OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
a
[Stage Direction]
2|ousie of Commons! BetmteS
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 12, 1942

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 12, 1942.
Sir:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman Poore Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day, Friday, June 12, at 5.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royai assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on land settlement of veterans of the present war.- Mr. Macmillan.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. ROY (Gaspe):: A few minutes'
ago I received a telegram from Grindstone, Magdalen islands, dated to-day, and reading as follows:
Gasoline situation very serious here. No supplies in distributors hands fishermen forced to give up fishing on account shortage gas. Please contact Imperial Oil, Canadian Oil and MeColl Frontenae so as to have further supplies shipped to Magdalens soon as possible.
County Council,
per Armand Paincliaud,
Secretary.
Will the government take some action to remedy this situation?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: I will bring the matter to the
attention of the oil controller immediately and ask him to do his best to relieve the situation.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply on a matter of very serious concern to the farmers in consequence of the order that has been made forbidding the use on Sundays of trucks, which is the only means of transportation that many farmers have. Has the minister given consideration to permitting farmers to use their trucks on Sundays, subject of course to conformity with the gasoline regulations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no regulation forbidding the use of trucks on Sundays. I know there is a regulation forbidding the use of trucks for pleasure travel, and if the two are synonymous the regulation would apply.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: How about going to church?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The truck is a commercial vehicle and it is provided that it must be used as such.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Even when it is the only means of locomotion the farmer has? Without it he cannot go to church.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know.



CANADIANS IN JAPAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The hon. member for
Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked me a question yesterday-which I must apologize for not having answered sooner, because it was asked before-regarding the exchange of nationals between Canada and Japan. The facts are that immediately on the outbreak of the war with Japan negotiations were undertaken with the Japanese government, through the protecting power, for the repatriation of officials. Early in the year these negotiations were extended to cover non-officials, and an understanding was reached for the repatriation to Canada of Canadians in Japan and occu-

Consular Representatives

pied China, on the understanding that Japanese subjects in Canada who wished to do so may be permitted to return to Japan. As accommodation on the first exchange vessel is limited, an early repatriation of large numbers is not to be expected. Under the circumstances, the Canadian authorities have requested the protecting power for Canadian interests to give priority to women and children in the assignment of berths on the exchange vessel leaving the far east. A small party of Canadians, other than officials, being evacuated from Japan at the present time is expected to arrive in Canada about the end of August or early in September, and other small groups may be expected to arrive at intervals of six weeks or two months from then on. The full list of persons in the first vessel has not yet been received by the Canadian government, and may not be received before the vessel sails.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Arising out of the answer which the Prime Minister has just given, may I ask if it is the intention that these exchanges shall be of equal numbers of Canadian and Japanese nationals respectively? May I also ask how many are involved in the present exchange?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I cannot give any more information than that contained in the statement, but if there is anything more that I am able to ascertain I shall be glad to let my hon. friend know.



SOVIET UNION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. (V. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): Hon. members will recall that I informed the house on February 5 that the government of Canada and the government of the U.S.S.R. had signed an agreement in London on that date providing for the exchange of consular representatives.
The Canadian government have come to the conclusion that it is desirable to establish a Canadian legation in the U.S.S.R. on a reciprocal basis, and we have now been informed that the Soviet government accept the Canadian government's proposal and that they desire to establish a legation in Canada. We understand that the Soviet government will also establish a consulate at Halifax.
I am glad to be able to announce, therefore, that an agreement for the exchange of diplomatic missions between Canada and the U.S.S.R. was signed in London to-day at 5 p.m. London time. The text of this agreement,

which was signed by Mr. Massey on behalf of Canada and by Mr. Maisky on behalf of the U.S.S.R., reads as follows:
The government of the U.S.S.R. and the government of Canada have reached an agreement as follows:
1.	The two governments have agreed to establish direct diplomatic relations and to exchange ministers.
2.	The present agreement comes into force immediately after its signature and is not subject to ratification.
3. The present agreement is made in two copies, each of them in the Russian and English languages. Both texts have equal force.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GASPARD FAUTEUX (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. (Translation) Has the Minister of Justice been informed of the statements made by pastor Shields against the province of Quebec? I do not wish to quote the newspaper article in its entirety but with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to an article published this morning in the French daily Le Canada, in connection with pastor Shields.


Georges Parent: Order. I understand that the hon. gentleman is calling attention to some article respecting Doctor Shields and asking a question of the Minister of Justice. From the form of the question I judge that there is no urgency about the matter, and the question should be placed on the order paper.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) -moved:
1.	That a sum not exceeding $19,401,586.20, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1943, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1943.
2.	That a sum not exceeding $550,655.91, being one-twelfth of the amount of each of the several following items to be voted, as set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1943, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, in addition to the sum mentioned in resolution No. 1, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1943, namely:
Votes Nos. 31, 80, 116, 117, 128, 129, 300.

Interim Supply Bill
He said: Mr. Chairman, I should explain that this is one-twelfth of the amount provided by the main estimates for 1942-43. The second part of the resolution provides for an additional one-twelfth of a limited number of items, as was done when the last interim supply was voted. It is obvious that it would be impossible for the committee of supply to pass the estimates before the end of June, and as there is to be royal assent to-day it was felt it would save the time of the house and of the other chamber if the additional one-twelfth were voted at this time.
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance the matter to which I referred a few moments ago on the orders of the day. Apparently an order has been made by a board which is under the administration of the Minister of Finance forbidding the use of trucks on Sundays. For many farmers their truck is the only means of transportation they have for farm work, for use on Sunday or for any other purpose. The result of the order is that a great deal of ill-feeling has been aroused, and I should like to ask what consideration has been given towards repealing the order.
I have received various letters complaining about this order, and they are all to this effect: While the farmer is denied the right to use his truck to go to town and to do any of the things that are ordinarily done on the farm, or to use his truck to take himself and his family to church, nevertheless a direction has gone out permitting a farmer who purchases another car, a second-hand car if you will, to utilize it for all the purposes which are denied to the farmer who owns only a truck. Surely such an order is unreasonable. Here is a letter from a man who has no horses. He is a patriotic citizen who has two sons overseas. He is forbidden to use his truck on Sundays. Why is it, he asks, that such discrimination has been perpetrated upon him? The position he finds himself in is not peculiar to him by any means. Many others are in the same position. Everybody agrees that there must be gas rationing, but is it reasonable to make an order that a farmer who has an automobile may use it for his ordinary purposes while the farmer who has only a truck, and there are many such farmers, is denied the right to use that truck?


Mr. FAIR:: The same condition exists in my province, and I have had a number of complaints along the same line. In the city of Ottawa and vicinity you will not find, as you do in western Canada, a number of second-hand cars and small trucks which are used for the purpose of conveying small 44561-2091
loads. They are not commercial trucks such as may be in the mind of the controller, and I would certainly like to have something done to enable farmers who have no cars to use these converted vehicles and other small trucks.


Mr. HATFIELD:: The same conditions
exist in New Brunswick and elsewhere in eastern Canada.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I, too, have had communications on this matter. May I suggest to the minister that there are in some of our cities a number of families who have two or more cars in the family and who therefore are allowed to have coupon books for each car. It seems to me that if we are rationing gas we should limit it to one car per family. As the hon. member for Lake Centre says, there are numerous people who have to go to town in their trucks. In one part of my constituency there are practically no horses, and the present practice does work a hardship upon people who have no other means of conveyance than their trucks.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I believe I raised this question a week ago Monday before the minister when we were discussing the matter of controls. In our province many farmers have disposed of their automobiles and are getting along with light delivery trucks. They are prohibited from taking their families in their trucks to marketing centres or to church on Sunday. As the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar has pointed out, in these marketing centres you may find people with two automobiles and two ration books. This is certainly most unfair, and some arrangements should be made on behalf of farmers who have traded in their cars for light delivery trucks and who are now unable to convey their families to church or to town. The minister has had a couple of weeks to think about this matter. I spent a day here trying to clear it up, and had to telephone to the controller, a Mr. Stewart, in Toronto, and after running into all this difficulty among the farmers two weeks ago I was unable to get any action.


Mr. HOWDEN:: My hon. friends on the other side of the chamber are not the only favoured ones in this respect.


James Arthur Ross: Unfavoured!


