have to go on relief because there is not enough money to put them to work. Having seen that we can spend not only hundreds but thousands of millions of dollars for war, they are not going to be willing to have their sons wander from one end of the country to the other looking for work because the government says that there is no money available.
So I believe the people of the country realize that there must be changes, that the type of monetary policy we had before this war

 a deflationary monetary policy-will never come back. I am not so sure that the government realizes it. I pointed out to Doctor James, when we were discussing the thousand million dollar gift, that the main reasons for giving instead of lending these goods to Britain-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. The
hon. gentleman has been discussing post-war conditions. He is now referring to a debate which has already taken place during this session, namely the debate on the billion dollar gift to Britain. This is out of order. The measure before the committee is a provision to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act.


Victor Quelch: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will not refer again to the billion

Mobilization Act-Mr. Quelch
dollar gift. I hope you are not suggesting that I cannot discuss social conditions. I have sat in this house for three days listening to a discussion on this very matter.


Thomas Vien: My ruling can be appealed from but cannot be discussed. I do not know what has taken place during the last three days; I was not here, but I know it is a fundamental rule that the discussion must be relevant to the measure before the house.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, I have said that I bow to your ruling.
Before I mentioned the billion dollar gift I was stressing the fact that if we are going to call upon the people of this nation to make further sacrifices, it is absolutely essential that we take steps to build up morale. I want to explain and stress how necessary it is that certain declarations shall be made to the people in order to build up the type of morale necessary to make them willing to undergo these sacrifices. I suggest that if the Prime Minister would explain to the people that by the end of this war Canada will be wealthier than it has ever been before, due to the fact that we shall have a greater plant capacity, and more skilled labour than we ever had, it will be merely a question of applying that skilled labour to our idle resources in order to give to the Canadian people the highest standard of living they have ever had; and if due publicity were given to that statement, that also would help to build up morale. I stress this point, because time and again I have read predictions that we are going to be poor at the end of this war and that it will be necessary to tighten the belts of the people to pay for it.
Anybody who studies this question knows that such a statement is unsound, and that in reality we shall have more wealth than we ever had before. I do not believe it is a good thing to cause loss of morale by making people believe that when this war is over they will undergo another depression. Yet we are being continually warned about another depression at the end of this war, without the smallest reason for such an assumption.


Thomas Vien: I must again draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the rule which forbids a discussion of post-war conditions on the measure now before the house. I must apply the rules of the house.


Victor Quelch: Let the Prime Minister declare that at no time is the striving for a favourable balance of payments justifiable so long as we have in this country the extreme poverty we had in the past. I would point out that from 1934 to 1939 we had on the average
a favourable balance of payments to the extent of $218,000,000 a year. In other words, during that five-year period we shipped out a billion dollars' worth more wealth than we brought in. In spite of that fact, we had over a million people in this country in a dire state of poverty. I am satisfied that if, following up a declaration of that kind, the government would take immediate action to prove to the people that they are going to do everything in their power to bring about greater equality of service and sacrifice, they would go a long way toward restoring public confidence that a new social order is in reality in the making. As an immediate proof of our sincerity, let the government take the following steps to demonstrate to the people now that we mean what we say when we assert that a new social order will be brought in.


Thomas Vien: Again I must
point out to the hon. gentleman that the question before the house is mobilization for overseas service by the amendment in Bill No. 80. The new social order or future conditions in the country are not sufficiently linked up with the subject matter before the house to enable me to rule the hon. gentleman's remarks in order. This is the third time I have called his attention to this fact.


Victor Quelch: It is pretty hard when one has been listening to a debate for three days and taking notes to find suddenly that the greater part of the discussion which has taken place in that time is ruled out of order.


Thomas Vien: If the hon.
gentleman is not satisfied with the ruling, he knows the remedy.


Victor Quelch: I am not going to refer
to the new social order any more.


Thomas Vien: That question
cannot be discussed.


Victor Quelch: I am not discussing it.


Thomas Vien: If the hon. gentleman is not referring to my ruling, I do not know what he is referring to.


Victor Quelch: I am bowing to your ruling and proceeding to develop another phase of the argument. The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation moved an amendment; there is another amendment now before the house which refers to certain policies that should be brought into operation to assure the people that everything is being done to bring about equality of sacrifice and service in the country, and this group agrees that all incomes below $750 for single persons and $1,500 for married1 people should be free from
Mobilization Act-Mr. Quelch

taxation. But if it is going to be argued that such a policy would cause inflation, then compulsory savings could very well be instituted-


Thomas Vien: Order. The
hon. gentleman is talking about inflation. In my opinion, inflation is not linked up with the bill before the house.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask
this question: Are we discussing the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation amendment? Is that amendment before the house, or is it not?


Thomas Vien: I am not here to answer questions; I am here to say whether the hon. gentleman's remarks are pertinent to the bill. We are discussing Bill No. 80, the provisions of which are before the hon. gentleman. The object of the bill is to repeal section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act.


Victor Quelch: I have in my hand the
amendment moved by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, which I understand has not been ruled out of order.


Thomas Vien: The hon.
gentleman cannot discuss my ruling.


Victor Quelch: I am not discussing your
ruling. I am discussing the amendment, and I will read it. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis)-


Thomas Vien: Is the hon.
gentleman referring to the amendment just moved?


