[Stage Direction]
(Translation) Third report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament.-Mr. Dupuis.
Second report of special committee on honours and decorations-Mr. Macmillan.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. P. MULOCK (Postmaster General):: Yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) made an inquiry in regard to change in regulations as to parcels to be sent overseas by mail. In regard to gift parcels for civilians in the United Kingdom, these parcels were first restricted in 1941, when, at the request of the British administration, a maximum weight of five pounds was imposed. Recently the British
administration advised that these regulations permitting the importation of gift parcels not exceeding five pounds gross weight are now applicable only if such parcels are not sent more freqently than once a month.
It will be noted that the orders restricting the sending of gift parcels were issued in order to conserve shipping space for more urgent supplies., There has been no change as regards the weight limit of parcels to our soldiers, which remains at eleven pounds.


Mr. REID:: Are there any restrictions on newspapers?


William Pate Mulock: In order to ensure that all available ocean transportation space is devoted to war essentials, it has been found necessary to take steps to reduce the volume of newspapers to civilians and to the troops in the United Kingdom and other transatlantic destinations, as well as to destinations in central and south America, Bermuda and the West Indies.
Effective August 10, complete newspapers or periodicals will not be accepted from the general public for transmission to such destinations. People who formerly sent newspapers or periodicals to destinations affected by this restriction are being requested to forward clippings of special interest instead. Publishers have agreed to cooperate, and the question of newspapers and periodicals mailed to subscribers at the destinations referred to is at present under consideration.
Further information in respect to this matter will be given through departmental publications, the press and radio.



APPOINTMENT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE UNDER WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. A news item over the radio yesterday stated that the wartime prices and trade board had appointed an advisory committee to deal with the beef situation. Will the minister state whether that is correct, and also see that the names are brought down at the earliest possible day? The estimates for agriculture will be up in the course of a day or two.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I will get that information and present it on the orders of the day to-morrow.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Could the minister get it for this afternoon? Agriculture may be up soon.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I will try.
Brunelle
Cote
Picard
Halle
Mobilization Act-Division

Columbia (Mr. Mayhew) was paired with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Marier). Had the hou. member for Jacques Cartier voted he would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: The hon. member for Quebec West and South (Mr. Parent) was paired with the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). Had he voted he would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: I was paired with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Turner). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BRUNELLE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The question is on the main motion. May I assume that all members are here and ready to take the vote?


Mr. COTE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DUROCHER:: I am authorized to say that the hon. member for Victoria, British
Mobilization Act-Mr. Hansell

changed since the beginning of the war I do not understand that language. When he talks in that language he can mean only one thing, that you might just as well win the war ten years from now as win it now.
That is an entirely wrong attitude to take. I therefore do not rise in defence of the stand that this group has taken ever since the war began. We will contend for that stand, for it is the only stand that can be taken in time of war.
As I listened to the speeches to-day I could not help thinking that in this chamber, which has sometimes been called the highest court in the land, the game of politics is now being played. I declare that this issue of conscription has been the political football of this country ever since the war commenced, notwithstanding anything that anyone can say to the contrary. It was so in the election of 1940; it was so in the plebiscite, and it is so in this debate. Politics, politics, politics! When somebody talks politics the house applauds; when anyone talks regular basic common sense no notice is taken of it, or else we are incapable of knowing what it means. As I listened to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), I did not hear all his speech, and as I listened to the Prime Minister, it took me back to my school days and I felt like saying, "Now boys, boys, boys, do not fight like that."
What is the issue? To my mind the issue is to put into practice now what the people said should ibe put into practice when they put a little X mark opposite that word "yes". That was the vote of the people. That was the voice of democracy. When the people speak with a voice as loud as they did that day that should end all debate. When the people speak that should be the last word. But what have we seen displayed in this house? I think there have been nearly one hundred speeches made in an attempt to explain what the little X mark meant after the word "yes". The voice of the people expresses the will of the people, and the will of the people is supreme. When they voted "yes" that was the "go" sign for the government to put all they had into this war. That needs no explanation; it needs no debate. Then what have we been talking about? We have simply been vying with one another in making it a political issue. We of this group refuse and have refused to play politics. If it had not been for the vote about to be taken, and all other groups having spoken, we would have remained silent. We refuse to play politics in time of war.
There is one thing that bothers me. I have not been able to understand what the

Prime Minister means when he talks of coming back to parliament for this vote of confidence. I am sorry I have to take this attitude, but almost every time the Prime Minister speaks I have to regard it as having some sort of political significance. Perhaps I am not right in that; I hope I am not too suspicious. I am not an old hand in parliament; I have been here only since 1935, but somehow or another-I cannot explain why-when some proposal is made by the Prime Minister I wonder what political dodge he is up to. He now proposes to come to parliament to ask for a vote of confidence. What does that mean? Almost everything we vote on here is a vote of confidence or no confidence, depending upon the way the vote goesj
There is something else which I do not understand, which I cannot think my way through, for I like to be as logical as I can. The Prime Minister says, "We will come for a vote of confidence in this administration." Well, you know, if I were certain that this was a parliament of the people I could believe in the veracity of his action in that regard; but this parliament, I maintain, is no longer a parliament of the people, whatever we may say about it. This is a parliament of parties; we may as well make up our minds to that at ouce. When the Prime Minister comes to this parliament for a vote of confidence, I think I know what is going to happen. The whips are going to begin to crack, to whip members into line, and when the vote is taken we know how it will go. I fail to see where that is a vote of confidence. To make my illustration clear, let us suppose that the three opposition groups in this house refuse to vote confidence, but that the large Liberal majority votes confidence. Will the Prime Minister say that is a vote of confidence by parliament?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why not?


Mr. HANSELL:: Certainly that is what
he will do. It will be a vote of confidence by his own party; of course it will.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: By the majority.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, elected by the people of the country and whipped into line by party politics. I cannot help thinking that this whole debate could have been settled Ijy the Liberal party itself. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what I think should have taken place? Of course I may be blamed for not having recommended this to the leader of the opposition, but do you know what I think he should have done when the resolution preceding this bill was brought down? He should have said to his party, to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, and to this

Mobilization Act-Mr. Raymond.
meantime the population of Ontario had increased and was larger than the population of Quebec, and they asked, not equal representation, but proportional representation, and for the sake of national unity the province of Quebec again consented. As a matter of fact, we have not even proportional representation, but that is something about which I shall have to speak on some other occasion. In 1939, when war was declared, the province of Quebec was asked to consent to participation, again in the name of national unity, and the province of Quebec consented to participation, but on the express condition that there would never be any question of conscription. Now in the name of national unity Quebec is again asked to consent to conscription, notwithstanding the pledge that had been given in 1939 to that province. Well, there must be a limit to sacrifice, always at the expense of the province of Quebec.
Reference has also been made by the leader of the opposition to privileges enjoyed in the province of Quebec by virtue of the British North America Act. Let me say that these are not privileges but rights.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did I use the word "privileges"? I said "contractual obligations."


Mr. RAYMOND:: They are rights. There was a contract in 1867, and I dare anyone in this house or anyone outside it to cite one fact to show that the province of Quebec has not fulfilled all its obligations under the British North America Act. In the province of Quebec French Canadians are the majority, and we have always fulfilled our obligations and always respected the rights of the minority. Unfortunately, however, I do not think the same can be said of all the other provinces.
This afternoon the hon. member for Trinity said that in a democracy the majority should rule. I agree entirely with that principle. In a democracy the majority should rule, but may I add that the majority should never abuse its powers, and when a pledge has been given by the majority to the minority it is sacred. In this Case a most solemn pledge, so qualified by the Prime Minister, was given by the majority to the minority. Think of it! We are now asked to pass a bill to conscript men tb go and fight for a broken pledge. It has been said that the government has been released from that pledge. That is not a fact. The government has not been relieved from its pledge because the pledge was given to the minority. I have only to refer to the compromise made in September, 1939. Mr. Lapointe, speaking in the name of the province of Quebec, said this, when war was
declared. I am quoting from page 68 of Hansard of that date:
The whole province of Quebec . . . will never agree to accept compulsory service or conscription outside of Canada. . . .
Provided these points are understood, we are willing to offer our services without limitation and to devote our best efforts for the success of the cause we all have at heart.
This is the condition which has been asked of the majority for our participation. It was agreed to, and the Prime Minister has said that it was the most solemn pledge that had ever been given to a group. When they say that the plebiscite has relieved the government from its pledge I say no, because the pledge was given by the majority to the minority, and the province of Quebec has voted almost unanimously against relieving the government from this pledge. But to-day we are asked in the name of national unity to relieve the government from its pledge when the population has refused to do so; and because the province of Quebec is refusing, some people treat the province of Quebec as a disloyal province. Since when has disloyalty consisted in asking someone to respect their pledge? Is it not the one who wants to violate the pledge that is disloyal?
I am not going to insist any more, but I wanted to say to the house before this bill passes that if it is passed it is passed at the price of a broken pledge.


Ernest George Hansell: I would not rise to take part in this debate but for the fact that we of this group have remained silent. We have not yet spoken to this bill, and therefore it behooves us to say just a word before the vote is taken.
As I sat here and listened to the debate on this bill as well as on its resolution stage, but more particularly to what I have heard to-day, I have been convinced of one thing, that there are political parties in this house that have something that they have to defend. I come to you this evening, Mr. Speaker, and I say that the only wise stand that could ever have been taken in time of war from the very beginning, from the time Canada declared war on Germany, was a stand for an all-out war effort. That is the stand that this group with which I am affiliated took in those days. It is the only stand that needs no defence. It is the only common-sense stand. It is not a political stand. We tossed politics to the wind in those days; we went out to this country as all parties went out, but we went out and told our constituents that war was war. There are no degrees in war. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) speaks of things having
Mobilization Act-Mr. Maclnnis

A great many things have happened since 1939. I could believe far more in the sincerity of the Prime Minister in many of the things he said if he had not cheered the canards of the leader of the opposition earlier this evening. But if we have changed our position, so has the Prime Minister. As late as March 30, 1939, he said, as reported in Hansard at page 2419:
We have tremendous tasks to do at home, in housing the people, in earing for the aged and helpless, in relieving drought and unemployment, in building roads, in meeting our heavy burden of debt, in making provision for Canada's defence, and in bringing our standards of living and civilization to the levels our knowledge now makes possible. There is no great margin of realizable wealth for this purpose; we must, to a greater or less extent, choose between keeping our own house in order, and trying to save Europe and Asia. The idea that every twenty years this country should automatically and as a matter of course take part in a war overseas for democracy or self-determination of other small nations, that a country which has all it can do to run itself should feel called upon to save, periodically, a continent that cannot run itself, and to these ends risk the lives of its people, risk bankruptcy and political disunion, seems to many a nightmare and sheer madness.
That was in 1939. My right hon. friend referred to-night to Munich, and said that at the time of Munich he told his cabinet that if war developed at that time Canada should go into the war. Yet eight or nine months later he said that for Canada to take part in these foreign wars was sheer madness. Was the right hon. gentleman on that occasion currying favour with the province of Quebec? If he wants his protestations of sincerity to be taken at their face value, he should not cheer or pound his desk when the leader of the opposition in his ignorance casts aspersions on this group. I may say that since this war began we have advocated one thing only; we have demanded that if we are going to conscript men and use men's lives in winning this war, we should conscript the wealth and the industries of the country to fight the war. I want to tell the Prime Minister that there is not a group in this house, neither his own members, nor the official opposition, nor the group to my left, who have been more careful not to embarrass either himself or his ministers in the carrying on of the war than the group which sits behind me in these rows of seats. I challenge him to bring forward one instance where we have said or done anything that could possibly embarrass him. We did not do so because we realize the importance of winning this war.
I regret having to take up the time of the house to discuss these matters to-night, but unfortunately the leader of the opposition 
had to be answered. The statesmanship shown by the leaders of the two major groups in the house this evening is something that should give the people of Canada food for thought. We have an amendment before us which would delay this bill going into action, even such action as is offered by the government. Since its only purpose is to delay the measure, this group will vote against the amendment.


Maxime Raymond: 
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Is this an
imperialistic war?


Mr. MacINNIS:: That appears to be the
position of my hon. friends. Let us see what was adopted as our foreign policy in 1933. I doubt if the leader of the opposition has ever read it. Pointing his finger at the government side benches he said, "Did you ever read it?" If he has read it, he does not understand it. This section in the programme reads:
A foreign policy designed to obtain international economic cooperation and to promote disarmament and world peace.
That is the kernel of the statement. We then elaborated it by saying:
Canada has a vital interest in world peace. We propose, therefore, to do everything in our power to advance the idea of international cooperation as represented by the League of Nations and the International Labour Organization. We would extend our diplomatic machinery for keeping in touch with the main centres of world interest. But we believe that genuine international cooperation is incompatible with the capitalist regime which is in force in most countries, and that strenuous efforts are needed to rescue the league from its present condition of being mainly a league of capitalist great powers. We stand resolutely against all participation in imperialist wars. Within the British commonwealth, Canada must maintain her autonomy as a completely self-governing nation. We must resist all attempts to build up a new economic British empire in place of the old political one, since such attempts readily lend themselves to the purpose of capitalist exploitation and may easily lead to further world wars. Canada must refuse to be entangled in any more wars fought to make the world safe for capitalism.
Let me tell this house that we have not departed one iota from that statement.
In September, 1939, when war was imminent, when we were called here to attend the session of parliament which was to decide whether Canada should enter into the war or not, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation called together its national council-the only political party in Canada which gave its members an
opportunity to decide before they came into parliament as to whether we would participate in the war or not-and after two days' discussion the national council came to the conclusion that, although there might be certain imperialist factors connected with the war, the issues at stake were such that we were not unconcerned as to which side should win, and because we were not unconcerned as to which side would win we favoured participation by Canada in the war. Referring to imperialist wars, unfortunately we have, in the past, engaged in imperialist wars. The Minister of Mines and Resources (M,r. Crerar), speaking on this bill at an earlier date, said that if this had been another war like the Boer war he would be opposed to participation; and if this had been an imperialist war like the Boer war the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation would have opposed it, regardless of what the consequences might be.
The leader of the opposition talks about his desire to win this war, and he makes the welkin ring telling us how necessary it is to sacrifice everything in order to win it; yet, during the discussion on the budget resolutions the only thing he seemed to be concerned with was that he and those whom he represents should keep what they have. It was a fine thing to send our young men to give their lives, and it was also the correct thing to make the young men of future generations pay for the war, as long as his "savings of a lifetime" were not touched. Let me tell my hon. friend that unless he understands better than he seems to do now what is at stake in this war he will wake up some fine morning and find that, in the winning of the war, a world revolution has taken place wherein the savings that he and the privileged classes of the world have piled up will have disappeared, but in their place will come security for everyone; because those world changes are the issues at stake in this war. I do not, however, expect the hon. gentleman to understand that.
The leader of the opposition was not satisfied with calling attention to our foreign policy statement, which I have demonstrated is a perfectly good statement. He had to refer to a statement supposed to have been made by the leader of this group to the effect that he would rather see his son dead than have him join the army. I am not sure whether my hon. friend put it in just those words, but that was the import of his statement. He, however, failed to tell the house, though I have no doubt that he knows it, that the only son of the leader of this group is to-day in the armed forces.
Mobilization Act-Mr. Maclnnis

them what they voted for. They want total war, total conscription, and this is what they voted for and got. The Prime Minister is
reported at page 4014 of Hansard as having said:
I intend, therefore, if the time should come when the government decides that it has become necessary to send overseas men who have not volunteered for general service, and I should be in office at the time, to ask my colleagues to join me in seeing that parliament is immediately informed of the government's decision.
I skip a few lines:
I intend, at the same time, to see that, before the administration assumes the additional responsibility of enforcing its decision, lion, members are given an opportunity, not for any second debate on the question of conscription, but of showing tlieir confidence or want of confidence in the administration.
My hon. friends want total war; they want total conscription, and they got another delay. And they voted for it. No wonder they are sore. My particular purpose in rising to-night was to refer to the statement which was made by the leader of the opposition, and which was cheered by the Prime Minister, that this group in voting against the amendment to the National Resources Mobilization Act did so in order to curry favour with members from the province of Quebec. There is not a particle of truth in that statement. But if there should be, why did my hon. friends to the right vote for a bill which they despised? I will tell the house why. They voted for it because they were afraid to be found voting with what they called the "nationalists" from the province of Quebec. That was the reason. We did not vote against the bill for any such unworthy purpose. Our position and the position of my hon. friends opposite from Quebec are as far apart as the poles. The leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), put the case quite clearly and beyond the possibility of a doubt when speaking in this debate on July 7. The hon. member is reported at page 3997 of Hansard as saying:
What should this house do? In our opinion, this house should decide now, at once, without further delay, for total mobilization of industry, of wealth and of man-power. But what are we doing under this bill that we are discussing? We are merely allowing the government once more to postpone its decision on one phase of the mobilization that I have mentioned, and that not the most important.
That is not what my hon. friends from Quebec want. There is no similarity between what my hon. friends from Quebec want and what we want. They do not want this bill at all; they do not want mobilization of manpower, of wealth, of finance, of industry-we want conscription of all of them. How can my hon. friends of the official opposition then

say that we voted against the bill in order to curry favour with the nationalists from the province of Quebec?


