[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of special committee on canteen funds.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Second report of special committee on radio broadcasting.-Mr. McCann.
Third and fourth reports of special committee on land settlement of veterans of the present war.-Mr. Macmillan.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Five years ago this evening, Chinese and Japanese forces clashed in a skirmish which marked the beginning of a war which has brought as much devastation
Tribute to Chinese

and death as was witnessed in the first world war. This house will, I believe, wish me on this anniversary to pay some slight tribute to the indomitable spirit of the Chinese people and their brave leaders. The five years that have elapsed have shown that nothing can daunt their courage or shake their resolution.
On November 3, 1941, I remarked in this chamber that "the uncomplaining courage of the Chinese has not been surpassed in the annals of human resistance", and that "the Chinese continue to die in staggering numbers in defence of their humble habitations and the good earth which for countless generations has given to the ancestors they revere and to themselves their scanty sustenance." Another eight months have passed, and the courage and resolution of China are as fresh as ever.
Most of the great industrial centres, and most of the fertile land of China, are now occupied by the invader; the principal supply routes have been cut off; the loss of Burma has increased Chinese difficulties in obtaining the weapons and munitions of war; bombings are a part of the expected daily routine in the Chinese capital; death or slavery has been the lot of uncounted millions of the Chinese people.
Out of all this suffering and anguish China has given and is continuing to give to her allies an example which serves as little else possibly could to sustain their hearts in these dark days. It is the example of a nation endowed with an ancient and splendid culture, and devoted to the arts of peace, defending itself tenaciously, skilfully and boldly against a barbarous foe which has no thoughts except those of ruthless aggression. Such is the spirit of China in t-his hour.
Chinese resistance is a proof of the moral stamina of democracy. China may be assured that her resistance will not be in vain, and that no matter what the cost, or what the duration of the ordeal, the united nations will continue at her side until freedom again becomes the portion of all.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, just a word in
commendation of the remarks of the Prime Minister. The people of Canada will join with the Prime Minister and the members of this house in expressing admiration of the indomitable spirit of the Chinese people. Those of us who have had occasion to read the history of China know of their contribution to civilization. It is the prayer of every one of us that that noble nation will survive.
{Mr. Mackenzie King.]



MILITARY SERVICE


Hon. J. T. THORSON (Minister of National War Services):: I desire to lay on the table copy of order in council P.C. 5840, extending the application of the national war services regulations to unmarried men or widowers without child or children who are twenty years of age.
I also desire to lay on the table copy of order in council P.C. 5841 providing for the issue of a proclamation under the national war services regulations calling out men who were on July 15, 1940, unmarried or widowers without child or children and who were born in any of the years from 1922 back to 1902, but that persons bom in the year 1922 shall not be called out until they reach the age of twenty years.



WAR MEASURES ACT


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On April 21 last I tabled copies of orders in council passed under the War Measures Act between January 16, 1942, and March 31, 1942. I now' table copies in English and French of the orders in council passed under the same act between April 1, 1942, and June 30, 1942.



AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: On Thursday last when the Minister of Munitions and Supply was absent I asked certain questions with respect to the appointment of an aircraft controller, as reported at page 3863 of Hansard. The matter was by agreement allowed to stand as a notice to the minister. I desire now to direct his attention to the three particular questions which w'ere asked: Has any situation arisen which makes it imperative to create this new authority and to clothe the controller with such wide and unlimited powers? If so, what is that situation? I should be glad if the minister would answer this inquiry.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Pouliot


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: The necessity for a controller in that particular field arises from the fact that as the volume of production grows there is a tendency for one contractor to move in on the supplier of another contractor. In other words, one factory may be making parts for one aircraft, and without any knowledge of the department in Ottawa a second contractor may place work in that factory beyond the capacity of the equipment, which results in the work slowing down for both contractors. Such cases have arisen, and it is with the desire to make sure that contractors are protected to the extent that their subcontractors are not overloaded that the appointment has been made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And these are the only reasons?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the only reason.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was there not full power in Mr. Bell, as director of aircraft production, to take care of any such situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, Mr. Speaker; Mr. Bell as director of aircraft production had no authority over a plant that did not have direct contract with the government.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I understand an order in council has been passed confirming certain agreements between the employers and employees in the shipyards of British Columbia. Would the Minister of Labour table a copy of the order in council?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I shall be glad to do that to-morrow.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, July 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Roy.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I hold in my a hand a clipping from the newspaper L'Evenement-
Joumal of Quebec city, under date of October 30 last, in which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), who had just returned from abroad, is quoted as comparing the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to Hitler and blaming him for a lack of energy. According to that clipping the hon. gentleman, who had just arrived from England, said that he had been requested to ask for conscription. Then, sir, I have another clipping from the Ottawa Journal of June 12 of this year, in which it is stated that the Conservative vote will be cast to save the government. We see what quantities of water ran under the bridge during that period of time. Now, sir, I hold in my hand a copy of the Canadian Mining Reporter of January 16, 1942, published in Toronto, in which appears an editorial headed "The Pro-Conscription Banquet", in which these words appear:
It was a meeting largely composed of people too old to fight and, therefore, exempt from military service, called for the purpose of making military service outside of Canada compulsory upon those who are not too old to fight.
Then it continues:
It is one of the strangest things that a group of men and women
[Stage Direction]
That is, the committee of two hundred.
-so highly placed as are the people attending this banquet to promote conscription (to use the exact name) should be so blind to the unethical import of their action in urging the government of Canada to violate its solemn pledge to the people of Canada not to introduce conscription without first consulting the people of Canada. One of our chief taunts at Hitler is levelled at his breaking of pledges ami violation of treaties. Yet this honourable company of citizens, too old to fight, sees no inconsistency in seeking to bring sufficient pressure to bear upon the government as will compel them to betray the people of Canada who voted for them on the understanding that conscription would not be introduced without a mandate from the people.
Sir, I obtain my inspiration from what was said by the Prime Minister himself in this house on June 19, 1940, at page 922 of Hansard:
An hon. member on this side of the house made the statement publicly this morning that he felt he could go into his constituency and, by making it known to his constituents that this measure had to do with the protection of Canada and our own Canadians soil
[Stage Direction]
That was the mobilization act.
-bring forward in a very short time men from the forests, from the fields and from the factories, all prepared immediately to join the Canadian forces to resist any possible invasion, and that he would be prepared to guarantee that that could be done in constituency after constituency throughout the country, once it was understood that there was the necessity of defending our own Canadian shores. I
Mobilization Act-Mr. Pouliot
[Stage Direction]
pointed out to him that in doing that he might be making the greatest mistake possible with respect to the national interest; that, to win this war, we might wish to keep at work in the forests the men who are now working in the forests, to provide the timber which will be required for docks and wharves and required immediately; that the men who are working in the factories may be a thousand times more useful to the government of this country in giving their skilled labour to the manufacture of aircraft, munitions, or other weapons of war than they could possibly be in lining up and presenting themselves for military service; equally, that on the farms, if we are to perform what will be expected of us, we shall need all the production that can be effectively and rapidly carried out on the farms of our country.
This part of it should be completed by reading a letter which I wrote to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) on May 16, 1941, when he asked us to help him in the recruiting of volunteers for service abroad.
Ottawa, May 16, 1941. The Honourable J. L. Ralston, K.C.,
Minister of National Defence,
Ottawa.
My dear Minister,
Referring to your letter of May 11, there is something that I do not understand.
Eleven months ago, the Prime Minister pointed out to me that in doing voluntary recruiting for the defence of Canada. I might be making the greatest mistake possible with l'espect to the national interest.
Would there be no mistake possible with respect to the national interest in doing it for overseas service? In other words, how can I do, at your request and for another country, what I had been precluded to do by the Prime Minister for our native country?
Then at page 1905 of Hansard for April 23 of this year another hon. member of this house quoted what was said by General Browne:
"Tile reserve force may have to fight and it must be ready to fight as soou as possible," he said.
"After all, there is no more war overseas than there is here now, and we may have some here sooner than they have, in view of the threats to our coast."
Then Hon. Mr. Godbout, premier of the province of Quebec, on February 20 stated that Quebec was open to attack from the Atlantic. That view was supported by Rear Admiral G. C. Jones, commanding officer of the Atlantic coast, who with Rear Admiral P. W. Nelles does not rule out the possibility of German submarines and a supply ship penetrating into the gulf of St. Lawrence this summer. Everyone knows that submarines have come very close to my constituency. Unfortunately they caught the navy napping at the time, because I understand they were chased by a boat that was not sufficiently speedy. Then there is something else of the utmost importance; it is a question that I

directed to the Prime Minister in this house on February 16, 1942, appearing at page 598 of Hansard:
Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouata): Mr. Speaker, as a private Liberal member of this honourable house, may I ask the government if the Canadian people, following the deplorable fall of Singapore and the notorious escape of a German naval squadron from Brest, can secure a definite guarantee that this country will not be invaded before the end of the war; and if so, what is it? If not, is it the policy of the government to create a large number of mobile units and to improve at once all means and ways of communication throughout this country?
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, on these questions of strategy and war policy, questions that affect other parts of the world as well as Canada and other nations as well as our own, I do not think any question should either be asked in a form which is likely to cause embarrassment, or answered, or attempted to be answered, if there is the slightest possibility of either the question or the answer being misunderstood in any part of the world. I am afraid that my hon. friend's question has been asked on the spur of the moment, and I for one would certainly not wish to reply without due consideration.
The question was put on February 16, and I have received no reply.
Then, at Selkirk, the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) said that Canadians were the most mobile of all allied armies. Surely they are; they are all outside of Canada. What is needed, sir, is a decentralization of the army in this country. We need good military roads and we need men who are fit to defend our own country.
Here is another question, which I put on June 20, 1940, two days after the mobilization bill was brought up. I said-Hansard, page 1053:
Mr. Pouliot: I want to make myself as clear as posible, I am speaking only of mobilization for home defence, and I want to know if a man not in the class that may be called for military service in connection with home defence may enlist just the same, without being obliged to agree to overseas service.
Mr. Mackenzie King: The answer is yes.
Well, now, what appears in the enlistment form? Here is the declaration to be made by a man on attestation:
I	do solemnly declare that the above
particulars are true, and I hereby engage to serve in any active formation or unit of the Canadian Army so long as an emergency, i.e., war, invasion, riot or insurrection, real or apprehended, exists, and for the period of demobilization after said emergency ceases to exist, and in any event for a period of not less than one year, provided His Majesty should so require my services.
We are told that Canada is just lacking in draftees; that is the news which appeared in

Mobilization Act-Mrs. Nielsen
the press on June 3. On the first page of the Ottawa Evening Journal of yesterday I see that men of special ages will be drafted for the reserve-"Government to follow call-up plan made by George Mcllraith." All the cream of our youth is sent overseas, and all we have to defend this country is just the skimmed milk, men who- have passed the military age or who are unfit for military service when the distance to be covered by Canadian units is so great.
Mr. RALSTON:: Mr. Speaker, I want to interrupt and say that this statement is just as untrue-


Mr. POULIOT:: That is all right. I have no time, and he will answer afterwards. I have only two minutes left, and I do not want to be interruptecTwhen I have something to say. If that is not so, the minister had only to deny it on the orders of the day.


James Layton Ralston: I am denying it now.
It is just as untrue as it is mischievous.


Jean-François Pouliot: What I want at the head
of the Department of National Defence is not a negative minister as much as it is a positive minister.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Well, you haven't the say in this matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will ask my hon. friend
to keep quiet. He represents the county of Victoria, Ontario, which was Sam Hughes' constituency. We should exhume or resurrect Sam Hughes, to improve the department.
In the Journal we find an article about ministers who are favourable to conscription. They are all named, and there are nine of them. Do they forget that it is time now to look after the defence of our own country? But they are the victims of propaganda. I pity them. We have their names here, in an editorial on June 13: they are all for conscription. Sometimes they say they are for voluntary enlistment, and sometimes they say that conscription will be required if voluntary enlistment is not sufficient. Well, at the rate it is going on, voluntary enlistment will not be sufficient for a long time, because after our resources of men are exhausted what can we do for the defence of this country?
There is only one other thing I will say now, though I shall say something more afterwards. I hold in my hand a newspaper of November 10, 1917, with a report of a meeting held in Quebec city, addressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the one leader who can be compared with Sir John A. Macdonald. We are just as proud of Sir Wilfrid as we are of
Sir John A. Macdonald. He said at that time that conscription for overseas was not necessary.
What we need is to proceed according to the act that we have on the statute book. Nothing has been done for the defence of Canada under the mobilization act which we are about to change, but pressure has been exercised on the trainees in the camps so that they shall enlist for overseas. And we call it voluntary enlistment-voluntary enlistment 1 Farmers who have joined up have in many places no opportunity of getting leave. In many cases it has been denied to them when it should have been given to them. What will happen to the army and to the civilian population if the farmers cannot work on the land?


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a
question of privilege, if I understood the hon. gentleman correctly he stated that on one occasion I compared the Prime Minister to Hitler. I should like to say that at no time, at no place, on no occasion did I ever compare the Prime Minister to Hitler.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battleford): I had not intended to speak again in this debate, but I felt that it was very necessary to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) who has just taken his seat. When he was speaking last evening he said that I had compared French-speaking Canadians to quislings. I take great objection to that remark. I wish very much that the hon. member for Temis-couata would have a little more regard for the truth when he makes statements to this house.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member is not a gentleman!


Mrs. NIELSEN:: No, I do not happen to be. It is true also that I have spoken in other places besides this chamber on the question of conscription, but never have I made any statement which would lead people even to infer that I regarded French-speaking people as quislings. I have said, and I will repeat, that unfortunately there are a few among the French-speaking people of Quebec who are playing a quisling role. But that is a very different thing from grouping all Frenchspeaking people together. That has never been my intention. At a time like this, when we read in our daily papers of the fall of Sevastopol and how the Libyan campaign is going, any person or any group of persons in this country who does one thing to retard or to impede the total war effort of our people is playing a quisling role. I would not say that those playing this quisling role come only

Mobilization Act-Mrs. Nielsen
from among our French-speaking people or from the province of Quebec, because that would be incorrect. I say most emphatically that there are others in this country who are trying to impede and restrict the war effort of our people. I was not prepared to speak this afternoon, but I would mention just casually that I regard the Toronto Telegram as being among this class. For a year or more it has been carrying on subtle propaganda calculated to impede and to retard our war effort and to divide our people. There is no doubt about that.
There is a great difference between the attitude of many French-speaking people and the odd one or two among them who are seeking to create prejudices and to confuse their own people.
Since I am on my feet I should like to say a word or two about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy). With reference to the policy of the government it states:
-instead of drawing closer the union of the two races in Canada has fostered dissensions which might cause an internal war, thus destroying the ideal set forth by the fathers of confederation.
In my opinion any hon. member of this house who would intimate that the two great races of this country might be led to internal conflict is playing a role which I cannot call by any other name than a quisling role. This whole amendment is decidedly against any increased collaboration or unity and against improvement in the feeling between the two peoples, and for that reason I strongly condemn it.


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville):: Mr. Speaker, John Stuart Mill wrote somewhere that even when there is apparent unanimity in the world on any subject, it is probable that the dissentients have something worth listening to and that something would be lost by their silence. I shall be satisfied if after I have finished some hon. member believes that I have said something worth listening to. Beyond that my ambition does not go.
I had prepared with great care a written speech in English which I thought in my naivete to be fairly good, but because of the stern determination of the Chair that hon. members shall abide by the rules, I decided to throw the whole thing into the waste-paper basket. I know your sincere desire, sir, to have representatives from Quebec speak more frequently in this house, and I am rather ill at ease in meeting that desire unless I am