Victor Quelch: Yes. That amendment is:
That all the words after the word "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor: this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that the principle of the bill before the house is inadequate and inequitable, permits the governor general in council to conscript men for overseas service without reference to parliament, and is therefore contrary to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
The amendment declares that the present measure is inequitable and inadequate, and the hon. member for Vancouver East stressed the fact and showed why it was inadequate. He stressed the fact that it was inadequate because it did not provide for conscription of wealth, and he also pointed out that it would be necessary to revise our whole system of taxation. To that extent I agree with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, that when we are calling upon people to make the supreme sacrifice the very least we can do is to ask others to be prepared to sacrifice the major portion of their incomes.

The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, I believe, suggested a ceiling of from $12,000 to $15,000. I am satisfied that if people could be guaranteed an income of $15,000 during the war, making allowance for a steeply graduated income tax from the low income brackets up to $15,000, such people should indeed consider themselves lucky. I have often stated in this house that if any man can go through this war and maintain his pre-war savings intact and maintain a fair standard of living, being no worse off at the end of the war than at the start, he should consider himself indeed fortunate and should not be allowed to accumulate large holdings of bonds, as is being done at the present time. I believe also that in order that we may have a more equitable condition in this country, a comprehensive programme of social services should be introduced. When we heard the programme referred to by Mr. Nash, and when we read of various other programmes of social services in other countries throughout the world, I think we should justly feel that there is much to be done in that regard in Canada.
I believe that the soldiers from the last war can justly demand that greater consideration be given their problems in the future. When we take into consideration that widows of disability pensioners to-day are still in many cases on relief, receiving no pension, and when we remember that many a soldier settler from the last war is living to-day in poverty and destitution, I think we can feel that much can be done with regard to these men.
All the things to which I have referred should be put into operation at the very earliest possible date, and I submit that the government should give a definite assurance to the people that better conditions will be brought about at the end of the war. The men in the active service forces are entitled to that assurance now; but the members of the group to which I belong are not going to refuse to agree to the removal of the overseas limitation from the mobilization bill until that is done. The plebiscite gives the government a free hand in that regard, and the fact that we are doing the men overseas an injustice now by not having conscription of wealth is no reason why we should add to that injustice by refusing to guarantee them reinforcements for overseas service.


Mr. LIONEL BERTRAND (Terrebonne) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, last February, I opposed in this house, to the indignation of certain people in my province, the holding of the. plebiscite foreshadowed in the speech