Mr. GRAYDON:: Who said that?
Mr. MaeINNIS: Your leader.


Gordon Graydon: Then it must be right.
Mr. MaeINNIS: If it is, it would be the first right thing he ever said in his life. The leader of this group went on to say:
I want to make it very clear, as I said on June 11 when this measure was under discussion then, that we do not propose to be parties to this kind of political manoeuvring, for such it clearly is. We shall make our protest to-night by easting our vote against this measure.
My hon. friends to my right were parties to that political manoeuvring. Indeed, the whole procedure leading up to this bill, the plebiscite and the amendment to the National Resources Mobilization Act is about as clever a bit of trickery as was ever perpetrated on the people of this country. Several times to-night the Prime Minister said that he wanted to make it perfectly clear where the house stands in this matter. Does any hon. member know where we stand at the present time or what our position will be when we come back to this house if the government undertakes to give effect to the powers taken under this bill? No one knows, and the longer the Prime Minister talks about it the less clear everyone is in regard to it.
The leader of the opposition was not satisfied with the position he had put himself in by supporting a bill that he did not want; he went another step this afternoon. The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) -I am not quoting his words-said that this was one of the worst bills ever introduced in a democratic parliament. The leader of the opposition said that he was in almost perfect agreement with the hon. member. Yet he voted for that "worst" bill, and his followers voted with him.
The leader of the opposition pretends to feel concern over the political fortunes of this party because we voted against this bill. He should not worry over our affairs; he has enough to do looking after his own party. However, he should not even worry much about the fortunes of his own party because those fortunes are all in the past. Referring to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation he said it was impossible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I shall take the hon. gentleman's word for that, because no one is in a better position to give an expert opinion on that subject. All his political life he has been figuratively trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. He has ended with

Mobilization Act-Mr. Maclnnis
to this house for an expression of confidence at any time, undue time will not be consumed in debate. Hon. members will be given within a certain period of time, a chance to show where they stand and that will be a period of time which the people of this country will deem reasonable and sufficient for the purpose. I hope that is clear so that the country and hon. members will see there are not any delays whatsoever. Once the decision of the government is reached the government is going to proceed immediately and rapidly with the question of confidence and in carrying out to the full the intent and purpose of its decision.
I have spoken at greater length than I had intended to speak. My hon. friend closed his remarks with an appeal for unity at this particular time of war. I am not going to make that appeal in my own words, but, like my hon. friend, I should like to leave a few words with hon. members at the close of this long and very important debate. The words I wish to leave to-night are words which interpret better than any I have ever seen anywhere else what I believe to be the real inner meaning and significance of this great struggle.
I doubt if the people of Canada as yet begin to realize, not only the scope of this war, not only the terrible character of it, not only the rapidity with which it is encroaching upon the very confines and coasts of this continent. I doubt if they realize, or have yet fully realized, what this war really means to mankind.
Of all I have read on the subject, no passage has impressed me more than one I came across written by a young Canadian woman now in her thirties who, for some ten years or more suffered as an invalid. This young lady, Audrey Alexandra Brown, was born in Nanaimo, and is now living, I believe, in Victoria, out on the Pacific coast. I give these words to the hon. members to-night as words to be taken into the hearts of all, excepting none. I give them as words to be kept constantly before us to help us realize the character and the magnitude of the task it is our duty to seek to meet:
There is no place for separatism and dissension among us now, if there ever was. For it is plain that mankind has come to the crossroads. It is easy to cast back to Genghis Khan or the dark ages and declare that nothing is happening now which did not happen then. It is easy, it is comforting, and it is a lie. Certainly, brutality and force are not new among men. It has always been true that, as the Psalms have it, "the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty". Men who are little more than savages can be expected to behave as beasts. But never before in history has a nominally civilized, a nominally
Christian nation deliberately made the profession "Evil be thou my good". This war is unlike all other wars, for the deformed monstrosities that sheltered in darkness have crawled out of that darkness and openly challenged the world for the possession of its soul! They no longer fight under cover, they flaunt in steel. For Germany to win this war would not mean merely a re-drawing of boundaries or a shift in sovereignty. It would mean the destruction of the free spirit of man.
There can be no stronger plea for national unity.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed a rather unusual spectacle in the house this afternoon and evening. Before the dinner recess the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) took occasion to castigate all and sundry in the wildest terms. In this he was cheered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). However, the leader of the opposition had a good dinner and returned in much better spirits, and made a perfervid plea for unity.
The Prime Minister drew this contradiction to the attention of the leader of the opposition and then proceeded for an hour and a half to do the very same thing, in turn ending up with an ardent plea for unity. It is a terrible spectacle at this time, coming from the two leaders of the two major parties in this house.
I would noi take the time of the house in commenting on this procedure or in speaking in this debate had it not been for the fact that the leader of the opposition said certain things which we just cannot let pass. Speaking earlier to-day, the leader of this group (Mr. Coldwell) made reference to the statement of the leader of the opposition that the . Prime Minister had looped the loop three times, and that in that he was supported by the official opposition. I believe he added that later there had been another loop.
In any event this is what the leader of the opposition said on July 7, following the second reading of the bill, and as reported at page 4017 of Hansard:
Before the motion is put, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I should like to make this statement. Because of the speech that was made by the right hon. the Prime Minister to-night concluding the debate and at a time when no one else could reply, a speech in which it was indicated that the government has looped the loop three times ....
That statement was made after the leader of the opposition and his party had voted with the government that had looped the loop. Consequently the opposition also looped the loop. I am not a bit surprised that the leader of the opposition and his followers are feeling sore over the position in which they have become entangled. I am now going to show
4628	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
and the end of this year there could not be a debate on it, even if some hon. members might wish to have one. Every hon. member knows that His Honour the Speaker would immediately rule out of order a second debate on conscription, even if this house would tolerate it. It would be against the rules of the house, so there is no use in anyone seeking to make out that I am trying to have a second debate on the question of conscription, that I am going to take a long time in order to get this matter settled. This matter will be settled to-night, I believe, as far as this House of Commons is concerned. Then this bill will go to the senate and later will be given assent by the governor general. That will settle the question of the power .the government will have, and according to my policy already stated the decision will be settled by the administration under the power given to it by this legislation.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is a very different thing when a decision has been reached which places additional responsibilities on the ministry, responsibilities which must be viewed by any wise ministry in the light of all that has gone before; in the light of all that has taken place during this debate in this House of Commons; in the light, as my hon. friend the former minister said this afternoon, of what is going to be the result of the enforcement of that policy not only in the immediate future but for all time to come; I say when all that responsibility is added to the responsibility already on the shoulders of the ministry, I think it very desirable that this House of Commons should say whether it is prepared to give its support to the administration to carry on with that extra responsibility, or whether it is going to withhold its support just at the- time it is most needed. That does not mean a matter of taking any time. I will not delay to look up his words, but my hon. friend the leader of the opposition said something to the effect that I was going to ask for a second debate on conscription.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My hon. friend is quite right; that I was going to put through conscription by closure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; a
vote of confidence by closure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; my hon.
friend said conscription by closure. I will quote his words, so that there may be no mistake about it. Here is what my hon. friend said, as reported at page 4550 of Hansard:

Later in that speech of Tuesday, July 7, the Prime Minister indicated that the debate would have to be curtailed. Well, who will do the curtailing. There is only one way to curtail debate in parliament, and that is by invoking the rules with respect to closure. Consequently, what the Prime Minister said on July 7 was that the action of his government in imposing conscription would be submitted again to debate in the House of Commons, but that closure would be applied in the debate, and the motion or resolution put through under closure.
There could be no clearer words than those. My hon. friend says he did not use them, but-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then what did he say?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The record will speak for itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why did I look up the reference, if it was not to make perfectly sure?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The right hon. gentleman was wrong in his first reference, and I think he is wrong in the second. I will leave it at that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I find I
was right in my first reference, because he said:
What the Prime Minister said on July 7 was that the action of his government in imposing conscription would be submitted again to debate in the House of Commons-
I did not say anything of the kind.
-but that closure w-ould be applied in the debate, and the motion or resolution put through under closure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: "Resolution put through under closure."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was closure in reference to the question of conscription.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; the resolution of confidence would be put through under closure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now my hon. friend is taking exception to the resolution of confidence being put through under closure. And yet he says he is so sure of his ground he is prepared to vote want of confidence immediately. I ask my hon. friend if there could be any more absurd attitude for a leader to take than this, to say that he has not confidence in the ministry, but will require weeks of debate if necessary to prove that there is anything in it. That is what it comes to.
I want to make perfectly sure at the present time that, so far as I am concerned, coming

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
Now that it has been trumpeted all around the world to our disparagement, and every nation, friend and foe, is waiting to see what is the true resolve and conviction of the House of Commons, it must go forward to the end.
The most effective statement made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain during the course of that speech was when he reminded the house that they had two alternatives; they could dismiss the present government or support it, but they had no right to impair its efficiency and reduce its prestige abroad by a process of "sniping." That is exactly where we are at the present time, and I am saying to members of this House of Commons tonight that none of them have a right to continue to undermine confidence in the government that is carrying on the war unless they are prepared to put some other government in to take its place; and they have no right to do what they can to seek to destroy the Prime Minister of the country in his own eyes, in the eyes of his fellow-citizens and in the eyes of the world, unless they have someone whom they can put in his place and who is prepared to take the responsibility that is mine at this time.
On a previous occasion, after he had been in Washington before, Mr. Churcill found that the same thing had happened. His back had hardly been turned before a small, vociferous group began to make charges against the Prime Minister for having done this, for not having done that, and the like. He came back and found his strength impaired, his prestige lessened, and what did he say? He addressed the House of Commons on January 27 and asked for a vote of confidence in himself. He said:
From time to time in the life of any government there come occasions which must be clarified .... Since my return to this country I have come to the conclusion that I must ask to be sustained by a vote of confidence from the House of Commons. This is a thoroughly normal, constitutional, democratic procedure. A debate on the war has been asked for. I have arranged it in the fullest and freest manner for three whole days. Any member will be free to say anything he thinks fit about or against the administration or against the composition or personalities of the government, to his heart's content, subject only to the reservation which the house is always so careful to observe about military secrets. Could you have anything freer than that? Could you have any higher expression of democracy than that? Very few other countries have institutions strong enough to sustain such a thing while they are fighting for their lives.
After two days of debate a division, was taken, and Mr. Churchill was supported by 464 votes to 1. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not expect any such support.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: You would hardly
make a comparison between yourself and Prime Minister Churchill, would you?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is my
gallant and wise friend saying?


James Arthur Ross: It is on Hansard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want to make one thing perfectly clear-


James Arthur Ross: The Prime Minister
asked what I said. I asked if he was making a comparison as between himself and Prime Minister Churchill.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


James Arthur Ross: Read the history of
the last war, 1914-18.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The last thing in this world I wish to do is to make comparisons between myself and anyone else, let alone Mr. Churchill. No one knows better than I do the burden that Mr. Churchill is carrying and the magnificent manner in which he is carrying it. He is a noble example to all of us, and I am seeking to follow his example; not to compare myself with him but to follow his example: to do the best I possibly can in the position which I hold, for the time that I may hold it, but also realizing that I cannot pretend to carry on the duties of leadership of a government in time of war efficiently or effectively unless I enjoy the confidence of the members of the House of Commons. That is all I am asking for.
Now let me make one thing perfectly clear, so that there will be no mistake about it. I notice that some sections of the press have interpreted my remarks to mean that I was coming back to parliament to get approval of the decision of the government. I cannot make it too plain that when this bill passes both houses, as I believe it will pass, and is assented to, the government will have been given by parliament power to conscript men for service overseas. That power will rest in the government. It will be there. The policy of the government is to exercise that power when it believes it necessary to do so, when it is necessary to resort to conscription to make Canada's war effort more effective. When the decision is made by the government -if and when it is made-that settles the matter as far as conscription is concerned. Conscription will have been enacted; the government will have declared that it is necessary for the carrying on of the war. There will be no question of referring that matter to parliament at all. And may I add this, that if that should happen between now

Mobilizaium Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
view, if it is the view of the cabinet, I wish to be able to come to this House of Commons and say: The cabinet has reached this decision; the next step will foe to enforce it. Before that next step is taken I want this House of Commons to declare whether it has confidence in me as the head of the administration that is to carry out this policy of conscription or whether hon. members prefer to have another government in the place of the administration now in office. That is my conception of carrying out my responsibility to parliament.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite keep saying over and over again, as the leader of the opposition said to-night, "I have no confidence in the Prime Minister; a lot of us have no confidence in the Prime Minister; we reserve our right to vote as we think best on the motion of confidence," but can you think of anything more ridiculous than when they are offered that opportunity the tenor of their words is, "Oh, for goodness sake, do not give us that opportunity; we don't want it; we don't want to have to vote on an expression of confidence or otherwise." I say the people of this country will want to know two things: first, whether the head of the government that is carrying on this war has the confidence of the majority in this House of Commons, and second, where the members of this House of Commons stand, each one of them, not by their words but by their vote, on the question of the course that may be thought necessary by the administration in the winning of the war. And I intend, if it lies in my power, to see that this House of Commons gets that opportunity, so that the people will know exactly where each and every one of us stands.
Let me say this in conclusion. If I propose a course in this parliament, immediately some hon. gentlemen opposite find fault with it. If the Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Churchill, who is all-powerful in the support he has, proposes a course, of course he is applauded for it by the same hon. gentlemen. They say that was the right thing for him to do.


Mr. JACKMAN:: National government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, that is where we come pretty much to the crux of the whole situation. My hon. friend belongs to that little group of Tories who feel that nobody else is able to carry on a government unless they are members of it. May I ask my hon. friend this question, because he was elected on the basis of national government. Who was it raised the question of national government in this country at the last general election? It was his leader and the members of his party. So keen were they on national

government; so strongly did they believe that national government was the cry that was going to sweep Canada, that they actually struck out their old time-honoured name of Conservatives and called themselves national government candidates.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I ran as a Conservative candidate, supporting the policy of national government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend ran under a leader who ran as national government leader and who said that national government was the policy of his party, and all hon. gentlemen opposite know it. I simply mention the matter because if national government has been anathema ever since, hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible, because they are the ones who put the issue to the people and got the answer from the people themselves.
Now I 'come back to the example of Mr. Churchill. I ask this house to listen to these words and to ask themselves whether they might not have been spoken by myself tonight after this long debate as giving expression to much that has been said in the course of it. Less than three weeks ago Mr. Churchill returned to Great Britain from the United States. While he had been away a handful of his opponents had been directing different charges against his administration, doing what they could to undermine the confidence of the people in his administration. This is what Mr. Churchill said in his first great speech in the house after his return:
This long debate has now reached its final stage. What a remarkable example it has been of the unbridled freedom of our parliamentary institutions in time of war.
Everything that can be thought of or raked up has been used to weaken confidence in the government; has been used to prove that the ministers are incompetent and to weaken their confidence in themselves; to make the army distrust the backing it is getting from the civil power; to make workmen lose confidence in the weapons they are striving so hard to make; to represent the government as a set of nonentities over whom the Prime Minister tow'ers and then to undermine him in his own heart and, if possible, before the eyes of the nation- all this has poured out by cables and radio to all parts of the world, to the distress of all our friends and the delight of all our foes. I am in favour of this freedom which no other country would use or dare to use in times of mortal peril such as those through which we are passing, but the story must not end there, and I make now my appeal to the House of Commons to make sure that it does not end there.
And later.
Do not let the house underrate the gravity of what has been done.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That does not answer my question with respect to conscription for service overseas.