able to obtain the indulgence of hon. members. In order to urge that indulgence, I do not think I can do better than to quote the immortal Burns and say to you:
Thou know'st that God has form'd me With passions wild and strong:
And listening to their witching voice Has often led me wrong.
Where with intention I have err'd No other plea I have But thou art good; and goodness still Delighteth to forgive.
I do not think it is enough to consider this conflict only as a Canadian. In order to have a complete and perfect view of this world conflict one must consider himself a citizen of the world. After careful study of the world situation if we want to maintain our standard of life, if we want to survive, if we want to preserve our human personality, if we want to prevent slavery and paganism, in my view our duty is simple. We must do everything and we must give everything. As Canadian people we must cooperate with the other nations of the world who believe in democratic principles. We must unite and fight our common enemies wherever we can reach them.
In order to be enthusiastic about our activities in connection with our war effort we must first convince ourselves that this war is a Canadian war, that it is not a war of imperialism against another form of imperialism. We must convince ourselves that when we as Canadian people are contributing to this war to our limit we are fighting for our own liberties. So far as I am concerned I am firmly convinced that if there is any part of the Canadian nation which reveres liberty, which cherishes these attributes, it is the race to which I belong. We have many reasons to cherish those liberties. I have not the time to go into details in that regard, but it is well known to every good citizen of the French race in this country.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss the measure now before us. The effect of the passage of this amendment of the mobilization act will be to adopt the principle of compulsory service for overseas. I have asked myself, is this a wise measure? Is it necessary to adopt such a measure now? Many times I have asked myself why the Canadian government should force this measure upon us. I am not among those who would impute motives to the ministry, nor am I among those who would charge the ministry with sombre designs. I know perfectly well that every one of them is a good Canadian, just as sincere and just as patriotic as I am myself, and that each of them desires the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Dupuis
success of our cause and the ultimate prosperity of our common country. There can be no doubt about that, and if they have seen fit to present this measure, while they might be wrong in their judgment-because as human beings we are all apt to err-neither their sincerity nor their motives, I submit, can in any way be questioned.
Some sections of this country are strongly opposed to conscription for overseas service, and may I repeat what many other members have said, that those who oppose conscription for overseas service are not to be found in the province of Quebec alone. We from Quebec do not like this measure, for certain reasons; but in other parts of the country there are other people who do not like this measure for other reasons. What I resent very much, Mr. Speaker, is imputing to the people of Quebec sentiments which are foreign to our nature. I fancy that some would say-I should like to be wrong-that Quebec is against the bill because the people of Quebec are against our war effort, because they are slackers, cowards and quitters. It is useless for me to hide my thoughts; it is just as well that I should speak openly and frankly in this house. Unhappily, sir, it is true that some of our fellow Canadians share the sentiments I have just expressed, and when they are so strong for putting this measure upon our statute book it is because they want to get these slackers, these quitters and these cowards into uniform. I resent that very much, and I am sorry that it becomes necessary for me to raise my voice to answer such an attack upon the people of Quebec.
The people of Quebec, slackers, cowards and quitters? Just look around this house, Mr. Speaker, and put that question to any member of the province of Quebec who has children of military age, and you will find that the majority of them will rise at once and reply that their children of military age have answered the call.
Quitters? Just go into my province. Go into the parishes, see and speak with the families and ask their views, and you will discover that if there are any people in this country who are anxious that we should win this war, they will be found in the good old families of Quebec.
Slackers? Mr. Speaker, I hate to speak about my own humble person, but I may be pardoned for saying that in my own families I have over twenty relatives serving under the flag. My great grandfather, a captain of militia in my own home town, joined de Salaberry in 1812 and was there at Chateau-guay to repulse the invader. Slackers? His
son, also a captain of militia, formed a company in my own district and fought against the Family Compact and the bureaucrats of 1837. Slackers? Quitters? No, Mr. Speaker. God be praised, you will not find them in the province of Quebec. There might be, as the lady member (Mrs. Nielsen) suggested a few minutes ago, a few exceptions, but God knows exceptions prove the rule.	While there might be a few
exceptions, I read not later than last week an open letter to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), written by the Reverend Doctor C. E. Silcox, and what did he say? He said in part:
The majority of the English-speaking people of this dominion were born in Canada.
And he continues:
Not a few of them are loud in their denunciation of imperialism; many others have imbibed the "isolationist" attitudes. . . .
Quitters to be found only in the province of Quebec? No, Mr. Speaker. They are to be found in any democratic country. They are to be found even within the one family. It might happen that one member of the family has not been favoured by providence to the same extent as other members of the family. If such exist, I do not blame them; I pity them.
Let me for the purpose of my argument try to give the relationship of our nation towards the world and towards the united nations in this conflict. The whole world is now divided into two conflicting groups. On the one side there are the axis powers, with a total population of 196,000,000 people. They have already conquered, either in a diplomatic way or by force of arms, countries with a total population of 157,000,000, who are now under Hitler's heel.
On the other end there are in -the united nations 1,294,000,000 people, and excluding from this huge number those who for one reason or another are not available, we have left, as a reservoir of man-power, a population of 600,000,000. That is to say, the comparison is 600,000,000 people in the united nations as against 196,000,000 in the axis countries. That means that as regards man-power we are now three to one. What is our relationship to the united nations as regards population? The population of Canada, in round figures, is 12,000,000; that is, 12,000,000 to 600,000,000 now fighting against the axis. In other words, comparing our population with that of the united nations, we are as one to fifty.
Now, we have in the active service, having enlisted voluntarily, over 505,000 soldiers, airmen and sailors, and I understand that the object of the Department of National Defence

Mobilization Act-Mr. Dupuis

is to have about 600,000. To reach that goal would take approximately 100,000 more men. Let me point out to hon. members the uselessness, the futility of the measure now before the house, from the point of view of its results. And by the way, I may digress a moment to say that the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) gave the other evening forcible evidence of this futility when he compared what is going to happen, if this bill is put on the statute book of the country, with what happened in 1917.
By this measure the country is threatened to be divided for many years to come. What for? Merely to obtain by force the enlistment of about 100,000 men, when we know that in 1917, at a cost of many million dollars, and over a period of a year or more, the Canadian government of that day obtained not many more than 60,000 men by force, whereas, during the same period, 101,000 young men. enlisted voluntarily. One has only to read the daily reports to be convinced of what I am saying.
Just read the reports in the newspapers and listen to the radio and what do you find? What is the urgent need? Not men. They are telling you that we are short of equipment, short of tanks, short of ships; we are short of guns, aeroplanes and munitions. We are not short of men. Just one of our allies, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, according to an official report, has 17,000,000 men enlisted. Do you mean to say that these 17,000,000 men, brave and gallant soldiers, if they were properly trained, equipped and fed, would not be able to do better than they are doing to-day?
This is not a mere academic argument; it is a very serious one. It is sufficiently serious for hon. members and even for members of the government to pause and ponder the question. Otherwise it may happen that we might fail in our duty in the matter of production. We on this continent have been called the arsenal of democracy, and while we have been so described, have we been doing our full duty in the production of armaments and of every form of equipment possible to help our allies? I do not think we are doing our duty. We are spending our time discussing the question of raising a few more men by force, but the worst result will be not the raising of a few more men but the raising of prejudices of one race against the other, one religion against the other, one class against the other; and in so doing we are doing what German propaganda is so anxious to see in any country before the Germans take over. This propaganda, as shown by Doctor Karl Hanshofer in his treatise, is the propaganda used by the enemy to conquer the nations of

the world. I have seen with my own eyes and have read letters from Hitler and Mussolini to their agents in this country and in the United States, advising them to be skilful, to use all their tact and their refinements, to insinuate themselves into high social circles in order there to stir up prejudices-the English against the French, the French against the English, Catholic against Protestant, Protestant against Catholic, and everybody against the Jews. That is the order they have given to their agents. And, mind you, notwithstanding the great and important work done by our Royal Canadian Mounted Police, one of the best police corps in the world, there are still in this country German agents who are doing that work to hamper our war effort. And we are to-day, with this measure, doing exactly what Hitler desires-dividing each other on a silly matter like this. It is our serious, our sacred duty to stop helping the enemy in that way, and to proceed, as a real arsenal of democracy, to build more ships, more submarines; to make more guns, produce more food, and supply these to our allies overseas. This, I submit, is our sacred duty.
I sincerely believe that this measure should be abandoned. I do not say this because I am afraid of conscription. Let me repeat here what I have said in my own riding, that if ever this country were threatened, if ever such a state of emergency arose that we should be convinced that conscription was the last recourse to save our democracy, I would be for it and my people would be for it. It is not that I am afraid of conscription; it is not that the people of Quebec are afraid of conscription. They are enlisting in thousands freely to fight anywhere in the world, and they will continue to enlist.
Might I give a piece of advice to the Canadian government. I was speaking a few minutes ago of German propaganda. Among the worst kinds of propaganda in this country are the slogans which are whispered by the agents of the enemy and then unwittingly taken up by otherwise good, but not well-informed' people andl spread among our families and on the street and everywhere. One of the statements, for instance, which I know to be untrue is that "England is sending her young boys to Canada while we have to enlist to fight the wars of the empire." That is one of those slanders spread by Hitler. If our Canadian government does not stop that kind of thing, does not get the official evidence with authentic facts and documents to repel such false information, it is very severely to be blamed.
Another slogan, another whisper, is that Canadians are put in the first rows whenever

Mobilization Act-Mr. Jackman
there is danger in an encounter between the united nations and the enemy. This is absolutely false, and it is the duty of this government to give the evidence of its falsity through authentic facts and documents. I am going to say something about Hong Kong.
I am proud to say that among those brave Canadians at Hong Kong are to be found two officers from my riding. Their parents, who live in Marieville, have never heard any news from them; they do not know whether they are alive or dead. But German propaganda is spreading in this country the information that at Hong Kong there were only colonials-not a single British soldier. This is completely wrong. To help enlistment in Canada we ought to repel and deny with official documents this false information.
We are all of us sincere Canadians; irrespective of party allegiance, irrespective of religion or of race we are all for an all-out war effort. Our ultimate and sincere desire is for victory. Nothing but victory over our enemies will bring peace and harmony and prosperity in this country; otherwise we are doomed to destruction; we shall go back a thousand years to the days of paganism. Our supreme ambition, our sole purpose, is victoiy. But if the victory is to be complete, effective and fruitful, it must be a victory of justice over injustice, of lofty sentiment of the soul over the lower instincts of human nature, of genuine responsible government over bureaucracy and nepotism. To summarize, it must be a victory over ourselves. Every one of us will gladly make every possible sacrifice for freedom; but when the storm is over, when the sunshine in the sky of liberty reappears, the man who went through these terrible times, gratified with that inestimable gift of regenerated Christian freedom, adorned with living charity, will turn his back on the past, and with his eyes fixed on the infinite where faith never vanishes, with indomitable courage, sustained by legitimate ambition, he will undertake anew to climb the hill of success and to reach the horizon of his dreams.
During the war of 1S70 a great writer and patriot. Paul Deroulede, had a vision which was never realized. May I be allowed to quote his dream which he wrote in his immortal poem:
Lorsque nous aurons fait la guerre triom-phante,
Et que notre Patrie aura repns son rang,
Alois, avec les maux que la oonquete enfante,
Disparaitra l'horreur qui suit le eonquerant.
Alois notre Patrie aimante et sans rancune,
Semant ses jeunes bles sous ses lauriers nouveaux,
Fetera le Travail, pere de la Fortune,
Et chantera la Paix, mere de longs travaux.
44561-2S2J
Et notre Nation lasse de funerailles,
En exaltant ses morts ealmera ses vivants,
Et nous ne voudrons plus qu'on parle de batailles,	* .	_
Et nous desapprendrons la haine a nos enfants.
May I be allowed to paraphrase him and say:
Oh oui! puisse aujourd'hui, tout a l'heure, a 1'instant,	_	_	,	,
Le Canada s'elancer de victoire en victoire, Puisse-son fier triomphe a jamais etabli- Mon nom etre englouti dans ce torrent de gloire,
Et mon diseours inconnu se perdre dans l'oubli!


Mr. H. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale):: After listening to the many admirable sentiments expressed by the speaker who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Dupuis), I find it difficult to arrive at the same conclusion as he does. He speaks of the part which this country is playing, and the great man-power of the united nations, which he calculates in hundreds of millions; then he goes on to make a comparison, dividing our population, into the total and multiplying our contribution in armed services by the dividend. It shows that we are indeed making an admirable contribution to the war effort, but we cannot take that as our guide; it is fallacious, for many reasons, if one examines the facts-the fighting qualities, if you like, of the people who go to make up the united nations, and the industrial contribution which those nations individually can make to the common cause. I agree with him that French-speaking Canadians are second to none in the many admirable qualities of courage, fortitude and bravery; the history of this country is evidence of that fact. But it is difficult for English-speaking Canadians to understand how the contributions of Frenchspeaking and English-speaking Canadians can be considered to be equal. It is surely the war of both peoples who make up this common nationality, but according to a return recently tabled in this house we find that enlistments in the province of Quebec since the war began total 74,415, of whom 36,235 are considered to be French Canadians. I do not know the exact relationship which the Englishspeaking population bears to the Frenchspeaking population of the province of Quebec, but when the figures indicates that slightly over one-half of the enlistments in Quebec are from the English-speaking minority, it surely does not do credit to our Freneh-Canadian compatriots.
There must, of course, be a cause for this. Looking at the individual qualities of the French-Canadians, the cause cannot be found there, so that it must be in the leadership which they have been receiving and to which

Mobilization Act-Mr. Jackman
they have been subjected for the last twenty-five years. On February 5 when I had the privilege of speaking on the plebiscite, I had no hesitation in committing myself to the principle of the conscription of wealth, industry and man-power for service wherever those materials or that man-power could be most effectively used. To-day, however, we have seen the result of the plebiscite vote; and we find that the Prime Minister is still counting noses and determining the course of action that will be followed according to his count. The Prime Minister endeavoured to tell the house that the plebiscite was not a vote "yes" or "no" on the question of conscription for overseas. However, in discussing this simple amendment now before the house the Prime Minister has asked that we include the discussion of the whole principle of conscription. The two are utterly indivisible, and so they were in the minds of the people on April 27. That vote undoubtedly was a vote either for or against conscription, and we know how the people of this country expressed their will at that time.
An analysis of the vote on the plebiscite reveals that the leadership which Canada has received from the Liberal party has not been the leadership which is required when we are fighting for our survival. The hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Whitman), speaking last night, referred to the fact that there was no one who could1 replace the Prime Minister of this country, certainly no one in the ranks of the official opposition. Be that as it may- and we may have different opinions on that question-certainly so far as representing the will of the people is concerned there can be no question that the Conservative party to-day stands for the will of the people in a way that the Liberal party does not. I do not suppose, sir, that ever before in the history of the world has any nation been faced with national peril, even the possibility of extinction, and at the same time suffered a government so lacking in leadership and in preparation for defence, as has Canada. Nothing better exemplifies this lack of leadership than an analysis of the result of the plebiscite vote on April 27. Of the 245 constituencies across Canada, 182 returned a "yes" vote and 63 a "no" vote. No constituency represented by a Conservative member returned a "no" vote. All the constituencies which voted "no" were represented by members of the government party, which government with all its strength advocated a "yes" vote. But its sudden conversion and realization of the necessities in regard to Canada was too late to be of avail. In making a belated appeal to the highest 
sentiments of both national honour and selfpreservation the Prime Minister indicated in no uncertain terms what he believed and knew to be in the best interests of the people; and the response to that appeal is an indication of how these sentiments of honour and self-preservation were considered in various parts of the country. The record, therefore, shows that of 185 Liberal constituencies, 63, or more than one-third, voted "no". In the province of Quebec, where 64 of the 65 seats are represented by Liberals, 57 constituencies voted "no", including three represented by ministers of the crown. What retribution for the false political leadership which the Liberal party has given that province for over twenty-five years!
Now the Quebec Liberals refer to the bargain, the contract, the promise which allegedly was made at the time of the declaration of war in 1939, at the time of the Quebec provincial election and again at the time of the general election in 1940. Did the Prime Minister authorize the making of a bargain with French Canada to the effect that Canada would wage only a free, moderate and voluntary war? And did he do that at the same time he was telling the rest of Canada that we were waging total war? It is little wonder that to-day the Liberals in French Canada have no trust in the word of the Liberal party. Knowing the intentions of Germany, as they were known to everyone after the invasion of Poland, how could the Prime Minister have believed that the democratic world was not faced with the greatest struggle for its existence that it had ever known? Having watched the course of international events, the seizure of Austria, the Munich agreement and the violation of Czechoslovakia; having personally visited Hitler in Berlin and seen how Germany had been waging a total but undeclared war for five years prior to the firing of the first shot, how could the Prime Minister not realize that we were faced with the bitterest and most sacrifice-compelling struggle of all time? But what do we find? In his opening campaign speech over the radio he said to the people of Canada that a national government would bring about conscription. Well do I remember when those fateful words were uttered. As one who had tried to keep abreast of international developments and to understand their significance, my heart sank within me that anyone, for base purposes, political purposes, would trifle in this manner with the destiny of our nation.
The most immature politician knew that the people of Canada, after two decades of peace talk and of pacifism, were not prepared to accept in those days, when the false