John Power Howden: Along the Red River valley are a great many settlers of foreign extraction who have come to this country and made it their adopted home after reaching mature life. They have no means of getting to market or anywhere else except by means
Interim Supply Bill

of a converted old Ford car which has been made into a form of truck and is so registered. These people are practically unable to leave their farms and go anywhere excepting by means of this type of old vehicle, and if they are prohibited from using it for any other purpose than to carry loads they will be subjected to much hardship.


Mr. PERLEY:: I wish to join in this protest. I am doing it more or less because I am in a little personal difficulty with respect to it, because I advised one or two farmers in my district last spring to dispose of their cars and buy trucks. I gave this advice to one of my own tenants, knowing that the truck would be useful in carting out seed to the field and for many other purposes, but he finds now that he cannot use it when he wants to go to town on Saturday night to do his shopping, and his wife is no longer able, as was her habit in other years, to do a lot of running around to town and elsewhere. I could cite several similar cases. I think something should be done. These trucks are practically as comfortable as some of the old cars and are useful for going around on Saturday nights and Sundays. A neighbour of mine, a dairyman, disposed of his car and got a truck because he could use it in his general business as well as to deliver his milk, and it is a great handicap to him not to be able to use it on Sundays and in the evenings for the purposes of the household.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the committee's attention to a regulation which limits to fifteen miles the business radius of taxis in the province of Quebec.
On the north coast of Gaspe county, where there is no railroad between Matane and Gaspe, that is for a distance of over two hundred miles, this regulation has brought about a totally abnormal situation from which the local population will undoubtedly suffer unless something is done.
Following representations which I made to the war supplies department, the limit was extended from fifteen to thirty miles. Yet, this is still not enough to answer the needs of the population. From midway between the two railroad terminals at Matane and Gaspe, there is a distance of one hundred miles to travel to reach the nearest rail line, a distance which becomes shorter from village to village until one reaches the thirty mile limit.
The two nearest hospitals are located at St. Anne des Monts and Gaspe, that is a distance of one hundred and fifty miles. In case of illness or a bad accident, no taxi can reach the St. Anne des Monts hospital, or that in Gaspe, if it has to start from a point *outside the thirty mile limit.

I think that in consideration of this unusual situation, the government should allow taxis in each of these localities, outside the thirty mile limit, to travel as far as is necessary to reach the nearest railroad terminal or hospital.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MacINNIS:: While we are on this matter I might as well point out that I am a pioneer in bringing it forward. I raised it some three weeks ago when the Minister of Munitions and Supply had his share of the war appropriation bill before the committee. It is a condition which affects people in the urban centres as well as those in the rural districts, and frankly I do not know just how the oil controller is going to be able to satisfy everybody. It brings into more glaring relief a consequence of our social system. One of my constituents has a light delivery truck. He used it for business deliveries in the week, and on Sundays he took the family to one of the beaches round Vancouver, going sometimes as far as White Rock. Possibly his next-door neighbour, also having a delivery business, is *well enough off to have a private car as well as a truck. He also takes his family out on Sundays, and the man who cannot afford a private car as well as a light delivery truck did not grudge his neighbour his car so long as he himself could use his delivery truck, but now he finds himself in the position that if he takes his family out in the truck on Sundays he is warned by the controller that his ration book will be taken away from him. The other man has his truck ration book and also his private ration book. So here is a social distinction, possibly not a very great one in ordinary times, but one which now comes out in all its glaring inequality. My correspondent sends me the letter he received from the regional controller, and I must admit that it was quite reasonable. There is no fault to be found there, and I am at a loss to know how the matter can be dealt with and yet do what it is intended to be done by the regulations to conserve gas, unless we cut out all travel on Sunday except what is essential.


Mr. McIVOR:: I have a case which presents the other side. A farmer sold his truck and kept his car. He is a grocer merchant and delivers with his car because it saves gas, but he was face to face with the difficulty that while the other merchants in the city obtained a commercial rating he was cut down to class B, and like myself he does not like it. If he cuts down on gas by using his car he should have enough gas to carry him through the year so that he can make his living. Of course, there are two sides to every question except truth and error.

Interim Supply Bill


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: The complaints made from the central provinces and western Canada are small compared with the complaints that might be registered from the eastern provinces. In central Canada and in the west coupons are recognized as entitling the holders to five gallons per coupon. The maritime provinces are reduced to two gallons per coupon and have to contend with all the other restrictions about which they complain. The people in the maritime provinces are prepared to submit to this control if necessary in carrying on the war, but the premier of Nova Scotia, the premier of New Brunswick, and hundreds of thousands of people in the maritimes have not yet been convinced that the restrictions in those provinces are either necessary or fair. Some hope has been held out by the Minister of Munitions and Supply that the regulations as they apply to the maritimes will shortly be relaxed, and I should like to impress upon the Minister of Finance, who comes from Nova Scotia, as I do, the importance of the complaints I am making. He himself must have received many complaints; he has certainly had complaints from the premier of Nova Scotia. I urge upon him, therefore, the importance of seeing that early action is taken with regard to restoring the value of the coupon unit, in whole or at least in part, to users of gasoline in the maritime provinces. There are grievances in the other provinces, but the complaints from the maritimes are far more substantial than those registered in other parts of the country.


Mr. GILLIS:: I agree with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black). If there is a section of the country that has a grievance in connection with the rationing of gasoline it is the maritimes. The reduction in the unit can be understood. There is not sufficient transportation to get gas into that section. We accept that statement at its face value, but there are rumours, and there is considerable evidence, since the unit was reduced, to the effect that gas has been shipped out of the maritime provinces, out of Nova Scotia particularly, into other sections of Canada. I am trying to get information in that regard from the Minister of Munitions and Supply. However, accepting at its face value the statement that it is necessary at the present time to reduce the unit in Nova Scotia, we feel that if there is not sufficient gas for essential purposes the people of those provinces are prepared to make whatever sacrifices are necessary. But when it is shown to them week after week and day after day that on the part of the military authorities particularly there is little attempt to conserve gas, the situation appears in a different light.
I had a long list of complaints which I brought to the minister's attention. If there is a shortage of gasoline and if it is necessary to ration it on the basis that exists in Nova Scotia, then it should be done. But as I pointed out some time ago, in that event pleasure driving should be discontinued completely, so that what gas is available should be made available for essential purposes. In sections where there are large military concentrations station wagons and military cars are on the road practically all hours of the night, certainly not for military purposes. Moreover, military cars are in the habit of driving officers from headquarters to the barber shop and waiting for them, three or four cars at a time. They wait for these officers until they are through shaving and take them back to headquarters. They also take officers from headquarters to clubs and back to headquarters again. That is not necessary, while in small communities where there is a concentration of troops the people who have legitimate business to carry on are obliged to walk to and from their places of business. Their business is crippled or curtailed because of lack of gas, and to see these military cars used for the purpose I have indicated is not a sight to inspire further belt-tightening on the part of people who require gas for legitimate purposes.
Those who use oil will have to tighten their belts too. I had one complaint of an exservice man who was crippled during the last war and who for the last twenty years has been earning his living as a commercial traveller. He is unable to walk and must use his car to get around, but he is in a category that gives him two gallons a week. The result is that his business is at a standstill. He made special application to the board in Halifax, but obtained no redress. I appealed to the oil controller, setting out the facts of the case. I received the reply that he was very sorry but no distinction could be made. That car is essential because it is this man's means of earning his living. He is crippled, but he demonstrated that he was .prepared to lay down his life for democracy; yet he cannot get gas to earn his living, and there is no one who will feed him. Where there are extenuating circumstances, some redress should be given.
I had the privilege of going to Camp Borden some time ago and there I found a fleet of buses running out of the camp. I am not complaining about that. They leave the camp loaded, travel seventeen or twenty miles and return to the camp empty. There is not much service there. There is waste of gas and rubber. I believe that 50 per cent of the buses on the road travelling on that basis and
Interim Supply Bill

using up gas could very well be used for other purposes. That gas could be made available for essential uses. A month has gone by, and there has been sufficient time for those who are responsible for the organization and the rationing of gas to come to some understanding as to what the future of the maritime provinces will be. Is an attempt being made at least to put the maritime provinces on the same basis as the rest of Canada? Can the minister make any statement as to when that situation will be relieved? Has he any knowledge that a certain oil company on the island of Cape Breton had a year's supply of oil on hand? That oil was pumped to ships and shipped out of that part of the country within the last month.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I have no such knowledge.