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
from the throne. I held that the government, commanding an unprecedented majority in the house, would thereby merely give ground in the face of a group less interested in national unity than in the passing of conscription for overseas service. I have not changed my views on the subject. I also held that in the event of an affirmative vote the pressure exerted by certain cabinet ministers and members, as well as by the apposition and the imperialists and their newspapers, would be so strong, so hard to counter that the government could not long refrain from resorting to such conscription. I predicted moreover that the plebiscite would inevitably lead to overseas conscription, and that such a measure would destroy national unity and hamper our war effort.
The plebiscite was held. Discussion on the subject was not uniform in tenor throughout the country. In every province but Quebec, the need of a total war effort was stressed to the people. The speeches given by certain ministers are ample evidence that they considered conscription for overseas service as the natural corollary of an affirmative vote. And the opposition shared their view.
In Quebec, an afljrmative reply was sought on the basis that such a vote would prevent conscription. Quebec voted in the negative. Had Quebec voted otherwise, are we not justified in presuming, at the present rapid pace of events, that Bill No. SO would have been introduced on the very evening of the vote?
The very next day the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) was already asking the government- to act. And now, hardly seven weeks after voting day, the measure is under discussion. Bill No. 80, if passed, will establish the principle of conscription for overseas service. Apparently the measure is considered urgent!
Mr. Speaker, I shall speak my mind freely, for I am conscious that in doing so I am fulfilling my duty. I oppose Bill No. 80 and shall vote against it. In February, I voted against the plebiscite which I termed mere camouflage; to-day I oppose this measure which proves to me how right I was in condemning the plebiscite. Bill No. 80 is a piece of anti-national legislation because its [DOT]passing will imperil if not destroy this embryo of unity to which years of understanding and concessions had begun to give shape. The measure is useless, Mr. Speaker, if it is true that the voluntary enlistment system is adequate for our needs, and it would be nothing short of superfluous to demonstrate that only such a system can
give to our war effort its maximum efficiency. And if I oppose this bill after opposing the plebiscite, if the province of Quebec shares the same view, if all those who voted negatively think the same way, it is certainly not because I, any more than they, am opposed to the war effort or a traitor to the British crown, as the imperialistic press would have us believe.
The province of Quebec voted no on the plebiscite. This she was entitled to do, as were all voters in Canada, French Canadian or otherwise, who shared the same opinion. At the moment, however, it would appear that the imperialists and their newspapers are reserving their fire for Quebec and Quebec only.
I do not countenance separatist views, Mr. Speaker. I consider that Quebec cannot live apart in this confederation, no more than any of our other provinces could. I do not favour nationalism based on racial prejudice, for my conception of true nationalism embraces the entire country.
But the time has arrived, I believe, to restate certain questions. This in no way applies to the English-speaking voters in my constituency who, while holding their own views, have long since learned to respect their French-speaking fellow citizens, nor to those English Canadians who have unceasingly cooperated with their fellow citizens of French descent in the moulding of a greater and better Canada. Rather does it apply to a group of Canadians, mostly by adoption, whose sympathies are not here but across the seas. To them I say that national unity has always been maintained in this country, not because all provinces made equal concessions but because Quebec was the only one to make them. Her kindness, tolerance and good will were well known. Because she never refused, the imperialists made hay while the sun shone. Because she granted their every request, they paid her homage; less because she deserved it than because she placed no obstacle in their path to domination and autocracy. Now that Quebec has voted no on the plebiscite, she has immediately become the unworthy province, the treacherous province, the one to be feared.
We are little understood, Mr. Speaker. It is no doubt due to the negative answer given by Quebec on the plebiscite that Mr. Carson, made the following statement at the eighty-third annual meeting of the Grand Lodge for western Ontario, held in Toronto on May 27 last:
As members of the Orange order, we are not willing to see this great country pass under the control of eueh a reactionary power as the
3358	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
Roman Catholic church, of that kind of a Catholic church which is to be found in French Canada. The fullest consideration should be given to the steps necessary to meet this insidious menace coming from the province of Quebec and which threatens the British and protestant character of this dominion.
Such a statement, Mr. Speaker, proves both the blind fanaticism of its author and his ignorance of Canadian history. The reverend Mr. Shields, who should have been interned long since, for he has more than any one Canadian raised prejudices to foster antagonism toward Quebec on the part of the Englishspeaking provinces, is unceasing in his attacks upon our province, our clergy and our institutions. Is all this conducive to national unity? Is national unity fostered in any way by the insults coming from the imperialistic press in this country and having Quebec for target? Are all these people ignorant of the fact that no other province shows greater tolerance, greater benevolence, yea, greater love for minorities than does the province of Quebec. This disposition has its root in our hospitable nature, our wish for good understanding, our spirit of charity in keeping with the teachings of our clergy. We have no reason to be ashamed of our tolerance toward minorities. They who would sow the seed of prejudice should at least have some knowledge of the history of the country in which they live: they might mend their ways. If there are extremists in my province, I certainly condemn them as I condemn extremists in other provinces. If others knew us better they would soon find out that we have never ceased to be loyal subjects of the British crown.
Of course, French Canadians will always remain a minority in this country. Even if a generous birth-rate is constantly increasing their number, immigration will always be a compensating factor. Besides, they do not seek to become masters in the land, but they do hold to their fair share of sunlight, being fully convinced that they had something to do with settling and developing this country.
We were the first to come here. When England, in 1760, took from France one of the fairest colonies of that time, we accepted defeat, but we did not accept to be deprived of our rights. If I have reason to state to-night that England granted privileges to my people,
I know I make no mistake in stating that even in practising our religion and in speaking our tongue we have never been guilty of treason to the British crown.
Moreover, history is witness to our cooperation. Less than fifteen years after the conquest, in 1775, French Canadians stood by England^ at the behest of Monsignor Briand, then Bishop of Quebec. Our people turned a deaf ear to the English from New England seeking 
their own independence, yea, even to France who, bent on revenge, had joined the revolutionary cause.
The -war of 1812 between England and the United States furnished another proof of our loyalty. The third route of invasion-through the Richelieu valley leading to Montreal- was defended by our own people. Led by de Salaberry at Chateauguay, outnumbered fifteen to one, so staunch and so brave was their resistance that the American army was forced to retreat.
Should one claim that in 1837 there was a revolt in Quebec, I would reply that this revolt was, in its way, a demand for the recognition of disregarded rights, similar in every respect to that which Ontario loyalists organized about the same time when they went on to attack the Toronto city hall for the selfsame purpose of obtaining redress. It is possible to condemn certain excesses, to condemn certain attitudes, without condemning at the same time the misuse of power which brought them on.
Was there in 1918 any regiment which brought more glory to itself than the 22nd, exclusively made up of Canadians of French descent? And in the present war, have French Canadians been remiss in their duty, have they refused to do their part? How many of our people are now under arms on active service? Have we refused to cooperate in any war service? Have we declined to help England and the united nations? Have we been opposed to the war effort?
And, in the mind of certain people, Quebec would represent a threat to the British empire, to the security of the country! They would tag us as anti-British because we decline to accept the principle of conscription for overseas service. I should be a traitor to the empire because, as a Canadian, I condemn a measure destined to destroy national unity in Canada, a British country. A traitor, because in a free country I enjoy the right of holding an opinion freely and because I state it? Not traitors, Mr. Speaker, but authentic Canadians, for our first love goes to our own country.
I intend voting against Bill No. 80 because it confers upon the government unlimited powers. We are asked by the proposed legislation to remove section 3 from the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, a clause which prevented the government from conscripting men for service outside Canada. If this bill is adopted the government will be authorized to send troops to any part of the world. One might object that although the government will be free to exercise this power,