An hon. MEMBER:: But it answers his.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the matter of putting conscription for service overseas into force, should that become necessary there will be no delay in conscripting or training men. Exactly the same number will be called up by exactly the same method, regardless of geographical sphere of service. If the supply of volunteers fails there will be no question of starting a new system; all that will be required will be to extend the scope of service of men already called up and trained. That is the answer to the question as to the effect of delay in putting this system into force.
I wish to make perfectly clear my reason for saying that I desire to come back to parliament and inform parliament of the decision which may be made and why I would seek an expression of confidence before undertaking to continue as head of a government that is to administer conscription for service overseas. I have been careful in what I have said to speak for myself alone. I can speak only for myself as to the course I shall take if I have a certain responsibility, but	I	do	say this, and	I say it mostemphatically, that no man, I do not care who	he	is,	could carry on	a government	intime	of	war unless he had	the confidence	ofthe	House	of Commons,	expressed in	a
reliable majority, behind him.
There have been in the course of this debate many things which have given me reason to feel that the degree of confidence in my ability to carry on up to this particular point, which I know I have enjoyed very greatly, particularly from men of my own party and, I believe, in large measure from many hon. gentlemen opposite, may not be as great in me as one qualified to administer conscription for overseas service. If that is the case let me say that I do not wish to assume any obligation that hon. members of this house have not full faith in my carrying out to the letter. May I say this to my fellow-memibers of the House of Commons: I have shirked no responsibility of any kind since this war came on that I believed to be in the national interest. I have not hesitated to ask this House of Commons for any measure that I thought was essential in the national interest.
I do not expect ever in my life-in the remainder of it-to have any obligation to assume which will be comparable with the obligations I have assumed in the past, when it fell to my lot to go into the council chamber
and advise my colleagues-yes, at the time of Munich-that if Hitler made a move against Czechoslovakia, at that time I would advise that this country should go to war against him. When I made my position known to my colleagues in the cabinet a year before the present war, I realized the kind of conquest he was bent on. And when war came against Poland I again told my colleagues that I believed this country should enter this war at the side of Britain and fight this oppressor of mankind, this man who is seeking to gain the conquest of the world and to destroy freedom. I had had deep searchings of heart before that time. I was taking a very grave responsibility when I came into this chamber and asked this House of Commons to support a policy which would carry Canada into the war. I had taken the greatest responsibility that any human being on earth can take, that of bringing his own country into the war. I did not shirk that responsibility because I believed it was in the interest of our country that we should take that step. And after three years of war I ask my friends in this house to-night whether they think I was wrong in taking that step at that time.
I feel exactly the same about this matter of conscription for overseas service. Up to the present time I have not felt it necessary to conscript men for service overseas because our Canadians were doing honour to themselves and to their country by enlisting for training for service anywhere in larger numbers than we could prepare them. But I say to-night that, with the world situation what it is, with the situation between Germany and Russia what it is at this moment, the situation in Egypt what it is at this moment, the situation on the Pacific as we know it to be at this moment, I would be derelict to the responsibility which I bear to the country and to my fellow-members if I did not say to them that I believed it was absolutely in the interest of the country that the government should have power to take any step at any time that it deems necessary, so long as it takes that step in the light of its responsibility to parliament.
Now I know there are some hon. members who do not attach the same significance to those words that I do. But I attach very great significance to them. When I say that what I wish to do I wish to do in the light of my sense of responsibility to parliament I am not talking about the shadow of responsibility; I am talking about the substance of responsibility. If I am persuaded that it is necessary and desirable to resort to conscription of men for overseas service, I am going to support that view. But the minute I support that
4624	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not catch what my hon. friend said, but I notice he could not sit still anyway, and had to rise and make an interjection. May I say to my hon. friend that what I will do when the time comes will depend upon what happens at the time and what I think best in the national interest.
While I am dealing with remarks of some hon. gentlemen opposite may I refer to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Dienfen-baker). The hon. gentleman made a statement which affords a reason why I think it is important that not only this house but the country should know what confidence there is in the present administration. I am glad to observe that the hon. member has just come in. Speaking on July 22, yesterday, as reported at page 4566 of Hansard, he said:
The Prime Minister says, "we will wait until conditions get worse and then, after we decide as a government to bring into effect conscription for overseas service, parliament will be called." Surely with conditions as they are to-day all over this world no one can say that they could be much worse.
I was astonished when I looked at Hansard this morning and found that those words which my hon.i friend attributed to me appeared in quotation marks. I challenge him to point to any place at any time where I used words such as he has in quotation marks in Hansard to-day.
The Prime Minister says, "we wrill wait until conditions get worse and then, after we decide as a government to bring into effect conscription for overseas service, parliament will be called."
There the quotation ends.


An hon. MEMBER:: He was dreaming as usual.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was not dreaming; he was doing something else though, and he knows it. I ask my hon. friend to rise now in his seat and tell me if I ever used words such as those.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I say no. Those
words are placed there in parenthesis, and I say to the Prime Minister that with the conditions we face to-night all over the world I cannot understand the type of address which apparently he is trying to make to the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The words are not in parenthesis; they are in quotations, and I say that those quotations are not justified. I have made no statement of the kind-never at any time-and my hon. friend knows it as well as anyone else. I should like to know who put those quotation marks there. However, let us pass that over. The serious part of my hon. friend's statement,

perhaps the most serious, is not putting those words in quotation marks, but in attributing to me any statement that we will wait until conditions get worse and then decide. Is there any justification for an expression such as that? When I have said that we would wait until the time came for putting in conscription, I have not said that we were waiting until conditions got worse. I have said that we were waiting until conscription is necessary, which is a very different thing. And I have made no other statement than , that.
My hon. friends opposite a year and a half ago were saying that it was necessary to have conscription for overseas service. At the time I said it was not necessary, and from that time until the present they have been repeating that statement and I have been replying to them. It was not necessary for the reason that up to the present time more men have been offering for overseas service than it was possible for the government to train and send overseas. That is a very different thing. Suppose we had conscription for service overseas in force at this hour. I think I am right when I say that not an additional man would be called out, not one more man would be receiving training at the present time, not one man more would be sent overseas at the present time, for the simple reason that we have more men ready to go overseas to-day than it would have been necessary to raise by conscription to meet the situation at the present time.


Mr. HOMUTH:: We have conscription now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said, for overseas service. If we had conscription for overseas service at this moment, we still have more men offering to go voluntarily than we are sending across the sea now. May I ask my hon. friend who has interrupted me whether this is what he proposes-that we should take men who are called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act to serve in Canada and send them overseas in preference to men who have volunteered to serve anywhere, who are waiting to go overseas, and who wish to go? Unless that is what he means there can be no force in the kind of argument which hon. gentlemen opposite present.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: May I answer the question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I contend that our camps are filled to-day because we have conscription in Canada.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: That is not a question.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
administration, that I should know whether I have a solid following in this House of Commons and in the country.
I am not going to spend time reading many extracts from the press; I get quite enough of them, morning, noon and night, when I pick up certain journals. But I am going to read a paragraph from one editorial which appeared shortly after I made the speech I did in this house on July 7, in which I said that I thought it would be necessary to have an expression of confidence from the House of Commons. I ask hon. members in listening to this paragraph from this particular editorial whether they believe that, if this kind of thing is given currency day in and day out in different parts of Canada, it will be possible for any man who has responsibility to carry on in time of war. I quote from the Toronto Globe and Mail of July 10, 1942:
It is bad enough for our Prime Minister to be revealing some of the earmarks of a dictator and trying to suppress the privileges of parliament,-
This is at the moment when I am saying to hon. gentlemen opposite that, before seeking to enforce this decision, I intend to come to parliament and give hon. members an opportunity of saying if they have confidence or have not confidence in myself and the government. At the moment I am saying this, the Toronto Globe and Mail comes out and says that the Prime Minister is-
[DOT]-trying to suppress the privileges of parliament, of which he has been such a vociferous champion, but there would be some toleration for dictatorial methods if they were promoting the country's war effort and enhancing its prestige abroad. But the lamentable feature of Mr. King's tortuous and thimble-rigging courses which have been brought into high relief in the late debate is that they have now done irretrievable damage to the reputation of this young nation in the outer world. The valour of its sons in the last war had set the seal upon Canada's claim to full nationhood and given her a place of honour and influence among the nations. But to-day our Prime Minister, by assiduous and discreditable pursuit of partisan ends-which he has the effrontery to deny-at the expense of our solemn obligations has dragged that good name in the dust and frittered away the high prestige which heroic youth had won with precious blood.
I ask hon. members, if a leading publication in the largest city in Ontario can issue that sort of thing to the people of the province at a time of war, how can anyone expect that a man who has the least self-respect would be willing to ask the country to have him continue in office if he thought the people believed that sort of thing about him?
As a matter of fact, I think I know pretty well the confidence the people of this country have in me, and I am not afraid to go before
the people at any time. That brings me to the answer to the question of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross); and by the way, I should like to quote what he said, because it is very much to the point. What did he say yesterday? It is found in Hansard at page 4565:
Mr. Ross (Souris): Just to follow up this question which the Prime Minister has just answered, is it still the intention, if the order in council he has mentioned is passed, that before it can become effective he shall consult parliament for a vote of confidence, as he stated in one of his speeches on the second reading?
Mr. Mackenzie King: I shall have something to say about that a little later on.
Mr. Ross (Souris): I think it has a distinct bearing on these sections, because I know, as one of the members of this house, that many people throughout the country, especially in the armed forces, have not very much confidence in the government as constituted with the present leader; they pin their faith to the ministers of the armed forces.
My hon. friend nods his head. Well, if there is not -much faith in the present leader of the government, the sooner he knows it the better. I can assure my hon. friend and every member of this house that any time they wish to have a vote of want of confidence I am willing to give them the opportunity, and the moment such a vote carries no one will leave office more quickly than your humble servant. What did my hon. friend say this afternoon? He began to tremble in his seat after he had heard that possibly there was going to be a vote of confidence. He had been uneasy about it ever since he asked me the question this afternoon, what was I going to do if, when the vote of confidence took place, it should prove to be a vote of non-confidence-would I go to the governor general and ask him to have one of my colleagues lead the government, or w'ould I go to his excellency and ask for a dissolution of parliament. My hon. friend was a little bit afraid of a dissolution, and yet he and his leader yesterday spoke about myself as the one who talks about trusting the people. But the moment we come anywhere near the people, my hon. friends, and those who think like them, begin to get very anxious indeed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't be a child.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Arthur Ross: Just a minute. The Prime Minister has referred to the question I asked him this afternoon, and he said I was trembling from fear. I wish to deny that statement, and I invite him to Souris if he resigns.
4622	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
That was the speech of the Minister of Agriculture.
-we cannot ever expect in my opinion to have military service overseas-
That would be compulsory service, to use his own words.
-regardless of what the people may demand.
If that is the view members of this house have, do they not believe it is about time that an opportunity should be given to them to say whether they have or have not confidence in the administration that is to have this extra responsibility?
My former colleague, speaking in the first debate, gave one strong reason why parliament should know immediately the decision was made and before further steps were taken. Speaking on June 11, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres said, as reported at page 3275 of Hansard:
It is not to be applied by act of parliament, as it was in 1917, with the regulations attached to the bill and presented to parliament. No; it is to be done by order in council, and it may very well be that the order in council applying conscription, forcing the boys of Canada to fight anywhere in the world, will be kept secret.
That is a rather serious statement or charge to make. It will be rumoured about the country that there is going to be so much secrecy in this matter that the order in council applying conscription, authorizing the boys to fight anywhere in the world, will be kept secret. There is one very effective way of answering a charge of that kind, one that cannot be denied, and that is that the minute a decision is reached by the government to resort to conscription for service overseas this parliament will be advised of it, and that course is the one which will be taken.
I might quote from many speeches which have been made by hon. members on this side. I shall mention only one, but I give it as a reason why amongst others I think it is necessary that I should know if and when the time comes whether men of my own party are going to support me if it falls to my duty and obligation to have to enforce conscription. I read here from the words of one of my personal friends, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou), who, speaking this way, and very feelingly-and I take no exception to what he said, but I feel sorry that he found it necessary to say it-remarked, as reported in Hansard, June 26, at page 3759:
When speaking on the plebiscite, I stated that I had faith in my leader and in his cabinet. I must say that I have now lost that faith. I truly believed that I could trust the Prime "Minister of Canada.

Then he says later on, speaking of my former colleague:
He too had faith in the government. Having been deceived, he had enough courage to resign.
As I said, I am not surprised that the faith of some of my followers may have suffered- I will not say, a shock, but at least that it has been a little difficult for them to understand some things. The really great things of life, the important things in life, are often not to be understood by any individual act; it is the life as a whole that counts, it is the future as well as the present and the past that have to be taken into account; and in taking the action which I have taken in regard to this matter I have had in consideration above all else the national interest and the problems which men from all parts of this country have to face in their several constituencies. If I have not sought to proceed as hon. gentlemen opposite think I should have proceeded, and a year and a half ago taken steps to put conscription into force immediately, whether it was necessary or not, it is because I have known only too well that such course would have been the most disastrous that the leader of any government could take at any time in this particular country. I say to the hon. member for Rimouski that I believe he will live to see his faith restored, by the events of the coming years. In the light of the possibilities of the future, he will come to see very clearly why I have taken the course I have in the past and in the present.


James Arthur Ross: Even if we lose the war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I wish to make perfectly clear is this. The responsibility of being a member of a government at a time of war, to say nothing of having the responsibility of being head of a government, is the greatest responsibility which can be put upon the shoulders of any man, and no leader of a government and no government can carry on the duties of government in time of war unless absolutely sure of its following in the House of Commons. This is the position that I feel the present administration has come to, or more particularly that I myself have come to, at the present time, after three years in which hon. gentlemen opposite, some of their press and some of their friends have been doing all they possibly can to undermine the administration, and to cause not only the people of Canada but the people of other countries to lose faith in myself as leader of an administration in time of war. Now that we have come to a crisis I feel it is absolutely necessary, if I am to carry on longer as the head of the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
a method. Then on June 10 my hon. friend
said, as reported at page 3251 of Hansard:
"Trust the people" is an old cry of the Prime Minister. He has never been willing to do that in connection with the conscription of man-power in this country. He has never been willing to trust the people. Yet there is no man in this country, no man in the whole history of Canada, who has played upon the principle of trusting the people more than has the present Prime Minister. In respect to one vital matter, which affects the liberty of the subject, he legislates in the secrecy of the council chamber; he is afraid to trust the people. If we pursue our present course we shall have only the theory of selective service on the statute books; we shall not have its application.
I wonder how my hon. friend would have rung the changes in this house on that declaration if I had not declared that I was going to see that this parliament was informed of any decision this government had made as soon as it was made and before action was taken to carry out the enforcement of the order itself.
Not only is it the leader of the opposition, but the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) has been equally strong in his language. Indeed, both of them repeated to-day their objection to not having parliament fully informed on these matters, even to the extent of having parliament legislate again upon them. On May 28 the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party used these words, as appear at page 2862 of Hansard:
The decision as to whether we are going to compel men to surrender their lives or their property in the interests of this dominion and of our war effort with the united nations is not the responsibility of the military authorities; it is the responsibility of this parliament. And I agree that under no circumstances should the government take unto itself powers that ought to lie in this chamber.
When we are dealing with the futures of the young men of this nation, this is the place where the decision should be taken, to the very last degree.
Suppose a decision were taken and parliament not informed until action had been taken to send men overseas? Would there not be a repetition of the remarks I have just read? Would not this parliament and this country be told over and over again that I, of all men, had been one who sought to do everything in the secrecy of the cabinet council and to ignore parliament altogether? Speaking on June 11, as reported at page 3259 of Hansard, the hon. member said;
We have no right to give a blank cheque to the government to do nothing, or to make regulations for the conscription of man-power, which may be no better understood or more equitably administered than the regulations already in effect and about the meaning of
44561-2S2	*
which there is no general agreement by the Department of National War Services which is charged with their administration. Under the circumstances my colleagues and I do not propose to give the government a blank cheque to do by order in council what this parliament alone should do.
I draw attention to one word used there because it is significant. It is not merely action taken by order in council; it is the administration with respect to which my hon. friend wants to have some word to say.