Mobilization Act-Mr. Jackman
security of the Maginot line was uppermost in their minds, the bitter necessity of conscription. There was always the hope that economic strangulation of Germany might bring about an early termination of the war. Nor am I proud of the record of other political parties in regard to the issue of conscription, which issue was forced upon them by the Prime Minister.
Let me continue, sir, with an analysis of the plebiscite and the effect on the national spirit where Liberalism prevailed.
In the province of Ontario, out of 84 seats only 2 voted "no"; these two constituencies were represented by Liberals. As regards the Ontario constituencies of Cochrane and Nipissing, we find, in the first one, 15,536 "yes" votes and 11,730 "no" votes, and in Nipissing 22,252 "yes" and 17,468 "no" votes. Only by a slight margin did they come into the "yes" bracket. We'find that the province as a whole voted 84 per cent "yes". In Hamilton. West, represented by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson), we find a vote of 21,531 for and 3,937 against. Compare this with the constituency of Lincoln, represented by a Conservative, and similar in many ways to the other; there the vote was 23,700 for and 2,771 against. Take two other constituencies which are closely parallel and represented respectively by a Liberal and a Conservative. Waterloo North, represented by a Liberal, gave 13,077 "yes" votes, 7,055 "no" votes; Waterloo South, represented by a Conservative, 13,297 "yes" votes, 2,334 "no" votes-about the same number of "yes" votes but less than one-third the number of "no" votes.
I go across the country to Manitoba and point to the "yes" votes recorded in the Conservative constituency of Souris-8,046 "yes" to 479 "no"; the second highest percentage in Canada, as compared with that represented by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), with 8,829 "yes" against 1,870 "no" votes. Contrast either of these with that of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson): 11,873 "yes" to 5,860 "no". Truly, Mr. Speaker, leadership counts in this country.
Then we go on to Saskatchewan. There we find that Lake Centre, so ably represented in this house by a Conservative, polled 8,673 "yes" votes to 2,165 "no"; while in the constituency of Melville, represented by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the voting was 8,599 "yes" and 6,470 "no". About the same number voted "yes", but three times as many voted "no" as in the other constituency to which I have referred, in the
same province. Then we find at Prince Albert, represented by the Prime Minister,-9,884 "yes", 3,195 "no"; Saskatoon City, represented by a Conservative, 16,710 "yes", 2,074 "no". In an area adjacent to Saskatoon City, that of Rosthern, represented by a Liberal, we find 3,527 "yes" and 3,988 "no"- the only constituency in Saskatchewan failing to come under the "yes" banner.
In British Columbia we find the same thing. In Vancouver Centre, represented by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), the result was, 21,961 "yes" and 4,922 "no", whereas in Vancouver South, so ably represented in- this house by a Conservative, there were 31,986 "yes" against 4,680 "no"-about the same number of "no" votes in both constituencies, but the Conservative member polled 10,000 more "yes" votes.
It is the same story from one end of the country to the other, and nothing is more indicative of the lead which a party or a member can give to the people than is the vote on the plebiscite.
Let me take the results in my own city of Toronto. There the same tendency is shown. The highest "yes" vote in that city, as well as in the whole of Canada was recorded in the riding of Eglinton, represented by a Liberal, but by a Liberal, as we found out last evening, to the chagrin of every rightthinking member of this house, who has found it necessary, on this nation-saving principle of conscription, to differ from a government which refuses to give voice to the will of the great majority of the people. He has given a leadership equal to that which has been forthcoming from Conservative members who refuse to put party before principle. The constituency of Eglinton adjoins on the north my own constituency, and in the north end of that constituency, I am glad to report, there was at least one polling subdivision where not' a single "no" vote was recorded.
The other two ridings in the city of Toronto which are represented by Liberal members are Trinity and Spadina. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) made a speech in this house on the plebiscite which was the most perfect example of mugwumpery that I have ever seen. It was in two parts* one being a high-class exposition of the merits of conscription, and the other an equally high-class exposition of the merits of the continuance of the voluntary system. The people of Trinity, however, returned a vote of 90 per cent in favour of the affirmative. The hon. member has seen fit to be led by rather than to lead his people. How typical of the whole attitude of the Liberal administration. As a result of such leadership, Trinity and the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Jackman
neighbouring riding of Spadina returned the two lowest "yes" votes in the great city of Toronto.
Although apparently the need is still great, time does not permit me to appeal to some quarters of this house on the reasons why we are at war and what we have at stake. With the enemy knocking at the gates, there is time only for action. As I said in the plebiscite debate on February 5, 1942, the Prime Minister and the other ministers of the cabinet failed, without even trying, to inform the people of Quebec of the true issues at stake in this struggle for survival, and the effect on them personally should we not carry the war to a successful conclusion.
Why are the ministers of the crown not telling the people of Quebec what the issues are and what defeat will mean to every one of us? I do not think this government has failed in any more signal instance than in its refusal, its complete failure, to tell the people of Quebec just what are the issues at stake- just as the hon. member who preceded me made a perfectly splendid case not only for Quebec but for the war, and then went on to show that the war is still not Canada's war, and that we are better off in building up an army to defend ourselves on the shores of Canada. I could quote a memorable passage from a speech of the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) to the effect that we cannot possibly defend ourselves on the shores of Canada against an enemy if that enemy breaks through the line either in Great. Britain or on the Pacific.
The leadership which the Prime Minister has given has been far short of what the people as a whole expected. Certain elements in the community have been appeased by the result of the government's incredibly slow and unrealistic policy which has brought about a feeling of complacency and dampened the ardour even of the most loyal and patriotic citizens. This slowness of action and the policy of playing for time recalls one of Pope's great verses, which I shall quote with the substitution of one word:
Complacency is a monster of so frightful mien, As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
On the other hand, the Conservative party has not only given leadership to the people but it has not hesitated to advise its supporters, as well as all the people of Canada, in connection with what it believes and knows to be in their best interests, no matter what the sacrifice may be. And the Conservative party does this, not on a single occasion when the enemy is already knocking at the gate, [Mr. Jackman.l
but even when the enemy is far off and there is still time to protect our country with a minimum of loss and full assurance of victory.
I wish to draw attention to the statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), who said that Canadians of French origin had to think out the reasons why they should support this war by fighting the enemy wherever the enemy was to be found, whereas Canadians of British origin rose spontaneously to the aid of Great Britain. In support of his argument he quoted an editorial which contained the following reference to the Prime Minister:
If he had tried to keep this country out of a war in which the safety of Britain was at stake he would have been swept out of office by a tide of anger which neither he nor his government could have withstood.
He quoted that editorial as being descriptive and typical of the mood and thought of English-speaking Canadians. Without considering the time, September 10, 1939, the events leading up to the declaration of this war, the attempts of Great Britain to keep the peace of the world, and the well-recognized German aim of world domination with its herrenvolk, second class peoples and bartered slaves, his deduction would be quite correct. In the light of the surrounding circumstances, however, his deduction is wholly unwarranted.
Well I remember returning from a tour of Great Britain in 1937 with the reflection that in that country there was too much champagne at the top and not enough milk at the bottom, a condition which is happily being rectified. English-speaking Canadians have had no concern with British expeditions in Waziristan and elsewhere where it was necessary to suppress foreign-inspired and foreign-supported wars against Britain's far-flung possessions. This world war, in contrast, is a war for our survival and the survival of our children. A little later in the same speech the Minister of Justice recited how the Frenchspeaking Canadians had on more than one occasion helped to save Canada from outside aggression. At the same time he pointed out how in 1849 a group of Montreal merchants showed so little loyalty to Britain that, when that country withdrew a preference on Canadian wheat and butter, they signed a petition for annexation to the United States. Almost in the same breath he speaks of the strength of the blood attachment of the English-speaking Canadians to Great Britain and then points out that such sentiment does not exist where there are economic interests at stake. Of course, there is an attachment to Great Britain, because Great Britain has in the modern world been the mother of democracy, the mother of parliaments, and the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Jackman
protector of the small nations and minorities. But no one has given a better demonstration than he of the fact that English-speaking Canadians fight not only for their economic welfare but for their right of survival as a free nation.
The ministers of the crown in the debate on this bill have given us a series of speeches on the subject of conscription for overseas service which are utterly confusing. Some argue against the very principle of conscription while we already have conscription of wealth, industry and man-power for everything except overseas service. There is no uniformity of opinion or of sentiment in the administration of this land. While the outcome of the vote on this matter is not in question, the time of the implementation of conscription for service wherever the enemy is to be found is still in the lap of the gods, as long as the Prime Minister refuses to heed the will of the people and prefers to play politics, always in the hope that time will be in his favour. Time and our preparations for survival are fast running out.	.
I wish to draw particular attention to the statements of one of the ministers of the crown, as well as of several private Liberal members, all of whom are in their hearts rightthinking individuals, but endeavour to excuse their lack of forthright attitude by arguing that a voluntary army is better than a conscript army, and by pointing out that the volunteers who were serving in the front line in the last war did not look with favour upon the conscript reinforcements. Do they not know that before this war is over, every available. man who can be spared will be required to fight the enemy? By their own reasoning, therefore, is it not far better that Canada have one army of soldiers who are selected because of their fitness, rather than two armies, one of volunteers and one of conscripts? The sooner Canada gets away from this invidious distinction the sooner the difference which they themselves brought up will disappear in its entirety. Let us do as the United States does and have universal selective service, where every man and woman will be told to serve in the field, in the factory, or in the forces, according to his or her ability to best serve his or her own country.
The Prime Minister has said that the Canadian army overseas, composed entirely of volunteers, is the finest fighting force in the world. I hope it is, for there are no finer fighting men on the face of the globe, but can we yet say that it is superior to the British or American armies, where the men are selected by a just and equitable law? The Prime Minister's statement is an affront to
the American nation, which is a true democracy, the people of which believe in the elementary principles of justice and equality. I have not heard the point raised in the present debate, but any member who does not believe in the principle of selective service might ask himself whom he is endeavouring to protect. Is he protecting those who have already volunteered to keep the enemy away from our shores, and who, when the fighting starts, will require reinforcements unless they are to bear the brunt of the battle without rest and without relief? Or is he, on the other hand, seeking to protect those who do not feel the call of duty to protect themselves, their parents, their brothers and their sisters; those young men who are content that others should die that they may live? When such a question arises I thank God that my heart and my head both cry out for justice and equality. This inequality is not confined to any one section of our country. It exists in greater or less degree in all parts, and for various reasons. But to-day there is one reason for compulsory selective service which dwarfs all others, and that is the preservation of our nation from a vicious and so far victorious enemy. Inequality is the greatest cause of disunity.
Where there is a difference of opinion, everything must be done to bring about an understanding of the different points of view. But there are some principles and some laws which do not admit of compromise, and one of these is the law of self-preservation. As the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) stated*, "We can pay too high a price for national unity." I think he might have added that if we must choose between having a nation or national unity, we must choose to preserve the nation.
I should like to ask the following questions, which I have asked before but to which I have received no answers. What does the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), from whom we hear so much, report now as the present opinion "of the entire rural population, where there exists a strong sentiment in favour of annexation to the United States, or at least of a formal alliance with our powerful neighbours?" That was his statement to this house on June 18, 1940. Are his constituents who were willing to join the United States willing to be led by their laws now, just as are the million or more French Canadians in the New England states?
And I wonder what is the opinion of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), who stated on the same day, "Why not continue with our voluntary participation and wait at least until the United States

Mobilization Act-Mr. Jackman
enacts conscription of men?" He was then taking shelter under the Monroe doctrine. Is he now willing to fight for it? It is only in the province of Quebec that one hears the expression "national unity". Elsewhere it is accepted as a fact.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the rule against reading speeches. The hon. member is reading his speech, and I would ask him to refrain.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you drew my attention to the rule, because we find that the ministers read their speeches in the house, and it is a very bad example for private members.
There is no one who strives more heartily than I do for the principle of national unity. I believe that those who raise contentions against it do not have that principle at heart as much as I have myself. Certain members who raise this question would do much to destroy national unity; they exercise an influence out of all proportion to their true W'orth in this house, and members of their party, all of them being on the government side, do little or nothing to offset the influence which their contentions exert.
If there is one thing which the debate on this amendment to Bill No. 80 has brought out, it is this: It has given the lie once and for all to the contention that it was because of the Military Service Act of 1917 and the method of its enforcement that conscription to-day is a subject abhorred by the French Canadians. The French Canadians are now represented in the government party to the extent of sixty-four out of their sixty-five seats. It is their own Liberal ministers who have the enforcement of conscription if this bill passes, and yet we find on their part the same reluctance and the same complete lack of confidence which they claimed followed from the policy of the Union government in 1917 with respect to the enforcement of the Military Service Act. The fact is that the French Canadians as a whole have so far been against conscription and are unwilling to have it, no matter which party, no matter whether a national government or a union government, brings it into being. The reason for that, of course, is that they are willing to fight for their country once they realize the necessity of doing so. Once they come to the belief that the war overseas or the war in the Pacific is about to approach Canada, or that if we fail there it will approach Canada, then they are quite willing to have conscription. But surely 
they must know that if we do not stop the enemy abroad we cannot stop him on the shores of Canada.
Let everyone in every part of this great partnership, this great Dominion of Canada, go forward hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder to face the common aggressor. Let no one falter or fail. Let each strive who can do the most, not who can do the least. We owe it to others that the road is still open. Let us with honour keep that road open and defend it with our united might, so that no enemy, east or west, shall traverse it to devastate our land and our homes.


Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the close of the debate on the bill to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act. There can be no doubt about my supporting the bill. The problem of man-power will then pass from parliament to the cabinet. My remarks to-day will be directed, sir, specifically to what in my opinion should be done after the act is amended.
I wish to assure the house that my argument in every particular will give the strongest possible support to a programme of action for immediate maximum preparations to destroy the enemy where he is, in Europe and elsewhere, before he can reach our shores.
Some persons look to the past for direction, some have confidence in the methods of the present, while others feel that wre should try to redouble our efforts in anticipation of a situation that will become more desperate in the future. I shall consider, briefly, the past and the present, but in the main my remarks will be directed to our policies for strengthening our war effort in the future.
The past. Some look to the past for excuses, some for inspiration. Here, at this time, we find the no-releasers. They say the government is bound, and by their votes it will continue to be bound.
The present. Here we find the reserva-tionists. They will support compulsory service should the necessity arise. They give reasons for delay. One is that Australia voted against compulsory service in the last war. But Australia then had Japan as an ally and France as a formidable ally. To-day our two most powerful allies, Great Britain and the United States, have compulsory service. The reservationists say that men who are called up for service may not make good soldiers. Does anyone ever question the valour of the soldiers of John Bull and Uncle Sam, of Tommy Atkins and the Doughboys? What is the attitude of the Canadian Legion towards military service?

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gladstone
These are the men who served voluntarily in the last war. Do they fear that Canadians called up for service will falter? Surely not, when they passed resolutions at Winnipeg and at Drummondville, Quebec, demanding conscription of money, materials and manpower.
The future. I come back to the reservation respecting compulsory selective service to be resorted to only when the necessity arises. These very words presuppose a situation more critical than the situation we are facing to-day. These words carry the implication that when the war situation is more hazardous, more terrible, then we will do more. Let me urge, let me implore, that whatever more we can do we do to-day while yet there is opportunity. Could the situation be ever more critical for Canada than it is to-day, unless the enemy landed on the British isles and the whole world, not excepting this continent, was overrun by the axis powers? Then we would be throttled and strangled commercially into serfdom.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is right in saying that our only safe line of defence is the English channel. Let us be realists in this dire situation. Let us do to-day what in utter defeat we would do if we still had the opportunity. Let not the day come when in the agony of regrets we may cry, "Alas, too late!"
This brings me to the question: what more can we do? The first step should be to eliminate internal diplomacy. That is cabinet responsibility, and I fear that too often the cabinet refuses to listen to the voice of parliament and to the urgings of the majority of the people. Internal diplomacy dampens the fighting spirit of our ministers of defence for army, navy and air. Nor is it approved by others of our aggressive ministers. They are frustrated in places by the waiting policy -"We will do more when the necessity arises."
My constituents are expecting to-day in their government the courage and determination of Marshal Foch when at the Marne in 1918 he said, "My centre is giving way; my right is pushed back. Excellent I I will attack." Are we blind to our fate if the English channel is lost? Can we not be a unit, exerting all our strength right now to stop the Hun where he is? Shall we risk further the destruction, the rapings, the wholesale murders of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, and in turn on to Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and the west?
The blessings of freedom were precious to those peoples. Shall we turn a deaf ear to them and pray that through some miracle we may be permitted to exist in isolation?
I have referred to Poland. What about that desolate land? What is the appeal of their leaders who still survive and struggle in exile, as represented by the Polish national council in London, England, of which the chairman is Professor Stanislav Grabski? It can well be recorded in a motion tabled recently in the British House of Commons. I quote:
German atrocities in Poland-that this house, having learned with indignation and horror that during the occupation of Poland the authorities of Hitlerite Germany have, for no crime other than that of being Poles, officially executed more than 140,000 men and women, tortured many more in prison and concentration camps, deported 1,500,000 to slave labour in Germany, robbed more than 2,000,000 in the western provinces of all they possessed before expelling them to central Poland, thus in every way outraging both international law and the laws of humanity itself, expresses to the Polish people its heartfelt admiration for their inspiring example of continuous and unflinching fortitude, protests in the name of civilization the policy of deliberate extermination of the Polish people, and pledges its word to heroic Poland that her sacrifices will not be in vain and that due retribution for all these crimes will unfailingly be exacted.
The plight of the Polish people will. I am sure, enlist a similar response in this part of Canada. Knowledge of such heartrending conditions ought to sink into the consciousness of any here who would falter, and strengthen ' their determination to assist the people of that persecuted nation.
Democracy entrusts government to parliament, and parliament delegates administration to the cabinet. There the curtain is drawn, and we know not of the cooperation, the domination and the diplomacy. What we do know is that tens of thousands of civilians have been brought to Ottawa for all manner of service in capacities administrative, expert and clerical. It ought not to be an offence to say that the hugeness of some departments makes it utterly impossible for the minister or his deputy to become aware of any weak spots with anything like the speed that war demands. It ought not to be an offence to say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is so burdened with responsibilities in a large way that he cannot possibly check on the many things that disturb our people and undermine their morale. If ever there was a time for Canada to follow the time-tested practice of the British parliament in creating parliamentary secretaryships, surely it is now when this nation is in peril.
The Prime Minister in 1936 proposed adopting this system, but apparently one or two

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gladstone
of his ministers of the day dissuaded him against his will. He will meet similar opposition to-day from at least one of his ministers who undoubtedly needs such assistance. I do not propose to argue the point further, except to say that there is growing discontent among private members that the service of mora members is not utilized to a greater extent, at least in order to ferret out inefficiency.
The army is being made the subject of attack just now. The outstanding minister and his capable deputy must shoulder the blame, if any. In passing, may I comment on the notable efficiency of the minister's secretary. I urge upon the minister that as a war measure he take steps immediately to get the help of two parliamentary secretaries, one for Ottawa and one with freedom to visit anywhere. There needs to be some uprooting of the armouries' officialdom of peace days. This is no social picnic; we are at war.
It has been my privilege to serve on the war expenditures committee. We had before us as witnesses some dynamic men; we had others who are wrongly placed in the service. When this committee was set up again this session the various opposition parties stressed that the committee and its successors should sit continuously for the duration. They sat for a few weeks last year and then adjourned, against the better judgment of some of the members. The same course appears to be in prospect for this year. The committee is divided into three subcommittees. One of the subcommittees effected savings of several million dollars as a matter of ordinary business adjustment. The entire cost for the whole committee was $17,713.46. In my opinion the committee should take up continuous work when parliament adjourns, and remain at it until the opening of the next session of parliament. The work has been barely scratched.
I have been offering suggestions for improving our war effort. My suggestions and criticisms have been given merely as examples. Suggestions to some extent carry the flavour of criticism. I have spoken with restraint in order not to injure the war effort in any way. The task of the government to-day is so tremendous that errors and shortcomings on the part of individuals are inevitable. It is utterly impossible for the Prime Minister to pass upon or even have knowledge of many things that are done or left undone. That is why I feel strongly that the cabinet should recede from the seemingly immovable stand they have taken, and delegate some greater responsibility to hon. members who are elected by the people and who must answer to the people. I hope the Prime Minister will pay 
heed to the admonitions of private members and thereby obviate the necessity for more plain speaking and hurt feelings or worse.
It would be unfair for me, in my desire to help our war effort, to overlook the bright side of the picture. Canada has a record of achievement in many fields of which we all should be and are exceedingly proud. Some critics are ignoring this and doing very great damage. Our Prime Minister and all his cabinet have planned and worked unceasingly during these critical years. It is amazing how well they have stood up under the terrific strain. We are deeply grateful that the Prime Minister appears to be in such good health at present. We realize to-day more than ever before the value of his leadership in pre-war days in knitting together the English-speaking nations for the preservation of civil and religious freedom. History will accord to our present Prime Minister a high place among world statesmen who have striven to promote peace and good-will among nations.
I have already paid tribute to our three ministers of national defence. May I be permitted to single out one or two other ministers for much merited praise. Our Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) has given a demonstration of accomplishments possible only through a combination of high qualities. His pioneering in controls has become the example for similar action in the United States. Our Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) surely was born and trained for the great undertaking which is his responsibility. Who will say he has any superior anywhere for his great work? I pay tribute to his administrators, his technicians and his great, loyal organization.
I pay tribute also to the men and women of the war industries, whose skill I have seen in many factories. He who would belittle our war effort needs only go through one of our great war industries to be convinced of the amazing contributions Canada is making. The same applies to agriculture, with its phenomenal increases in the production of bacon, cheese and foodstuffs generally.
A few minutes ago I said that internal diplomacy dampens the fighting spirit of our ministers of national defence for army, navy and air. I said that the consideration should not be and must not be, "we will do more when the necessity arises"; it should and must be, "we will do immediately all that can be done."
The question is, what more can we do? Surely it will not be sufficient to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act and then dismiss parliament, possibly until 1943. Something more is needed to uplift the morale