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
it is possible that they may never do so. If the government do not avail themselves of this authority or intend to do so, what purpose will this bill serve save that of dividing Canada. for years to come? If the government does avail itself of this authorization, will the consequences be less serious? I consider that voting for this bill is equivalent to giving the government a blank cheque; I feel that such a procedure is fraught with danger or, even reprehensible in private life, it is no less so in public affairs. Once article 3 is struck out, the government, in possession of sufficient power, will be in a position to adopt conscription, by order in council, at any time, without consulting parliament. I protest against this abusive use of authority with added1 vehemence due to the fact that the trainees under the 1940 act will immediately become subject to be sent overseas to any part of the world; I protest against this abuse of power, because we have no right to conscript for other fronts trainees who have been drafted on the promise that their energies would be expended for the defence of Canada only.
This is probably the last opportunity we will have of denouncing conscription for overseas. This method is repellent to our legitimate pride. We of Quebec are averse to any idea of compulsion in the line of sacrifice and duty. During the last three centuries, our ancestors fought the Iroquois and then the forest and the unproductive soil; they dedicated themselves to the accomplishment of this momentous task; their efforts were put forth not so much for their own sake as for the sake of the generations to come. This fact binds us so closely to the Canadian soil that we cannot conceive, even for a moment, that our country might extend outside of Canada. Could it be within the power, even of imperialists, to sever us from our soil, to which we are so deeply attached? For our Canadian homeland, for its defence, we shall stop at no sacrifice, we shall give our last dollar, our life blood, even our lives.
The people of Quebec are averse to conscription for overseas because they have not forgotten 1917. Our small people may have struck from their memory many facts that have deeply wounded them at various times, but they have never and will never forgot that in 1917, conscription was a political manoeuvre directly applied against them and their province. The mistakes against Quebec and its people during the last war have been both serious and exasperating, for the enlistment officers have systematically refused to acknowledge the pride felt by a sensitive ethnical group on account of their special characteristics.
Once again, conscription would be adopted by imperialists, enforced by them and used to their selfish ends. What measure of fairness could we expect when so much unfairness has already been perpetrated? How much consideration could Quebec command? How much consideration could the large families command-and they are all in Quebec-when, at the present time, the methods of enlistment for the defence of our country, do not take this fact into account?
Conscription for service overseas would be a colossal mistake; it would even be a disgrace for our territorial defence forces. Would Canada then enjoy sufficient protection? Is she in a position to cope with an invasion threat when her vast territory borders on two oceans? Has enough thought been given to her position? What has Australia done? During two years she has sent the very best of her soldiers to battlefronts all over the world; to-day, left without enough troops to face the danger, she is calling for reinforcements. What a sad mistake and also what a lesson!
Conscription for overseas service would be a crime because it is unnecessary. The ministers have told us many times during the last six months that the voluntary system of enlistment was adequate. Has there been any sudden failure of that system? Has it been advertised as much as it could have been? Has every effort been made to ensure its success? Have not certain imperialistic circles endeavoured to hinder the voluntary system of enlistment? Have they not dealt with it carelessly, for the sole purpose of forcing the government to resort eventually to conscription? If the voluntary system does not yield enough men, let the government take whatever means may be necessary to stimulate it. Let the government increase the allowances to the volunteers' dependents. Let them give more opportunities for promotion, so that military life may become a permanent career instead of a temporary avocation. Let voluntary service be made interesting, and the voluntary system will be adequate. The expenditure of a few more millions in order to ensure the success of the voluntary system would not be extravagant at a time when billions of dollars are being spent. What if the government were to pay a few more millions in dependents' allowances to maintain the voluntary system, which is the basis of our national unity and our war effort?
The champions of imperialism, be they tories or grits, want conscription for overseas service. They want it and they brush aside every objection. Remind them that the population of this country is only 11 million, that is three persons per square mile, as compared with 43 in the United States and 489 in England,
3360	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne)
they still want conscription. Tell them that out of five and a half million men in Canada, two million are under 17 or over 70, they want it just as badly. Tell them that over a million men are under arms, that there remain perhaps one million and a half for the factories, and the farms, without taking into account those who are unfit for military service, or those who are sick or crippled, they still want conscription. Why do they want it? Could they explain why they want it?
But we do know why we do not want conscription for overseas service. We do not want it because, in our opinion, that kind of conscription is more for the defence of the empire than for the defence of my country. My opposition to this bill is not a protest against Canada's war effort, but a protest against imperialism which seeks to dictate a policy to my country. History repeats itself. During each war, the champions of imperialism display more love for England than for Canada, and that provokes us. In this war, despite the fact that in 1940 all political parties stated their opposition to conscription for overseas service, the same imperialistic group from Toronto, the same small clique reappears on the scene. We are against that kind of conscription just as Australia, South Africa and Northern Ireland have opposed it. Why should we, as Canadians, accept it? Is there a province of Quebec in any of those countries?
We are primarily in favour of a truly Canadian war effort. Of course we are willing to help the allies win this war. We have spent huge sums, we have contributed in many ways, we have even made an outright gift of one billion dollars-or nearly $100 for each citizen of this country-as a further evidence of our sincerity. In those staggering expenditures, which are perhaps larger, in proportion to our population, than those of Great Britain or the United States, we French Canadians have also had a part. We have in this war shouldered the burden of taxation, accepted our share of the common sacrifices as well as every restriction, contributed in every field of the war effort-army, navy and air force-our voluntary and unstinted cooperation. What we have been asked to do we have done. We have contributed to all war services. The national debt is growing to such a size that perhaps we will never get out of it. Along with all other Canadians, we have not stayed behind. But the constituency of Terrebonne and its member will never agree to such a useless, autocratic and antinational measure as conscription for overseas service.
I will vote against the bill. I have been elected to do my duty and so I will. But I have a right to ask myself: "Whither the 
Liberal party?" Owing to its wild nonsense and its misuse of authority in 1917, the Conservative party could only be a party which lacked life-giving breath; in the province of Quebec it has long been dead and cremated. The Liberal party had always preached a doctrine which took its inspiration at the very source of the true Canadian spirit. People had put their trust in it. My constituents had faith in the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Even to-day, they cannot imagine the Liberal party obliterating from our history with a stroke of the pen all its political prestige and disrupting this national unity which has always been its objective and its ideal; my constituents cannot conceive of the Prime Minister destroying or allowing to be destroyed, for the benefit of an imperialist clique, the essentially Canadian policies which he had championed and out of which he derived the sway and brilliancy of his parliamentary career; after so many years of boundless confidence, they feel repugnance to ask themselves: "Now that the old parties have deceived us, whom shall we trust?"
They will be told that the bill is but a confirmation of the general result of the plebiscite, that it does not entail conscription, that the governmen/t will impose conscription only if circumstances require, and may perhaps never do so. Unfortunately, my constituents no ' longer believe such promises.
As a member of this house, as a citizen of this country, I do not look upon myself as a French Canadian but simply as a Canadian.
I am a Canadian who speaks French. A Roman Catholic Canadian. The fact that I speak French and that I am a Catholic does not prevent my loving Canada and admiring Great Britain. But my first duty is to my country. I want the allies to win, I favour help to Great Britain and the united nations in the form of money, food, munitions and volunteers but I deny imperialism the right to thrust orders and leadership upon us. In this most solemn hour of its history, I feel that I am serving, not betraying my country, in voting against this measure of conscription for overseas which, in addition to doing a disservice to the allies, will make Canada a hotbed of mistrust, sterile wrangling, fruitless effort and sham cooperation. What mischievous blows the imperialist coterie has dealt our war effort.