Clarence Gillis: There is evidence to that effect sufficient at least to convince me. Can the minister say whether he can see any possibility in the near future of changing that oil situation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I really have to leave a matter like that to the minister who is responsible, namely the Minister of Munitions and Supply. I am not able to make any statement other than the last statement made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister should give personal attention to this matter from the point of view of Nova Scotia. There is a feeling in the maritime provinces that they are unnecessarily discriminated against. If these restrictions are necessary the people will submit, but they are not satisfied that they are not being discriminated against, and that more could not be done to meet their needs.


James Arthur Ross: The matter of a farmer conveying his family in a light delivery truck does come under the minister's department. It was raised two weeks ago and was said to be under the price-ceiling control. I think the minister should make a statement.


James Lorimer Ilsley: As I understand it the administrator of services has made some order which is merely part of the carrying out of the oil-control policy. That, I assume, is the situation. I surmise that the oil controller found that he had not jurisdiction to make an order relating to service, that is transportation, and that he prevailed upon the service administrator to make some order. The discussion this afternoon has shown that the problem is one essentially and fundamentally of control of the use of gasoline; I do not know what else it could be. It is probably true that Mr. Stewart as adminis-

trator of services has made some order supplementary or ancillary to the orders of the oil controller.
I will bring to the attention of the services administrator the representations made this afternoon. That the matter is one of difficulty that there are conflicting considerations, and that the officials have not acted without thought, is shown by some of the speeches made this afternoon. It may be that the situation can be improved upon. The thought I have is that this simply shows the difficulties that arise in any widespread attempt at regimentation. Yet we have to have regimentation. We have been told repeatedly that the public is away ahead of the government, and that the public will submit to any degree of control-


James Arthur Ross: Which is reasonable.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes; that is what is always said. I remember last fall when the public was really clamouring for more regimentation, more control, I said: It is all right, the public wants a great deal of control, but the moment anything is done which strikes anyone as unreasonable they will say, "For heaven's sake exercise common sense in your control." And the test of commpn sense very often is whether it inconveniences the person concerned. It is absolutely impossible, in these far-reaching measures of regimentation and control, to avoid all discrimination. The hon. member for Lake Centre spoke about a matter. He was pretty well answered by the hon. member for Fort William; the man who gets a big gasoline ration I suppose should not be allowed to use it in pleasure travel, and the man who gets a small one can so use it to that extent. I suppose that is the reason.


James Arthur Ross: I think there is a distinct lack of cooperation. I took this matter up with the Department of Munitions and Supply, and they told me it was under the price ceiling. I spent a whole day on it before I ever mentioned it in the house. I was at home in the intervening period and had a terrible time trying to explain the situation to the agricultural producers in my part of the country. I want to assure the minister that these people are quite willing to submit to controls, but it is distinctly a waste of gasoline, time and various other matters essential to the war effort. There is no complaint about personal inconvenience, but it is distinctly a waste in our part of the country.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What is the waste?


James Arthur Ross: Well, the hon. member for Fort William said that the man who has the larger ration should be able to use

Interim Supply Bill
some for pleasure purposes. I disagree; these people do not want it for pleasure purposes. The farmers go with light delivery trucks. A business man, in my section who is not even a British subject has two large cars. He has a class C ration book for one car and a class A ration book for the other. That is not cooperation; it is not setting the proper example. These things need to be checked up. I do not know anything about the experience of the controller, but I know this is distinctly not in the national interest throughout our part of the country.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not understand the statement made by the minister when speaking of the farmers who were affected by the orders made by the commissioner or whatever his title may be. The minister says it is always the way, that the people who say that they are ahead of the government, when an order is made raise complaints. That is a very unfair statement.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Of course I did not say it.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that not the meaning of what the minister said?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, reading Hansard will reveal whether or not that is a correct interpretation to place upon the words he uttered. There is no question of objection to regimentation where necessary. The objection we have taken here regularly has been this: Parliament is sitting; yet you have controllers and heads of boards and all these other individuals making laws affecting, not the war effort, but the individual lives of the people of Canada engaged in civilian operations. Against unfair orders there is no recourse to parliament. We talk about parliament losing prestige. No one was more definite about that than the Minister of Finance the other day. He spoke of the falling away of parliament's authority. He gave his reasons for it. In large measure, its loss of prestige is due to the fact that parliament is abdicating its power in favour of boards and commissions which act without regard to circumstances and conditions and who refuse, when arbitary rulings are pointed out to them, to make any change. Seventy-five per cent of the laws affecting individuals in Canada to-day are passed by commissions, boards and like bodies and not by parliament. 1 heard it said only yesterday, that we had better not object in regard to certain orders made by the oil controller for if, as members of parliament, we do so we shall find that he will become stubborn in regard to changing objectionable orders that are now in effect.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Who said this?


John George Diefenbaker: I said I heard it said yesterday. The minister has taken the position that he does not know how the order came to be made; he does not know who made it; and he accepted the statement of the hon. member for Souris that it must have been made by some commissioner.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The services administrator.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said, as I understood him, that it was made for the purpose of assisting in winning the war by the conservation of gasoline. Then I ask him, what reason was there in the order made in Regina the other day in the case of a farmer whose letter I am prepared to place on record if it is required, in which he informs me that a farmer was advised that if he disposed of his truck and bought a second-hand car, then the order would not apply, and he could operate it and secure gasoline under the regulations, but because of the fact that he has only a truck he is denied the right that he would possess if he owned a motor car. Surely this is unreasonable. It is just an example of bureaucracy at its worst.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know, but I think
the reason would be this, that if a man gets a commercial category he is supposed to use the gasoline for commercial purposes. If he gets a pleasure category he may use the gasoline for pleasure purposes, up to the limit of that category. I should think that would be the basis for the rule.


John George Diefenbaker: But still that does not answer the situation of thousands and thousands of farmers all over western Canada, and no doubt all over Canada, whose sole means of transportation is by truck, which they use for both purposes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman wanted to know the reason.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand
the reason stated by the minister; that is true enough, but it is just an example of bureaucracy at its worst, in that the controller makes regulations which parliament does not have an opportunity to look into and which work discrimination. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the minister will give the assurance that this matter will be looked into and that where there is any unfairness or discrimination it will be removed, as far as that is practicable.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I can give that assurance;
that is fair enough. The matter will be looked into, and in so far as there is discrimination that it is practicable to remove, it will be removed.
Interim Supply Bill


Percy Chapman Black: Then it is
understood that the matter will be looked into with special reference to the maritime provinces, where the people have to submit to a ration of two gallons per coupon, and that if there is going to be relief, or if there is to be no relief, an announcement will be made. If there is to be relief, as I am hopeful will be the situation, the people of the maritimes should be told when that will come into effect, and I hope before July 1. I am appealing to the minister now as a fellow Nova Scotian to investigate the matter from the point of view of the interests of our province, to take up the matter with the Minister of Munitions and Supply, the oil controller, the big gasoline dealers and others, and to see that some announcement is made in order that the people in Nova Scotia who believe there is discrimination against them may have something definite on which to base their plans and carry on their business.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I have been waiting for
all these hon. members who have been speaking about the farmers to say something about the poor folk in the congested cities. Not having heard anyone say a word on behalf of the humble people in the congested centres of our great cities, I am going to say a word for them. Neither motor cars nor trucks are owned by the common people who live in the congested centre of Toronto; but I have seen, as I am sure other hon. members have someone come on Sunday with a motor truck into which they load four or five families to take the kiddies and their parents out along the lake shore drive so that they may have a dip in the lake. What are they going tc do on Sunday, if it is a day like to-day, when it is hard enough for grown people to withstand the heat? What are they going to do on Sunday if they cannot go in these trucks out along the lake shore? If there is to be any loosening up, I think it should be extended to those people too. I want to give the hon. member for Lake Centre credit for bringing up this matter to-day, though quite a number of other hon. members have tried to horn in on it. What is going to happen on Sunday if it is a day like this? If there is to be any loosening up for the farmers, as there should be, let us also have a little loosening up for the poor, humble people living in the conjected area of our great cities.