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gladstone
of the people. If reverses continue, the people's confidence in eighteen ministers who are waiting for the necessity to do more will be shattered. What may have been sufficient in administration before the war cannot be regarded as sufficient for the present herculean ordeal. As a humble member of this parliament I appeal to the Prime Minister to replace his proneness to overcaution by a policy of greater boldness and greater trust in the people whom we represent. Scarcely a week passes without an election being called by Prime Minister Churchill. We would be better with frequent by-elections in Canada. Many elections are needed now in connection with a dozen or more vacancies in the other house, and to bring new and more persons into the administrative circles of government. The country will welcome some assurances in this regard. The other house should be used or disbanded. There are highly qualified and experienced men in that house who should be given an opportunity to render service to Canada. We are paying them and letting them die of dry rot.
This is a programme that I lay on the conscience of every cabinet minister. The only alternative, in my estimation, is that parliament do now prorogue to be called in extra session in September. I beseech the Prime Minister that extraordinary measures be taken for the greater assurance of the men and women of Canada who trust him, who Ipray for him, and who feel that, with the billions being expended, there should be a broadening and strengthening in administration.
I must now commence to shape my remarks toward a conclusion. I have spoken frankly my views as to the inadequacy of our administration respecting the volume of detailed responsibility during this crisis. I am much concerned about future days and -what I have chosen to describe as internal diplomacy. Make no mistake about it; Canada will be saved only by the men behind the guns, shooting outside Canada, on the warships, in the bombers and fighters, and with the shock troops.
Shall we place limits on our gratitude to Greece for her heroic delaying action? Shall we place limits on our efforts to bring relief to Russia before she is crushed? These nations and many others have become martyrs for our freedom. We draft men for service in Canada and territorial waters; shall it be said that we limited our compulsory service to the last area, where we hoped there would never be any fighting? No; that spirit can never win on the fighting fronts, nor can it maintain respect for Canada among free nations if
freedom survives. Moreover, it will be heartbreaking to our brave men on the fighting fronts.
Maximum strength in this war is our imperative duty to ourselves and to our allies. That maximum strength may well be the strength of eight provinces united, rather than of nine provinces with reservations. Is Canada to be in the position of saying to the nations who are defending us all round the world, "We cannot send more men until they volunteer to go, but we will sell you food and guns and bombers and ships." Or shall we, as a soldier said to me in a smoking-car, "use the sneaking way of pressing the lads to go active?"
Russian women are shouldering guns to destroy the enemy, whose plans call for our destruction in order that he may possess our fair land. The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and others have emphasized that the matter of compulsory service for overseas has been magnified beyond its real importance. I agree that it represents but a fraction of the great contribution Canada is making in this war; but it has been [DOT] seized upon by some as a focal point for attack upon the government in a way that reflects upon Canada's whole war effort. The ill effects of this criticism have spread to the United States. Editorials are being published in that country, one of which I have in my hand which appeared in the Arizona Daily Star of Tucson, Arizona, and which constitutes an undesirable reflection upon Canada as a whole and upon one of our provinces in particular. This ought not to be. Our airmen, our sailors, our soldiers, and the men and women of all services created a great and glorious record for Canada long before our great neighbour and ally came into the war. But we must guard against any recession from the high place we have earned in the eyes of the world.
My original plan in preparing this speech contemplated concluding at about this point, but happenings of recent days impel me to emphasize a suggestion I have already made. Some days ago a lady wrote me protesting against certain expenditures for advertising. I replied, giving the best explanation I could obtain from the department concerned. The lady wrote me again, and I will quote one paragraph of her letter:
I appreciate your courtesy in replying to my letter, but your explanation left me cold. All the more so after Mr. McLean's exposure of a day or so ago. Is there no way of ending this sort of thing which I feel, during war time, is absolutely criminal.
This brings me again to my suggestion that parliamentary secretaries should be appointed, at least during war time. A similar plea was

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gladstone
made by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) in a speech in this house on February 12, 1942, after his visit to the British isles a few months earlier. As reported at page 539 of Hansard the hon. gentleman said:
I was in Mr. Hei'bert Morrison's room, and there was with him a young gentleman, a member of the house, whom he introduced as his private secretary. Mr. Morrison turned to him at times for verification of certain figures, and this young gentleman was very helpful. I said to Mr. Morrison, "I don't suppose you could carry on without your private secretary." He answered, "Carry on? I could not possibly. I have three private secretaries, and with them I find it difficult to do all the work I have to do."
Then let me quote one paragraph from the speech of the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), in this house on July 2, 1942,
as reported at page 3872 of Hansard:
I suggest that in this one comparatively small department of which I am speaking, $150,000 a year would be a very, very conservative estimate of -what could be saved if we exercised the same care in the supervision of the work of this branch that any member would exercise in his own private business.
This saving in one department alone would more than pay all added costs in connection with the necessary parliamentary secretaries. But seemingly the protests of hon. members are to be of no avail, nor have they been under previous governments. There is no existing legislation providing for the appointment of parliamentary secretaries, but I suggest that, if the government so desired, the authority could be obtained before this parliament adjourns. Or, I repeat, are we to adjourn in a few days, possibly until 1943, without any strengthening of the administration? The time of some key ministers is so occupied with details, to their distraction from major planning, that they are unable to take long range views and make preparations to keep the enemy from shooting us down on our very doorsteps. Should there not be ministers without portfolio, who would be free to substitute for ministers who might be absent through illness, or on government business, possibly outside Canada? What is the situation to-day in two departments, namely those of transport and public works? We all regret that the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), who occupied the two portfolios, was seriously ill for several months. Some months ago the deputy minister of public works died, and as yet no permanent appointment has been made. All this has occurred during a period of much needed, rush construction for war purposes. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) is the Acting Minister of Public Works. The 
vacant position of Minister of Transport is placed on the overburdened Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe). Why should all this be, during a period when ministers are so hard driven? Why should the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) have had to become Minister of National War Services for many months while this important department was being organized? Why do we continue to add to the tens of thousands of civilian employees and minimize supervision by the elected representatives of the people?
Mr. Speaker, the need for compulsory selective service for overseas is not chiefly or solely for men for our fighting forces overseas; it is for the highest efficiency anywhere and everywhere. Ernest Bevin said, "We can recreate wealth but we cannot recreate liberty". If we place reservations on our assistance to the allies now, how can we expect them to do otherwise with us should the enemy reach our shores?
The constituency which I have the honour to represent bears the historic name of Wellington. We voted 90 per cent "yes" in the plebiscite. In the matter of enlistment we are standing united for total war, regardless of ancestry or religion. I must hold high the torch thrown to us by the men who fought in the last war. I must see that we do not fail or falter in the support of the men who have fallen in this war and others who are now pledged, if needs be until death, that liberty and justice shall not perish from the earth.


Mr. J. A. BLANCHETTE (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, the first of July, this country celebrated the three-score and fifteenth year anniversary of the founding of its federal union. It was only fitting that we should have done this in times of crisis, as it is always proper that we do so also in ordinary times. It is fitting and proper that the reverence due our forefathers for this confederation act should be reflected not only in our words but, even more, in our thoughts and actions.
Shall the confederation of 1867 remain, what it was intended to be by our forefathers, a federated union of all Canada? Shall the confederation of Canada be preserved and revered as it has been in the past? Shall confederation continue to be the modus vivendi of the citizens of this great dominion? The answer, Mr. Speaker, remains with each and every one of us, depending upon the stand we take whenever questions of importance, such as the present bill, shall come before us.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Blanchette
There is not an hon. member or a Canadian worthy of the name who does not believe and wish that Canada and the allied nations shall achieve victory. Being all agreed upon the aim we have in view, the division or difficulty, at least as I see it, is rather one of means.
It seems to me that, if national unity in time of peace is not only necessary but indispensable, as 1 believe it is, in time of war it should not be thrown to the four winds in the presence of an immediate danger or of such calamities as the present war has brought to our very doors. On the contrary, I maintain that the greater the danger, the more unity should be enhanced, for it is in danger that fortitude and strength are needed and should be marshalled; and, just as force is the result of a series of weaknesses joined together, likewise as a corollary is weakness the resultant of disunited forces of strength.
Had I not had occasion to express my views oftentimes on the floor of this chamber on the subject of conscription, I tvould deal perhaps more lengthily with it at present. I will, however, content myself with merely summarizing the reasons which I mentioned on September 8, 1939, while having the honour of seconding the address in reply to the speech from the throne on that occasion, reasons which I reiterated on February 16 last on the floor of this house.
I have been opposed to conscription in the past, just as I am to-day, because I do not believe that it is conducive to Canadian unity, because it proved almost a failure during the last war, and because present enlistments show that it is not needed at this time. In making my assertions in opposition to conscription, I feel that I am in rather good company, since, of the ministers who have spoken thus far, the large majority have expressed themselves as being of the opinion that conscription is not at present necessary; some of them, and not 'the least of the members of the government, going so far as to say that it may never be necessary.
That conscription is subversive of our national unity I shall not labour lengthily to prove. We have had most positive proof of this in this very house since the debate began, just as we have had all the testimonials for which one could wish from the press of the country. If conscription is proposed at the present time, be it by this or any other government, a total war effort in its true sense will be but vain words, a thing of the past, an effort which we possessed and which we threw to the four winds, a mirage which we may always see before us, but which, try as we may, we shall not attain.
The charge is sometimes made that Quebec wishes to dictate to the rest of the country by the attitude which it has taken on the plebiscite, in giving a majority "no" on that question. Quebec does not wish to dominate the rest of the country any more than Ontario or some of the other provinces did when they refused to consider the findings of the Rowell commission when all the provinces gathered together here in Ottawa a few months ago to discuss this important matter. Ontario, through her leaders, signified her opposition to this report. I do not believe anyone could have justly accused Ontario of wishing to dictate to the rest of Canada. In like manner, I do not think it can be truly said that Quebec by voting "no" wishes to dominate the rest of Canada. It is true that the holding of the plebiscite cost a lot of money, but likewise the Rowell commission cost an enormous sum of money. There is this distinction. Whereas in Ontario the "no" in connection with the Rowell commission was given by the leaders, in Quebec the "no" was given by the people themselves.
When the framers of confederation established English and French as the official languages of the Dominion of Canada, it was a great step toward national unity. Since 1867 this fact has played no small part in contributing toward national unity. A few days ago I had occasion to attend the graduation exercises at a French institution in Ottawa, and it was with great satisfaction that I heard the announcement made that La Societe St-Jean-Baptiste had put up a prize for the student of that institution who had shown the greatest progress in the study of English during the year. That was a contribution toward national unity. On June 22, 23 and 24 last there was held in Montreal in the Sun Life auditorium a conference of different groups which put on a programme under the title of "Pull together, Canada." This was a complete success, and at the end of the conference all the actors, who were Anglo-Saxons, came before the curtain and sang "O Canada" in perfect French. The audience rose at the first note and properly stood at attention. That also was a step toward national unity. Trivial things, trivial tsetimonials you may say, but was it not Daniel Webster who stated so correctly:
Great events happen seldom, and affect few; trifles happen every moment to everybody; and though one occurrence of them adds little to the misery or happiness of life, yet the sum total of their continual repetition is of the highest consequence.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Before the house adjourns I should like to point out the difficulty that arises in determining whether a member is reading or delivering his speech. The desire of the Speaker is always to apply the rule. Remarks have been made to me as to why I was not calling to order certain members who appeared to be reading their speeches. The reason lies in the difficulty of determining whether a member is consulting his notes or reading, and the Speaker sometimes refrains from intervening before being certain of an obvious violation of the rule. Our desire is, at all times, to impartially apply the rule, to which we repeatedly draw all hon. members attention. These remarks are made now because my attention has been drawn to an apparent inequality of treatment meted out to hon. members. I want to correct that false impression.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Coldwell
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I intend to make to-night only a few brief remarks. The debate has already been somewhat prolonged, largely by the amount of discussion that has been undertaken by members on the government side of the house, which indicates the disagreement there is in the government party and which, I presume, reflects to some extent some difference of opinion in the government itself.
Since I last spoke in this house, when I had the privilege of outlining a detailed total war policy, the military situation has become very much worse. In our opinion this demands immediate action on all fronts, in our own dominion and elsewhere; and I would suggest that this house should not adjourn without taking all the action necessary to meet the critical situation which now faces this country as one of the united nations. To leave the matter to some subsequent decision of the government, by order in council, is, as I said on June 11, something of an abdication of the rights of this parliament and of the responsibilities which we owe to the Canadian people who sent us here.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself on more than one occasion has condemned the practice of doing by order in council what should be done in this parliament. My colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) yesterday quoted from a speech which the Prime Minister made in this house on June 17, 1920, as reported at page 3691 of Hansard, and which I recommend to the attention of the house at this time:
It is beneath the dignity of parliament- indeed, it is bringing parliament into contempt -to ask us to enact as a law a code of regulations that we have not even perused.
That is precisely what we are asked to do now. If we support the amendment contained in Bill 80, we give to the government the right by order in council, by regulation, to bring into effect something which may affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of young men, and without any reference to this house at a subsequent time. The Prime Minister went on:
I hope I shall never see the day when as a member of this parliament I shall be prepared to consent to any legislation without knowledge of the particulars to which it is proposed to give the force of legal enactment.
To-day we are being asked by the Prime Minister, and by the government of which he is the head, to enact legislation which gives
I Mr. Deputy Speaker.]
that government the right to pass regulations which shall have the force of every kind of legal enactment without any reference to this house. That, I say, is wrong. To postpone the decision and the formulation of a definite and adequate policy at this time would also, in my opinion, be a betrayal of the urgent and immediate needs of this war.
It has been said that the war will be won or lost by the campaigns this summer. I do not believe that to be altogether true, but I do believe that the campaigns of this summer will have a profound effect, at least upon the duration of the war, and that we in this house at the present time should take upon ourselves the responsibility of seeing to what extent we as a nation can make our best contribution to this great struggle.
What are the compelling needs of the situation at the present time? The situation in the middle east, which we have been following with almost bated breath during the last two weeks, again indicates that the primary need in relation to the war in that area is the right kind of equipment in the right place at the right time, and those of us who this evening listened to the news as it come over the British broadcasting system at a quarter to seven will have noted that the Russian papers to-night reported, as did the Russian government, that the situation was one of extreme gravity as far as Russia is concerned. The crying need of Russia is, and will be if the railway line is cut between Moscow and the south, more and more of the right kind of equipment and supplies to assist the armies of the gallant Russian people.
This afternoon in the house the Prime Minister lauded the efforts of the Chinese republic, which for five years has been withstanding the most dreadful kind of invasion and the most dreadful kind of war. During those five years China has cried aloud, not for men, for she has many millions of them ready to fight, but for guns, for tanks, for aeroplanes, for everything and every sort of equipment in order that she may wage the modern kind of warfare. We say that in this country we ought to have mobilized our industrial strength to a greater extent than we have done no matter how well we may have done up to the present time.
We require now, it seems to me, a complete mobilization to make the supreme effort this year. I am not forgetting, of course, that this means that we require transportation, both to transport the equipment and the weapons of war and to transport the men who will use those weapons. So to-day we need to speed up our shipbuilding industry. Let us not forget that while we are doing much now in