Mr. EUGENE DUROCHER (St. James) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the matter which is now before the house is so serious and important that it is our bounden duty to discuss it in all possible moderation, without bitterness or rancour, but solely from a national stand-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Durocher
point, taking into account the war effort we have already accomplished and what we were planning to do before the government introduced the proposed amendment for the repeal of section 3 of the mobilization act of 1940.
As we all know, that section empowers the government to require persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces only within Canada and its territorial waters. It was passed only after long discussions and in order to meet the wishes of the various elements in the Canadian parliament, and its purpose was to safeguard our national unity.
That act seemed to appease all minds and it stimulated in no small degree our war effort as regards our production, which was so much needed in Europe. It has been said on various occasions that we should have a total war effort. May I say at this time that however great our effort may have been so far, it could have been still greater if our factories had been allowed to produce to their utmost capacity. Unfortunately, they have been prevented from doing so, against our own will, for well known reasons which I deem better not to mention in this house, but which, nevertheless, discredited our war effort in Quebec even though we were in no way responsible. If the proposed amendment is passed, shall not the door be opened wide to conscription for overseas service, a policy which we have always opposed? If the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will permit me, I should like to quote the following excerpt from his radio address of April 7, 1942:
The pledge not to impose conscription, as every one 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. Moreover, events proved that conscription in the last war had little or no military value.
The pledge not to impose conscription for service overseas was given in order to maintain the unity of Canada. Without this assurance, I do not believe that parliament would have given, as it did, prompt and wholehearted approval to Canada's entry into the war.
Do we now intend to destroy this national unity so persistently advocated and to dampen the enthusiasm which has never faltered from the very beginning?
Further, the Prime Minister goes on to say:
The truth, of course, is that our army to-day is just as large as it would have been if conscription for overseas had been adopted.
If our war effort has in no way been limited by our not applying conscription, why not, as the saying goes, leave well enough alone? If the voluntary system has given such satisfactory results, for Heaven's sake, let us keep it, let us improve it if we can, but let us not spoil through any legislation or any amendment of an existing statute the good effects of the present system.
Throughout the campaign preceding the plebiscite vote, the Prime Minister, the ministers from Quebec as well as those from the other provinces and the members of parliament almost to a man unequivocally stated that the question of the plebiscite was in no way linked up with that of conscription. Nevertheless, as was so well stated by the former Minister of Public AVorks (Mr. Cardin) in his speech of the 11th instant, on the very day after the vote, even before the votes had been counted, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) rose in the house and made the following statement to be found on page 1921 of Hansard for April 28, 1942. I quote:
Now there is no stumbling block, real or imaginary, to total war. The hour has struck when every human and material resource must be mobilized for war service. Parliament now is free to act-there are no fetters upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or his government.
The leader of the opposition, however, had stated some time before in the house that it was impossible for him to put conscription on the banner of the Conservative party because that measure was not popular; he stated also that he had received numerous letters from mothers stating that they had not raised their sons to have them conscripted and this explains how it was that a movement was on foot, a few days later, to oust him out as leader of the opposition. This statement has displeased the ultra-imperialist members of his party.
We have also the oft repeated statements of the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of National War Services and others, setting forth officially that the voluntary enlistment system is giving fully adequate results. If we accept these statements as being made in good faith, why are we called upon now to strike out of the National Resources Mobilization Act the only clause which enabled us to make certain pledges and declarations to the voters at the last election? I well remember having had the honour of greeting in my constituency, during the electoral campaign of March 1940, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, then Minister of Justice, who repeated the following statement which I quote:
I shall never be a member of a cabinet which introduces a measure calling for conscription for overseas service.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Durocher
This statement was repeated by every minister and member of the house who took part in the campaign in Quebec. We made the most solemn pledges to our electors and only they could free us from our obligations. And if the purpose of the plebiscite is being deliberately distorted to-day as an expression of public opinion in favour of conscription for overseas service, the only ones who are in a position to accept such a verdict are the members whose constituents recorded a majority of affirmative votes. What of the others? Like most of the Quebec members, they have not been released from their pledges. The voters of Quebec have once again shown most clearly their unalterable opposition to any amendment to the present legislation which would empower the cabinet to impose at discretion, by order in council and without consulting parliament, that conscription for overseas service which has been held up to us as a bogey for over twenty-five years by all political parties without exception.
We are being asked to expand our war effort in Canada, to furnish more airplanes, more ships and more munitions. How can we possibly do this if the labour necessary to such an end is conscripted from our plants? Let us not forget that we are already exempting farmers' sons, teachers, certain classes of students, the clergy and conscientious objectors, fishermen and lumbermen. Does this then mean that our cities will be called upon to supply all the men needed in the armed forces? Does it mean that conscientious objectors, who are able to bear arms, can invoke the privileges granted to them by the country and take refuge behind i principle, in order not to contribute to the var effort in the same measure as the rest of their fellow citizens?
No group or section of this house have attempted to influence my stand concerning this matter. Already at the partial election held in Saint James constituency, in 1939, as well as during the 1940 campaign, I stated unequivocally and without restriction, that, confident in my leaders, I opposed compulsory enlistment for overseas service; my views in this regard have not altered. Allow me to quote an article published a few days ago, in one of our English Canadian newspapers:
Conscription is an ugly expression. It conveys the idea of compulsion and it is one of the worst words in the English language. It should be replaced by something nicer, perhaps general military training. This would sound better in the ears of a generation who prefers to keep fit rather than fat.