Mr. COLDWELL:: The administrative
regulations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to how they would foe administered, yes. Then I come to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), who is reported at page 3333 of Hansard as follows:
We have a right to know how the act will be administered;-
If you are going to know how it is going to be administered, you will want to know what ministry is going to administer it. That is the first step. That is what I am proposing that this parliament shall know. The hon. member continued:
-we have a right to know its mechanics and its provisions. We have a right to see that under these regulations favours will be denied, that favouritism will not be permitted, so that there will be honest administration.
Again a question of administration. That seems to be the important question in connection with this particular measure. Here is a statement which I quoted the other evening and to which exception was taken by the hon. member for Lake Centre on the ground of its not conveying his true meaning. I am going to give it the meaning he says he intended to convey. He was speaking on June 15, and I quote from page 3329 of Hansard:
Up to the present time the only two ministers who have spoken in this debate on behalf of the government have been the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), both of whom have consistently opposed military service overseas, and from whom, having regard to the speech to which we have listened to-day, we cannot ever expect in my opinion to have military service overseas regardless of what the people may demand.
When I read that the other evening my hon. friend said that he had not meant military service overseas, he had meant compulsory military service overseas. What is the charge being made against me at this time by one of the leading followers of my hon. friend opposite? It is:
. . . having regard to the speech to which we have listened to-day-

4620	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King


An hon. MEMBER:: Come to the war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -to the reason my hon. friend gave for seeking to make his long speech of yesterday. He said that I was seeking to introduce some new formula- I think that is what he called it-and that he was taking exception to my so doing. Just what was it to which my hon. friend was taking exception? So that the record may be clear on the point I think I had better read to the house what I said on July 7 respecting the new matter, as I understand it, which my hon. friend said I had introduced at that time. I quote now from Hansard of July 7, page 4014:
If the need should arise for sending overseas as reinforcements men called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, the procedure should be as open and aboveboard as it can possibly be made. Unless it is understood that parliament will be informed in advance, all kinds of suspicion will be aroused and all sorts of rumours will be in circulation from day to day.
The right of the public to be informed of the decision of the government before it is enforced was set forth clearly in the address I made in opening the plebiscite campaign on April 7. Speaking on this very matter in a nation-wide broadcast, I said:
"The people of Canada are not going to hesitate to take any steps which they believe to be necessary for the preservation of their freedom. They are certainly not going to hesitate to adopt any measure needed to preserve their national existence, but they will wish to know, and they have a right to know', that before any step is taken, that step is necessary. This is particularly true in the case of a measure which has been the subject of bitter controversy and the source of disunity in the past."
And this is the new matter:
I intend, therefore, if the time should come when the government decides that it has become necessary to send overseas men who have not volunteered for general service, and I should be in office at the time, to ask my colleagues to join me in seeing that parliament is immediately informed of the government's decision. If parliament is not in session, I would do w'hatever lies within my power, to see that parliament is informed as soon as possible after the decision has been reached.
I intend at the same time to see that, before the administration assumes the additional responsibility of enforcing its decision, hon. members are given an opportunity, not for any second debate on the question of conscription, but of showing their confidence or want of confidence in the administration.
May I ask wherein does any part of this new material not relate to the question of procedure on the very matter contained in the bill which -the house is discussing at the present time? Suppose I had said nothing about my intention of informing parliament of the government's decision before seeking its enforcement? What would hon. gentlemen 
opposite have said? I have to consider what I am going to be face to face with if I fail to take a particular course as well as what I am going to be faced with if I take a particular course. Hon. gentlemen opposite know there is no single subject to which they have directed their opposition toward myself during the last two or three years to a greater degree than in alleging that I was not carrying out what I professed to believe in, namely, the responsibility of the executive to parliament; that I was continually ignoring parliament; that I was doing everything by order in council. There is not an order in council that the government has passed, I believe, to which hon. gentlemen, either in particular or in general, have not taken some exception. They talk about everything being done in the present administration simply by order in council. Yet when it comes to the most important order in council that will be passed during the life of this parliament, these hon. gentlemen say that I am taking a mistaken course in coming to parliament and informing parliament about that order in council before action is taken to enforce its provisions.
I just want to remind hon. members of what some of them have said on this matter during this debate. I am considering now just exactly where I would be if I had not made the statement that I was going to inform parliament immediately the government made its decision; that I was going to seek to get from this house an expression of confidence in this administration if it was to carry out the enforcing of that particular order. I have in my hand a copy of the speech made by hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, on May 28 of this year. I am going to read only a sentence or two which will help to illustrate the quotation I would have been faced with had I taken a different course. My hon. friend said, as reported at page 2861 of Hansard:
Let parliament take the responsibility; let parliament pass upon such regulations. The whole theory of doing these things by order in council is wrong.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is as to the regulations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The emphasis has been on doing things by order in council. The order in council which will be passed will be an order putting into force regulations that are already known. The essence is that they will be put into force by order in council. My hon. friend also said that he did not think we could get the same spirit of equality if this sort of thing were done merely by order in council, and he objected to such

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
I should like to know what government would survive that did not anticipate in advance all possibilities, and seek to provide against them in every way at. its command. I know what the cry would have been if we had failed to take this step. There would not have been an incident of any kind, of an adverse nature, which would not have been put down to the fact that the government had not taken the power to conscript men for service overseas even if that should be considered necessary.
What government could stand against a charge of that kind?-that it had not been willing even to take power that might be necessary to save the country in a world situation such as we are facing at the present time. I say that no government would have been true to the country that would have tried to avoid its responsibility in that way. But we are taking the responsibility, meeting every situation as it comes, and seeking to discharge our responsibilities to the best of our ability.	_
Oh, yes, let me say a word about leadership. There has been quite a little said yesterday and to-day about leadership. Something was said about leadership in the province of Quebec. Of course my hon. friend the leader of the opposition could not help getting in the same old jibe that his party has kept up from the beginning of the war-that this country is not getting the leadership that it needs at the present time.
May I just remind the house that the ink was hardly dry on the order in council which set out the declaration of war between Canada and Germany when we were told-and I think it was by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce)-that while the present leader of the government had been a very good leader in times of peace, was in fact a splendid leader in times of peace-though I did not hear that said very often by hon. gentlemen opposite in times of peace-he was not the man to lead the country in a time of war. From that day to this, every few weeks and months one sees evidence of a new drive, that we had better have a change in leadership, and so on and so on. Everything that has been possible for the opposition, the opposition press or the opposition public to do to belittle the leader of the government in this period of war, they have done, most of them without any reserve whatsoever.
They talk about publicity. For example, they complain about Canada's publicity in the United States. They say that our publicity in that country is poor, and that the people over there do not appreciate our war effort. Well, where does the United States get most of its Canadian publicity from to-day? It gets it from the press which reports the utterances of my hon. friend, utterances like those of yesterday. How can we expect to have a proper impression of Canada's war effort out of what these gentlemen have been seeking to have it appear, when they have, in large part, a monopoly of the press, and use press agencies to help to send these speeches abroad?
My hon. friend talks about leadership. May I say to him that there are some things which speak for themselves, despite anything anyone can say, or any construction one may seek to place upon them. For twenty-three years I have held the position of leader of my party. In that period of time I have had the pleasure-it was not altogether a pleasure, but a pleasure, in part-of seeing seven different leaders from the Conservative party sit opposite me, and for the most part they were in opposition.
This leader, who is not much good, at least has had the satisfaction of having seen no less than seven Toiy leaders come and go, and seek to put him out of the leadership of his party! May I say to my hon. friend that, very fine in some respects as his own leadership has been, I do not think it has been altogether a bed of roses for him. I do not think it has been a magnificent triumph in the eyes of his own following, if what I read sometimes in the press is correct.
But speaking of leadership, my hon. friend, after referring to some proposed course of mine, said, "What a spectacle!" Well, I have witnessed many spectacles in my experience in political life, but never before have I witnessed the spectacle of a political party which had to have two leaders, one in the house and one out of the house, neither friendly with each other, and neither carrying the support of his own party. That is the spectacle we have had for many months past in the case of the party which my hon. friend leads in this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: When Rome burns!


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: This is the hon. gentleman who preaches to the house about leadership! This is the gentleman who says that the country has not the kind of leadership it needs! Well, thank the Lord it has been spared this two-headed brand of leadership-and that is what exists, so far as the party opposite is concerned.


Gordon Graydon: "If Hitler were only a Tory, what a licking we could give him!"


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: Well, I will not repeat what is being said by some of my friends around me, there may be attributes in Hitler that are not far removed from those of some of the party opposite.
May I come now-
4618	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
friend and former colleague well knows, which account for the fact that this government had included in the speech from the throne the statement that it was desirable for the government to have the power for which we are now asking in this present legislation. Let me read the clause as it appears in the speech from the throne:
The government is of the opinion that, at this time of gravest crisis in the world's history, the administration, subject only to its responsibility to parliament, should in this connection and irrespective of any previous commitments-
That was with respect to methods of raising men for military service overseas.
-possess complete freedom to act in accordance with its judgment of the needs of the situation as they may arise.
My ministers accordingly will seek, from the people, by means of a plebiscite, release from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service.
Those were the circumstances. It was not the agitation on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, but the fact that it was recognized by the government, as indeed it was its duty to recognize and to act accordingly, that instead of being a European war this was a world-embracing war, and that unless the enemy could be defeated in other parts of the world the last phase of the war in all probability would be fought out on Canadian soil.
I say to my hon. friend and former colleague that if he is at all doubtful as to that being the view which he himself held, I would recall to him what he said in his broadcasts to the people of his own province during this very session. Here may I pause to say that I do not think hon. gentlemen opposite have appreciated or sought to appreciate in any way the service that was rendered by my former colleague at that time. They have been ready to find fault with him in one particular after another, but they have been very quick to forget the noble service that he and his fellow ministers from the province of Quebec rendered at the beginning of this war, when they made clear to the people of their province why Canada should enter this war unitedly. They have been very quick to forget that when gentlemen belonging to their own party sought to divide the province of Quebec and to have the government of the province take a different stand, my former colleague and his fellow ministers from Quebec were the ones who spoke to their people and gave them the reasons why they should stand solidly behind this government in its policy of prosecuting the war to the utmost possible extent.

Speaking on the plebiscite, here are the words which my hon. friend used in addressing the people of the province of Quebec:
It is your war; the war of every one of you. They are deceiving you in saying this is England's war. It is the war of our civilization against dictatorship. It is the war of those who are dear to you and of your way of life against a system of terror and slavery.
Those I am sure were the motives which actuated my hon, friend when he agreed, with other members of the government, to our seeking power to take whatever course might become necessary in order to meet a future situation. And he added:
A member of the Quebec legislature said a few days ago that he hoped that the present war would make Canada an independent nation. But if Canada were to-day an independent nation, we would surely be engaged in the war.
Speaking on April 9, in another broadcast, my hon. friend said:
To my fellow citizens of Quebec, I wish to say simply, without weakness and without shame, that it is better not to run the risk of isolating ourselves. We wish others to show confidence in us; let us then show confidence in them. Let us not speak only of rights; let us think sometimes also of the obligations which guarantee those rights . . . and No will lead you nowhere and assure you of nothing. With the rest of the country let us provide for our defence everywhere in order to keep away from us both the black peril of infidel Germany and the yellow peril of deceptive Japan.
That was the world vision which my hon. friend had and shared with all of us, and which I believe he still has. I mention it only to bring home to all hon. members of this house the fact that the government, in pursuing the course that it has taken and in seeking the power that it is seeking by this particular bill, has been motivated solely by what was most in the national interest and has had its course, as must be the case in all matters that affect the lives of men, influenced by the course of events in the world about it. We are not in the same position to-day that we were in three years ago. What country in the world is in the same position to-day that it was in three years ago? Who will venture to say what position this or any other country is going to be in a year from to-night? Knowing the rapidity with which the enemy has made headway in all quarters of the globe; seeing what he has done in Europe; seeing the strength of his forces in Russia at this very hour; seeing the battle that is taking place in Egypt; witnessing the conquests of Japan as we have witnessed them in the past few months; having had U-boats in our own rivers and having had our own shores attacked, who will say where we are going to be in relation to the enemy a year from to-night?

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
the electorate that they would do their utmost to prevent conscription for service overseas ever becoming an issue in this country at this time of war. It was not I alone; it was all parties, including that of my hon. friend. He was returned to this House of Commons in an election in which on this question of conscription for overseas service his own leader took exactly the same position as I did.
When I saw that it was necessary and desirable in view of changed conditions in the world for the government to have the power it now seeks, I recognized that a certain pledge had been given, I then said that before any action could or would be taken it would be necessary for me to go to the people of this country and ask them to release me and all others from commitments made, so that my hands and the hands of all might be free for any action it might subsequently be desirable or necessary to take. But my hon. friend who talks about betrayal said to me here, and to this house, that the thing I ought to do was to break, to ignore that pledge and go ahead and by force and might of majority put through conscription regardless of any pledge given. When he talks about betrayal, what is that but betrayal? Wholesale betrayal of the entire nation is what my hon. friend was advocating. Should his conduct in office be the same as his advocacy in opposition, if he had been in the position I am in to-day, he would have carried out that betrayal.
May I say a word about the change in world conditions. Here may I speak more particularly of what my friend and former colleague the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres said this afternoon as to the government's action being the result of agitation. I have in my hand the speech from the throne which was delivered at the beginning of the present session. My hon. friend was a member of the government at the time. With much of what he said this afternoon I am in entire agreement and most hearty accord; particularly is this so of what he said about the necessity of a majority being careful how it exercises its powers and of not ignoring the rights of a minority. But may I say to my hon. friend that I cannot agree with him when he says it was agitation which caused the government to make its policy, las announced in the speech from the throne at the beginning of this session, one of seeking the power which we have sought in this legislation. The reason was-I am sure that on reflection my hon. friend will recall-the changed condition of this world war. At the beginning of the present war nearly all persons in Canada believed it was going to be a
second European war. Hon. members need not refer to speeches I have made in the past about whether troops would cross to Europe or not; they need only look in the British Hansard to see what members of the British parliament said about there not being another war in which Britain would send expeditionary forces to the continent. The leader of the opposition need only look at what his predecessor, Mr. Bennett, said in this House of Commons about no more expeditions being sent from this side to Europe. After the last war there was an intense feeling throughout the country that if the nations of Europe were going to continue to quarrel among themselves, they would have to straighten out their own quarrels. When the present war broke out there were many people who did not begin to have any appreciation of its probable scope and extent. It required not merely education but also time, vision and experience to bring home to the public of this and of other countries the true nature of this conflict.
It was under those circumstances that this government led this country into war, or rather took the responsibility of recommending to his majesty that he declare that a state of war existed between Canada and Germany. At that time the belief was that for the most part the conflict would be wholly and solely within Europe. But what occurred between then and the time the speech from the throne was prepared this year? Between that time and the preparation of the speech from the throne the whole scene had completely changed. Practically all of Europe had been overrun by the conqueror. Poland and Czechoslovakia had been invaded and crushed. Denmark and Norway were under the heel of the aggressor. Belgium was conquered. The Netherlands were conquered. France had collapsed. Jugoslavia had been overrun. Greece had been overrun. Armies were in conflict along the border of Russia. The whole situation in Europe had changed completely. War was being carried on in Africa. But there was another circumstance which was most important. In addition to the war in Europe and in Africa, war had broken out on the far side of the Pacific. Japan had entered the war; she and Germany had both declared war on the United States, and before this house met this year Japan had made her strength felt in a powerful way in the far east. If I am not mistaken, by that time the Netherlands East Indies had been overrun; Singapore had fallen, and Australia was in danger of being invaded. These were the circumstances in which this house met at the beginning of this session. These were the circumstances, as my hon.
4616	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
out and tell the people what the situation is, but if you make conscription a political issue you will retard its adoption.
A political issue is what the hon. gentleman opposite and his friends have made this question from the very beginning.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You have had twenty-five years of training.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can prove pretty quickly the truth of what I have just said. This afternoon when my colleague the former Minister of Transport (Mr. Cardin) was speaking on this question of conscription and how it had come to the fore he said that it had been largely the result of agitation, agitation on the part of hon. gentlemen Opposite and their press in different parts of the country and others who represent them or for whom they speak. The result of agitation! My hon. friend described my course yesterday as a tortuous course, that first one step had been taken, then another and another in order to bring conscription more and more to the fore. It was this course he was describing as tortuous yesterday. But today when my hon. friend and former colleague comes out and says that the steps leading to the present bill were the result of agitation, and in so doing hands a bit of toffee to the opposition party and their friends, hands what I think the children call "an all-day sucker," my hon. friend grabs this thing and takes the whole credit to himself, implies that he has been the one who from the start has led this agitation and helped to make a success of the issue of conscription.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I said he did me too much credit.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but my hon. friend took it all to himself. The moment what had been, when he was describing my course, a tortuous course, when my hon. friend was told it had led to a certain result it became a series of progressive steps. Progressive steps the stages are described when he has had to do with a course followed; a tortuous course when I have had anything to do with it.
What were some of the adjectives, phrases and epithets he used in describing this so-called tortuous course of mine? First he said I had sought all along only to preserve my political position, then that I had sought only the consolidation of my political position. That is all the credit he gives me as leader of the government in dealing with the question of the progress of the war and the measures necessary for it, that my whole aim

and purpose have been to consolidate my position politically, to consolidate the position of the party politically.
Then he went on to speak of my course as one marked by procrastination, a course marked by appeasement. Next he referred to my method of speaking as casuistry, and finally, running out of epithets in that direction, he began to talk about twisting and turning and opportunism and indecision and timorousness, a comedy of errors, a lack of courage, and political expediency. These epithets ran all through my hon. friend's speech as his means of seeking-what? Of seeking to undermine confidence in the government and its leader at this time of war and great peril, for no purpose other than the political benefit he thinks he himself is going to be able to derive therefrom.
There was something that I must confess I was surprised at my hon. friend saying. I can understand some of the epithets he used. I was surprised when my hon. friend not only sought by his different utterances to create the impression that there was lack of unity in the cabinet; that there was lack of unity in the party; that there was dissension in the ranks of my followers, and after having tried to sow that sort of seed he turned to hon. members on this side of the house and said to them that some of them felt that I had betrayed them. But he added-and let me use his own words so that there will be no mistake-"And they have every right to think that he has betrayed them." Well, I say to my hon. friend that I think he will live to see the day when he will greatly regret having accused me of seeking to betray anyone and, most of all, members of my following in this house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what the hon. member for Richelieu-Ver-cheres said, that he had been betrayed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He did not say I had betrayed him. I noted his remarks very carefully. He said there was a time when certain people might think they were betrayed, a very different thing from my hon. friend accusing me of betraying anyone.
What did my hon. friend advise me to do? I had made certain pledges. His party, the party of which he is the leader, had made certain pledges-the same pledges. All hon. members of this house know well that at the beginning of the war the parties generally saw the seriousness of the kind of political discussion that would arise once the question of conscription for service overseas came to the fore, and all parties were united in saying to