Mobilization Act-Mr. Ferland
the way of shipbuilding, yet for a considerable time we did not do nearly what we might have done. We need, too, a planned use and conservation of raw materials.
The statement of the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), reported in the press-I think it was yesterday-brought that very forcibly home to us all. He warned industry that the shortage of raw material might in all probability mean that some industries would have to close down. We have been using these raw materials at a prodigal rate. We have been using them not for our war effort but for all kinds of peace-time needs, because in most instances it was more profitable to make peace-time goods than to produce war equipment. The vital need to-day which is recognized by everyone, I believe, and projected by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, is that something shall be done to relieve the pressure on the eastern front in Europe by an attack on Hitler's armies in the west. For this we have men trained for many months, trained, indeed, for years; but we are told that up to now we have lacked the ships and the equipment in order to make such a project successful. For this ships and equipment and men are needed, and I believe I have placed them correctly in the order in which they are needed.
What should this house do? In our opinion, this house should decide now, at once, without further delay, for total mobilization of industry, of wealth and of man-power. But what are we doing under this bill that we are discussing? We are merely allowing the government once more to postpone its decision on one phase of the mobilization that I have mentioned, and that not the most important. This, it seems to me, is distinctly an abdication of the responsibility of this parliament; it is undemocratic, it is unworthy of our tradition. This is the place where these grave decisions should be taken; this is the place where the policy should be laid down; this is the place where every regulation to be used under that policy should be carefully, scrutinized by members of this house.
I know it was suggested recently that the government should not act finally under the powers it now seeks, until it makes further reference of its policy to this parliament. Then why this debate? Why this debate which has engendered across this country a great deal of bitterness, a great deal of unnecessary bitterness, sowing seeds perhaps of further bitterness? Let us do what it is necessary to do now, in the light of the circumstances which confront us. The course proposed by
the government of getting the power now, of waiting and of coming back again perhaps to this house at some future date to discuss the issue anew, is a course, in my opinion, of procrastination born of political expediency, with further bitterness in the offing, and future unnecessary debate.
I want to make it very clear, as I said on June 11 when this measure was under discussion then, that we do not propose to be parties to this kind of political manoeuvring, for such it clearly is. We shall make our protest to-night by casting our vote against this measure. As I have said, we need definite measures placed before this house for the scrutiny of parliament and for the total mobilization of all our resources now; placed before this parliament now, while it is in session, and then the guarantee of immediate action following whatever we decide to do. I am sure that this would inspire our allies, would help to confound our enemies and would give our people that dynamic and that challenge to go forward which they desire. It would show that we are aware of the critical condition of our common cause, and would enable us to hammer out in this house a policy that would suit the peculiar needs of the country in which we live. It would enable us to maintain our unity, to pull our maximum weight and to help to turn the tide decisively in the direction of early victory for the allied nations. If the government will not give such leadership to the country at this time, let it make way for a government that will.
Mr. CHARLES E. FERLAND (Joliette-l'Assomption-Montcalm) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 80, which we arc now considering, involves the principle of conscripting men for service overseas by older in council, without the approval of parliament. Since I have always opposed the drafting of- men for service overseas and since the citizens of my constituency of Joliette-l'Assomption-Mont-calm, whom I have the honour to represent, are equally opposed to such a measure. I wish to state from the very outset that I cannot support this bill and shall vote against the government. However, it is with the deepest regret that I find myself obliged to take issue with our leader, for the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) has always enjoyed my trust as he still enjoys the respect and general confidence of all the provinces in confederation. The Prime Minister, I am pleased to say, is an honest man, a perfect gentleman, a sincere and far-sighted statesman. He is easily one of the greatest premiers in
Mobilization Act-Mr. Ferland

the British commonwealth. On an issue such as this, however, I regret that I cannot follow his leadership.
Hon. members will recall the famous reply of Aristoteles, that prince of ancient scholarship, who, although filled with a pious admiration for Plato, his revered teacher, refused to endorse his every pledge and error: "Amicus Plato, sed magis arnica veritas!" I love Plato, but I love truth even more!
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that this bill opens the door to the adoption of conscription for overseas service; the truth is that, once this measure is passed, we shall have conscription for overseas service in 1943, if not by the end of 1942. The truth is that the government seem to be too easily influenced by the conscriptionists, the Anglo-Canadian press, the minority who, in this country, have been clamouring since the outset of the war for conscription for overseas service.
I supported the plebiscite bill last February. At that time, the government promised that if they were released from past commitments, from their anti-conscription pledges, parliament would be consulted if conscription of men for overseas service ever became necessary; the question would be decided on its merits, not by the government or through orders in council, but by parliament. The government must have changed its policy in the matter since plebiscite day. It now seeks from us a power of attorney. Under the Bennett regime, our leaders and the Liberal members were scandalized because the administration had obtained a blank cheque in connection with the distribution of unemployment appropriations. To-day, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of distributing our man-power outside of Canada, on all theatres of war. Is this not of greater national importance than the distribution of a few million dollars? I repeat that the government has changed its stand. On April 7 last, the Prime Minister made the following statement over the radio:
The question of conscription, properly viewed, is a military question. The place to discuss it is in parliament. What the government now seeks for itself and for parliament is freedom to consider and debate and decide this question, like all other questions concerned with the war, unrestricted by any pledge and in the light only of the needs of national security.
And he went on to say:
The only place it can satisfactorily be decided whether a particular step is necessary or a particular measure needed, is in parliament. In parliament, the government can state its case and provide the information on which a wise decision can alone be made.
We all recall, Mr. Speaker, the words spoken in this house on February 27 by the right hon.

Prime Minister, on the question of the plebiscite. We recall his asking us in whom we could trust during these critical times, if not in our government and in our parliament?
And so before the holding of the plebiscite, parliament was to make the decision. Consequently I wish to state once again that the government have changed their attitude and their policy, that they are adopting a new policy, that they are even adopting conscription, contrary to the decision they had taken in January last, namely, that this vital question, this question of national importance would be dealt with, judged on its merits and approved or rejected, not by order in council but according to the expressed will of parliament.
I have always opposed conscription, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that I am in good company in maintaining such a stand. Indeed as I review the policy of the Liberal party since 1914, I find that all the great leaders of that party in the province of Quebec have always opposed conscription. Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself, in July, 1917, expressed the true doctrine of the Liberal party when he stated:
I oppose this bill because it has in it the seeds of discord and disuniou; because it is an obstacle and a bar to that union of heart and soul without which it is impossible to hope that this confederation will attain the aims and ends that we had in view when confederation was effected.
All my life I have fought coercion; all my life I have promoted union; and the inspiration which led me to that course shall be my guide at all times, so long as there is a breath left in my body.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not alone in teaching that doctrine. It was endorsed by Sir Lomer Gouin, by the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, a former Speaker of this house, as it is nowadays by the Hon. Adelard Godbout, premier of Quebec, and by our revered leader the Right Hon. Mr. King, who has spent the last twenty-five years expounding it. No one should be surprised if the province of Quebec, subscribing to the political doctrine we have advocated in the past and to a policy which barred conscription for overseas service, remains unalterably opposed to this war measure.
I feel that in view of the Liberal party's teachings during the last twenty-five years and especially in view of the plebiscite vote, I would not be worthy of sitting in this house as the representative of my constituents, if I were to support this conscription measure. The legislation now before us is entitled "The National Resources Mobilization Amendment Act, 1942." It strikes out of the National Mobilization Act, 1941, section 3, which reads as follows:

Mobilization Act-Mr. Ferland
The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
Henceforth the government will be empowered by this measure appearing in our statute books, once clause 3 has been deleted, to enforce conscription by order in council. They will be empowered to send outside Canada and her territorial waters, anywhere, on all theatres of war, our recruits and soldiers who have been mobilized for military service since June, 1940, under the legal and solemn guarantee that they would never be called upon to serve outside this country.
As we are about to vote on this important measure, it is fitting to draw certain conclusions. We are now aware of the attitude of most hon. members of this house and we have to admit that it has been shown conclusively, in the light of actual requirements, that conscription of men for overseas service is not yet necessary. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has often stated during the last few months, as he did only a few days ago, that conscription of men for overseas service is not yet necessary and that it will perhaps never become necessary. Have not most of his ministers taken the same stand and made the same statement? All of them have told us that for the time being the voluntary system is satisfactory, that we have sufficient volunteers to meet every requirement and that conscription is unnecessary.
Faithful to their age-old policy, the Conservatives told us that immediate conscription for overseas service was necessary. It i= their creed and a favourite theory of theirs. They are being logical since 'they have taught and advocated this theory for the last twenty-five years.
As for the Liberal members from the province of Quebec, they have logically continued to respect the traditions and the consistent teachings of their leaders, against which no protest has arisen during the last twenty-five years. They have continued to oppose conscription. What about the Englishspeaking Liberal members? If we except a few who could be numbered on the fingers of one hand, most of the English-speaking Liberal members have supported the present policy of the government concerning the voluntary system of recruitment and most of them have acknowledged and stated that, at the present time, the conscription of men for overseas service is unnecessary. Thus has it been proved and recognized by the great majority of the members of this house that the measure
we are requested to pass to-night is unnecessary. It is generally admitted that this measure of conscription for overseas service is not neeeded. Nevertheless, it will be adopted and a consription bill will be introduced in the statutes of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, although I do not wish to take up too much time, I would like to refer to the statements made by certain members of the cabinet. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) stated in the course of this debate that numerous and strong reasons existed for our country to concentrate on the supplying of allied nations with war materials, instead of neglecting this field for the purpose of sending an insignificant number of men overseas, when the total strength of the opposed armies is taken into account. Canada's task, he said, consists in maintaining a proper balance between the production of munitions and supplies and the mobilization of recruits.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated that under the present system of voluntary enlistments, it would be possible to raise an army of 750,000 men without conscription and that, by the end of the year, 600,000 soldiers would already have enlisted. What did the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) have to say? Together with the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, he made one of the strongest cases against conscription ever heard in this house. Here are a few of his statements: all the arguments of the imperialists and the tories are conflicting. Especially do these arguments mistake total war for conscription. I feel he said, that the adoption of conscription at the present time would not constitute a step toward a total war effort.
I could quote others. I could quote the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) who, in a splendid speech, ably stated the views of French Canada; clearly showed not only that conscription is unnecessary at this time but that it would hamper our war effort and endanger national unity. And did we not hear yesterday the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) tell us that conscription at this time would mean suicide for the Liberal party? Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of joining the suicide squad and I am quite determined to vote against this conscription measure.
I submit that in this measure the government is unfortunately departing from the principle adhered to by the Liberal party for over twenty-five years. I consider that this
Mobilization Act-Mr. Ferland

measure is anti-Liberal, anti-democratic and anti-national, and that the decision on such an important matter should be left to the people, through their representatives in parliament, rather than to the cabinet. Canada is putting forth a total war effort which is satisfactory in my opinion. I support the government in their general policy of participating in this war, of helping our allies and of providing for the defence of Canada. But our country cannot be both the greatest granary and arsenal of the British empire and the best provider of soldiers for the allied armies. Our population is only 12,000,000 in round figures. Our neighbours to the south are 134 million strong and the Minister of Munitions and Supply stated in the course of this debate that the United States would equal Canada's war effort only when they have placed six million men under arms and in service on every allied theatre of war.
Our resources are limited. There is no limit to the good will of the Canadian people, it is true, still it does seem to me that certain of our opponents are desirous of forcing the government to put the whole country to fire and sword and thereby cause among the Canadian people great resentment against the Liberal party once the war is over.
There will be antagonism as between the English-speaking and French-speaking provinces. Racial strife and disunion will be rampant. National unity will be disrupted by this measure of coercion and all because the government will have listened to a minority in this country which is urging without respite, as without necessity, the passing of a conscription measure. I have purposely referred to a minority. During this debate, we have heard hon. members state that the affirmative vote given by the Canadian people on the plebiscite meant their acceptance of conscription. Whatever interpretation may be given to this measure, Mr. Speaker, I claim that the affirmative vote on the plebiscite was given by a minority only.
The voters' lists contained 6,800,000 names of men and women, and only two and a half millions out of that number voted "yes". Even at that, these two and a half millions did not specifically tell the government by their vote that they were in favour of conscription. It was a plebiscite and not a referendum on the question of conscription as the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier requested in 1917. The right hon. Prime Minister, and a great number of other speakers told the people that by answering in the affirmative they were not voting for conscription but simply showing

their confidence in the government, in the Prime Minister and in parliament which was going to discuss this matter and decide on it.
Mr. Speaker, I must conclude my remarks so as not to prolong this debate further. It was Napoleon I who, although he had reestablished the law corporations which had been suppressed during the French revolution, was in favour of cutting off the tongue of any lawyer who criticized the government. In closing, let me say that I am opposed to this measure and that I shall oppose any other conscription measure, even if my tongue should be cut off.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of again voicing my sentiments, on behalf not only of my constituents, but of the Canadian people, in asking, pleading, yes, and demanding that those in authority over us give us more and more of an all-out war effort. I was privileged on armistice day some nine or ten months ago to make that plea. I did so in no uncertain terms, and I should like to be privileged to do it again to-night. My sentiments were reiterated in February, March, April, May and are again to-night.
I am not so much concerned about the amendment as I am about the main motion. I feel disposed to vote for the main motion, but before I cast my vote I want to hear from the lips of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he will carry out his pledge to the Canadian people and give us action on the motion which eliminates section 3 as well as action on the mobilization act while we are here. He should not wait until parliament prorogues. To my mind, the travesty of the whole situation is that for six long weeks or more we have listened to the pros and cons of an issue which has stirred up our people in different parts of Canada. A vote is to be held toward the close of the session; recess will be declared; and .then, because of the procrastination of our leaders, the country will dilly-dally along for another tw'o, three or four months before some action is taken on something which is vital to our country. The hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone) intimated that it might be 1943 before we, assuming our duties as members representing constituents, shall have an opportunity of voicing our opinion upon whether the government is going far enough, and perhaps some of us passing our opinion that the government is not going far enough.
I am sorry to say that Hitler has made some progress with an all-out effort on

Mobilization Act[DOT]-Mr. Harris (Danjorth)
behalf of liis people. Anything less than that on our part, any half way measures will place this nation in a position similar to the positions of those other nations of which we have read. We can hardly imagine that what has happened there could happen here. To read the press is like reading ancient history, like reading of something that did not happen in our time. I wonder if we are not going to know what is going on in this world until the enemy comes up the St. Lawrence and bombards those shores, or comes up through the lakes to Kenora. Are we not going to wake up to the situation until that time? Are we going to sit and argue about what happened hundreds of years ago, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) was trying to tell us a few days ago? Should we not be realists and realize what is going to happen? The Aleutian islands have been attacked and the Japs now have a base there. If we do not attend to the situation along with our cousins to the south, the Japanese will be able to make an entry there.
What are the people of British Columbia thinking? They are thinking as they have always thought, that we as part and parcel of a section of the civilization of this world should, side by side with Britain, protect ourselves. Many of these people came from Great Britain, but many others are of the race represented so well in this house by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson). They are ready to do their part to serve this general cause. They did not vote "yes" on the plebiscite because they were afraid, because they were nervous; they voted "yes" because they had red blood running through their veins. I was going to say "red corpuscles", but they have red blood running through their veins. These people have assimilated the ideas of Canadianism, and they see a great future for everything that Canada holds dear. Not only are they ready to fight and work 100 per cent for the cause, but they feel that the elimination of section 3 should make it possible for all of us to do that. They look to us for help on that particular coast.
The people in the three prairie provinces voted "yes" on the plebiscite for a similar reason. In my opinion, they voted "yes" for conscription. There is not a list of casualties overseas that does not contain the name of someone from Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. If the records are searched it will be found that the people of these three provinces have come to the front, particularly in connection with their defence, perhaps quicker than any others. My hon. friends in front of me come from down by the sea, the maritime provinces. I do not know whether they have
in their hearts and minds the ideas that were given last night to this honourable chamber by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud). I feel that I know these people because I know some of their history. I think of them as the sons and daughters of those who came over on the ship Hector many years ago. Running through their veins is the blood of the highlanders who fought on the Plains of Abraham. When they voted "yes" for the plebiscite, in my opinion they voted for conscription.
We all know what the answer was in those two keystones of the arch of confederation- Ontario and Quebec. We have heard it said as to how Ontario feels. I hesitated to participate earlier in this debate because I felt that the house was getting too much of a feeling from Ontario, particularly the central part. I deprecate with all the intensity I can put into my words some of the utterances which have been made in this honourable chamber with regard to Toronto. Toronto is no mean city. The citizens of Toronto are no mean people. They contribute much. Even some Ontario members criticize the one-tenth of Canada's population which happens to be in that particular centre of Toronto. There are others who may have a little more cause to criticize because of press statements and other utterances which have emanated from that particular centre. But to them all I say, "you are doing an ill service, a disservice, when you criticize the effort and energy that the Toronto people are putting into the war effort".
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Hoblitzell) has been favoured with a seat behind the treasury benches. Of course he could not put across his full message last night, but we all know where he stands. When the hon. member for Eglinton rose in his place to make his speech, in his first sentence he gave credit to you, Mr. Speaker, for finding a place and giving him time in which to speak. But before that sentence had come to a full stop, there was a suggestion that he was not having the full accord of the whips of the Liberal party who are at present charged with the responsibility of arranging the list of speakers. My point is that he represents a large body of Toronto electors, as I do, who voted "yes" on the plebiscite by twenty to one, and they also thought they were voting "yes" for conscription. So much for the people of Ontario.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I know my good friends in the province of Quebec. I challenge anybody to produce any sentence of mine in a period of two decades which casts any reflection on their Canadianism, on their fixity of purpose, or on their anxiety to serve this country in every field in ordinary peace time.
4002	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Harris (Danjorth)
At the same time I make this general observation that the leadership they have been getting has not been of a kind which would tend to let them come to their own conclusions in a quiet way. True are the words of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) when he said that it is the 10 per cent, these dema-goguges, who are the ones that are saying things and giving leadership of a kind in the province of Quebec; but the sound-thinking people of that province-and that takes in, he said, 90 per cent of its people-have a love and admiration for British institutions and are devoted to the constitution and to British ideals, but the leadership they have been getting across the whole of Canada has not given them much to look up to.
What has the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie), who was leading the house a few moments ago and who is not in the chamber at the moment, to his credit in the matter of leadership in the matter of unity in this whole dominion? Where does he stand in this debate? Of course he is going to vote for the elimination of section 3. But how does he stand on conscription? How does he stand on the plebiscite? We have yet to learn whether he is of the right blood and the right stuff. He has not given the leadership we would like to have, and I feel badly for the people of his province for the leadership they are getting in these difficult and trying days.
I might almost join the three prairie provinces. I did not like to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) say from his place in the house the other day that any party in this country which would impose conscription must have no political past and would certainly have no political future. I wonder whether he would pin his faith and his action and his war effort on a political sentiment of that kind.
There is quite a diversity of opinion when one comes to Manitoba. What is the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) doing to make sure wrn get an all-out war effort? I would like to let the women of Canada answer that. What do the Canadian Women's Voluntary Services think of the effort he is making on behalf of Canada at this difficult time? When they of their own free will and by their own efforts were organizing the women of Canada as best they could to carry on patriotically in this war, suddenly they found themselves bereft of their name, and their objectives taken away from them, through the formation of the Women's War Services of Canada. The Canadian Women's Voluntary Services were doing all their work

voluntarily, free of cost to the government, at their own expense; yet they were supplanted overnight by an organization that pays some $4,800 for a chief, $3,600 for an assistant chief, and salaries to many others. It may have been necessary to put that work in some sort of order, but would not the better way have been to use the Canadian Women's Voluntary Services, which was already in existence?
Again, referring to a committee on w'hich I have the privilege to serve, I find that in the division which has to do with national salvage and which was under the supervision of a dollar-a-year man, one Mr. Mark Cohen, who was doing a real service to the country in that position and knew something about the business, he has been supplanted by a Mr. Laferle, at $5,000 a year. He was transportation manager for one of the large companies, but I have not yet been able to find out whether he knows a great deal about the job of work he is now doing.
The idea I want to leave with this house is that the Minister of National War Services, with his past history and his isolationist speeches in this house, and by his very makeup, is not of a kind to stiffen the backbone of the Prime Minister so that he may give us the all-out war effort that our people demand.
The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), who served in the last Union government, a valuable man of great experience, has been in many grooves of thought, politically speaking, and has hopped from one to the other faster than a grasshopper out west can hop. I think one more hop from him would be a good thing for Canada, and that is if he were to hop across the Hall of Fame to the senate chamber and allow another minister to take his place. I say that with all kindliness, because I have a great deal of admiration for him, but he lacks the push and drive needed in a minister in war time. He is not as young as he used to be.
I come now to my hon. friends who twin up as the exemplification of youth in this cabinet, gallant and honourable men, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock). Let them rise in their places and show their youth; let them not only show that they have running through their veins the white corpuscles of famous grandsires, but let them try to dig up a few red corpuscles also. So far in this debate we have only had manifestations of the white atom in the ministerial blood stream. I should like to see, especially in this time of stress and strain, the red corpuscles, diatoms