Could anyone state, in this house, that our war effort is not as complete as it should be, when one of our leaders has acknowledged that voluntary service has been more efficient than compulsory enlistment could ever have been; when, in our factories, we have everywhere exceeded the objectives set for our production? To mention but one case, I may state that, in the course of a visit by a number of members of parliament, on June 13, to the Canadian Car munitions plant at Saint Paul L'Ermite, we were informed that the weekly objective of 9,000 shells had been more than doubled and that, at the present time, that plant alone supplies, every week, more than
18,000	shells of all sizes. Have we not. done our share of the war effort when this house has unanimously consented to give Great Britain munitions and supplies to the amount of one billion dollars and when, furthermore, we are willing to lend the mother country $750,000,000 without interest for the duration? All this, Mr. Speaker, in a country whose population is less than 12 million inhabitants. What other British dominion has made such a tremendous war contribution in men, munitions, supplies and money? What other British dominion has adopted conscription for overseas service? On two separate occasions a bill of this nature has been rejected in Australia and neither India, New Zealand, South Africa, nor Northern Ireland have ever countenanced such a measure.
Until now, Quebec has done its full share in every field of endeavour. Have we forgotten that the very first regiment to be brought to full active force for overseas, service is a French-Canadian regiment, the Regiment de Maisonneuve?
Have we not subscribed generously and even oversubscribed our share of the war loans? Have not the workers in our plants, both men and women, produced beyond
expectation?
Let us face the facts squarely and ask ourselves if a change in the system would bring better results?
The Labour World reported the following quotation by E. M. Little, director of the national selective service, in its edition of May 23, 1942:
Every battle the united nations have lost in two and a half years was lost in the factory. Without exception there is the story from Norway to Bataan. When w'e Canadians get this seared into our minds as it has been in the minds of the defeated peoples of half a world, there will be no need for compulsion in organizing our man-power.
"Give us the tools," exclaimed Churchill, and we have responded generously in producing more than was expected of us. We supplied

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fuljord
the tools and the men. Is it not a fact that voluntary enlistments for overseas had reached in December last the substantial figure of
422.000	men, which must now be nearer the
500.000	mark.
We entered the war freely and we shall keep on doing our share.
In the last few days, conditions have changed and the war is getting nearer to us. The Japanese have already set foot on American territory. Let us then do nothing likely to divide Canada or to slow down our war effort.
Let us prepare to meet any attack by the enemy. Let us not forget Hong Kong, Singapore. Let us remember Australia, who when she was attacked had to send an S.O.S. to London but to no avail.
The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) unwittingly defined our policy when he stated, as reported at page 3291 of Hansard:
The decision on this question was taken out of my hands! It was made for me by an authority that I acknowledge to be my superior and to whom I owe a very willing obedience. It has been decided by the high court of the electors of the riding from which I come.
I take the same position. Having received an affirmative vote on the plebiscite, the hon. member considers himself bound to support the measure now before the house; my own electors having refused to relieve me of my past commitments, I must oppose any change in the Mobilization Act calling for compulsory enlistment for overseas service.
As the former minister of Public Works has said, should the proposed amendment be allowed to pass without debate or protest, it would be too late to protest later on. For this motive, Mr. Speaker, I regret my inability to accept the amendment to the Mobilization Act introduced in the house.