Mobilization Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
request but for the plea for unity we have had from him to-night and the fact that before preferring his request he had his speech all prepared and knew what was in it. From beginning to close, it was the strongest effort he could make to help to destroy me in the public life of the country. The whole purpose of the speech, from beginning to close, was an effort to destroy confidence in this administration. Yet he says we must win the war. How are we to win the war, I ask my hon. friend, if there is to be no confidence in the ministry carrying on the war? It would be all very well if his words ended with their utterance and were not reported. But what happens? What the leader of the opposition said is sent broadcast not only throughout this country but throughout the world. It is taken up by the gentlemen of the press gallery and sent to the different countries of the world, to the United States, to Great Britain, even to our enemies. What impression do they get from the speech delivered yesterday? What is the impression anyone would get who listened to that speech or who may have read it to-day? It would be that the Prime Minister of the country was not deserving of the confidence of parliament; that he did not enjoy the confidence of the people; that Canada's war effort was being rendered infinitely less effective than it should be on that account. Yet my hon. friend takes exception to my wishing to have some expression of confidence on the part of the house before I continue to add to the responsibilities I have carried during the last three years.
My hon. friend speaks about our having been at war now for three years. I wonder if he realizes what load has been on my shoulders for these three years of war. A little later on he may reflect with regret upon some of the words he used yesterday afternoon concerning the manner in which I have sought to discharge the duty I have to our country.
What was my hon. friend's pretext for the speech he made? He said I had introduced some new matter in the speech I made on the second reading of the bill, and therefore it was necessary and desirable for him to intervene in the committee stage to make the kind of speech that should have been made on the second or third reading of the bill. Well, my hon. friend knows as well as I do, to begin with, that the new matter, as he calls it, which I introduced was not new in the sense of being something which was not wholly relevant to the subject under discussion on the second reading. He knows also that all he had to do was to ask His Honour the Speaker whether in any way I had infringed the rules by introducing new matter 44561-2911
into my speech. In that event he could have taken exception to it and so exposed me. But his speech was not occasioned because of any new matter. That was a mere pretext. Indeed, the whole of his speech had nothing to do with new matter. It was all old matter, the repetition of things he has been saying over and over again by way of attack upon myself and upon the government ever since we have been carrying on the duties of a government in this period of war.
Let me remind the house of some of the things my hon. friend said when he spoke. I made a note at the time of some of the references he made to me, and I propose to quote from them to the house on this occasion. But speaking of old matter, if I wished to refer to old matter I think I would not have much trouble in embarrassing my hon. friend. He was eloquent this evening about his convictions on the matter of conscription-how he has always believed in conscription; why this parliament should believe in conscription; that it is necessary for the winning of the war, and so on. Here is a little bit of old matter, the record of a speech made by the hon. gentleman, as reported in the Montreal Daily Star of October 30, 1941, just three months before the present session started. What did my hon. friend say then as to conscription being all-important and, above all else, being the thing for which all members of this parliament should stand? I quote:
"I have been urged to declare for conscription of man-power," Mr. Hanson said, "what would happen if I did? Immediately the Conservative party in parliament nailed conscription to its masthead, we would consolidate all those forces that have been opposed to us since 1917 and they would be marshalled against us."
This is the hon. gentleman who now says that conscription is the thing that everyone should agree upon, the hon. gentleman who says that he has never made a political issue of it; but he then said that the Conservative party, if they were to nail conscription to the masthead, would immediately have all the other forces marshalled against them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the Prime Minister read that part in which I said that I tried to avoid its becoming a political issue?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will read the whole of it. My hon. friend said:
Conscription is bound to come to the front more and more insistently, but it must come from the people themselves. To make it a political move would defeat the very purpose of those who have it in view. . . . Our sense of citizenship must be such that we will go
4614	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
came to the realization that there was a great possibility that this war might be lost. Then came the period when Britain herself was in danger, when all that stood between us and a horde of Huns who might pour across the Atlantic ocean was the British navy; when in fact and in deed our front line of defence was overseas, and when I thought, and all people who think as I do were driven to the conclusion, that the war must be kept away from these shores if it was humanly possible. Then came a recession of the danger of invasion of Great Britain and after other developments in June, 1941, when the main danger to Britain seemed to have receded, came the invasion of Russia. When we were in Great Britain in September of last year, talking to great men of that nation, I felt day after day a sinking of the heart when I was made to realize that possibly Russia could not last very long, and I recall with what gratitude and praise we looked upon the defence of the gallant Russian nation in repelling the invasion of the Hun. With 1942 came the renewed invasion of Russia, and to-day we hear over the radio and read in the newspapers stories of the splendid struggle which our allies over there are making. But it has been impressed upon me, as, I am sure, it has upon the minds of every one of us, that there is still great danger that this war may be lost.
Has that no lesson for us, for all of us? Well, to me it has this lesson. This is my final word in this debate, and I may not have another opportunity during this session to impress these views upon my fellow members and upon the people of Canada. To-day the danger of losing this war is as great as it has been at any time in the last thirty-three months. If Russia should collapse, millions of nazis may be turned against the western world, and the British empire and the united nations in general may thereby be put in dire peril.
I appeal to my fellow citizens in this country of Canada, to my fellow members on all sides of this house, to Canadian men and women of whatever racial origin they may be, to unite to repel the common foe, because a nation divided against itself cannot stand. We should not allow ideas which have grown up upon erroneous premises over a period of years to blind us to the significance of present-day events and the potentialities of the immediate future.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my last word to the membership of this house to-night is this. No matter what our political differences may be; no matter what our opinions may have been on the war effort of this government in days gone by, when this nation is in as dire

peril as I believe it is to-day, and when the united nations are in as dire peril as I conceive them to be, let us forget past differences, party politics and partisanship. Let us unite as never before so that we can say to our children and our children's children: when Canada was in peril, the Canadian people united..


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has just made an eloquent plea for unity. He has said to the hon. members of this house: Forget all past differences, no matter what the record of the government may have been in its war effort; no matter what political differences there may have been between us; the danger in the world to-day is so great that men of all parties and all classes should unite, forget the past, and- if I understood him aright-devote their entire energies simply to the winning of the war. That was fine eloquence; it was a noble appeal. But may I say to my hon. friend that if he had begun his remarks of yesterday with those words and had followed them up in accord with the significance of words of the kind, his utterances would carry much greater weight than they do at the moment.
May I remind the house of yesterday's proceedings. My hon. friend came into this chamber with a carefully prepared address. It was typewritten. He had evidently given considerable thought and preparation to it. He knew that the proceedings in committee would not permit of his making a prolonged address without the consent of all members of the house; and having in mind his desire to get on the record this carefully prepared statement, he made an appeal to the house and asked that he be given unanimous consent. I think I can say quite honestly that if after objection had been raised by members in different parts of the house I had not myself risen to say that I would support my hon. friend in his request, the opportunity which was accorded at that time would not have been given him. Having been given the opportunity, the first thing my hon. friend said was, Oh, yes; I appreciate the kindness of the Prime Minister. No doubt he has been in a similar position himself and appreciates the difficulty of such a situation and is therefore helping me to meet it, or words to that effect.
May I say to the hon. gentleman that I have been in many positions, but I cannot recall that at any time in my life I was in the position where I asked a favour of another man in order that I might have an opportunity to knife him as strongly as I could. I would not pay so much attention to my hon. friend's

Mobilization Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
help the cause that we believe in, heart and soul. When we did so we were not playing politics as they were.


Mr. GILLIS:: There is no difference between
the two parties at the top.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) says there is no difference between the two parties at the top. I would hope that in essence, with the possible exception of a few members of the cabinet, we are all thinking alike about this war and the absolute necessity of winning this war if we are to survive. I invite my old friend, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres to come along with us and get on the band-wagon for victory. No one wants to crush him or his compatriots. We want equality of service. That is all. And I think the only way to get it is by the draft method. My fear is that conscription will come in this country, but that it will be too late to be effective.
I had intended to put on the record the position to which he referred in connection with what was done under the Military Service Act of 1917.


Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hear the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) saying something. I am wondering what he has ever done to help to win this war.


Édouard Lacroix: I have done more than the hon. gentleman has.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wonder
what he has done to help to win this war. We never hear his voice raised in this house in approval of any measure that would in any degree help to win this war. There are many people in this country who are influenced by him, but I am glad to know that there are very few in this house who pay any attention to what he does or says.


Édouard Lacroix: I know who you are.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Angus MacInnis: I think the hon. gentleman will have to withdraw that statement. It is a reflection upon the members of this group, and he has no right to make it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member can put his own interpretation upon my remarks, but unless Mr. Speaker says that it is a reflection, I have nothing to withdraw.


Georges Parent: I do not think there is any reflection in what the hon. member has said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: By the same token, he reminded us that this was the ninth anniversary of the Regina meeting. Have any hon. members ever read the Regina platform? The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows what it was. It was an irrevocable statement that never under any consideration would they or their party participate in any foreign war. There is not any doubt about what attitude those gentlemen took in the days right up to the war. Shades of Mr. Woodsworth! Would he have done anything else? I listened to him speak in this house for years. We -all know what his philosophy was with regard to war. He was sincere in holding those views, but I am doubtful about hon. gentlemen who have eleventh hour conversions when they think it is popular. There is not very much consistency about these hon. gentlemen who are now out for total war. Where were they two years ago, three years ago or nine years ago?
There is an old saying that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I am not going to apply that to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, but I am going to say that you cannot take an isolationist, you cannot take an anti-conscriptionist, you cannot take a non-participationist, you cannot take a man who says he would rather see his son go to gaol than go to war and make him a good participant in this war overnight. I want to say to my friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation that they got off on the wrong foot when they voted against this mobilization bill. If they ever had any hope of becoming a great party in Canada, that hope was buried when they voted against this bill. I know my hon. friend charges me with tailing in behind the government. We did not tail in behind the government because we wanted to help them especially; we did so because we wanted to

Mobilization Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
Then the time came, he said, when, driven on by those who, he claimed, had ulterior motives to serve, driven on by those who wanted to capitalize their positions, this government began to change until to-day, after tortuous steps, one by one, we are now in the position where we have compulsory military service, or have it with the exception of the last one step.
I deny that anybody who has advocated national military service has had any ulterior motive. I appeal to hon. members; I appeal to the hon. members on the Liberal side who spoke in support of conscription, and ask them if they advocated it from any ulterior motive. I appeal to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) whom I see in his seat. Does he advocate compulsory military service from any ulterior motives, or does he advocate it on the broad principle of the national interest? Surely that is the only reason why any of us has ever advocated that position. I was a long time before I brought myself to the position where I advocated it. I thought public opinion had to be educated to it. I thought the urgency of the situation had to be driven home to the minds and hearts of the people of Canada. I did feel that in days gone by there had been maleducation in certain parts of Canada, and if the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres is responsible for that position, then he must take his share of the responsibility. I do not think he is attempting to escape from it. I think he, as a citizen of his province, will take the responsibility for anything he has advocated in the past.
We do not all think alike. I respect the opinions of those who do not think as I do. This is democracy, we cannot all have our own way. I speak to this opposition group, and to the other minority groups in the house, and I ask them: How often have we had our way in this House of Commons? We believe in the principle of majority rule, and I was glad to hear in the final words of the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres a declaration of his adherence to that principle. Let me say to him that he is following in the footsteps of the greatest leader the Liberal party ever had. If Sir Wilfrid Laurier were here to-day he would advocate the principle which he laid down in a speech in the House of Commons in 1917 and which at least on one occasion I have quoted.
Enough on that point. The hon. member paid me, I think, perhaps, too high a compliment when he intimated-although he did not say it in so many words-that this government had been driven step by step to the position they are now in through the efforts of those of us who advocated first one
step, then another, then another, and then another until we have arrived at the present position. I do not believe I have been wholly responsible for those successive steps. But his testimony was to the effect that we have done that, and I accept the compliment. I have not anything to retract for' any part I have ever taken or for what I have urged upon the government of the country in the interests of total war for the salvation of civilization. I shall never retreat from the position I have taken.
If I have advocated by constitutional means one progressive step after another for Canada in this war for civilization, I have done so first of all out of a sincere conviction that I was advocating the right thing. Second, I have done so because I believed the government should be told what the public generally, aside from their own political group, was thinking. I have attempted to voice public opinion for the information of the administration which has the responsibility of carrying on the war.
Was that a duty? I think it was. If I did it, however inadequately, I have no regrets. If I had anything to do with the four months training plan, I have nothing whatever to recall. If the hon. member has any quarrel with or suggests any betrayal in connection with those who were called in under the four months training plan, then I say his quarrel is with his former friends who concealed as fully as possible their real intentions when they started this mobilization legislation.
I said yesterday the Prime Minister had always yielded to public opinion. In that connection I would point out that in the progressive steps which have been taken by this nation under his leadership he has yielded, in each instance, to public opinion. I believe that before this war is over, perhaps before many months, the Prime Minister will go further in yielding to public opinion, and we shall have at last total war by total effort.


Mr. POULIOT:: What do you mean by that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just what I say-total war by total effort, and it will not be confined to man-power alone. We may have to go the limit in everything. What brooks it if we lose this war? What brooks any of our positions if we lose this war?


Jean-François Pouliot: Why don't you drive a truck in England?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If it is necessary for me to drive a truck in England, or anywhere else, I am entirely willing to do so. I am entirely willing to do anything
4610	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Hanson ( York-Sunbury)


Mr. CARDIN:: On that point I do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank you. I can only, conclude that he was referring to propaganda undertaken and carried on in the province of Quebec in various ways and manners unknown to me, which would have the effect of undermining his position and that of those who think as he does, and of propagating the position, the circuitous position, which this government has taken and which I exposed yesterday in the debate during the committee stage of this bill. I was struck with one statement made by the hon. gentleman, which I regretted to hear him make, when he issued the challenge or made the assertion that no one would crush Quebec. I ask him: Who is trying to crush Quebec?


Édouard Lacroix: You.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not trying to crush Quebec. I want to say that Quebec has played a great part in the history of this confederation. Without Quebec, confederation could not have been possible. With Quebec and the other provinces, Canada has arrived at the stage where she now is a great nation. Quebec has shared those responsibilities. Under the terms of the union the people of Quebec have been given privileges which are embalmed in the British North America Act, privileges which no one in this parliament with any sense of responsibility has ever tried to take away. That question has arisen many times. Many times leaders of every political party in this country, I care not what its colour, have assured the people of the province of Quebec that the contract of confederation would be kept; and no one has been more assiduous in attempting to keep the provisions of that contract than has the historic Conservative party in Canada, which made them possible. Therefore I say to the hon. member in all kindness that if he had any references to me or those who are associated with me when he mentioned the attempt to crush Quebec, I deny the allegation and repudiate the suggestion. I say to him that in order to make good that argument he will have to turn his face to his former friends, and I think by very logical reasoning he can do that. A pledge was made to his people by the Prime Minister of this country, from which during the course of the past six or seven or eight months he has been trying, by every circuitous route open to him, to escape. If the hon. gentleman has any complaint with regard to the way in which his people are being treated, he should turn his face to his former leader or his present leader, I do not know which to call him. As for us and our course, I will say this, that since we became convinced that

compulsory national service was necessary in this, the greatest of all wars, we have been absolutely consistent in the course we have sought to pursue. We have not advocated that policy in favour of any class, in favour of any province or in favour of any racial element. We have advocated that course because we believe it is in the national interest; and every part and parcel of this country is part of the body politic and should so consider this situation.
During the course of his vigorous remarks the hon. gentleman indicted the present bill. He said it was the worst law that had ever been placed upon the statute books of a democratic country, and with that statement I am to a very large degree in agreement. Why? It was an emergency measure. It never should have been used as a substantive law. It was only enabling in its scope. It was to give the government power to do certain things, power which a government ought to have in case of an emergency; and that emergency not having arisen but the situation having grown more and more grave from day to day and month to month, the government of this country should have brought down in parliament a detailed measure dealing with the question of compulsory national service in every field of human endeavour. It should have brought that measure into parliament so that we could have passed upon it section by section, stage by stage, power by power, and should not have reserved to itself the power to legislate by order in council. That was the indictment which the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres made against this bill-the power to do things in secret that should be done in public-and I have made a similar indictment on ever}' occasion I ever had to refer to the matter. His indictment was with regard to the power to do clandestinely that which should be done openly in parliament by the representatives of the people, in the democratic way.
The hon. member says that if we adopted what I have advocated, national selective service, there would be no one left to conscript. I deny that statement. I have said that if we are going to have a total war effort in this country every man should be allocated to his job-the farmer, the artisan, the fighting man. That could have been done; yes, it could have been done very much easier two years ago. It could have been done much more effectively two years ago than it can be done to-day. But this government would not do it. The reason is absolutely plain

it was endeavouring to protect its political position. No one knows that better than the hon. member for Richelieu-V ercheres.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury)
The minority cannot rule; but let me say to the majority of this country, which according to the hon. member for Trinity should rule-and he asked that we should recognize the sovereignty of the majority-I do recognize the sovereignty of the majority in Canada, and the province of Quebec will submit to the legislation that is going to be passed. But if the minority cannot dictate its view to the majority, that majority should hesitate, should pause, before setting its iron heel upon a minority.
We are fighting this war, according to the Right Hon. Mr. Churchill and other leaders, for, among other things, the protection of minorities and for the rights of small nations. Let us not abuse their representatives by laughing at the expression of their opinions and criticize bitterly when they are expressing the views of their compatriots, the people they represent in this House of Commons.
My good friend the hon. member for Trinity in the course of his remarks, which are always interesting, because he is a very sincere man and a very broad-minded man, recalled to us an old saying, that the stone may hurt but not the words. Let me add to his saying, which is true in a sense, that if stones can hurt the physical body of a person, words and actions are often more harmful to the soul, and that the wounds of the soul are much more difficult to heal than the wounds of the physical body.
Exercise your authority, you members of the majority, but with kindness, not in Hitler's or Mussolini's way. Exercise it in such a way that the feelings of those upon whom you exercise it by the force of numbers are not hurt too deeply.
The people of the province of Quebec are law-abiding citizens. They have proved this in the past; they will prove it in this instance. When the law is enacted, although it is the worst law that has ever been passed by a democracy in Canada, we will submit. We will obey the law. There will be no trouble. We might remember the occasion, but just the same we will obey the law. We will in all sincerity try to do the best we can to accommodate ourselves .to the situation which is going to be difficult as a result of what we have been promised not only by our leaders but by the leaders of all parties in Canada.
I know that my position is going to be misunderstood. It is already misunderstood in my own province. There is a veil of silence which is being used to conceal the activities of the representatives of the province of Quebec who disapprove the government. You have only to look at the newspapers and you will see that when one of the members
opposing the government on that issue makes a statement it is hidden on the fourth, fifth, sixth, sometimes the twenty-fourth page of the newspaper, if it is reported at all. But when an argument is made in favour of the government by somebody who is ready to swallow the law there is no letter in the printing room of the newspapers too large to advertise the proclaimed great speech that has fallen from the lips of a supporter of the government. That is propaganda which is not any more commendable than the propaganda of Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini. It is propaganda which in a large part is being paid for with public money. It does not give the true significance of what is happening in this house, but it is intended to discredit those who have the courage of keeping their word and frankly and openly stating what they think.
You say, "Well, the majority has spoken." Yes, the majority has spoken-*


Georges Parent: I am sorry to inform the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If it is the wish of the house that the hon. gentleman should proceed, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to give way to him.