Mobilization Act-Mr. Harris (Danjorth)
or dyads, coming to the surface in these two youthful ministers to prove that they are worthy sons of worthy grandsires.
My hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), gallant gentleman that he is, served in the navy and shows some independence of thought. He has a grip on his department, but let me tell him, Mr. Speaker, that he is not simply operating a department in these serious days but is helping to decide policy on behalf of a nation that is in peril. When he put out to sea as he did in his fine speech the other day, so far, so good. It was too bad that he had to limp back to port. He did not stick to his guns, But he has a chance to redeem himself yet and to come out for an all-out war effort.
My hon. friend (Mr. Howe) who operates the greatest spending department of all in the government should have more help and assistance. I am not going to say very much about him. I would hesitate to harass any minister of the crown, and anything I do say I hope will be of a constructive nature. If it is not of a constructive nature, I trust at any rate it will be of the kind that will rouse hon. gentlemen from their complacency , and impel them to- more and more concerted action.
From the province down by the sea comes the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), who is doing a good job in his department, though whether or not he is more of a tax collector than a Minister of Finance is something we have yet to find out. If I could be as modest as he looks in carrying that portfolio, I would feel that perhaps modesty was a blessing under every circumstance. I say to him that he should carry out the ideals of a Minister of Finance, the ideals that he has in his mind and heart, so far as the conduct of the war is concerned. If he does, the Prime Minister will be greatly assisted in observing the pledge which he gave to the Canadian people when he spoke on this particular measure, declaring that he wished to be free. As I remember his words, he said that in the light of the discussions which would take place in the house in this debate-and he invited speeches from all hon. members-he was determined to give us action.
My leader (Mr. Hanson) on June 9 made a statement which was repeated to-night by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell), and when the Prime Minister makes his statement in closing the debate I would ask him to reiterate what he said with regard to such action as would be taken after the casting of to-night's vote. I have still an open mind, in view of all these discussions, as to the way in which I
am going to vote. I feel like voting for the elimination of the section, and supporting the main motion, but as regards the amendment I am not quite so sure. Once this discussion is out of the way, I hope that we shall have some action on the part of the government, which will result in revitalizing the people throughout Canada and inspiring them with the. confident belief that we have an active government that will support the war effort in every possible way.
I have a couple of minutes to spare, and I will therefore come back to the Department of Munitions and Supply. I made a suggestion to the minister in charge of that department and coupled it with a suggestion to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson). The condition that obtains to-day with respect to those employed in munitions and supply is that they are taking young men of military age for the production of commodities we need in the war-munitions and supply. But old men are not wanted. On Saturday morning last a man named Francis Wilmot, about fifty years of age, applied to the John Inglis company for a position, but he was rejected on the ground that he was too old. To-day in my mail comes a letter dated July 4, from a young man. I will give the letter to the minister, in confidence, because I do not want this young man to be prejudiced in his position, with the John Inglis company. This letter will explain the point I am trying to make. In the course of it this young man says:
The John Inglis Company where I am employed in . . . division, under . . . has taken notice of my application for postponement of my military duties.
This young man is twenty-two years of age, and he was called on June 30. He has eight days from June 30 in which to appear. He wants a postponement and he is of military age, but an older man of fifty years cannot get a job in the plant. The munition plants are filled with young men who should be serving in the ranks in the army. Can you build an army with men of forty to forty-five? To a degree, yes. At twenty-five I could swim a mile, but at fifty I can swim only a quarter of a mile.


An hon. MEMBER:: Can you prove it?


Joseph Henry Harris: I can prove it. In your salt water, with the buoyancy, I might be able to manage a little more. However, my point is that the Prime Minister could not run one hundred yards as fast torday as he could twenty-five years ago-


An hon. MEMBER:: You don't know the Prime Minister.
4004	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Harm (Danjorth)


Joseph Henry Harris: I could say something rather unkind but I will not. It might depend on who was chasing him. The house has the sense of what I am saying.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Joseph Henry Harris: The older men, I contend, should be put into the munitions plants, and the younger men should be serving in the defence of their country.
Going down again to the province by the sea, we find the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who knows pretty well the conditions that exist there, and his views with regard to the plebiscite and conscription are well known. They are not quite as clear, concise and powerful as I should like to see them driven home to his colleagues in the House of Commons. They are not quite as clear, concise and powerful, or as well driven home, as the view's of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) who gave the honest and frank statement of a statesman. They are not as clear, concise and powerful, either, as the views of his colleague (Mr. Macdonald, Kingston City), who comes from down by the sea. He gave a frank statement and, as I understood it, he expressed himself bluntly with regard to the question of conscription. We have three more ministers, hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec. There we have a review of the situation; there we have a picture of the Liberal party in action. So much for the treasury benches; so much for the picture of the Liberal party in action.
Then we had the speech this afternoon of the hon. member for Wellington South, and other speeches mostly from hon. members from Quebec. We had one from the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming), and a few from hon. gentlemen from other parts of the country who were not quite sure which way they ought to jump.
I like the rugged honesty of the ex-Minister of Public Works, the hon. member for Richelieu-Yercheres (Mr. Cardin). He told us in precise terms that he had divorced himself from every other consideration in his older days in the determination to stand by his people. He said he would translate to the house the ideas which actuate the people of his province. In other words, he was the mirror image and reflection of his people. I do not agree with the sentiments he expressed. I like far better the courageous attitude taken by the Minister of National Defence for Air. He is a Canadian from the province of Quebec, as is the ex-Minister 
of Public Works, but he also remembers that he is a Canadian first and a Quebecker second.
Where does the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) stand? What is he? I listened and tried to understand his position, but I could not form a conception of just where he stands. I wonder what attitude he will take with regard to the defence of Canada league, or some such organization, which is at present working in the province of Quebec. The people in that province have subscribed to four principles, one of which is that they will not stand for conscription. As to the other three, hon. members will find them set out in the press. I will not trespass on my own time in order to recite them.
I wondered when I read those four clauses which it is suggested might be read from the church steps on Sunday whether the Minister of Justice will take them under review and see if they are not much more of a hindrance to recruiting than anything that fell from the lips of Colonel Drew. I am using that only as a parallel. The solid thinking people of Quebec have no leadership, have no head; they have had twenty-five years of listening to leader-* ship of a kind that has made for disunity in this country. I think on mature reflection, after a little more experience in the Canadian House of Commons, the Minister of Justice will not carry us back to 1849, to two or three hundred years ago, as he did. That will not help in any way the unity of this country. To my mind it does not help at all; it hinders recruiting; it hinders Canada from going forward in the way she ought to go. I hope the good people of the province of Quebec will frown these resolutions down:
1.	Firm determination never to accept conscription for overseas service nor any measure which leads thereto or renders its application possible;
2.	To demand of the government that it do not amend article 3 of the mobilization act;
3.	To recall to the government that the adoption of any such measure of conscription will forever compromise the unity of Canada; that it may perhaps lead French Canadians to doubt the accuracy of the allied war aims because the government will assume an attitude contrary to that defined in the Atlantic charter by Roosevelt and Churchill;
4.	To give to the present resolution the greatest possible publicity in order to inform the public, either by reading the resolution at the doors of the church on Sunday or by distributing copies or by publishing it in the local and parochial press or by means of posters.
I hesitate to mention the church of any denomination, but I take my lead from the Minister of Justice when he referred to the church in this chamber and what the church thought about things.

Mobilization Act.-Mr. Mackenzie King
I ask, who is the King of Canada at the present time? King George. When the oath of office is taken, hon. members who occupy a seat in this chamber swear allegiance to King George. Whom then are we fighting for? Are you going to fight for your king, or are you going to go back on your oath of allegiance? Listening to some of the speeches in this house or reading the translation of some of them, I say with due respect to my colleagues that in the heights of eloquence to which they rose some of them forgot the oath of allegiance which they had taken. They forgot where they are heading. These leaders who will make these speeches on the church steps about these four resolutions, where are they going to lead you? Can you go to the United States? You do not want to go to the United States; your church does not want you to go there. The Minister of Justice will remain here in Canada; he is of Canadian birth. Do my hon. friends from Quebec want to have an independent republic within the confines of Canada? By no means. We can work together, but we cannot do so if a leading minister of the crown states from his place in this house in effect that, "we are impossible of assimilation". That is not so. I know it is not so. From the very depths of my soul I say, after twenty years here and after doing business for over thirty years with people of Quebec, that assimilation is possible. Some of my best business associates and friends are French Canadians. If, Mr. Speaker, you will pardon a personal reference, an associate of mine earns a salary by teaching the French language. That is the way we can get along together. I say to the Minister of Justice, do not speak about the possibility of separation. I am glad to see the minister shaking his head, saying "no". I exhort all my fellow members when making speeches to remember that they swore to be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George VI, but bear that allegiance and do that work side by side with your fellow Canadians of English-speaking origin and side by side with Britain in an all-out war effort. Hitler trampled on the nations which were giving a half-out effort. Do not let it be said that we Canadians in our day and generation in like manner gave only a half-out war effort and found ourselves trampled under his feet. When Mr. Churchill spoke to us in this chamber, his last words were, "Hitler asked for total war; let us give it to him."


Georges Parent: The question is on the amendment. Those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Georges Parent: Those against the amendment will please say "nay."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Georges Parent: In my opinion the "nays" have it.


Mr. ROY:: I ask that the vote be registered.


Georges Parent: It requires that five members shall stand in order to have a recorded vote, and since only two are standing, I declare the amendment lost. The question now is on the main motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, in bringing to a conclusion the debate on the second reading of the bill which is before the house, I do not intend to review in detail the arguments which have been presented from different sides. In all that has been said, I have found no reason to alter any of the statements or opinions I expressed in introducing the bill on May 11, and in opening the debate on the second reading on June 10.
I believe the debate itself has more than justified the wisdom of the course the government has adopted in bringing before parliament for consideration, the methods of raising men for service overseas.
It has been recognized from the outset that the question is highly controversial. Had its controversial character been the only factor of which the government was obliged to take account, the task would have been comparatively simple.
In opening the debate, I stated that changed conditions in the character and scope of the war were sufficient of themselves to make necessary at this time the fullest consideration of the question by parliament. I carefully refrained from saying anything of other factors which had forced the issue in a manner which has served to emphasize rather than to lessen its controversial character. I still propose to refrain from saying anything about this particular aspect of the controversy beyond drawing the attention of hon. members to how wholly unnecessary and misleading it has been.
In the present war, the issue of conscription for service overseas was first raised, not in parliament by the responsible spokesman of any political party, but outside parliament altogether. The effort to make it a political issue became evident a little over a year ago in the course of my visit to western Canada.
On each occasion when the issue was pressed to the fore, the method adopted was the same.

4006	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
An attempt was made to identify the single question of the method of raising men for service overseas with "a total effort". It was asserted that the need was an immediate one, and would have to be met immediately.
Conscription for overseas service was certainly not necessary when the agitation was started in Calgary, over a year ago. At that time, those who were responsible for the agitation asserted that conscription for overseas service had become imperative. It certainly was not necessary at the time the new leader of the Conservative party issued his manifesto for National government and an all-out effort. It certainly was not necessary when, as a part of the same campaign, the committee of two hundred in Toronto sought to identify "total effort for total war" with the immediate introduction of conscription for overseas service. It certainly was not necessary at the time the government's intention to hold a plebiscite was announced in parliament. Nevertheless we were told by hon. gentlemen opposite that, considering how long the plebiscite would take, the government should be censured, and the plebiscite itself condemned. It certainly was not necessary at the time of the by-elections in Welland, in York South, in St. Mary's, Montreal, and in Quebec East, though we were told, at the time, by its advocates that conscription was the real issue of those campaigns. It is now clear that conscription for overseas service was not necessary at the time the result of the plebiscite was announced.
In the present debate there are two things which have been proven beyond all shadow of doubt. The first is that the use of the method of compulsion for raising men at any time up to the present, has not been necessary to obtain the men required for overseas service in any of the armed forces of Canada; in the air force, in the navy or in the army. The second is that the totality of Canada's war effort would not have been, in any particular, increased, through an extension of the principle of compulsion to service overseas. Indeed, by resulting dissension, it might have been considerably reduced.
I mention these facts first of all to make perfectly clear that the government has meant what it has said when it has stated, as up to the present it consistently has, that conscription for overseas service was not necessary, either on the ground of obtaining the necessary recruits, or to enable the government to meet its objective of a properly balanced total war effort.
I mention these facts, also, to make perfectly clear that in asking, as is being done by the present bill, that, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, the government should

possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise, the government is doing so not in response to political pressure or popular clamour in any part of the country. The government is asking for this freedom solely because it is of the opinion that, at this time of gravest crisis in the world's history, it is in the national interest that the power should be possessed by the administration.
There is nothing to which some of my political opponents have devoted more of their time and attention than in seeking to make the public believe that, as the head of the administration, I have been actuated primarily by considerations of party interests. It is represented that my aim, above all else, has been to maintain the unity of the party which I lead, in order that I may retain office at the head of a party administration. I do not deny that I have, at all times, striven to maintain the unity of the party which has honoured and entrusted me with its leadership. I owe that duty not only to the party but also to the country, more particularly as my following in this House of Commons is the foundation of the administration which was entrusted by the people, in war time, with the task of government. However, I deny most emphatically that, at any time in the course of my public life, I have ever placed any interest of party above the national interest. Least of all have I had any such thought in conducting the affairs of the country at this time of war.
It surely cannot be said that, in asking by means of a plebiscite for release from any obligations arising out of past commitments, I was acting from motives of party advantage. Nor can it be said that in introducing the present bill at the time it was introduced, I was seeking, as some hon. gentlemen opposite and their press continue to say of me, to appease the large following I have in the province of Quebec, and in virtue of which, they like to say, I am able to keep myself in office.
In the last general elections, I did win the support of the province of Quebec to the extent of all but one of its entire representation in this house. Perhaps this might not be an inopportune moment to remind hon. members and the country that apart altogether from the political support obtained from the province of Quebec, I was accorded, in the other provinces of Canada, a considerable majority over and above that of the combined representation in this House of Commons of the Conservative party, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Social Credit party. Indeed the supporters of the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
government from the provinces other than Quebec number all but half of the total membership of this House of Commons. Secure as I have felt in the confidence thus accorded me by the Canadian people as a whole, I have considered that it increased my obligation to endeavour to see that all questions of national importance were determined solely in the national interest. This, I have felt, was a special obligation of the Prime Minister at a time of war.
I have had no more trying experience in my political life than the realization that the course which I believed it was in the national interest for the government to follow at this time was one which would occasion a division in the ranks of my loyal followers. On the other hand, realizing Canada's position as I see it in the present world crisis, I should have felt as false to the interests of every member of my own following as to the country itself, had I not sought from parliament at this time the powers which the bill asks should be given to the administration.
I have no doubt whatever that the events of the war will more than justify the course which the government has thus far pursued, and is pursuing to-day. I know that the government's present course is already justified in the eyes of the very large majority of the citizens of Canada who have expressed the view that the government should have complete freedom in meeting the different situations of the war as they may arise. I believe that the wisdom of the government's course will become equally apparent to most, if not to all, of those who have been unwilling, or still hesitate to trust the administration with so wide a measure of discretion. The results of the plebiscite showed that, as respects the application or non-application of conscription for overseas service, the vast majority of the people of Canada were prepared to trust the judgment of the present government. I should not like the debate to conclude without expressing, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, our appreciation of so great a trust.
It is true that the present bill is a logical sequence of the plebiscite, but its origin is not to be found in the results of that measure. Because the results of the plebiscite have, by some, been represented as a mandate for conscription for service overseas, the significance of the present bill has, as a consequence, been distorted in the eyes of others. Both the plebiscite and the bill have, in fact, a common origin. Each owed its existence to the policy of the government as set forth in the speech from the throne at the opening of the present session of parliament. Each was a necessary step, but only a step in the accomplishment of that policy.
44561-253 J
This is the statement of policy as it appears in the speech:
The government is of the opinion, that at this time of gravest crisis in the world's history, the administration, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, should . . . possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as it may arise.
The one and only particular in which the administration was not free to act in accordance with its judgment was with respect to the methods of raising men for military service.
So far as the government's policy as expressed in this bill is concerned, it is not a new policy; it is identical with the government's policy as set forth in the speech from the throne, which parliament approved by the adoption of the address. Because of prior commitments regarding the methods of raising men for military service overseas, the necessary freedom could only be secured in two stages.
The one stage was to seek from the people release from a moral obligation arising out of past commitments, and the other stage, to seek from parliament the removal of a limitation expressed in existing legislation. The former-the release from the moral obligation -was sought and obtained by the plebiscite; the latter-the removal of the legal restriction -is being sought, and I hope will be obtained, by the present bill. But while the second step-the bill which is now before the house- was a logical sequence of the results of the first step, namely, the plebiscite, it does not owe its origin to that measure, but to the policy of the government as set forth in the speech. And may I say to my hon. friend and former colleague the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) that he was with me and with all of my colleagues at the time when the policy was settled, and he agreed with all of us at the time that it was a desirable policy for the government.
The government's policy as set forth in the speech from the throne was due not to any political pressure or popular clamour but to what the government, as a result of the changed conditions of the war, had come to recognize as the only sound policy "at this time of gravest crisis in the world's history."
In all sincerity, may I ask would any other policy be justifiable in the face of conditions as we have seen them develop from month to month, and from year to year since the commencement of the present war, and as we know them to-day? If after almost three years of conflict, the course of the war had been different; if, for example, Germany, after
4008	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
overrunning the most of Europe, had been driven out of some, or even one of the countries she has subjugated; if Germany was now more concerned with her own defence than bent, as she continues to be, upon further conquest; if Japan had remained out of the war, instead of challenging the might of the United States, as well as that of the British commonwealth and other of the united nations, there might have been reason to question the need for removal of any limitation upon the complete freedom of the administration to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of situations as they may arise. But when the very opposite is the case, when the war, instead of remaining upon a single continent has become a war which is world-encircling, embracing all continents as well as all oceans, a war in which all of the great powers of the world have either been partly destroyed, or are fighting for their very existence, and in which the survival of civilization itself is at stake, would it not have shown a lack of responsibility had the government not sought from parliament, in plenty of time, the widest possible powers to cope with any and every situation as it may arise?
A government is responsible not only for what it does, but for what it fails to do. A like responsibility, it seems to me, rests upon the parliament of the country, once its members are appealed to by the government to assist the administration in helping to accomplish the defeat of the enemy, and thereby to preserve the nation's security, and it may be its very existence.
On June 11, the former Minister of Public Works, objecting to the introduction of the bill at the present time, exclaimed, as reported in Hansard at page 3277:
In the name of heaven, what is the use of having a dead principle in our statute books? My hon. friend, in asking that question, was thinking only of the application of conscription for service overseas. He entirely overlooked one very important aspect of the bill. The present bill seeks to remove the limitation on compulsory military service outside Canada and its territorial waters. It will not only remove the statutory limitation on compulsory service overseas; it will equally remove the restriction on compulsory service elsewhere in this hemisphere. In so far as service in other parts of north America and the adjacent islands is concerned, the amendment of the mobilization act, once it becomes law, will in no sense be "a dead principle in our statute books."
At any moment, its application may become an urgent necessity. Recent events, no less than a glance at the map are enough to dis-