Thomas Miller Bell: Since we are talking about the welfare of people generally, I suggest that the rules of this house should be changed so that on a day like this members of parliament may sit here without wearing their coats. I would also point out to the minister that when money is being spent 
some consideration should be given the staff of this house. I notice that we have attendants and guards here who are wearing thick, heavy, winter clothing, which on a day like this must be almost torture. I appeal to the minister to do something for the staff in order that they may be comfortably clad, and I hope that one of these days we may be permitted to attend in the hot weather without our coats.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Is the minister really ready to do something about these abuses which have been aired by several hon. members, in connection with this matter of allowing men to use trucks on Sundays when they have no other means of transportation? When a series of abuses has been brought to the attention of the minister it is not good enough for him to say, "Well, that comes under the oil controller, and he has found it necessary to do so-and-so." I just do not believe it is necessary for him to do this. I see no reason why it should be necessary to permit an injustice to exist at all in this country, if sufficient attention is given to the matter. Surely the abuses that have been mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and others are so flagrant that they should be attended to. Surely it is not necessary to have such things as those. Surely it is not necessary so to restrict the poor farmer in the Red River valley, who has nothing but a poor little old rattletrap of a car that has been changed into a sort of truck, which is his only means of getting to church or doing anything else on Sunday, while other people are permitted to have two cars. This strikes one as being so painfully unjust as to be almost revolting.
I have come in contact with one or two other matters coming under this oil controller or fuel controller which also strike me as being very unjust. The question has been raised in my mind as to whether this parliament has any control at all over these controllers. Is it a recognized practice that once a man is appointed a controller he is no longer responsible to this house, and that the minister to whose department that controller belongs is no longer responsible for the behaviour of that man? If so, then we must acknowledge that in this country responsible government has ceased to exist. If that is necessary, all right; but I do not believe it really is necessary. I was waiting to hear the minister give some indication that he will bring a little pressure to bear, in response to the expressed will of members of this house, and not be content merely to talk about the matter. I recall the time when the minister was contemplating the imposition of

Mobilization Act-Mr. Crete
a three-cent tax on the gasoline used by farmers. A great many members of the house exerted themselves for a long time, until they felt that they were really obstructing the government, in an endeavour to have that pernicious tax removed, but the minister sat quite still and allowed one of the most unfair taxes that could be conceived of to go into operation and to continue in operation throughout this country. If we have no recourse, what is the use of our being here? What is the use of our talking?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1943, the sum of $19,952,242.11 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 98. for granting to his majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1943.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On the schedule.
Mr. STIRLING:: I take it that this bill is in the usual form in every respect.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, exactly.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 80, to
amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940.
Mr. J. A. CRETE (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, on February 11 last, speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I took a clear-cut stand with regard to conscription and the plebiscite. I made .the following statement at that time:
I wish to state that I remain irreducibly opposed to any kind of conscription for overseas service and that I shall not request my constituents to release me from past commitments in this connection.
I also intimated that conscription would not greatly increase the number of men in our armed forces, that it would hinder our war effort by destroying national unity, that it would make the people less enthusiastic about participating in that effort, that it would endanger the confederation pact and that, finally, it might increase the vulnerability of this country, which, acording to our military experts, was liable to be attacked by the enemy.
What has since occurred to justify the abandonment of the voluntary system? Nothing as far as I can see.
At a time when hundreds of thousands of Canadians are serving in all our armed forces overseas, when submarine attacks have just been launched against Canada in the St. Lawrence it is proposed to remove the last restriction with regard to conscription so that the government may be able to send overseas those young men of military age who are still in this country.
We are told again that this does not mean conscription. This brings to my mind the story of the sick man whose condition the doctor found slightly improved from day to day, and who was found dead, one morning, as a result of that slight improvement.
A brief review of the political history of the last twenty-five years is sufficient to give us the firm belief that repeal of clause 3 of the mobilization act of 1940 means the enactment of conscription for overseas service.


Pierre Gauthier: Without the slightest doubt.


Joseph-Alphida Crête: In 1914, Canada went to war against Germany and her allies. At that time, as older men remember and as those of the younger generation have learned, all political leaders in Canada assured us that conscription for overseas service would never be enforced.
The same assurance was given in 1915 and 1916. Early in 1917, a national registration took place. We still remember the solemn assurance that was given to the bishops of

Mobilization Act-Mr. Crete

the province of Quebec to the effect that national registration would never be used for the purpose of enforcing conscription.
These pledges are associated with very unpleasant memories, for, in that same year 1917, a conscription measure was adopted by the Canadian parliament.
I do not intend to recall the events of this melancholy period, which has left gaping wounds in the hearts of Canadians.
On November 11, 1918, the bells of all our churches were pealing the news of the suspension of hostilities. An armistice had been signed. The civilized world, shaken in its very foundations, grieving the loss of millions of human beings, deprived of its historical treasures and its wealth, returned to its normal occupations. All the nations of the world were unanimous in their resolve that the war just ended should be the last.
During the first few years after the signing of the Versailles treaty, the Canadian people courageously resumed its march towards its ideals, silently grieving the loss of thousands of their sons fallen in strange lands.
In 1922, in Ottawa, the yearly estimates of the Department of National Defence were reduced by 2| million dollars. Our country waged this pacifist campaign for the next 15 years. But, in the 1937, the national defence estimates were considerably increased. A new programme was announced, which included the reorganization of our military, naval and air forces. This step led the warlike nations of Europe to believe that, following their example, we were forsaking the Versailles formula for the principle of armed peace.
This new trend resulted in a lively reaction from the people and a certain section of the press. Even in the House of Commons, some hon. members uttered energetic protests against steps which were interpreted as preliminary preparations for participation in a future European war.
Reassurances were then given the Canadian people. The government stated, through its best authorized ministers, that these heavy military expenditures would be devoted exclusively to the national defence, to the defence of Canada only.
In 1938, Canada was taking a greater part than ever in the armament race. Military estimates soared still higher. New protests on the part of some members who claimed that as long as the federal parliament neglected to amend the Militia Act in such a way as to incorporate in it some clause establishing Canada as our first line of defence, it would be useless to talk of national defence and that, under certain circumstances, the military estimates voted by parliament for the defence

of Canada could be used, at some future date, to promote our participation in a foreign war.
In 1939, the increase in our war appropriations took on greater and more alarming proportions. Almost one hundred million dollars for war purposes. There were renewed protests on the part of those who believed Canada was definitely committed to a course of action leading to war and who stated that military preparations would inevitably lead to war, that war meant our participation in it, that such participation would become extraterritorial, that extraterritorial participation would require the sending of men and war equipment overseas, that any expeditionary force of ours would need reinforcements, and that the organization of these reinforcements was predicated on the heavy recruiting of men which would lead in the end to conscription for overseas service, which we are now being asked to adopt. All this, it must be noted, was said way back in 1939.
Is this not, Mr. Speaker, a brief but true description of the course we have followed since 1937? Granting this, who can state now that once the government has the power to conscript men, it will not do so?


Pierre Gauthier: No one.


Joseph-Alphida Crête: Of what worth are the
assurances being given us in order to weaken opposition to this measure?
We have been at war now for over two and a half years. Our total population does not exceed eleven and a half million inhabitants. Nevertheless, over four hundred thousand of our men have enlisted for overseas service. We supply food to the allied nations. We furnish them war equipment and food in enormous quantities. We are taxed and rationed as we have never been in our history. We have just made Britain a gift of one billion dollars. Our financial and economic resources are pledged for generations to come. Our remaining youth are mobilized for the duration. Apparently all this does not count, since we are asked, as danger threatens us, to authorize conscription for overseas service.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians of English and French descent have lived together in this country for almost 200 years. In this most critical of times, let us remember those who first settled on this Canadian land, who cultivated it and willed it to us as our most precious heritage. Let us remember their sacrifices and their hardships. Let us never forget the courage with which they defended this country on two memorable occasions. Let us recall the collective efforts we Canadians have made since 1760 to safeguard Canada, and develop her natural resources.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Claxton
I appeal to my fellow citizens of both English and French descent and ask them whether the passing of a conscription measure would not forever destroy the foundations on which this country rests.
While we are fighting for everything we hold dear, so wre are told, which one among us would insist on conscription if such a measure is destined to divide the Canadian people, and destroy that harmony so essential to the development of our country and1 the attainment of its destiny.
Which one among us wants conscription, if it entails the break-up of confederation?
What member, what Canadian citizen will reasonably uphold that conscription, by adding a few thousand men to the strength of the allied nations, will ensure victory for our side and justify destroying the results of our collective efforts, during two centuries, to make Canada what it is to-day?
Mr. Speaker, I pray that Providence may spare us from such a disaster.