Georges Parent: With unanimous consent the hon. gentleman may proceed.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Speaker, realizing the difficult position in which I was placed, you and the house have been kind enough, in one instance already, to allow me more time than is permitted under the rules to an ordinary member. I do not want to abuse that privilege.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I think we have all listened with more than ordinary interest to the address of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), who has just resumed his seat. He showed, I think, all or nearly all of his old time vigour; he showed his ability to speak extemporaneously, and he marshalled his arguments with much of the power I have seen him exhibit in former days. I should like to say, however, that with respect to certain portions of his remarks he said either too much or too little. I confess that with respect to certain cryptic utterances which he made I did not understand the innuendo, and I hoped that he would enlarge, to a degree at least, upon the position which he says obtains in certain quarters in the province of Quebec. I hope that at least he is absolving me and those whom I represent from any participation in the position to which he referred.
4G08

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cardin
they had come to form part of French nationality; they had become French citizens by heart and culture.
There is another good friend of mine, a man to whom I listen attentively when he speaks, because he is refreshing. His speeches remind me of the debates I heard in this house when I first came here thirty years ago. I refer to the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght). I regret not having waited, when I made my speech on the second reading of the bill, until the hon. gentleman had spoken, because he supplied all the material that was necessary to justify the speech I myself made. It is only in the conclusion that we differ. He made the strongest speech that could be made against conscription, but he made it in support of a conscription legislation.
Nothing has been shown, nothing has been indicated to us to prove that it is necessary at the present time to have such legislation on our statute books. We have been told that it will place our position in a better light before our allies. Well, if our allies are in such a state of mind as to be satisfied because we have on our statute books legislation which most of the ministers have said will not be applied, our allies are very easily satisfied. It would have been better to make them a gesture of good understanding, otherwise, for example, to shake hands with them.
Before condemning the province of Quebec for the attitude she is taking, and the members from that province on this very important issue, the members of this house and the press of the country should look around the world a little and inquire what is happening in other countries which to a certain extent are in a position similar to that in which Canada finds herself to-day.
Can you seriously condemn the attitude of the people of the province of Quebec when you absolve by silence what has happened in Northern Ireland? Are they not in a danger zone, exposed to attack? Is not the south of Ireland exposed to attack, with the very important maritime ports which they possess and which they have so far refused to permit England to use? Are they not in danger of being attacked, much more so than we are in Canada? Who is condemning, who has been condemning them in this house? Who has had the courage, during the debate on the second reading and even now, to raise his voice against the attitude of Ireland, north and south? Nobody. But the good old goat of the province of Quebec has to bear the burden, has to be punished; the fight has to be carried against the province of Quebec as it was carried on in 1917 for the benefit of people we know.

What about the position of Australia? Australia does not have compulsory military service for overseas. We have been told that they sent a number of soldiers overseas who have been fighting gallantly in Libya and elsewhere. That is true, and they deserve all praise for it. Nevertheless, in Australia there is no military service act that provides for service overseas. Legislation of that kind was defeated in the last war, and it has been defeated in the present war as well.
Then we are told that the best method of avoiding invasion in Canada-it is a dream- is to fight the enemy on the ten or fifteen or twenty or twenty-five points where the war is raging in Europe and in Asia. Where is the front to-day? Is the front more in the British Isles than it is in Libya? Is the front more in the British isles than it is in Russia to-day? Certainly it is not.
Australia did not have compulsory military service for overseas, and they sent soldiers to fight in other theatres of war. Did that prevent them from being attacked? No. They were attacked just the same, and they were attacked probably with more success, because a large number of their soldiers, their sons, have been scattered all over the world. They are thinking of bringing them back to Australia in order to defend their own land.
I do not see any weight in the argument that we must go and defeat the enemy elsewhere. Where? There are ten points in Asia and Europe where the enemy is having successes at the present time. Where is the front we are going to choose to send our men when we apply the military service law?
The province of Quebec is unable, as she was unable in 1917, to force her opinion on the majority of this country. She has no intention of imposing her views on the majority of the Canadian citizens if they want to have conscription. But I contend that the province of Quebec has the right-and I have exercised it and I do exercise it at the moment without any fear of any kind-to express her own ideals in the councils of the nation. If we cannot do it the way we are accustomed to argue things of that kind according to our temperament, according to our mind, as I said a moment ago, let us say good-bye to confederation and let us say good-bye to democracy.
But I feel that there is in this country a majority capable of understanding the point of view of the province of Quebec and ready to listen to those who represent her in this parliament and to concede to them the liberty of expressing, in the way they like, their point of view on all the problems that are being discussed in this House of Commons. That is all that we ask.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cardin
I have a thousand times reason to say that this House of Commons is not master of itself; it is obeying, it is working according to the wire-pulling of a small group in our country who is trying to serve their own interest, to better their own personal position and have their own way under the cover of the war. Some also want to have the province of Quebec pay for her attitude. I have heard some insulting speeches in this house, and I have read insulting editorials in certain newspapers. Some have said, "Let us finish the war, and then we will deal with Quebec." Well, let them come. They will not do it. At the bottom of their hearts they are tod much of the slacker kind to risk it. They hide themselves behind their desks, where they write editorial columns slandering citizens of a province which has been doing much more than they have been doing themselves individually or their families, for the prosecution of the war. We are not afraid of them. We are citizens of this country, and there is no majority in Canada that is going to wipe out the minority of the province of Quebec.
The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Coldwell) read to us a few editorials which have been published in certain sections of Canada. He could find some in my own province, and I could find some, written, not in the same way, but in a more insidious fashion though none the less effective, in the French language, as a result of paid propaganda. A campaign is going on in the province of Quebec against myself and other representatives of the province who have voted against the bill, this according to our consciences and our convictions. We are misrepresented in our province, but these misrepresentations reach only the surface. There is going to be a day of reckoning in Quebec.
Some who were afraid at the difficult time of the plebiscite to show even their noses outside their doors to help us in trying to have the people of Quebec vote "yes", are now the 'bravest men on earth. They never miss an opportunity to dictate to federal members what they should do. They suggest to them to submit, submit like good little boys and good little angels, because something dreadful might happen if they do not.


Édouard Lacroix: Godbout!


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is the kind of propaganda which we have witnessed, not only in the English provinces, but in the province of Quebec itself.
We have been told that if our people are reluctant to submit to conscription, it is
because we lack leadership; that proper leadership, to borrow the expression of some hon. gentlemen, has not been given to our people. What about leadership in the other provinces? What about leadership in other sections of the country? The leaders of the province of Quebec as a whole compare favourably with the leaders of any other province, and French Canadians have no reason to be ashamed of the standing and the orderly attitude of their leaders.
I suppose I come under the condemnation of those who say that we have had the wrong leadership in Quebec during the last twenty-five years. I suppose that the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe also comes under that condemnation, and also the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. What Sir Wilfrid did and said is in Hansard. It has been cited on many occasions. He did what we are doing now; he opposed compulsory military service for overseas. And mark you, what the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe and I did in the province of Quebec was done with the approval of our leader and of all our colleagues in the government of which we were then members, and also without criticism from the leaders of the other political parties in Canada.
In fact for the last twenty-five years the leaders of all political parties have themselves or by their recognized supporters, advocated the same policies which I myself advocated during that period-opposition to compulsory service for overseas.
When I tried to explain the position in which French Canadians find themselves in comparison with English-speaking members of this house, I was taken to task by a very good friend of mine, a man for whom I have the greatest respect, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). He tried to establish that my claim that we were the first to open this land to civilization was wrong. He contended that of the number of people speaking French at a certain period of history only 6,000 were not Normans, and he said, if I remember rightly, that he was a descendant of the Normans. Well, following that line of reasoning, I could say in all friendliness to my hon. friend the member for Ontario, a very learned and most respectable gentleman, that he could have by the same process, traced his origin right back to Adam and in that event, he might have placed himself among the Jewish race. When the Normans came to Canada they were then a part of France and they came to Canada not as Normans but as French. They came to the new France as the subjects of the King of France. They came as Frenchmen and not as Normans, because in the course of years

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cardin
Another objectionable aspect of this bill is that it is retroactive. It constitutes a breach of faith with the young men who were enlisted forcibly for service, in Canada only, under the mobilization act which was placed on the statute book in 1940. When that measure was before the house, and when it was before the country afterwards, it was understood that it meant enforced military service only for the defence of Canada in Canada. When we forced the young men to enlist under the mobilization act we promised them it would be for only one month, that after one month's training they could return to their occupations and need not worry until the time would come when Canada would be in danger. Some people then said that one month's training was ridiculous, but not very many said it in 1940, when the mobilization act was passed. After it was on our statute books, after our young men had been enlisted by force, after they had been sent to the training camps, it was argued that one month was not enough; that they should have four months' training. As a result of that agitation the training period was changed from one month to four months.
After these young men had been brought into the camps on the understanding that they would have to stay there only four months, whereupon fhey could return to their occupations, another agitation was started by certain military authorities, and certain other people in an effort to crush the province of Quebec.-Let me here serve notice upon these people that it will take greater strength and more courage than they possess to crush the province of Quebec. As I say, an agitation was started against the four months' training, saying that the advantage would be lost if these men were not transferred to the regular regiments. It was argued that the country would lose the benefit of their four months' training. Can it be said that those who received military training in the European countries years ago, for six months or for a year and who were called to the colours only two or three years after as a result of war, were of no value in France and in the other countries where they had military service?
Nevertheless we were told that the advantages of four months' training would be lost because these young men would return to the farm and to other occupations and would be no good as soldiers in the defence of their country. We acceded to that agitation; we acceded to the wishes of the leader of the opposition and his friends and the agitators in Toronto, the minority of which we hear from so much, and of which we are so much afraid in parliament. The trainees who had
XMr. Cardin.]
been told they would be trained for only four months had to resign themselves to serving until the end of the war and to being transferred to the regular training centres all over Canada.	1
This legislation deletes section 3 of the mobilization act, which limits its effect to service for Canada in Canada. We are now saying to those young men who were told by the registrars that they would have to serve only one month, who were later told they would have to serve four months, who were later told they would have to serve for the duration of the war in the active force of Canada:	"Forget that you were called
to defend Canada on the soil of Canada; you are going to be kept where you are, and if one day the governor general in council deems it advisable that you should go overseas, you will have to go overseas whether you have been called up for a month, for four months, or for service in Canada during the war."
This retroactive feature is the worst thing that can be placed upon the statute books of our country. It was always with the greatest hesitation that any government took such a step in the past. Yet we have it to-day in a legislation dealing with life and death.
We are breaking faith with the young men who have enlisted, and with the people of Canada. For what reason? I have listened very patiently, as I thank hon. members for listening to me, to all the speeches which have been delivered in this house; and everybody in the country knows now that three-fourths of the members of the present cabinet have said that conscription is not necessary; that we do not at present need to have recourse to compulsory military service for service overseas. Quite the opposite; we need the men, all the men that we can enlist to work in the shops preparing materials of war.
We have at present nearly one million men in the industrial establishments of Canada producing materials of war, and a quarter of a million more will be required to manufacture war equipment and provide other instruments necessary for the prosecution of the war.
From the opposite side of the house, as soon as hon. members had advocated a policy of conscription for service overseas, practically all of them, one after the other, inquired with anxiety about the situation of the farmers in their respective constituencies, and demanded that the regulations should be applied in such a way that the farmer should not be interfered with. That is the spectacle we have been witnessing in this house.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cardin
on this bill, and to press my strong opposition to the principle embodied in it. If I needed any justification I should need only to count the pages of Hansard on which appear the speeches of representatives from other provinces on questions relating particularly to those provinces and the interests of the electors they represent in the house. We have listened patiently and with pleasure to the numerous and extended debates on the grain question, because we believed that it was the right and privilege of hon. members from other parts of Canada to explain fully their points of view, in order that they might be understood by the government of the day, and that their proposals might be considered. On many occasions hon. members from all parts of the house and representing all shades of political opinion have enjoyed the liberty of speaking, as long as the rules of the house permitted, on any matter of importance to their constituents or the provinces they represent.
I say it is unjust for any member to stand in his place in the House of Commons and blame those who have spoken at length on such an important question as this-the most important that parliament has had to consider. We have the right to speak our minds. If that right were denied to us, we might as well say good-bye to that pact of confederation in which we are all equal partners. We might as well say good-bye to democracy, and apply to this land the theories we are fighting against in Europe and elsewhere.
I have no apology, to make, nor do I propose to offer any, when I say that the law we are at present enacting is worse than the law enacted in 1917 by the Borden administration, and supported afterwards 'by the Union government. This law gives more power to the present government and to the governor in council than the law of 1917 ever gave to the government then in office.
At that time we had a statute, a law, before us. It gave as many details as could be given in a piece of legislation, and there was provision left for regulations in respect of less important matters. But the main principles were embodied in the statute, and were not left for a proclamation or an order in council to determine, as is the case with the measure we are now discussing. We have been told that this bill is enabling legislation. Yes; it is enabling legislation, giving the government power to do everything which pleases the government, at any time which pleases the government, and to act at any point or under any circumstances which in its opinion may seem favourable or justifiable.
I listened the other day to the speech delivered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) when the bill was in committee. I regret to say he did not take advantage of the situation as he should have. True, he used certain strong words, but the general trend of his argument was only a praise and an approval of what the government had done, and an expression of support of the legislation before parliament.
He could have done more than that. He could have claimed for his party a partnership in that legislation, because to-day we are faced with this legislation because of agitation which has been raised-and I am not afraid to say this-by his friends, and by the press supporting his friends and his party in the country. That is why we have the legislation before us to-day.
Almost every step that has been taken up to the present in the prosecution of the war has been taken as the result of the threat of a motion or amendment being moved by the [DOT] opposition, and because of the fear that such a motion or such an amendment, if proposed, would destroy to a certain extent the strength of our party in the House of Commons. That is the position. I do not need to be afraid to speak my mind; it is not at my age that one should be afraid to speak his mind.
This measure goes a long way beyond the proposal made by the leader of the opposition in the speech he delivered in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Anyone who reads the proposals put forth at that time by the leader of the opposition must be convinced that the kind of conscription he was proposing was less extensive and less effective than what is embodied in the legislation at present before us. His proposal started out with providing exemptions for farmers, for men working in war industries, and for men working in industries related to the war effort. It was only at the end that he took up the question of military service in any theatre of war. If the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition had been put into practice, there would have been nobody left to conscript. He wanted a selective service that would provide for agriculture, for war industries, and for those civil industries which are necessary for the welfare of our economy. Then, after all this, he proposed to provide for the conscription of men for service in any theatre of war. I repeat that the bill now before us goes far beyond the limits of the suggested selective service or supposed conscription proposed by the leader of the opposition when he spoke on the address.
4604	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Ross (Souris)
soription were prepared to leave to others the task of doing for Canada, their homes and families what they refuse to do for others and even for their own country. That is a groundless statement, to say the least. The Prime Minister should be the last man to use such language. He was not talking that way when he solemnly asserted that not a penny of the increase in the estimates was intended for anything but the defence of Canada, and solely of Canada. He was not talking that way when he promised, in the following terms, that Canada would not participate in outside wars. Let me quote his words:
We shall probably never again see the day when large bodies of infantry have to be dispatched overseas.
The Prime Minister also said:
We must choose between minding the affairs of our own country and trying to save Europe and Asia.
The Prime Minister was not talking that way when he gave the unconditional pledge that he would never enforce conscription, as evidenced by this solemn statement:
Let me say that so long as this government may be in power, no such measure will be enacted.
The conscription measure.
Is there anything more blameworthy than to fail to keep so many promises, than to break so many pledges? Is there anything more apt to foster doubt, distrust and hatred as regards constituted authority? What more despicable doctrine than one founded on contradiction and falsehood? What greater threat to the very existence of our laws and constitution than the implicit acceptance of error and deceit triumphant over truth? I maintain that such an evasive attitude is more harmful to our war effort and to the morale of the Canadian people than the most nefarious doctrine and the most pernicious policy.
In conclusion, I have the honour of seconding the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy).