close that, in a tactical sense, the defence of our east and west coasts is inseparable from the defence of the adjacent territories of the United States. We have recognized from the beginning of the war that the same is true of Newfoundland and Labrador. To strengthen our own immediate defences, it will be necessary to extend the scope of compulsory service to these areas. In the event of actual hostilities on any considerable scale in this hemisphere, any restriction on the movement of troops back and forth between Canada and neighbouring territories would be intolerable.
It is true that before the plebiscite was held, I said that the government, in an emergency, would authorize such action by order in council under the War Measures Act, and would later ask parliament to amend the mobilization act. But that surely is an undesirable method to employ if parliament has the time to give to the government the necessary authority in advance.
Moreover, the government has equal power to follow the same procedure in the case of compulsory service overseas. It is because of its deep sense of its responsibility to parliament, that the government is seeking, for the one case as for the other, the requisite authority from the present parliament.
The debate has shown that objection to the present bill is due in the main to one of four reasons. There may be others, but they have not been set forth in a pronounced way in any of the speeches which have been made.
The first two of these reasons for opposition represent the extremes of widely divergent points of view. At the one extreme are those who object that the bill does not go far enough. At the other extreme are those who say that the bill goes too far. Those who hold to the first of these extremes wish to have the principle of conscription applied immediately to service overseas, regardless of whether or not compulsion is needed to obtain the necessary enlistments, and regardless as well of prejudicial consequences which might arise from an unnecessary application of conscription to overseas service. Those who hold to the opposite extreme are unwilling to have the principle of conscription applied to service overseas not only immediately, but at any time, and this regardless of the consequences whatever they might be.
In referring to those who take this extreme view, I wish to differentiate sharply between hon. members who are in accord with the government's policy of a total war effort, but who honestly and sincerely believe that conscription for overseas service will not increase our total effort, and might even

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
serve to prejudice that effort, and those others, happily very few in number, who have indicated clearly by their attitude, not only in the present debate but in the past, that they are prepared to see Canada risk defeat rather than accept conscription for service overseas. In 1937, in 1938 and in 1939, some of these hon. members opposed the preparations for the defence of Canada because they maintained that Canada was in no danger. If I interpret their words aright, they are still prepared to overlook the designs of the enemy, and to discount his strength, despite the fact that his design of world conquest is increasingly clear, and despite the continued success of his arms. They are prepared to leave to others to do for Canada, for their homes and their families what they are unwilling to do not only for others, but even for their own country, and for themselves. They refuse to see the need to bring about the destruction of the enemy as speedily as possible, and as far as possible from Canada. They are prepared to risk subjecting the Canadian people to the fate of those countries which, in such numbers, have already experienced the terrors of invasion, and of conquest, by a ruthless and relentless foe.
The members who are thus unwilling to look beyond the shores of Canada have referred repeatedly to Australia which country, at an earlier stage in the war, sent troops overseas, and has since been obliged to recall some men for her own defence. But why did Australia send her troops overseas if it was not that she recognized the need of a collective defence? Why, may I ask, was the United States so ready to send an army and naval forces to Australia in her hour of need? Was is not because the United States realized that unless the enemy were defeated overseas, he would have to be defeated on American soil; and was it not also because Australia had earned the respect and help of other nations by sending her armed forces overseas against the common enemy?
And here let me protest equally against the deliberate misrepresentation of Canada's position which continues to come from many who represent the other extreme. Some hon. members opposite have said, and the press which supports them keeps repeating the statement, that the government is unwilling to send men overseas. They seek to create the impression that, because Canada has had no occasion to resort to conscription for overseas service, that no Canadian troops are being sent overseas. This obviously is being said solely for political purposes, for they know full well that such is not the truth, and that a false impression is thereby being created.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the right hon. gentleman point out a single speech by any member of this party to the effect which he has just now stated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. The hon. gentleman, sitting I think two seats behind my hon. friend, said the other day that I was not willing to have men sent overseas. His speech was quite clear on that point, and he made the statement in this house.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: If the Prime
Minister is referring to me, such a statement was never made by me, directly or indirectly.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: Or by any other member.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going to quote what my hon. friend had said to-night, but I refrained from doing so, not wishing to bring any hon. member's name into the discussion. But when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) asked me to name any one member of this house who had made a statement of the kind, I was obliged to make the reference I did.


Mr. STIRLING:: That does not make it right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall give my hon. friend the quotation.


James Arthur Ross: Put it on Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall put it on Hansard to-morrow.


James Arthur Ross: Put it on Hansard to-night.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his statement or to produce the statement alleged to have been made by me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a point of order, the Prime Minister must accept the member's statement or quote that statement which he alleged was made. I heard the Prime Minister's statement with the greatest surprise. I have followed this debate most intently, and I do not recall any such statement on the part of anybody in this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I might be
permitted to proceed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
we ought to have a ruling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not propose to do other than proceed with my speech at the present time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I
suggest that the right hon. gentleman-


An hon, MEMBER:: Sit down.
4010	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who said "sit down?" I have the right to rise on this question, and no member of the government or anyone else has a right to tell me to sit down. The Prime Minister must accept the statement of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) or produce the evidence upon which he bases his assertion. I do not recall anything of that sort from any hon. member on this or any side of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: An hon. member is supposed to withdraw any language that is unparliamentary. When a statement is made in parliamentary language by an hon. member and it is denied by another hon. member, the matter is closed.


Georges Parent: A point of order has
been taken, and the Prime Minister has indicated that he would like to continue his speech. I suggest that the Prime Minister be allowed to complete his statement, and then the matter can be taken up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: With grea' respect I suggest that that is not good enough. The Prime Minister made a statement and, when challenged to name the hon. member concerned, he indicated the hon. member for Lake Centre. The hon. member for Lake Centre denies specifically having made any statement such as that attributed to him. The Prime Minister must accept that statement and withdraw.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not according to
the rules of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the leader
of the opposition will allow me, I shall now read the statement to which I made reference. It will be found on page 3329 of the House of Commons debates of June 15, 1942, in the first paragraph of the hon. member's speech. He said:
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 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.


Mr. ROWE:: That is not at all what the Prime Minister said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say-


John George Diefenbaker: There is no such
inference in that at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This statement that I have consistently opposed military

service overseas is made in the face of the fact that I have since the beginning of this war done all that lies within my power to see that the largest possible number of men were sent overseas in the navy, the air force and the army; and the numbers of men who have enlisted for service anywhere in the world to-day is the answer I make to the member who has just interrupted.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Apologize later.


Georges Parent: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: There is nothing to apologize for. On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the context shows that the reference was entirely to compulsory service for overseas.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But what is the result? False impressions are thereby also being given to other countries. This is most detrimental to Canada, and is most unfair to Canada's magnificent army overseas.
No one can object to the honest advocacy of conscription by those who believe sincerely that it will advance the country's war effort. But surely there are better ways to advocate conscription than by belittling the Canadian army, and seeking to create the impression that because the men who are steadily going forward have offered their services voluntarily, Canada is not sending troops overseas.
Both extremes, for opposite reasons, are helping to create the wholly false impression that Canada is not sending or is not willing to send her men to meet and defeat the enemy overseas. Both, for political ends, are prepared to discredit their own country in the eyes of the world.
These two extremes can never be reconciled. The debate must have made it wholly clear even to those who support either extreme, that the adoption of their views would only serve to weaken, and perhaps to destroy, the national unity which all should wish to see maintained. It would be equally destructive of an effective war effort.
Were this House of Commons, on grounds of national necessity, or for any other reason, obliged to yield to either extreme, many hon. members might well find their present position one of considerable embarrassment. Their embarrassment, however, both in the present and in the future, is more likely to arise, indeed, is, I believe, certain to arise, should they fail to lend their support to a policy which avoids extremes, and which, at this time of war, alone gives hope for the preserva-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
tion of national unity. National unity, it seems to me, can best be preserved by hon. members giving to the government charged with carrying on Canada's war effort, the support which the government must receive from parliament, if its great responsibilities are to be discharged in a manner which will truly serve the national interest.
If, in reference to the very difficult question of service overseas, anyone can conceive of a policy which is better calculated to serve the national interest than the one the government has formulated, and which is clearly and concisely expressed in the words: "Not necessarily conscription, but conscription if necessary", I shall be first to advocate its acceptance. I can only say that nothing of the kind has been proposed by any hon. member in the course of the debate. Nor do I believe that anything better can be suggested. Indeed, the events of the war, as well as all that has been said in the course of the debate, should have made it wholly apparent that, all circumstances taken into account, it is the only sound policy.
We are not dealing with theories, either of government or of war, upon which, without grave risks to themselves and others, men can afford to continue to differ. We are faced with conditions which actually exist, and which have to be met. They must be met with as large a measure of general consent as may be possible, if both Canada and our allies are not to suffer. It is from this point of view that, regardless of any position thus far taken with respect to the present bill, I now ask all hon. members to view their obligations alike to their constituencies and to Canada.
I said that objection to the bill had been raised on four grounds. I have dealt with the first two. Those who oppose on other grounds do not differ fundamentally with the policy of the government with respect to service overseas: "Not necessarily conscription but conscription if necessary". But they assert that, if the bill is to receive their support, something more is required. The assurance demanded, in the one case, is that if provision is to be made for the conscription of men for service overseas, then provision must equally be made for what is generally termed "the conscription of wealth"; that the two must go together. That, as I understand it, was the purport of the amendment proposed by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group.
First of all, may I say to my hon. friend the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, and to those who share views similar to his own, that the power to
conscript wealth at whatever time, and to whatever extent may be deemed advisable and necessary, is already in the act which the government is asking parliament to amend, not by further limiting its provisions, but by extending their application.
The power to conscript wealth will remain unrestricted. There are no limitations upon this power other than such as may result from the judgment of the government in exercising its discretion. The legislation itself as I have pointed out is enabling legislation, and as respects both the conscription of wealth and conscription of man-power will, if the bill is adopted, remain enabling legislation. The government in both particulars will be free to exercise its discretion as the needs of the war may demand.
I need not, I know, remind hon. members that the ground on which, on its second reading, a bill merits support or rejection, is one of principle. It is not a question of additions to or subtractions from its provisions. These are matters to be dealt with when the bill is in committee. What, so far as principle goes, the government is seeking by the bill is exactly what the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation implies the government should have, namely, complete freedom, subject to its responsibility to parliament, as respects the application of conscription in any direction. To impose conditions of any kind upon the exercise of the government's discretion, other than such as attach to its responsibility to parliament, is to destroy altogether the all-out freedom of action by the administration which it is the principle of the bill to secure.
If this year's budget does not serve to convince hon. members and the people of Canada generally of the government's readiness to conscript whatever wealth is necessary to distribute the burden of Canada's war effort as equitably as possible, it is difficult to imagine what more in the way of assurances to this end would be regarded as adequate.
I come now to the last of the reasons which have been urged by some for not supporting the bill, and by others for hesitating to give their support until the government's exact intentions are more fully known.
From both sides of the house, objection has been raised to the possibility of resort to conscription for overseas service at some future date without a further reference to parliament. When, however, hon. members speak of coming again to parliament, some appear to have one thing in mind; and others quite another.
All are agreed that the present bill, if enacted, will give to the government the
4012	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
power to make conscription applicable to service outside Canada, whenever and to whatever extent in the judgment of the government it is necessary and advisable. Some contend that should the government decide that conscription for overseas service has become necessary and advisable, the government should before any action is taken, announce its decision to parliament, and, at that time, by further legislation, define the terms and conditions of such service, or at least permit a second debate on the question of its immediate application. There are others who do not advocate a second debate on conscription, much less further legislation, but who maintain that a due recognition of the ministry's responsibility to parliament demands that, as soon as possible after the government's decision has been reached, it should be communicated to parliament, and before effect is given thereto, that opportunity should be given hon. members for an expression of their views.
May I say, as emphatically as I can, that in no case would I wish to countenance a second debate on conscription.
In setting forth the reasons why the government had not proceeded by stages, in removing the limitation in the mobilization act with respect to service outside Canada, I made the statement that such a course would not have met the purposes of the plebiscite as outlined in the speech from the throne, one of which was to ensure to the government complete freedom of action, subject only to its constitutional responsibility to parliament.
I gave, however, another and very important reason. I said that to amend the act in any particular would necessitate a debate in both houses of parliament-a debate moreover which would inevitably be a debate on the question of conscription; that this would mean going all over the same ground again. Speaking on this aspect of the matter on June 10, I said:
Unnecessary discussion and prolonged debate in parliament at a time when our country is hourly being drawn into greater danger would not serve to place Canada's war effort in its true light, either before our own people, or before the people of other countries, nor would it gain respect for parliament.
Whatever may have been said or thought of the truth of this statement at the time it was made, after all that has since been said in the course of the present debate, for and against conscription for service overseas, it will, I think, be agreed that on this question little more, if anything of value, could possibly be added. It must now be wholly apparent that this House of Commons itself,
TMr. Mackenzie King.]
not to speak of the country, would be impatient of any attempt to traverse the same ground anew; and that public opinion would strongly resent any such procedure.
It is well, therefore, that it should once again be clearly stated that while this bill does not, regardless of circumstances, commit the government to conscription for overseas service, parliament, by enacting this bill, is placing it within the discretion of the government to impose conscription for service overseas, if, in its judgment, the needs of the situation as they may arise should so demand.
This is one of the reasons why the government has been ready to allow to hon. members on the second reading of the bill, the fullest latitude to discuss from all possible angles, and on all possible grounds, the question of the application of conscription to service overseas, and has not sought, in any way, to curtail the debate. It would be unreasonable to suppose that a like opportunity could be afforded at any other time.
If, at some future time, it became necessary in the judgment of the administration to apply conscription for service overseas, that step, it is to be presumed, would be to meet a situation which would permit of little, if anything, in the way of debate. Debate would involve delays at a moment when time had become a vital factor. Knowing that this is likely to be the case, had the government sought to postpone debate on overseas conscription until the hour of an emergency, hon. members might well have complained that on so controversial a question they were not being treated with the consideration to which the representatives of the people were entitled. It might have been said that their hands were being forced.
There is an additional reason why the debate on conscription for service overseas should take place upon the present bill rather than at a time-should the situation so demand -that the government may have reached the decision that the application of the compulsory method to military service overseas has become necessary. That reason is that the need would almost certainly arise in circumstances in which military considerations would prevent the disclosure in open debate of the factors on which the decision of the government was based. The government's judgment in the matter will necessarily depend, in very large part, on military information of the highest degree of secrecy. There is nothing more important in the movement of troops at a time of war than that all matters pertaining thereto should be surrounded with the utmost secrecy. Moreover it is not only Canada's position, and considerations of