Mr. G. T. FULFORD (Leeds):: It was at first with a bit of hesitation that I decided to enter this debate on what has become now the famous Bill No. 80. However, I feel that I would have been remiss in my duty had I not taken the opportunity to express to this house my views on the subject.
My very first recollections of the city of Ottawa are among my most treasured and prized memories, because as a child I remember being driven through a blinding snowstorm to the home of the late Sir Wilfrid and Lady Laurier. As I grew older I had the rare opportunity to repeat those visits, and it was through the influence of the great chieftain that I came to love my native land, my Canada, as I do. It was through the influence of- I was going to say the greatest-certainly one of the greatest of all Canadians that I came to know, to respect, to admire my French
compatriots, my fellow-Canadian citizens, to respect their traditions, to know their culture and something of their home life and their deep religious feeling. I therefore feel that I know my French compatriots a little better perhaps than d<# some other English members, and I hope that with that knowledge goes a large degree of understanding and tolerance.
(Translation) M. l'Orateur, je peux compren-dre cette belle langue, mais malheureusement je ne peux pas la parler parce que chez nous je n'ai pas 1'occasion.
(Text) It has always been a great source of pride to me as a Canadian to realize that this vast dominion of ours is composed of the two great races, the Anglo-Saxon and the French, each speaking his own language and each trying in a very difficult situation to keep this country united. Never was there a time when this need was more felt. I do not know of any monument quite like the one to Montcalm and Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham. To me it is the very essence of Canadian nationhood. It shows how two great races can and must and will live together in complete unity and harmony. True, we have had our differences. Unfortunately, we are having a difference right now; but have we ever known great friends who have not argued, who have not had their differences, and who afterwards have not become closer friends? I think that is an axiom of life.
In Europe the little country of Switzerland is even more complex in its make-up than are we. Although that country in size is hardly any larger than a good sized Ontario county, nevertheless there are four distinct sections in it. In one section Italian is spoken; just along the shores of lac Leman one finds French. By far the largest section of Switzerland speaks German, and one tiny little corner speaks what is known as Romanish, which is said by linguists to resemble ancient Latin more than any modern language. Yet Switzerland demonstrates the principles of true democracy better than any other European country even before the war? To-day it is the only democracy left on the European continent. Some may say that in Switzerland this is easy because the country is so small, but it is not so easy to keep it unified because of vast mountain ranges separating the various sections. For instance, to get from the French section along the shores of lac Leman one has to go through Simplon tunnel, under one of the highest spurs of the Alps. When one comes into the tunnel one hears only French spoken; when one emerges from the tunnel fifteen minutes later one hears only Italian. One sees a difference in the complexion of the people. Yet that seems to
Mobilization Act-Mr. Fuljord

make no difference. I think that when we have our little differences, as we do, we can well look to Switzerland as an example and remember that through thick and thin that little country has stayed a democracy; it has stayed unified and has defied all Europe- Napoleon, Hitler and the rest-to conquer it.
In 1937 I was privileged to visit the European continent. It was a rare opportunity because I doubt whether one will ever see Europe again as it was in those years. Certain aspects of European life I hope we shall never see again, but it is quite evident that the Europe that has survived for centuries, until 1939, will never be the same again. It is hard to visualize how peaceful the countries were through which we passed. Holland sat back quite confident that because of its complicated system of dykes and dams it could never be invaded by the Germans; that it might be bombed from the air but that it could never be invaded by the army. Well, Holland was one of the first European countries to fall. Brave little Belguim, which relied so much on its marvellously trained army and its system of superior fortifications, and on the Albert canal, did not last much longer after the Netherlands fell. And then France. Who would have thought that the valorous and courageous French, with their "liberte, egalite, fraternite", would have fallen under the heel of the German hordes? Yet France fell.
We see countries who are to-day fighting, presumably on the side of Germany, who are in reality no better off than the conquered nations. Take Austria. When I was in Austria in 1937 that country was in a period of frustration. They knew something was going to happen, though they did not know what. They dreaded Germany; they distrusted the Germans, and they were the very first to feel the effects of all the might of Hitler's monsters. Czechoslovakia was well aware of what was going to happen and was well prepared. Time and again they warned us what would happen, but the warnings went unheeded. The fortifications of Czechoslovakia were second to none in the world; they had built great armaments; and yet we allowed their warnings to go. There was nothing but complacency. Unless one has been in the fascist and nazi countries it is impossible to realize just what they are like. How would you like to be spat upon just because you were driving with a licence bearing the British sign-"G.B."? That is what happened to us. In Germany you dared not speak your mind; you felt you were constantly being watched; wherever you turned you saw the dreaded swastika. The country was at that time armed to the teeth.

You did not have to be a member of the intelligence branch of the British army or any other army to see what was going on; it was right before you-armies on the march, columns of mechanized forces travelling along the magnificent highways at fifty to sixty miles an hour, when the world was fooling itself saying that Germany could not use mechanized forces because they had artificial rubber and the tires would burn up if they travelled more than twenty-five miles an hour. I remember hearing that when I was in Great Britain. And Britain herself, brave Britain, hoping and thinking wishfully that this world conflict, this armageddon could be staved off.
I mention these facts because they all have a bearing on the present situation. Are we completely and entirely alive even to-day in Canada to the war situation? I had an opportunity of speaking with an intimate friend and close business associate from Shanghai who was on furlough in Canada last December and who, incidentally, arrived back in Shanghai just before the Japanese seized the city. He told me tales of the cruelty of the Japanese that would make one's blood run cold. One night for an hour he told of one atrocity after another until I had to tell him to stop; I could not stand it any more. It was cruelty beyond belief. All the things he said are substantiated in a series of articles now appearing in the Saturday Evening Post entitled, "I Escaped from Hong Kong" by Jan Henrik Marsman. It shows us in Canada what we are up against. Someone might say, "these are all places far away"; but what has happened in Europe, what is happening in Asia, can happen here. What does it mean? It means that if we, along with our allies, are not successful in defeating the forces of evil, we stand to lose our language, our religion, our freedom of thought, our courts of law, our rights of assembly, in fact everything we have come to consider nearest and dearest.
This brings me to the point where I feel that the government has to have the right to employ conscription. I agree with the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Durocher) that conscription is a nasty word, one of the most disagreeable in our language. Nevertheless we might as well call a spade a spade; this is a blitzkrieg, a lightning war; we do not know when or where the axis forces will strike next. Our government must have the right to conscript men for military service if and when the time arrives that reinforcements are necessary for those who have so valiantly and bravely offered their lives for their country.
One could not hear the sincere and impassioned remarks of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) without being touched. I do not think there was an