James Arthur Ross: I shall take only a few moments, Mr. Speaker, but I wish to repeat that at the present time we have a very unfortunate man-power situation on our hands with respect to agriculture, industry and the armed forces. I should like to endorse the remarks of the hon.) member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) who argued this morning for immediate action in respect to this conscription bill now before the house.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a question, which I may not have the opportunity of asking at
fMr. Lacorabe.]
another time. In the course of his remarks on this bill the Prime Minister stated that when the cabinet considered conscription necessary an order in council would be passed, parliament would be consulted and would be asked to vote confidence in him, and I think he added without debate. That does not seem feasible to me, though I suppose it might occur if he could muster enough votes in his support through the party whip. However, I think he might explain to us, when he speaks on the third reading of this bill, what would be the implications of a vote of no confidence in a party administration, at a time like this, under war conditions. That is to say, suppose there were a non-confidence vote, would it mean a general election in the country at this time? Or, on the other hand, would he do what Mr. Chamberlain did in Great Britain, and call upon one of his colleagues, as Mr. Churchill was called upon, to form a government and carry on under the present conditions and difficulties?
As he is the sponsor of the bill I trust he will make this implication quite clear to us in his discourse on the third reading of the bill, and more particularly since he has already intimated that at some future day we may be called upon to vote confidence or nonconfidence in him without debate.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I desire to avail myself of this last opportunity to express my opposition to the bill which stands now for third reading. I shall express my views in the course of only a few minutes, but I wish to say that I do not feel the necessity of offering any apology for taking part in the debate, despite the fact that some hon. members during the debate on second reading said it was rather prolonged. I claim that all representatives of the people in the House of Commons are entitled to express their views, whether or not it prolongs or delays the proceedings. If we have not the privilege and the advantage, within the rules of the house, of stating our own views and giving our own opinions on questions which arise in the house, then I ask myself: What are we fighting for in this war? No hon. member of the House of Commons has any right to protest against the discussion having been prolonged, because all hon. members who had views to express had the right to voice them on the second reading, and to make their sentiments known. They expressed at the same time the opinions of the electors who sent them here as their representatives in parliament.
I have no apology, I repeat, for standing in my place a second time to stress my views

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lacombe
promises, broken with its past? I trust they will not remain deaf to this appeal in favour of cooperation, of a sacred unity in unmasking those who prefer colonialism to autonomy, slavery to freedom.
Will they remain faithful to the Prime Minister and this conscriptionist government or, following Laurier's example, will they prefer honesty, truth, courage and honour to power? Let them remember that the stand of the present government is a cynical denial of Laurier's career, the man who, almost an octogenarian, travelled through the whole of Canada, from one ocean to the other, in order to fight the Borden conscription measure in 1917.
Mr. Speaker, if there were a sixth reading of the bill provided for in the Canadian or British constitutions, I would still oppose this unfair and arbitrary conscription measure.
Will the year 1942 see a majority of the members of parliament sign their names to this heinous conscription law, without a mandate to do so from the Canadian people? Will the present generation remain indifferent, unconcerned or powerless witnesses of the repetition of the frightful deed perpetrated twenty-five years ago by a government censured by the Canadian people, dogged and removed from office as public enemy number one for over a decade?
Woe unto those men who, without due consideration, are on the point of repeating the criminal error of 1917. Woe unto those flatterers and imposters who, during the plebiscite campaign, sheltered in the radio studios, broadcast falsehood to mask their treason. Woe unto all the crooked and false politicians who foment misunderstanding and doubt in our so-called sacred democracy, while our soldiers are laying down their lives to safeguard it. Mr. Speaker, woe unto all those disciples of Voltaire whose motto is: "Lie and keep on lying, it's bound to bear some fruit."
But I say that nothing, absolutely nothing, will come of this conscription measure or of its sorry and hypocritical authors save strife, hatred, doubt, distrust and defeat. Before another year has passed, Providence will rescue our country from the deceit, lies and treason to which it has fallen a victim. In this energetic and pathetic fight for Canadian liberties, we shall show the same tenacity, eagerness, courage and patriotism that have ever guided us in all the various disasters that have assailed our beloved country.
One last word. It was easy to foresee that the mobilization act contained all the elements of conscription for overseas service. The previous stand of the government was reason
enough for anyone to understand the menace that this mobilization act, which I energetically opposed on June 18 and 19, 1940, constituted for the Canadian people. A positive proof of this lies in the Prime Minister's statement to the effect that conscription has been on our statute books ever since June 21, 1940. I thank heaven for having foreseen the dangerous stand taken by the government in June, 1940, as I had previously forecast, in September of 1939, the misfortunes which would befall our country. Participation and mobilization were the fatal stepping stones to conscription.
Are those who refused to support the successive amendments I moved in connection with participation and mobilization now satisfied with their stand, their abstention and their work? The events of the near future will give a forcible answer to that question fraught with so many direful consequences.
Mr. Speaker, who mentioned in this house or on the hustings the matter of a sacred contract? Who was simple enough to believe in the government's sincerity after what happened in parliament in 1937, 1938 and 1939, when the defence estimates were increased? I flatly refused to concur in those estimates. I knew that they were not for the defence of Canada but for participation in war. Who could reasonably draw another conclusion when the government rejected my repeated requests that the Militia and Defence Act be amended so that Canada might not have to participate in outside wars? The people of this country will judge, and history will confirm, that those who joined the advocates of imperialism and conscription in accepting participation and mobilization, are responsible for the enactment of conscription. They will vainly try to conceal their anti-Canadian stand. The people shall be made aware of all facts. We are going to enlighten them by every possible means. We have too long delayed doing so, although for a very lofty motive; the desire for concord and harmony. There is something loftier and greater than that motive; it is the triumph of truth over error and the welfare of this country. That is the principle for which we will fight alongside all true Canadians who may join our banner. We do not care for the shameful desertion of some or the cynicism of others. A surging torrent will sweep all that away. The wave of Canadianism which is now rolling over the country will sweep the remnants of a government dominated by a military and financial imperialism which is planning the downfall and ruin of Canada.
The Prime Minister stated in this house on July 7 last, that the opponents of con-
4602	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Bence
united nations, I subscribe to it, and I believe that all hon. members would subscribe to it. But I do say in all sincerity that any member or group of members is taking a very grave responsibility in voting against this bill on the basis that their particular brand of conscription must come first, otherwise, they are not prepared to give the administration the power that might mean the difference between victory and defeat. Such a stand will not help the soldiers, the sailors and the airmen of this country when the testing time comes; and when that time comes, in its strongest point it will be support on the field of battle that is needed and not quotations from political speeches either in this house or outside.
I am opposed to the stand taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his last speech on this question when he said in effect that if conscription for overseas service is enacted it will not be put into effect until a vote of confidence has first been obtained from this house. The people have voted in favour of giving power to the administration. Members of parliament have voted in favour of giving the power to the administration, and nothing further is placed in the way of giving effect thereto. If the Prime Minister wants to return to the house for a vote of confidence at any time, that is his privilege; but I say to him that it should not be a condition precedent to his acting expeditiously in the matter of sending troops for overseas service if the circumstances warrant it.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: I want to say a few words in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy).
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, (this measure is odious, anti-national and anti-Canadian. It is destructive, unjust, arbitrary and calamitous. This I intend to demonstrate in a moment. It is a challenge to public opinion clearly expressed on March 26, 194(1, in favor of a free and voluntary policy. Parliament holds no other mandate than that it received from the Canadian people at the last general election. This mandate was never revoked. The plebiscite campaign was nothing but a fraud perpetrated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who squandered public funds for this purpose and conjured up an alleged majority which never existed. Never has an administration shown itself more wasteful and extravagant. Never in the history of Canada has there been a government more prodigal and less concerned with the public interest.

What is happening to our finances, our agriculture, our trade and our national resources? Our entire national heritage is being ruthlessly sacrificed by the present government, now more detested than the Borden administration ever was. Why is this? Because the Borden government, although just as colonial, just as imperialistic and conscrip-tionist, was more open, more loyal, more honest in its dealings than the King administration. Because the Borden government never reached the degree of duplicity, hypocrisy and cynicism attained by our present ineffable administration. Past masters in the art of trickery, they are proceeding step by step. They stated at first that we would not participate in the war. Then came participation. They declared that such participation would be free and voluntary. Then our youth and resources were mobilized. That mobilization was allegedly proceeded with for the defence of Canada and of Canada alone. And now, by changing our Mobilization Act into a conscription measure, they are preparing to send overseas our sons already mobilized under the law. In this supreme hour, I shall make a last stand against conscription, in order to save what may yet be saved in this orgy of expense and carnage and blood. I earnestly urge the hon. members of this house to think of Canada's future, to think first of all of organizing her defence.
I implore my hon. colleagues to bar the disastrous path down which the government is treading and to cry out with us: "You shall not pass!" On behalf of our Canadian youth, of the survival of our agriculture, our trade, our industry, our fisheries, our national resources and our living strength, I pray for *the earnest support of my hon. colleagues to give the death blow to this conscription measure which threatens to demolish the defence of Canada and the very existence of the nation. Yes, let us give the death blow to conscription which the people have damned for over twenty-five years. We have no right to rush headlong into the abyss. We have no right to sacrifice our sacred heritage, in defence of which we would gladly give our lives, for the sole benefit of other countries who will become the graveyard of our national defence. It would be an infamous crime to sacrifice the physical, moral and spiritual wealth of our land to a military and financial imperialism which is planning our ruin and our downfall.
In closing these remarks, I launch a third and last appeal to my fellow members of the Liberal party. What ties could be powerful enough to bind them still to a government that has broken its solemn pledges and

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bence
think of the situation of the French Canadians in such an event? It seems to me that that should be considered too.
The outlook, as it appears to me, is so full of dangers of all kinds, of uncertainties, and of threats of all sorts, that in the midst of so much confusion and such a great division we members of parliament should not take the terrible responsibility of adopting this legislation at the present time. The situation is developing every day, and I think the government would be justified in looking over the situation again and postponing the adoption of this measure. If the bill is passed at this time, now that we are threatened with a division which is not likely to heal, with this religious war going on, and the bogey that has been set up against the Catholic church, unless it is stopped right away, trouble may start at any time. I am afraid of that. I think the government should look over this matter once more before plunging along a course of which the end cannot be seen. The curtain between to-day and to-morrow is too thick.


Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: Mr. Speaker, I did not speak on the second reading of this measure because I supported it, and because I subscribed to the sentiments expressed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) when he made his speech on the second reading, and I believed that all that was necessary was the casting of my vote when the motion was put to the house. I did not feel that it would add anything to the seemingly endless repetition which went on in this house for some weeks. But in view of the circumstances, and of the situation which has arisen as a result of some of the speeches that were made, and of the last speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I wish to make my position clear, and to do so as briefly as possible.
I supported this bill because I could do nothing less. The administration, whether rightly or wrongly, believed that its hands were tied, with respect to having a full-out war effort, in one particular, and that particular was in respect of the sending of men for service overseas. It decided by way of a plebiscite to obtain the opinion of the people on the question whether that restriction should be removed, and the people of Canada voted in favour of its removal. My constituency voted in favour of the removal of that restriction by 16,710 to 2,074, and in my opinion it voted in effect for the passage of the very legislation that is before the house to-day. I am bound to assume therefore that when they cast their vote they believed that I as their representative would take that stand in this house and would vote in favour of any legislation that
might be brought forward to remove that restriction, for which purpose the plebiscite was taken.
I have no apologies to make for voting in favour of the bill. I am consistent in the stand I have taken, and I do say that neither I nor the members of His Majesty's loyal opposition have, in the words of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) this afternoon, in any manner, shape or form looped the loop. How anyone whose constituency voted in favour of the removal of this restriction can get up in this house and vote against it surpasses my understanding. Out of twenty-one constituencies in Saskatchewan, twenty voted in favour of removing the restriction, and I say at least to those twenty members that they are in duty bound to their constituents to support this measure in the house. I believe that those were the wishes of my constituents, and I propose to adhere to their wishes and to free the hands of the administration in this particular.
With respect to the conscription of wealth, my position was made clear some time ago.
I have repeatedly stated that we should do everything without reserve, and when I say without reserve I mean the complete and total mobilization of material things as well as of man-power. As I said before, one of the worst things that could happen to the morale of the Canadian people would be to leave, in the minds of those who are giving their husbands, sons, brothers and sweethearts to the service of the country, the idea that those who have material wealth are not prepared to put all in the balance in order that we may emerge victorious from this struggle. I adhere to that enunciation of principle as being a sound and proper one.
One can put almost any interpretation one chooses on the principle of the conscription of wealth. One can insist that no matter how far we go, it is still not conscription of wealth -many people in this country to-day believe that we have conscription of wealth-but I do say that this is no time to be indulging in risky experiments. This is no time to indulge in anything that might react unfavourably to our war effort, and this is no time to be adamant about getting one's own way with respect to one's own political philosophy. We have too much at stake for that state of mind to govern our actions in this house. I will say this, however. If it is shown that the extension of the principle of conscription of wealth in any one particular can save the life of any one man in the service of the country; if the extension of the principle of the conscription of wealth in any one particular would expedite the victorious conclusion of this struggle, on behalf of the
Mobilization Act-Mr. Roy

policy which will unnecessarily upset that balance, and hinder one or other of the allimportant phases of our war effort.
As I have said, I think those statements are a true expression of the ideas shared by the first school of thought among the members of the cabinet. I wonder how the second group, which is not half as large as the first, can impose its views upon the larger group? No proof has been given of the necessity of sending more troops overseas, especially when one keeps in mind the threats we are facing just now, the needs of our war industries, the needs of agriculture. I cannot understand why that group should stick so firmly and so stubbornly to the idea of conscription for overseas, because it will change the whole situation in this country and waste the service which can be rendered by individuals under the present circumstances.
This second school of thought, which is quite radical, is followed by the ministers of national defence. It looks to me as though they are rather for European defence before they are for our national defence. That is quite paradoxical. They represent the military opinion, and their ideas are backed up by another school, which is far worse-what I would call the imperialistic school. I do not want to say anything which will destroy the confidence and respect we should have for our military authorities. Everyone recognizes their gallantry and the importance of the task they have undertaken in the defence of this country. But as military men they have ambitions, and their ambitions should be controlled so that Canada will not go to another Hong Kong or make more mistakes such as those which have been made in the past, not only by Canada but by other nations.
I wish to read a letter from a man for whose memory there is much respect. On March 12, 1885, Sir John A. Macdonald wrote to Sir Charles Tupper from Earnscliffe, Ottawa, as follows:
My dear Tupper,
I have your notes of the 18th and 27th on the subject of sending Canadian troops to the Soudan. I wrote you a hurried note the other day on this question, and have both before and since talked it over with my colleagues, and we think the time has not arrived, nor the occasion, for our volunteering military aid to the mother country.
We do not stand at all in the same position as Australasia. The Suez canal is nothing to us, and we do not ask England to quarrel with France or Germany for our sakes. The offer of those colonies is a good move on their part, and somewhat like Cavour's sending Sardinian troops to the Crimea. Why should we waste money and men in this wretched business? England is not at war, but merely helping the Khedive to put down an insurrection, and now that Gordon is gone, the motive of aiding in the

rescue of our countrymen is gone with him. Our men and money would therefore be sacrificed to get Gladstone and Co. out of the hole they have plunged themselves into by their own imbecility.
Again, the reciprocal aid to be given by the colonies and England should be a matter of treaty, deliberately entered into and settled on a permanent basis. The spasmodic offers of our militia colonels, anxious for excitement or notoriety, have roused unreasonable expectations in England, and are so far unfortunate. I dare say that a battalion or two of venturous spirits might be enlisted, but 7d. a day will cool most men's warlike ardour.
Our artillery batteries are not enlisted for foreign service, and could not be ordered to the Soudan. The Fenians are beginning to show signs of life again in the United States and there are so many unemployed there that they may become dangerous again. They threaten to invade Canada if she sends troops against the Mahdi. Most of this is nonsense, but we can never calculate on what these people may do. If there should be a row with Russia, we shall have to send our men via the C.P.R. to Vancouver, but I fancy that threatened storm will blow over.
We are dragging on slowly this session. The government is too old.
Your sincerely,
John A. Macdonald
If Sir John A. Macdonald was right in what he said at that time, we are well-justified in saying the same to-day. The threat of war puts Canada to-day in a far greater danger than it was at that time. Canada needs all its man-power and all its resources to organize its own defence just now. The country is facing a division which may lead us-where? I do not know; just the thought of it affrights me.
I will quote another opinion which is more recent. It does not come from a traitor; it is not the letter of a traitor, as the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, quoting from an Edmonton newspaper, says he is accused of being, with the fifty-four who voted against the second reading of this bill. This sentence is from a speech of the late Lord Tweedsmuir in 1937:
Canada is a sovereign nation and cannot take her attitude to the world docilely from Britain, or from the United States, or from anybody else. A Canadian's first loyalty is not to the British commonwealth of nations, but to Canada and Canada's king, and those who deny this are doing, to my mind, a great disservice to the commonwealth.
There is another point, Mr. Speaker, which I do not think has yet been brought up by anyone. Has anyone thought of the falseness of the situation in which we would be placed if French Canadians were forced to go to fight overseas, if the Canadian army were called to invade France, and if France should resist such invasion? What do you