M obilization
Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
special interest to Canada, that have to be taken into account. Very careful account has to be taken of the hostile use the enemy may make of information disclosed, and of how far any disclosures on military matters may affect the position of every one of the united nations.
It has, I think, been made abundantly clear that, so far, at least, as the present administration is concerned, any decision respecting conscription for overseas service will not rest solely with the military authorities, but that any action taken under the present bill must and will be authorized by the Governor in Council. In other words, the decision will be the decision of the cabinet, subject always to its responsibility to parliament.
I have also already given to hon. members an assurance that all relevant factors would be taken into account by the cabinet in reaching a decision.
In speaking in this house on the purpose of the plebiscite, I said as reported in Hansard of February 25, 1942, at page 830:
What we shall do at any particular time will depend upon the course which we think at the time is necessary and advisable, and most effective in Canada's war effort. That decision is not going to be made in the light of any one factor. It is going to be made in the light of all conditions as they exist, and as they are known to the government at the time.
And later:
The government is going to do the thing that it believes is going to further to the uttermost Canada's war effort, all circumstances considered.
I added:
May I say that when I say "all circumstances considered", I have in mind the conditions as they exist in respect to the war in different theatres, and the conditions as they may exist in Canada itself.
It is perhaps well that I should remind hon. members that these statements were made as early in the present year as February 25. They were repeatedly referred to in the course of the campaign on the plebiscite in explanation of its objectives, and of how the government proposed to exercise its power, if given a free hand. It cannot therefore be said that the government's policy, as it finds expression in the present bill, was not fully known both to parliament and the public, before and during the time the plebiscite was held.
As to the right thing being done by the government at the right time, and in the right way, that, it seems to me, as I said in opening this debate, necessarily comes to be a matter of the degree of confidence which parliament and the people have in the administration charged with the responsibilities of carrying
on the war. This does not constitute a reason for a second debate on the conscription issue.
It is, however, the strongest of reasons why a government, once it has reached a decision that the needs of a situation demand a certain course of action on which opinion may be divided, should take the earliest possible opportunity of making perfectly sure that it enjoys the confidence of parliament, and that it may rely with certainty upon the support of parliament in giving effect to the decision reached. Especially is this the case where widely divergent views have previously been expressed in the country, and also in parliament, on the wisdom of any discretionary power being given the administration; and where it is to be expected that differences will still exist concerning the wisdom of the decision.	.
A second debate on conscription is one thing. A vote of confidence in a government before it undertakes to enforce a' particular course of action is quite another and wholly different thing.
If an administration is to begin to carry out its duties in the prosecution of a war, it cannot afford to be left in any doubt, at any time, as to the adequacy of its support by parliament, and least of all in a time of peril. The assurance of the confidence of parliament is particularly necessary to the leader of a government where there is the slightest reason for him to doubt the extent to which he may be able to rely upon the support he will receive in the House of Commons.
In the speech from the throne, it was stated that the government was of the opinion that, at this time of gravest crisis in the world's history, the administration, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, should possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise.
As to the importance to be attached to the words "subject only to its responsibility to parliament" as they appear in the speech from the throne, there may well be differences of view. The responsibility of the ministry to parliament would be the same whether these words were there or not. Their presence in the speech would seem, however, to endow them with special significance.
How important may be the significance to be attached to them, each hon. member will necessarily decide for himself. For myself, and in this I speak only for myself, holding the views I do, and the views I have always held concerning the responsibility of the executive to parliament, I do not believe that this House of Commons would feel it had been shown the degree of confidence it had

4014	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
a right to expect from the ministry, if, in a matter of so great concern to the whole of Canada, the government were to act before so important a decision had been made known to the house.
While it is true that if the present bill becomes law, the administration will possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment, I can imagine what would be said by some hon. members opposite, and indeed by many hon. members on this side of the house as well, if, with parliament in session, and before acquainting hon. members with the decision of the government, I were to sign an order in council putting into effect conscription for service overseas, and immediately thereafter were to come to this house and inform hon. members of the action the government had already taken.
If the need should arise for sending overseas as reinforcements men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, the procedure should be as open and above board as it can possibly be made. Unless it is understood that parliament will be informed in advance, all kinds of suspicion will be aroused and all sorts of rumours will be in circulation from day to day.
The right of the public to be informed of the decision of the government before it is enforced was set forth clearly in the address I made in opening the plebiscite campaign on April 7. Speaking on this very matter in a nation-wide broadcast, I said:
The people of Canada are not going to hesitate to take any steps which thev believe to be necessary for the preservation of their freedom. They are certainly not going to hesitate to adopt any measure needed to preserve their national existence, but they will wish to know and they have a right to know, that before any step is taken, that step is necessary. This is particularly true in the case of a measure which has been the subject of bitter controversy and the source of disunity in the past.
I intend, therefore, if the time should come when the government decides that it has become necessary to send overseas men who have not volunteered for general service, and I should be in office at the time, to ask my colleagues to join me in seeing that parliament is immediately informed of the government's decision. If parliament is not in session, I would do whatever lies within my power, to see that parliament is informed as soon as possible after the decision has been reached.
I intend, at the same time, to see that, before the administration assumes the additional responsibility of enforcing its decision, hon. members are given an opportunity, not for any second debate on the question of
[Mr. Mackenzie King.}
conscription, but of showing their confidence or want of confidence in the administration.
In following this course, I hope it will be agreed that I am fulfilling the spirit of an earlier undertaking given to parliament on February 25, that "when we find that we cannot raise the required numbers of men for enlistment overseas by the voluntary method, and it is absolutely necessary to raise more men by other methods, then we will make our decision, present it to parliament, and have it discussed on its merits". The debate on the merits of conscription has, of necessity, come on the present bill. What really is important hereafter is that the government's decision should immediately be presented to parliament, and that the government should be prepared to stand or fall on its decision.
It may be said that such a course will involve a delay; and that what is needed is action. It will quite rightly be said that if action had not become imperative, the government would not have reached a decision. Such an objection might justifiably be raised if a second debate were to be permitted on the question of conscription. It is not, however, an objection to the course proposed. If the government decides that it is necessary to apply conscription for overseas service, there need be no delay in enforcing that decision. And unless it became apparent that the ministry had ceased to enjoy the confidence of this House of Commons, there would be no delay.
Even if parliament is not actually sitting, it can be brought together in a few days. Under our war-time practice of adjourning rather than proroguing the session, there would be no opening formalities. There would be no need of further legislation, merely an expression of confidence in some form. It is virtually impossible to conceive of a situation in which the lapse of a week will affect sending reinforcements overseas, since arrangements to that end could proceed concurrently with the reassembling of parliament. As the former Minister of Public Works himself suggested on June 11, as reported in Hansard at page 3277:
In seven days, conscripts -are not going to be sent overseas. . . . Nothing would prevent the government from preparing the machinery the moment they decide to have recourse to conscription.
Debate of course would have to be curtailed. Following precedents established at Westminster, I would feel that, if any, at most a very short time should be allotted for discussion.
No matter how drastically discussion might have to be restricted, every member by his

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
vote would have the opportunity to express his confidence or lack of confidence in the government. There need, in fact, be no debate.
Within the past week, a resolution of nonconfidence in the government was debated in the British House of Commons. It arose as a result of criticism directed against Mr. Churchill on account of his continuing to hold the office of Minister of Defence in addition to that of Prime Minister. The debate was definitely limited in time. In less than two days, hon. members found ample opportunity for an expression of their views.
As to the means by which this house, with respect to the government's decision, could be given the opportunity to express its confidence or lack of confidence in the administration, hon. members are well aware that it is possible at any time for any hon. member to move a vote of want of confidence on a motion to go into committee of supply. Should the government deem it advisable to proceed by that method to ascertain the opinion of the house, the government would so arrange. If, at the time, there were no estimates before the house, the government could bring in a special supplementary estimate, and immediately move to have the house go into committee of supply. Any hon. member who wished to do so, could then move a vote of want of confidence.
There is another, and a more direct method of procedure. That is the method which was followed in the parliament at Westminster in January last, after Mr. Churchill's return from his earlier visit to the United States and Canada. On January 27, Mr. Churchill expressed to the House of Commons his desire to be sustained by a vote of confidence.
The following day, Mr. Attlee moved:
That the proceedings on the motion relating to confidence in His Majesty's government be exempted, at this day's sitting from the provisions of the standing order (sittings of the house).
This was agreed to.
Mr. Attlee then moved:
That this house has confidence in His Majesty's government and will aid it to the utmost in the vigorous prosecution of the war.
Debate took place on January 28 and 29. At the end of the latter sitting, the house divided: ayes, 464, and noes, 1.
Hon. members will, I believe, be interested in Mr. Churchill's own appreciation of the importance and significance of the vote he was asking from the House of Commons. On January 27 he said:
From time to time in the life of any government, there come occasions which must he clarified. . . .
44561-254J
Since my return to this country, I have come to the conclusion that I must ask to be sustained bv a vote of confidence from the House of Commons. This is a thoroughly normal, constitutional, democratic procedure. A debate on the war has been asked for. I have arranged it in the fullest and freest manner for three whole days. Any member will be free to say anything he thinks fit about or against the administration or against the composition or personalities of the government, to his heart's content, subject only to the reservation which the house is always so careful to observe about military secrets. Could you have anything freer than that? Could you have any higher expression of democracy than that? Very few other countries have institutions strong enough to sustain such a thing while they are fighting for their lives.
I am unable to indicate, at present, which procedure will be followed in the event of the government reaching the decision that it should have recourse to conscription for service overseas. That must depend upon the circumstances at the time. In a matter which relates to a future decision of the cabinet, and so immediately to the confidence which others may have in my judgment and my fidelity, I obviously can speak only for myself. No one can say what the course of the war will be, or what, at any time, conditions may be in our own or other countries. In seeking to free the government from one commitment, I do not wish to be drawn into making another. I wish, however, to leave no doubt in the mind of any hon. member that, if I am at the head of the administration when such a decision is reached, I shall ask to be assured of the confidence of the House of Commons before the government proceeds to enforce the decision.
This is not a new attitude on my part. It is one that I have repeatedly expressed, and to which I intend at all times to adhere. I so expressed my attitude in this very matter to the Canadian people, on April 24. In my final broadcast in the plebiscite campaign, I said:
This is not an ordinary time; it is a time of war. The whole world is in a state of rapid change. At any time the responsibilities of government are heavy enough. They are greater to-day than they have ever been. For my part, if I did not believe that as head of the government, I continued to enjoy the confidence of the people, who, time and again, have returned me to office, I would not wish to remain in office an hour longer.
I might point out, that in January last, when Mr. Churchill sought a vote of confidence in his administration, none of his critics had even suggested that he should resign, and that someone else should take his place. He felt, however, that criticism of himself and of certain aspects of his administration had reached the point where he required the assurance that he was sustained by the
4016	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
support of those from whom in parliament his power was derived. I believe that the leader of a government charged with great responsibilities in a democratic country feels, at all times, the need of such an assurance, and at no time more than on the eve of embarking upon added responsibilities.
Mr. Churchill, I think, had this very much in mind when, answering his critics in the House of Commons at Westminster on Thursday last he said:
Everything that can be thought of or raked up has been used to weaken confidence in the government. . . .
And later, referring to himself as the prime minister, he added:
. . . and then to undermine him in his own heart, and, if possible, before the eyes of the nation.
But there is another reason why Mr. Churchill has felt from time to time the need of being sustained by a vote of confidence of fellow members in the House of Commons. Parliamentary responsibility is twofold. Members as well as ministers have their responsibilities. Mr. Churchill felt that the people of the United Kingdom had a right to know where their representatives stood, and what support they were prepared to give to the administration in its grave task of carrying on the war. He felt the people of the United Kingdom were equally entitled to know what support was being withheld from the administration, and why it was being withheld. The same I believe to be true at this time of war of the parliament and people of Canada.
As I conclude, may I repeat what I said to the people of Canada in appealing, on April 7, for an affirmative vote on the plebiscite:
To those who, beyond the events of to-day, are able to look into the future, it is no longer the unity, it is the very existence of our country as a free nation which they see is in danger to-day. We are no longer in a world where even the most powerful nation is able, by itself, to save itself from the ambition and greed of the aggressor nations. For the preservation of its very existence, each free country is going to need all the help that other free countries can give. It will require the utmost cooperation on the part of all free countries to save them from becoming victims, one by one, of the gangster nations whose undoubted aim is world conquest. With our immense territory, great resources and small population, no country may come to need the help of the other countries more than our own. Unless we continue to do all we can to help others, we shall have no right to expect them to do all they can to help us. Until the present tide of conquest is turned into overwhelming defeat for the enemy, no country -and assuredly not Canada-can consider itself secure.
I did not use those words lightly. I appeal to every hon. member to ponder their significance 
in the light of what has since occurred and' of the situation as we know it to-day. Who can doubt that our security, that the security of this hemisphere depends upon holding the German and Japanese forces in check in the old world until, from the new, sufficient strength can be gathered to overcome their terrific power.
The machines and wecpons of modern war have annihilated space; they have all but destroyed time. Remoteness and distance provide no protection. In this war "overseas" has in reality lost its meaning. The conflict is one, single and indivisible, whether it is fought on the sands of Egypt, on the steppes of Russia, in the depths of China, on the islands of the Pacific, in the arctic wastes, or in the skies over Britain and Germany and the conquered countries of Europe. There can be no security for us, for our homes, and families, until the forces of the enemy are defeated and crushed.
The government and people of Canada have a heavy responsibility to the half million young Canadians who have offered their all for our safety. We owe them all that we can give. Wherever they are fighting, they are fighting for Canada, for their own country, for its safety and for its future as well as for freedom for other lands. That future is in our keeping; and we, in this parliament, owe it to our gallant young men, when the war is won, to hand on to them, so far as it lies within our power, a free and united Canada.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: I am authorized by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Lapointe) to say that he was paired with the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). Had he voted, he would have voted against the motion.


Mr. COTE:: I am authorized by the hon. member for Belleehasse (Mr. Picard) to say that he was paired with the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). Had he voted, he would have voted against the motion.
I	am authorized by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Halle) to say that he was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch). Had he voted, he would have voted against the motion.


Vincent Dupuis: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. Johnston). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Mackenzie King
moves that the committee rise-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before
this motion is put, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I should like to make this statement. Because of the speech that was made by the right hon. the Prime Minister to-night concluding the debate and at a time when no one else could reply, a speech in which it was indicated that the government has looped the loop three times-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Vien: Order. The motion
has been put to the committee.
4018	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Chairman's Ruling


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before
the motion was put, Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet. I take exception to your statement, Mr. Chairman. The motion was not put to the committee.


Thomas Vien: The hon. leader of the opposition is too old a parliamentarian to challenge the authority of the Chair when the Chairman is standing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a
question of fact.


Thomas Vien: Order, please. I have
put to the committee the motion made by the Prime Minister.


Mr. HOMUTH:: No, it is not put yet.


Thomas Vien: My ruling from which
the hon. member may appeal is that the question was put to the committee and that it is not debatable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I leave
it to the judgment of the house whether the motion was put to the committee. I was on my feet before the Chairman put the motion.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then I
desire to appeal from your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. BENCE:: It is a political gestapo.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Mr. Speaker, with your kind permission, and with all due respect, I should like to ask you what stage of the proceedings we have reached. The noise that, is prevailing has prevented us, in this part of the house, from hearing anything. Would you please tell us what stage of the proceedings has been reached?


An hon. MEMBER:: We are taking a vote.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the Chairman of the committee made the following report:
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) was addressing the committee when the Chairman called him to order on the ground that a motion that the committee rise had been made and was not debatable. Mr. Hanson claimed that the question had not been put and appealed from the Chairman's ruling.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I expressly dissent from the statement read to Your Honour by the Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Speaker as Chairman of the committee of the whole had not put the motion. I was on my feet before he had put the motion. It should read: He claimed he had put the motion. The report is contrary to the facts, and that is why we are appealing from the ruling.
[The Chairman.]


Mr. McGREGOR:: More gestapo.


Georges Parent: The report as I have received it is:
Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) was addressing the committee when the Chairman called him to order on the ground that a motion that the committee rise had been made and was not debatable. Mr. Hanson claimed that the question had not been put and appealed from the Chairman's ruling.
The house divided on the question: Shall the ruling of the Chairman be confirmed? And the ruling was confirmed on the following division:
YEAS Messrs:
Abbott Authier Bercoviteh Bertrand (Laurier) Bertrand (Prescott) Black (Chateauguay, Huntingdon)
Blair
Blanchette
Bonnier
Bradette
Breithaupt
Brunelle
Casselman, Mrs.
(Edmonton East) Castleden Chevrier Claxton Cleaver Cloutier Coldwell Corman Cote Crerar Dechene Donnelly Douglas (Queens) Dupuis Durocher Edwards Emmerson Eudes Evans Farquhar Fauteux Ferland Fleming Fontaine Fournier (Hull) Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemont) Fraser (Northumberland, Ont.)
Fulford
Furniss
Gardiner
Gershaw
Gibson
Gillis
Gingues
Gladstone
Golding
Graham
Grant
Gregory
Hanson (Skeena) Healy
Henderson
Hill
Howe
Hurtubise
Ilsley
Isnor
Jean
King, Mackenzie
Kinley
Kirk
Lalonde
Leclerc
Leduc
Leger
Little
McCann
McCuaig
McCnbbin
McCulloch
MaeDiarmid
Macdonald
(Branford City) Macdonald (Halifax) McDonald (Pontiac) McGarry McGeer McGibbon Mcllraith Maclnms Mclvor
MacKenzie (Neepawa) Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre) MacKinnon
(Edmonton West) McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River) McLarty
MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria) Macmillan McNevin
(Victoria, Ont.) McNiven
(Regina City)
Marier
Martin
Matthews
Maybank
Mayhew
Michaud
Mills
Mitchell
Mullins
Mulock
Nixon
Noseworthy

Questions
O'Neill	Slaght
Pinard	Soper
Poirier	Sylvestre
Pottier	Tavlor
Purdy	Telford
Ralston	Thorson
Reid	Tremblay
Rennie	Tripp
Rickard	Turgeon
Roebuck	Turner
Ross (Calgary East)	Ward
Ross (Hamilton East)	Warren
Ross (Middlesex East)	Weir
Ryan	Whitman
St. Laurent	Winkler
Sanderson	Wood
Sissons	Wright-137.
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Anderson	Hazen
Bence	Homuth
Black (Cumberland)	J ackman
Black (Yukon)	Johnston (Bow River)
Blackmore	Kuhl
Boucher	Lacombe
Bruce	McGregor
Casselman	MacKinnon
(Grenville-Dundas)	(Kootenay East)
Church	MacNicol
Cruickshank	Marshall
Diefenbaker	Neill
Esling	Perley
Fair	Pouliot
Fraser	Ross (Moose Jaw)
(Peterborough West)	Ross (St. Paul's)
Gray	Ross (Souris)
Graydon	Rowe
Green	Roy
Hansell	Shaw
Hanson	Stirling
(York-Sunbury)	Stokes
Harris (Danforth)	Tustin
Hatfield	White-44.
And the house having resumed in committee :
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 11.22 p.m.
Wednesday, July 8, 1942