Mr. BROOKE CLAXTON (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third day of this debate, and all hon. members will agree that it began with a good speech and has continued with a series of good speeches; that so far it has been conducted in a tone that has been tolerant and forbearing, and that if it continues on the same plane there is at least a possibility that out of this crisis, because it is little less, we may step up to a better basis of unity than we have ever known before.
Burke said that magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom, and our English-speaking people to-day should show to the French-speaking people magnanimity. That, even more than cold justice or efficient sternness, is what we need. Between the French- and English-speaking there should be a real effort to understand the changing nature of the world and the changing nature of Canada, and that we each must seek the same things-the security of Canada, the unity of Canada, the welfare of Canada, and the defeat of the aggressors, without which no one of these three would be possible.
This bill has been introduced in consequence of the plebiscite, and I suppose every hon. member in the course of the debate will give his interpretation of what the plebiscite meant. It seems to me to be clear that the people of Canada, in giving the government a free hand in the prosecution of the war, want the government to take the measures necessary to defend Canada wherever that can best be done. The people having removed the moral bar, the government has now introduced this bill to remove the legal 44561-210^
bar and to give effect to the will of the people as expressed in the plebiscite.
Yesterday the member for Richelieu-Ver-cheres (Mr. Cardin), in his exceedingly eloquent speech, seemed to be most concerned over what in the long run is really a question of procedure, whether parliament should be consulted once, or twice, on this question. It has been suggested that in proceeding in the way in which it is the government has betrayed promises made during the plebiscite campaign, that parliament would be consulted. My own view is that this is a consultation of parliament. But if there is anything in the suggestion that has been made, I should like to make this comment: that the people, and the only people, who are qualified to raise the issue of having been misled are the people who voted yes on the plebiscite, and not the people who voted no.
As for conscription, we have had a great deal of talk about it, and it has become common to refer to it as a symbol. It is two symbols. To the French-speaking people of Canada it is a symbol of racial domination; to the English-speaking people of Canada or some of them, it is a symbol of total effort. It has become a shibboleth. As I listened to the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), it seemed to me that he was more concerned with the symbol of conscription as meaning total effort than he was with any other feature of it. He advanced no reasons as to why it should be necessary now; he advanced no suggestion that the voluntary system had broken down; it was in effect the same speech that was given during the plebiscite debate, and nothing was indicated to justify any other action than that which the government is taking.
The government does not want a symbol; it wants to do whatever is necessary to make the utmost effort that the people of Canada can make. The government has said that if that is by a voluntary effort, then it will choose the voluntary method; if it is by means of conscription, then it will choose conscription, and if it is by a combination of both, then it will combine both methods. Thus we are really discussing a means to one end-the achievement of a total and balanced war effort. My view is plain enough; it is that if conscription would advance our war effort, then we should have conscription for overseas service, but if it would not, why take any further step than we have already taken?
The leader of the opposition said that our national honour was involved in our failure to go ahead. But is there dishonour in having half a million volunteers in the armed services of Canada? Is there dishonour in having raised by the voluntary method every man

Mobilization Act-Mr. Claxton
that has been needed or called for or could be used in any theatre of war or in any service? If there is dishonour in that, then the world is turned upside down. It is a matter of pride to us, not of dishonour, that we have succeeded in doing what we have done, and that the Canadian people and Canadian boys and women have done what they have done without our having had to resort to conscription for overseas service. The leader of the opposition spoke about our standing in the United States being affected by this. Such knowledge as I have of United States opinion shows that our standing is not so much affected by our not having conscription for overseas service as it is by the campaign of detraction carried on in Canada, and by the failure of our government to make the full story of the Canadian war effort plain in the United States. Canada's honour does not rest on this. Canada's honour is in safe hands. It is in the hands of the half a million men in our armed forces; it is in the hands of the boys who are flying nightly over Germany,, of whom-I am glad to say- we hear increasingly good stories of grand heroism.
One further word on this question of the honour of Canada. I draw it to the attention of hon. members that if this bill were not to pass it would still leave Canada with respect to conscription for overseas service in the same position as Australia, and no one has any doubt about the honour of that country, *our gallant sister commonwealth.
If conscription is asked for as a symbol of total effort; if it is being demanded because of the leader of the opposition's idea of national honour, I say those reasons are not enough. If, on the other hand, Canada fails by even a hairbreadth to discharge her full duty to the united nations, to humanity and to herself, she would be dishonoured unless she took every last means of throwing into the scales every resource she had, no matter what the cost.
The opposition to this comes largely from two sources, two extremes in Canadian opinion. There are those who want conscription, no matter what it costs, immediately; there are those who want conscription never, and there are even some who say that our participation in the war should be limited. These extreme views are the very best possible justification of the policy chosen by the government and now placed by it before this house.
Of equal importance with the questions raised directly in the bill are the questions which are raised in consequence of it-the question of national unity. In that connection I should like to read to the house a passage from a fine speech of the Minister of Finance 
on February 4, as reported at page 313 of Hansard:
Unity is still possible in Canada if we take ourselves in hand. The other day when the Prime Minister was speaking, appealing for unity, I understand that an hon. member interjected, "What unity?" Well, let no one scoff at unity or dispair of unity. We can maintain unity by the course we are taking. But we would shatter it into a thousand bits if we followed the course advocated by any single faction of extremists in the camps-not the camp-against us. The objective of all of us is a, total war effort in the interest of the earliest possible termination of the war.
What he said then is even more true to-day; it has an even greater appeal to the members of this house and to the people of Canada, because the plebiscite showed-and there is no gainsaying the fact-a wide division in Canadian opinion. It is a challenge to Canadians, a challenge from which Canadians and this house are not going to flinch. We are not going to pass it by and we are not going to despair. This is the seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation, and we can meet its challenge if we .remember the way in which the fathers of confederation met the even greater difficulties of unity which threatened them at that time. They refused to be daunted. We can take up the challenge. We can take it up in their spirit.. But we will need coolness and frankness and a great deal more understanding in order to meet it.
I thought I should, as a Canadian who lives in the province of Quebec, try to make some contribution, however slight, to Canadian understanding on this point. I have lived in the province of Quebec since I was born. My children were born there, in the constituency I represent. My family has been there for four generations, and I have come to know and like its people and to love the province. Because of that, and because of the feeling I have for this country, I feel that I should try in sincerity and frankness to help to bridge this gap in our understanding. The plain fact is that English-speaking Canada has never appreciated what the question of conscription has meant in the minds of Frenchspeaking Canadians, and I do not know that they ever will, without being members of the race. It is partly a question of race, and for that and for what that means I refer hon. members to a passage in "Maria Chapdelaine" which has been read before in this chamber. It is a question of history, of fighting for survival, of the economic difficulties to which the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres referred yesterday. It is a particular attitude towards their own country, their only country; and it is due to the fact that conscription has been continuously linked in their minds with