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fuljord
hon. member in this house who did not appreciate what it meant to that hon. gentleman to say what he did. But there were two or three things with which I could not agree. He spoke of the necessity of impressing upon the French Canadians the reasons for sending men to the battle-front. I could see the point of that up to the time of this war. But on the day Germany entered Poland, September 1, 1939, our thought had, of necessity, to change. This is not "England's war"- I use an old familiar phrase-this is humanity's war. This is not Canada's war; this is a war for survival of the democratic nations and of democratic principles in the world. We do not have to appeal to reason to know this; the facts are before us; we cannot miss them.
Then the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vereheres stated that for many years the province of Quebec had been told that conscription would never again be enforced. Those statements were made by all shades of political opinion in all sincerity. But was not the world told for an equal length of time that there would never be another war? The world lias had to change its opinion. It took Dunkirk really to arouse the United Kingdom. Then on top of Dunkirk came the frightful nights of blitzkrieg over the city of London and, in fact, all over the British isles, horrors of which none of us can know anything unless he has been through such a blitzkrieg. It took Pearl Harbour to awaken the United States. They are fully aware of the danger now, and they have a universal national selective draft in that country. In that connection, the one thing that Americans point the accusing finger at Canada about is the fact that they have conscription and we have not. They do not understand what a magnificent job this country has done, and they will not understand until this country is given the right to enforce conscription at such time as it is deemed necessary. Let us reverently pray that it will not take a Dunkirk or an air blitz over Ottawa or another Pearl Harbour to awaken Canada'. In addition, we have Hong Kong to remember and avenge. To-day Canada is not alone in this war, as far as north America is concerned; we have been joined by Mexico and the United States. We were first in this war, and we have to show them that in proportion we are going to do the best job. That is one thing for which Canadians are noted; when they start something they always finish it.
I do not intend to argue whether the plebiscite was right or wrong, but the fact remains that eight of the nine provinces voted "yes." In my own riding the "yes" vote was 86 per cent; in my own town of Brockville it 44561-213
was 89 per cent, and in Gananoque, the other urban municipality in the riding, it was 93 per cent. I know whereof I speak when I say that by far the great majority of the people in the riding who voted "yes" did so with the thought that they were voting for some sort of conscription. The exact wording of the question on the ballot paper was:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
I grant you, sir, that there was nothing in that to make one believe he was voting either for or against conscription; but the fact remains that no matter what my revered leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or his ministers or I had to say, the feeling was that when the voters marked an X opposite "yes" they were voting for conscription. At this point I should like to give credit to two organizations that were of the greatest help in getting out the vote-the Canadian Legion and certain labour unions in the town in which I live. The Canadian Legion made a point of attending all the meetings held throughout the riding; they organized car drivers, provided speakers at meetings, and saw that the largest possible number of voters got out. That may serve to indicate how the people conceived the idea that they were voting on conscription, because everyone in Canada knows how the legion feels on the subject of national selective service. Personally I am in favour of conscription, in spite of the fact that it proved to be a failure in the last war. I consider it to be by far the fairest, most equitable and surest way of raising an army or of obtaining reinforcements. On February 3, 1942, when I was speaking in this house I mentioned a telephone call that I had received from one of the members of the committee of two hundred; and these words, which appear at page 272 of Hansard, I think set forth my position very clearly:
Some weeks ago I was telephoned by a member of the committee of two hundred which was meeting in Toronto with the alleged object of advancing Canada's war effort. I was asked if I favoured the policies advocated by this committee. I said in reply that if what they were after was national selective service with complete mobilization of all our man-power and resources, I was heartily behind them, but that if it was only conscription of men for overseas service, I was diametrically opposed to that.


Thomas Vien: Is the hon. member referring to a previous debate which took place during this session?


George Taylor Fulford: Yes.



BIY1SIS EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Mobilization Act-Mr. Fuljord
Thomas Vien: I do not believe that is in order.


George Taylor Fulford: Then I can serve the same purpose by saying that I have stated previously that I am unequivocally in favour of conscription of man-power along with conscription of resources. Nearly half a million young Canadians have decided that the best way to keep this war from our shores is to fight our enemies abroad, three thousand miles away. Their deeds, when recorded in history, will make every Canadian proud of the country of his birth. We cannot let these young men down. They must have adequate reinforcements. Fortunately, up to date our army casualties have been very light, simply because our men have not been in the fore-front of battle. The day will come, however, when the continent of Europe will be invaded. Then reinforcements will be needed, and then, after Bill No. 80 is passed, the government will have to decide whether it is necessary to raise men for reinforcements by conscription. I must congratulate the Prime Minister upon the method he has devised to meet the situation. We are actually debating conscription now; but if the time should come when it is found necessary to enforce conscription, then it can be applied by order in council, thereby relieving this house and the country of the pain of having old wounds reopened and new hard feelings created.
I have no alternative; I must follow the dictates of my conscience. I must support Bill No. 80 and, sir, I urge all to do likewise. I urge this for the sake of Canada, for the sake of the empire, for the sake of civilization and humanity.
On motion of Mr. Howe the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Tuesday, June 16, 1942