Mobilization Act-Mr. Claxton
the idea of imperialism, of British wars, of fighting for Britain. The two notions of conscription and imperialism are indissolubly linked together, so that when one comes up the other is inevitably raised in their minds. Toronto Saturday Night of June 6 had this to say:
The compelling reason why the Englishspeaking majority in the Dominion of Canada should hesitate a long time before imposing overseas conscription on the province of Quebec, has been expressed in a dozen words by several French Canadians who have sought to make the position of French Canada intelligible to their fellow countrymen. It is the simple fact that conscription, for a kind of military service which he regards as being capable of being directed more to the defence of the empire than to that of Canada, has become to the French Canadian the "symbol of dominance," the outstanding proof of the intention of the Englishspeaking majority to exercise their majority power no matter how repugnant the results may be to the minority.
If hon. members have any doubt as to whether that is not a dominant idea, a large factor in this matter, they have only to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Riche-lieu-Vercheres yesterday, when he was referring to his added difficulty of fighting in this war. He said, at page 3278:
Because I have to reason in my mind why I have to support the British flag and spend my energies for the defence of British rule in this conflict, or perhaps elsewhere.
On that statement the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres is a better imperialist than most of the members in this house, because I doubt if many Canadians really think that in this war they are fighting for the support of British rule here or elsewhere. It establishes what I have said. It is a matter of the utmost importance that English-speaking Canadians should remember this and should try to understand it-I will not say to make allowances, because that is not the thing that one race should do towards another in a country like Canada.
To my French-speaking friends may I say this. From my knowledge of English-speaking Canada, nothing could be farther from the truth than that the idea of conscription is involved in the notion of dominance. As Toronto Saturday Night says further:
The trouble is that the great majority of English-speaking Canadians are not conscious of exercising this "dominance" and do not understand why the minority should regard it as such. They are convinced in their own minds that what they are advocating is in the best interests of Canada.
To my French-speaking friends I would add this to what I have just read. Englishspeaking Canadians feel that we are fighting for our survival, we feel that the fight can be best carried on the farthest away from our
shores, and that in order to defend Canada we have to defeat the enemy wherever he is. And we feel that any means are justified to that end. But there is no notion of racial dominance or anything of the kind in the English-speaking attitude.
Now, what can we do about these two views? I suggest first that we English-speaking Canadians should admit frankly that some of the blame is due to us. It would be a good thing if for a few days we all adopted the practice of blaming ourselves rather than blaming anyone else for any situation that has developed in the past. Some Englishspeaking Canadians, the extreme imperialist element, have said, "This is a British war, and because it is a British war therefore Canada must go into the war." But what did that mean to the other extremists in French Canada? They said, "Because it is a British war, therefore it is an imperialist war and therefore we should not go into it." The statement that we were fighting for Britain prevented French Canada from seeing that we were fighting for the survival of Canada. Every time a newspaper or speaker referred to fighting for Britain it was used in the province of Quebec by the extremist press as justification for their assertion that because we were fighting for Britain, therefore it was an imperialist war in which we should take a limited part.
This attitude of the extreme British element to which I have referred, and which we call "imperialist," shows a colonial mind, and its continuation has had a bad effect on Canadian life. It has closed our eyes to the nature of our country, to its history, to the realization that the majority of Canadians are not Anglo-Saxons, and that to them the only country they can call home-as well as to all true Canadians-is Canada. It led to opposition to the idea of our separate entry into the war. These people did not realize that it was far more dramatic that we an independent nation, as a result of the free deliberation of our parliament and government, should go into the war on the side of Britain, which enabled the British to say with genuine emotion, when they saw our troops arriving, "they did not need to come." Those who held a colonial attitude were opposed to the whole idea of the constitutional development of Canada, forgetting that "freedom is the life-blood of British institutions." Its emphasis on aid to Britain prevented us from appreciating early enough the fact that this was a universal war, a world war, in which wherever there was fighting, there our battle front lay. The danger to Canada, the importance of the magnificent efforts being put up by China and Russia, were concealed by the survival of this idea. The importance of the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Claxton
Pacific, the fact that we had two fronts, was concealed by this idea. It concentrated attention too exclusively on the war in Britain. It concealed from us the fact that we needed universal means to make universal war. We thought too much in terms of man-power and an expeditionary force, as in the last war, and not enough in terms of industrial power, trained pilots, tanks, ships, convoys and sailors. Why, it affected our own war effort. The survival of this idea led us to take the view that we were acting as agents only to take and fill orders when we got them from Britain. We kept to British specifications and British standards far longer than we should have done. Hon. members will remember the passage I quoted from the speech of Lord Tweedsmuir in 1938, that this idea was a real disservice not only to Canada but to the commonwealth.
I call attention to the fact that the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres in the passage to which I referred said, "because I have to reason in my mind why I have to support the British flag". A Canadian has to reason in his mind why he has to support the British flag! I venture that this is true to say of a very large number of Canadians, because it is not the Canadian flag. Canada is alone among the British dominions, alone among the countries of the world, in not having a flag of her own.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Newfoundland has the same design of flag.


Brooke Claxton: I do not suggest that we should not have' the union jack in our flag, but we should have a flag to which the emotional attachment of Canadians of all races can be drawn, which will mean something to Canadians as Canadians alone.
I suggest that some of us English-speaking Canadians have, by our attitude, helped to bring about this extreme nationalist feeling on the part of some extremists in the province of Quebec. Both groups of extremists are basically colonial-minded; both of them charge each other with disloyalty ; the clashing knives of their bitterness sharpen each other; both are wrong; both threaten national unity and interfere with the war effort; both undermine Canada's faith in herself and prevent her from taking the full responsibilities of nationhood. Before the war these extremists helped to promote the habit of compromise, they prevented the growth of sturdy selfreliance as a nation, the self-reliance which Canadians as individuals have. They helped to prevent our having a conception of Canada and its role in the war which would be the keystone in our thinking about the war from

end to end of Canada and would be the core of all our publicity and educational efforts on the war. I referred to the feeling in Quebec about the war and the failure to realize that this is a war for the defence of Canada. We have some part of the blame for that, because we failed to bring home to the citizens of Quebec the true nature of the war. We failed to meet the propaganda that was poured in and poured out. I suggest now that here is one thing which hon. members in all parts of the house, no matter what their vote on this question is, can do together; that is to work together to develop a common idea of our country which will have an equal appeal to all Canadians of every race.
There is no chance for Canada in the long run if we have two conflicting, competing, ideas of our country. Either the stronger will prevail and the minority will feel that it is being dominated, or the weaker will prevail and the stronger will feel that the weaker is being appeased or that concessions are being made to it. Or else we shall have a weak compromise, paralyzing and stultifying national policy, preventing any sense of common purpose and the realization of a common goal. We must have a common idea of Canada, an idea big enough for all to accept. To my English-speaking friends I say we must realize that Canada is a country of two races; to my French-speaking friends I say they must realize that though two races it is still one country. We both should see the difficulties and work together without thought or fear of domination or assimilation.
I should like to grasp the hand of cooperation offered last night in the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Lapointe). Although he did not take the view of this issue that I take, every word he said was spoken as a Canadian; every word was an eloquent appeal to Canadians of all races to work together, no matter what the result of this issue is; and that appeal will, I believe, be echoed and reechoed not only through this house but throughout the country.
What should be our common idea and common goal? We are fighting for our lives, for our country, the grandest country on the face of the earth; we are fighting for the only kind of world in which a nation like Canada can survive, a world in which the peace is kept by some kind of collective action; there is no other way to keep it. Victory is worth any price, any sacrifice that may be necessary. And I think we should be fighting to make a countiy where no one able and willing to work

Mobilization Act-Mr. Perley
will suffer the degrading agony of unemployment; where lack of money will not prevent any mother from having a child or prevent any child from having the education for which he is fitted; where the first charge on the national wealth will be the care of the young, the care of the aged, the care of the sick; where the motto "prevention is better than 'cure" will be a programme of action, not merely a pious platitude; where problems and difficulties will be faced and not shelved; where, in addition to the constitutional rights of French-speaking Canadians, there will be equal treatment for people of all origins and all races; and where people will have a real sense of participation in the life of the nation and of membership in a world society in which Canada shall play its full part.
Who disagrees with this? Who disagrees with any part of it? Who doubts that it would be easier to keep in step if we felt that we tvere on the way to such a goal? People may say, "Win the war first." The answer is no, because such a programme does not interfere in any way with the winning of the war, but helps us to fight better. We must put our minds and hearts into the job, our soul's desire, of making Canada the country we know it can become.
In this seventy-fifth anniversary of confederation I commend to hon. members the speeches of the fathers of confederation. See what faith they had in the future of the nation they knew they were setting up. Sir John Macdonald said:
If we v'ish to form-using the expression which was sneered at the other evening-a great nationality, commanding the respect of the world, able to hold our own against all opponents, and to defend those institutions v/e prize:	if we wish to have one system of
government . . .
We must have union. Cartier, who I am proud to say represented part of the constituency which I myself have the honour to represent, said:
Objection had been taken to the scheme now under consideration because of the words "new nationality". Now, when we were united together, if union were attained, we would form a political nationality with which neither the national origin nor the religion of any individual would interfere.
The name "Kingdom of Canada" was dropped only because it would "wound the sensibilities of the Yankees".
To bring to the service of the nation in peace and war the best of individual and combined effort should be our purpose. We should not lose the peace and harmony that we are fighting to gain. Whatever the result of this vote; whether or not the government extends compulsory service to overseas, we
shall make our utmost effort; we shall go forward united to victory and to peace. Our sole ambition, our only hope, our supreme ideal is to assure peace to the world and plain common sense in Canada. By the manner of our discussion and conduct during and after this debate we can reassert to the world at large the superiority of a freely organized and liberty-inspired people.


Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just concluded his address (Mr. Claxton) I think was the first on the government side to support his leader in the policy announced on Wednesday last. The hon. gentleman made an appeal to his compatriots in the province of Quebec, and tried to answer in part the great speech delivered here yesterday by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). I am not mixing in any of the controversies of eastern Canada, but I do agree with one statement made by the last speaker; that is, that the people of Canada as a whole believe victory is worth any price and any sacrifice. That, I thought, was a noble expression of what I believe is in the mind of the whole Canadian people.
I had not intended to take very much time to-day, in fact I shall take only a very few minutes. I should have preferred to wait until the committee stage was reached, when I might have had some suggestions to offer or some remarks to make, but since I will not be here during part of next week, and it may be that this debate will be speeded up and concluded by then, I wish briefly to set out my position and indicate what I would do if I were here when the vote was taken.
To put it very briefly I may say that my position was expressed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) in the words with which he concluded his address earlier this week after dealing pretty thoroughly with the whole situation since 1940. At page 3252 of Hansard he said:
I shall vote for the second reading of this bill; but I shall insist that there be incorporated in the bill-
That is, in the committee stage.
-the necessary mandatory provisions to place at once at the disposal of the state, without limitation and upon terms to be decided by parliament and not by the cabinet, the full resources of the nation in man-power, wealth and materials.
I trust that when this bill is considered in committee those on the opposition side will emphasize the necessity of parliament being given a definite statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as to what he proposes to do if the time comes when he
Mobilization Act-Mr. Perley

thinks conscription is necessary; how he proposes to bring it about and enforce it. It seems to me that this may easily develop into one of the most important debates we have ever had in this parliament. We are dealing with vital questions, and certainly this is a critical time in the history of Canada. There is hardly any precedent for what we are doing to-day. In his speech delivered yesterday I think the hon. member for Richelieu-Ver-cheres made a reply to the Prime Minister. He reviewed the record since the election of 1940; having been a member of the inner circle until very recently, he knew what he was talking about. His was a great effort, and I considered it a privilege to be here and listen to it. The hon. member dealt with the passing of the mobilization act and recalled how quickly it had gone through this house. He emphasized the fact that the Prime Minister could call parliament together at very short notice, if at any time he wanted to give parliament a chance to debate the question of conscription. His remarks were directed particularly to the Prime Minister, and he went on to point out the right hon. gentleman's inconsistencies during the past two and a half years.
We have had the mobilization act, under which men have been called up first for one month's training, then for four months' training and then for the duration of the war. Now we have this bill, to amend the mobilization act. In the meantime we have had what might be called two national registrations, the first in 1940 and the latest one last month, of all unemployed between the ages of sixteen and seventy. On previous occasions I have suggested that it was unfortunate that the government did not make use of the information gained in the 1940 registration. Had that been done, all Canada's forces could have been mobilized and there would have been no exodus from the farms such as we have seen during the last two years.
In his speech on Wednesday last I do not think the Prime Minister did himself justice. We expected a lengthy speech, but I think it was a disappointment to the people of Canada. I believe this parliament and the people generally expected something very definite from the Prime Minister. The public, having released him from what he termed his moral obligation through the plebiscite vote, expected something definite when he undertook to amend the mobilization act. I think they expected some form of conscription, in order that the Canadian people might put forth an all-out war effort; but in his speech he defied public opinion and this parliament. If conscription is to be imposed within the next six 
months, will parliament have an opportunity to discuss the matter? The Prime Minister made it definite that if we have anything to say about conscription, now is the time to say it. He did not propose to give us another opportunity, even though it might be necessary six months or a year hence to put conscription into force, of discussing this matter. We were told to discuss it now or, so to speak, forever hold our peace.
Who knows what is in the mind of the Prime Minister if and when he admits that it is necessary to impose conscription? There was nothing in his speech that would indicate what he had in mind. I think the statement of the leader of the opposition was a proper one to make. He reviewed the situation as it had developed from 1940 and referred to the different debates and speeches that had been made by the Prime Minister, members of the cabinet and others. He covered the ground very well. When he suggested that we should have had something definite, I think he was taking the right stand.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres said yesterday that the plebiscite ballot should have contained a definite question as to whether or not the voter was in favour of conscription. I shall not deal with that now. When the plebiscite bill was before the house I referred to the question on the ballot. When the bill passed I considered it to be the duty of all of us to endeavour to get a "yes" vote. In February last, before the plebiscite bill came before the house, I took the stand that there was no need of a plebiscite vote. On February 3 I referred to the fact that the government had a huge majority and I commented upon the questions that had been raised during the campaign. At that time I said, as reported on page 262 of Hansard'.
We believe, and I think the majority of the Canadian people believe, that this is no time for a plebiscite, in view of the crisis facing Canada and the world. It would have been more courageous for the government to bring in a resolution for the complete mobilization of all our resources in finance, industry and man-power, and I venture to say that such a resolution would have the almost unanimous support of this house and of the people of this country.
I wonder what our soldiers overseas think about this plebiscite.
Further on in the debate I suggested that we as representatives of the people knew pretty well what was in their minds and what they had been thinking during the two years since the election. I contended that a vote of this house would have been a better criterion of the feeling of the people than a

Mobilization Act-Mr. Perley
plebiscite vote. However, once the bill passed I went out and endeavoured to get the largest possible "yes" vote.
I am proud to say that in Saskatchewan the vote was almost five to one "yes". In my constituency of Qu'Appelle it was practically a six to one "yes" vote. No matter what the Prime Minister said last Wednesday as to what this vote meant, I say that at least 90 per cent of those people who made that vote a six to one "yes" vote thought they were really voting for conscription. What did the legion which took part in the campaign expect? What did the men on active service expect? When I was endeavouring to get the people in my province to vote "yes" I quoted from a broadcast made by the Prime Minister on April 7, and I should like to quote from that broadcast again. After pointing out the dangerous situation that existed in Canada, both east and west, and in Europe, the Prime Minister said:
We cannot defend our country and save our homes and families by waiting at home for the enemy to attack us. Every country that has stood behind its own defences in this war has sooner or later been attacked. To remain on the defensive is the surest way to bring the war to Canada.
And again:
We must go out to meet the enemy before he reaches our shores.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister what he meant when in appealing for a "yes" vote he said that we cannot save Canada by staying at home. Was that not practically saying to the people, "If you release me from this moral obligation, in order to save Canada we will send soldiers to any theatre of war and will meet the enemy before he reaches our shores"? That was the logical conclusion for the people of Canada to arrive at. They released the Prime Minister from his pledge. I recall on one occasion I put it that the people of Canada were exchanging pledges with the Prime Minister. They released the Prime Minister from his moral pledge, but they expected that he would follow up what he said in that broadcast.
We appreciated the fact that the government had information which the public could not have, but we expected that the facts would be laid before parliament so that parliament might decide the case on its merits. I have quoted the words he used. Surely the people of Canada had a right to expect something more definite. They expected that this question would be brought before parliament so that we would be given a chance to discuss it. I believe when the people of Canada released the Prime Minister from his pledge they were willing to pledge themselves to assist the
government in making Canada's war effort more effective and if necessary to suffer greater sacrifices. The people wanted an opportunity to demonstrate their national resolution and determination to win this war in Canada's darkest hour, no matter what sacrifice might be needed.
During the campaign the people were told of the difficulties and the dangers that Canada was facing. It was really an education for the people of Canada. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, members of the government and nearly all the members of the House of Commons endeavoured to tell the people the true situation with respect to the war. The people learned a great deal about Canada's war effort. I quoted from the many pamphlets and other information that had been put out in this connection, and I know the people appreciated it. On one occasion I had the privilege of having the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven) with me in the town of Indian Head, and the information he gave to the people in. that crowded hall was worth while. I complimented the hon. member highly for giving them that information, which they were entitled to receive at first hand from an authoritative source. It did much to bring about the almost solid "yes" vote in that town of almost 2,000 people.
The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) last night dealt with an important point, namely, that this amendment will give power to the military authorities to bring military service for overseas into force at almost any time. Naturally the military authorities will first confer with the Department of National Defence, the Department of National War Services, and the government, who I have no doubt will act upon the advice thus received from the military authorities.
It has been said that parliament will not have the opportunity of discussing the form of conscription that will be brought in. It is true that there is no act of parliament now for conscription overseas, and there is no indication that we shall have an opportunity of discussing such a measure. But I do want to say, with other speakers, that Canada's contribution in the production of food and the necessary munitions of war, tanks, aeroplanes, guns and ships, must not be allowed to suffer. We must have complete mobilization and organization of our resources so that there shall be no lessening of the production of food and the munitions of war.
I referred a few minutes ago to the figures that were the result of the national registration which was taken about- two years ago.
Mobilization Act-Mr. Perley

I think those figures should have been made use of earlier. Had that been done, we should not have had to wait until March 23 of this year for the freezing of employment on the farm. That step came too late; we should have had it a year ago.
We have had ceilings established on wages; we have had price ceilings; we have had a cost of living bonus, but so far no fair price has been arrived at for the products of agriculture comparable to the prices received for the products of industry. I should like to elaborate on that, but I shall not take the time to-day because we are now awaiting the arrival of the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General.
But I do not want to conclude before saying that the Prime Minister should have been more definite, and I trust when this bill gets into the committee stage the Prime Minister will give the committee the government's definite proposals for carrying out conscription for overseas service if and when they deem that necessary-and that remains for the government to decide. But the first consideration should be the mobilization of agriculture and industry. We must organize the man-power resources of this dominion so far as production is concerned.
The crop reports from Saskatchewan are encouraging. Just before coming into the house I received word that we have had three inches of rain in the southeastern half of Saskatchewan within the last forty-eight hours. The crops are coming along well and if everything continues favourable the problem of harvest help will be a serious one for Saskatchewan. I trust the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will give his earnest attention to that.
It is my view that the whole man-power and woman-power of this dominion should be mobilized, and all our resources, and our capital, if you like, to the end that we shall win this war. Let me recall the words of a great statesman: Let us not think that this war cannot be lost, but on the other hand let us think that this war must be won, and then as Mr. Winston Churchill said, victory will crown our efforts.
If I should not be in the house when this bill is passing through the committee stage I trust that members of the opposition will see to it that the Prime Minister gives to the house definite proposals as to how conscription for overseas service is to be enforced, when the government deems that to be necessary.


Mr. LUCIEN DUBOIS (Nieolet-Yamaska) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I also believe it my duty to protest against the measure now being considered by the house, authorizing the striking out of section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940.
In doing so, I have no personal interests to further, nor can I be charged with discussing this measure from a narrow political point of view, with an eye on re-election to this house. On the contrary, I wish to assume my responsibilities as I see them, and to make sure that my stand on this issue will be as logical as I believe it to have been in the past.
For the information of that section of public opinion which I have the honour to represent here, may I be permitted to quote an interview published in Le Devoir, of Montreal, in Feb. 9, 1937. I quote this article not because I wish to boast or to appear as a prophet, but because I believe it useful to explain my present stand. The interview ran as follows: (Le Devoir, Peb. 9, 1937.)
The reporter: We met Mr. Dubois as he was leaving the office of the Clerk of the House, Mr. Arthur Beauchesne:-
Q. What do you think of the military appropriations?
A. I believe the old formula remains true. Our armament policy will be Canadian as long as peace endures, and British in time of war.
Q. Do they represent, to your mind, the introduction of a new military policy?
A. Beyond doubt.
Q. Do you see in these military appropriations a repetition of what occurred in the past, notably in 1910 and 1911?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Do you intend to oppose their passing?
A. Yes, absolutely, even though I were the only one to do so. But I shall not be the only one.
Q. You seem to be absolutely sure of the appropriateness of both your views and your acts, would it be because you foresee grave dangers for your country in the present military policy?
A. I yield, states Mr. Dubois, to a deep instinct which commands me not to support these military appropriations. Besides, we may recall past experiences. I fear we may repeat the mistakes of former years.
This interview is five years old.
As you see, from the very beginning, I felt, through some kind of intuition, the depth of the abyss in which the circumstances then obtaining would inevitably lead us.
In 1937, 1938 and 1939, I oppposed the increase in military appropriations, not because I was averse to incurring the defence of Canada, far from it; but because I feared the dire consequences which confront us today and which are menacing our national unity, if it still exist in our country.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Dubois
Then came the 1940 election, when I was returned to office simply because I had faithfully interpreted the opinions of my constituents. I shall not relate in all its details the struggle I had to wage against those who did not share my views.
During this campaign, all the members of the present parliament pledged themselves to oppose conscription for overseas service. However, after its entry into the European conflict, on September 10, 1939, our government supported our war effort to the limit of our financial resources.
On June 21, 1940, the house passed the National Resources Mobilization Act, for the defence of Canada and of Canada only. I then supported that act which, for once, clearly stated our true military obligations. 'No Canadian worthy of that name could oppose the mobilization of our national resources for the sole defence of our country.
Step by step and from one concession to another we have now reached the brink of the abyss that was foreseen in 1937, because, whether we like it or not, this measure undoubtedly incorporates into our statute books the principle of conscription for overseas service. I am not the only one to entertain that belief, as evidenced by an excerpt I shall quote from the Winnipeg Free Press of June 1, 1942. Referring to the debate on this bill, that paper made the following statement:
Once that debate is closed and the bill is passed, conscription shall have been definitely settled, the time when it should be applied remaining, of course, to be determined in the light of the requirements of the general military situation.
Such an opinion should be pondered, considering the source from which the Free Press obtains its information.
Under the pretext that our sacrosanct national unity is at stake, it will be asserted, to-morrow as to-day, that we are waging Canada's war for Canada, for the defence of all the liberties and all the rights of the Canadian people. In the light of recent happenings, that argument has an ironic angle. I wonder if there is really such a thing as a Canadian people. Can any one conceive a people without a flag, without a national anthem, and without any true understanding among its various elements? A Canada without a truly Canadian policy on all matters is not the kind of country which our forefathers had visualized.
Is it fitting that, for the maintenance of such a primitive colonialism, Canada should be called upon, every 20 or 25 years, to sacrifice through conscription the lives of
her young men on distant theatres of war? My answer is no, not any more to-day than yesterday shall I vote for such a measure.
Were I to be asked to vote for the conscription of wealth in order to help our allies,
I would gladly do so, for such would be the best means, as I see it, to put an end to all those wars which throw the world into confusion for the benefit of a few shady financiers.
What need have we of conscripting men when England is asking us for tools?
What need have we of this legislation to intensify our war effort when Mr. Churchill himself states that our effort has been more than splendid? *
What need have we of conscription when the voluntary system meets the wishes of the government even beyond their expectations?
Have we so soon forgotten the telling words uttered by one of our most eminent governors, Lord Tweedsmuir, when he said:
A Canadian's first loyalty is not to the British Commonwealth of Nations but to Canada, and those who deny this are doing, to my mind, a great disservice to the commonwealth.
With this thought I shall conclude. Whenever this legislation is adopted it shall be put into effect by order in council. Parliament shall have nothing further to do, nothing to say in the matter. Mr. King shall be at the mercy of the conscriptionist members of his government.
I entreat each and every one of my hon. colleagues in this house to join, while there is still time, in rescuing our leader from this evil predicament by a concerted vote against the present bill.
On motion of Mr. Gardiner the debate was adjourned.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Canada Evidence Act. An act to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
An act for granting to his majesty aid for national defence and security.
An act for granting to his majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1943.
On motion of Mr. Usley the house adjourned at 5.46 p.m.
Monday, June 15, 1942