Mobilization Act-Mr. Roy
the Canadian public fully realized how difficult the situation is, how necessary it is to do everything possible to defend our country, it would be suicidal instead of being helpful; it would impair our effort rather than help it.
On June 17 the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) is reported as follows, at page 3411 of Hansard:
In my opinion the imposition of conscription for service overseas at the present time would definitely be hurtful to the war effort. The people of Canada are much more concerned with the achievement of results than with the application of theories, and the action of the government will be governed accordingly.
He added at page 3412:
Furthermore, our war industry programme contemplates and involves heavy man-power requirements. So does the programme for essential agricultural production. I shall not deal in detail with either of these programmes, except to say that the man-power necessary for their performance cannot be withdrawn from the essential purposes of war without hurting those purposes.
It is the duty of the government to allocate man-power in accordance with the needs of the war purposes of Canada and the war objectives that I have mentioned.
This is a serious opinion, and I suggest it should not be disregarded.
On June 22, as reported at page 3507 of Hansard, the Prime Minister has this to say about threats upon Canada by the Japanese:
It is as critical a situation in the middle east as has arisen since the war commenced. There have been as well evidences in the past forty-eight hours that in this world-encircling conflict Canada is coming more and more into the zone of immediate danger.
The Prime Minister is reported on the same page as having said:
It only goes to bear out what has been said so often that no one can take too seriously both the immediacy and the extent of the danger with which all parts of the world are confronted, and at this time our own part in particular.
That is another opinion which should not be ignored. On June 25 the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) is reported on page 3682 of Hansard as having said:
I believe that steps will have to be taken in the very near future to see that the heavy industries of this country are provided with sufficient men so that we can produce the necessary supplies according to plan. I sometimes wonder whether we have not tried to do too much for a nation the size of ours.
In recent weeks I have received many visits from industrialists who are anxious about the shortage of labour and its effect on war production.
I draw the attention of the house to this statement because I think it is one that should be considered most seriously throughout Canada.	I should like to quote another
minister. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had this to say on Monday, June 15, as repoorted on page 3324 of Hansard:
Under any such provision, if the Japanese were able to force their way to the Alaskan boundary we would have to stop at the Alaskan boundary if our men raised under the act were able to drive them back to that point, and we would not be able to cross the boundary. It will be recognized therefore that some change has to be made in that particular at the present time.
As the Prime Minister stated in this house it does not necessarily mean that we shall be sending troops overseas immediately. I believe he even went so far as to suggest that it may never become necessary to do so. We shall have powers under the legislation as it will be enlarged to do certain things that must be done immediately, and, on the other hand, to give consideration as time passes to the question whether other things should be done. In this regard it was emphasized to the house the other day that it would be inadvisable for this house to have to take action on two different occasions in order to get authority to do these two things, one of which ought to be done immediately, and the other of which may never be required to be done.
I quote the language of the Minister of Agriculture in order to recall to the house that that is the opinion of thfe first school of thought I have spoken about. They do not believe in conscription for overseas; they admit it might be of no use. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gibson) had this to say on Friday, June 19, as reported on page 3492 of Hansard:
What some people seem to forget is that warfare to-day does not consist of hurling huge masses of men against each other, with the balance in favour of the greatest number. Today war is mechanized, highly technical, and demanding individual initiative in the use of the weapons that are provided. The best weapons in the world will be useless unless the men using them are prepared to use them bravely and intelligently. Under these circumstances it would seem to be obvious that so long as a volunteer force can be maintained in the field it will be a more effective fighting force than one partly or wholly composed of conscripts.
I come now to the opinion expressed by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), and I think this also should be considered seriously throughout Canada. He said on Tuesday, June 16, as reported on page 3373 of Hansard:
But, as I have already pointed out our manpower pool is not unlimited. We have encountered many shortages as the gap between supply and demand has become narrower. With the additional demands, which are continuous, the gap is constantly narrowing further. It follows therefore that if we are to continue our vast programme of war production and at the same time meet the requirements of the armed services, it is essential that we maintain a sane balance, and that we do not adopt, on emotional rather than on logical grounds, any
Mobilization Act-Mr. Roy

I need not remind you of what has been said throughout the country, or what has appeared in many newspapers and magazines, but I hold in my hand the July issue of Protestant Action. I need not quote from it, because if I did so I think it would be harmful to our national unity and our war effort, but I should like to send it to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and ask him to be good enough to look at it, because it will give him some idea of what is going on in the religious field.
The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group (Mr. Coldwell) has well pointed out the weakness of that religious discussion throughout the country. I should like to congratulate the hon. member on the admirable speech he made in the house this morning and on his truly Canadian spirit. I think he spoke as a real democrat, a real Christian and a real Canadian. I should like also to refer to the speech concluded just a few moments ago by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck), which was made in such a sober manner that I think it should be underlined. If all hon. members and others speaking on the question of conscription, or any other matters we have to discuss in this country; if all those who are writing about different matters and public questions, were using calm and sober language, I believe that we could proceed with the discussion of any of our problems, and that our national unity would not suffer at all from such discussions. Unhappily it has not always been that way.
I believe I should say a few more words about the religious fight that is going on just now, because I am wondering where it is going to lead. Another question is to be discussed in a few days, namely, the lifting of the ban against the Communist party, and the establishment of consulates in Canada. Under present circumstances it is most unfortunate that these questions should be brought up. To come down from helping Russia in its struggle against our common enemy, an enemy which is also threatening us, to permitting infiltration into this country of Russia's philosophies and doctrines, is a long step, and we should be very careful in taking it.
The division as to policy in Canada which has existed for a long time has grown worse and worse because of the religious and racial fight which has been carried on for some time in the press and throughout the country. There are many indications that that division exists right in the House of Commons, right in the midst of the cabinet, and on the very question of conscription for overseas service. There seem to be two different schools of thought in the ministry, one of which would 
appear to be more Canadian, and would seem to share the opinion that Canada needs all its man-power to take care of her war production and her national defence, which, if I may say so without giving information to the enemy, is very weak or non-existent at the present time.
I should like to quote a few opinions from ministers -who hold the first view to which I refer. I quote this from the observations of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock) as they
are reported at page 3658 of Hansard:
I do not think it is. Japan realizes that the final reckoning, no matter what temporary conquests he may make in Asia, will be with the nations of the North American continent and the British empire. It is quite probable that she may try to invade this continent by way of the Aleutian islands and Alaska before we have mobilized our utmost strength. If the Japanese meet with success in the Aleutian islands, and if for the time being the balance of sea-power in the Pacific should shift in their favour, I believe it quite possible that they may make an actual landing in force on the upper western coast, fortify their positions and try to hold that part of this continent until such time as they can bring up additional troops, munitions and supplies of all kinds, in the meantime fortifying their harbours and constructing airports to use in their drive southward along the Pacific coast, west of the Rocky mountains, and protected by them.
Those attacks must be stopped before they reach Canadian territory.
That is the opinion of one of the ministers. On the same page he adds this;
May I make it quite clear that I am not advocating the sending all of our troops overseas; that we would leave our coast lines undefended, or that we should not build up our coastal defences in every possible manner. But the fact remains that we in Canada are going to be in a desperate position if the time ever comes when we must defend this country with the forces that can be raised from eleven and a half millions of people, without help from other members of the United Nations.
On July 6 the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), as reported at page 3945 of Hansard, quoted the following from Toronto Saturday Night:
From its inception the war has been hammered home to Canadians as an empire war. We are far less Canadian than we were in 1939. The words "British" and "empire" occur in almost every sentence of the war news and the newscasts. Practically nobody has stressed the fact that this is a Canadian war, which Canadians are fighting in order to save the Canadian way of life for the people of Canada.
At a later point in his speech the minister
said:
We have raised an army which is a credit to our country without having recourse to compulsion, and it is my hope and wish that we shall never have to resort to compulsory measures to fill the ranks of our army. Were such a method instituted at the present time, before

Mobilization Act-Mr. Roy
world; and when we consider what Canada is doing and what has been done for us over there, to keep the enemy from our shores, we should thank the Almighty that we have had such a country to protect us and permit us to go about our business in the way we have done so far. Let me tell you what the mother country is doing for Canada and the world at the present time. Mr. Lyttelton, the minister of production, in some places met a rather hostile lot of criticism in the press when he came on a recent visit to Washington, where he went on business with Mr. Roosevelt. But he made a radio speech and told the people the truth, and here is what he said about the mother country and what Britain is doing now to save the world and keep the empire together:
We are producing tanks, "jeeps" and other mechanical vehicles at the rate of 257,000 a year. This is an increase of 350 per cent over the rate in the last quarter of 1940.
We are producing 40,000 big guns a year and supplying them with 25,000,000 rounds of ammunition. We are producing millions of small arms each year and supplying them with 2,000,000,000 rounds of ammunition.
We have increased our production of aircraft 100 per cent above the rate achieved during the last quarter of 1940.
We have increased our production of merchant ships by 57 per cent over the last quarter of 1940, even though we thought then that we had reached the limit of our capacity.
He went on to tell listeners that of a population of 33,000,000 between the ages of 14 and 55, some 22,000,000 were either in the armed forces, in industry or in civil defence. Over 50 per cent of the ships which used to bring in food are now directed to supplying allied armies, and every available acre of land has been turned into farm land. Rations are alike for all. In short, he said:
When John Bull wakes up in the morning he finds that the minister of labour has called him up for work in factories, if he isn't fit for military duty. The food minister has taken all variety and spice and most of the volume of his breakfast, lunch and dinner, and the President of the Board of Trade has given him so much and no more clothing. His wife is working in a factory, and the treasury takes his money. War savings absorb his surplus income, which cannot be spent because there is nothing to buy.
We are pouring approximately 60 per cent of our national income into war. There is no "business as usual" in Britain. There is no production as usual in Britain. There is no profit as usual in Britain. We have thrown everything we have into this war, and we will never quit.
That ought to be an example to the people of this country. Why do our nine provinces not pay her tribute?
I believe this mobilization act will be a flat failure, because it does not commend itself to the wisdom or judgment of the country or of the "yes" voters. During the course of his remarks to-day, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) said that a few years ago most Canadians took the stand now taken by Quebec. I say that has not been the policy of the Conservative party. Since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald this party has been for the mother country first, last and all the time, in peace and war alike, because when Britain is at war Canada is at war also. That is our policy. This Conservative party has never failed in its duty to the empire and the motherland. We shall never fail as long as we are a party of Canadian citizens owing so much to the mother country. In that one connection alone the hon. member for Trinity is incorrect.


Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with my comments on the situation which has been brought about in this country by this legislation, and its significance to the welfare of Canadians and the prosecution of the war, I should like to inform you of the amendment I intend to propose. I have the honour to move, seconded by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe):
That the word "now" be left out and the words "this day six months" added at the end of the question.
I have several reasons for moving this amendment. I am wondering with great anxiety whether Canada is going to be wrapped up in this whirling world where there is nothing but downfall, destruction, confusion and darkness, or if we are going to escape this dreadful fate. I should like to make a short analysis of the situation with which we are confronted just now. [DOT]
Canada seems to be very badly divided, and I am wondering what is going to happen if the situation remains as it is or grows worse. The first cause of the division now existing in Canada is fundamental, finding its basis in the ideals held by two definite groups in Canada. One ideal is "Canada first"; the other seems to be best summed up, from what I have heard in this house during the course of this debate, in the words, "I am for the British empire." I believe these two formulas give a perfect picture of the two definite ideals which are held in this country. If the discussion had been kept within the limits of these two ideals, the situation would not be half as bad as it is to-day, but it has gone far beyond these limitations. The issue has become a racial fight; in the last little while it has become an open religious fight.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Church
both before and since, as to duties-considering all these omissions one can only marvel that the popular response has been what it is, and that the confusion was not many times worse.
Many people forget that. As I said before, it is of the greatest importance that there should be no censorship. The people should be told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth of this war, and of the grave peril now facing us. They should be told the facts, and we should build up on the worst of the facts. We have no divine right to win this war. Some think it is going to be an easy task. It is not; it is the most difficult the world ever saw, and the result is yet in the balance.
People forget that great empires do not usually crumble in a stand-up fight. If this empire goes down it will be the end of religion, civilization, and freedom, not only for Canada but for the rest of the world. That was something that our forefathers did not forget, because they read the scriptures. After all, history repeats itself. They knew the bible; they read the classics, and they learned from them how empires come and go. This British empire has gone on for many years. The Roman empire was the greatest the world had ever seen, and ours has been almost a pattern of it. We resemble it in peace and war alike. In that connection that great textbook writer, H. A. L. Fisher, said what is as true to-day in relation to Canada as it was to the fall of Rome:
That great structure was not brought down to the ground by frontal attack, but by a process of infiltration extending over a hundred years.
Infiltration of men and loose thinking at a time when the Romans themselves had given up the will to power. Bryce, in his great work, "The Holy Roman Empire," had described the same decay:
And thus when the final movement came, and the German tribes slowly established themselves thiough the provinces, they entered not a's savage strangers, but as settlers knowing something of the system into which they came.
Bryce also described for us how the latter-day Romans paid lip service to the concep- -tion of empire, even when the power had dissolved; how the great dominions acknowledged the name of Rome even though Rome had neglected them and even though they had become independent or under the influence of other great powers. In the years before the war we had forgotten the great historian Gibbon, in his chronicle of Rome's ills brought about by disarmament, reliance on the good will of others, weakening of purpose at home, and demoralization of the people by the dole of bread and circuses.
[Mr. Church.l
That chronicle makes sombre reading at a time like this. Here you have the finest people in the world giving up its armament, reducing its navy, and all that kind of thing. As a result of that disease we have to face a world where you do not know where you are going. We may as well be frank with ourselves regarding the British empire. Remember that we have already made alliances with two other great imperial empires, Russia and the United States. If we fail as an empire-and we are not getting very much support at the present time-do not forget that Britain then and her dominions and also the people of Quebec and the other eight provinces will have nothing to say in connection with the peace terms. Russia and the United States, which like Britain may not be imperialistic in the sense that they want to grab territory, but they are imperial in the true sense of the word, namely, that they want to become world powers, to have a just say in the peace terms and to be a big power in the new world to come. Unless we are attached to this great empire, are we going to have anything to say about the peace terms?
If this empire falls-and we are not a great distance from it at the present time-it will be a very sad day for religion and freedom of speech and thought in every province of the dominion. A great Scot and a great soldier said something about the detractors of the mother country. For the first two years of the war she bore the brunt of the fight alone for civilization and the world. If it had not been for Britain, after Dunkirk we should have the axis forces in this country; not only Canada but the United States would have had to seek peace long ago. Let us remember the lesson of history as pointed out to us by Professor Macneile Dixon, a great Scot like yourself, Mr. Speaker. He said:
Civilizations arise, and continue to exist- and all history is witness to the truth-when conditions are hard, only when they are continually threatened, only when they are determined to maintain and defend their rule. They decline and fall when the external pressure is removed, or the inner spirit decays. ... If an individual or a people ceases to believe in itself, its aims and ideals, others with firm aims and beliefs will climb into the saddle. The decline and fall of England, which will rejoice our enemies, will not be England's decline and fall only, but of all for which she stood, and not till then shall we know the extent of our miseries. I, at least, am not of the opinion that humanity, justice, freedom, no, nor Christianity, will be the gainers in that fall.
Those words are true to-day.
In conclusion I want to point out just one or two things. Britain has been attacked and slandered as never before, all over the civilized

Mobilization Act-Mr. Church
is an attack on the government. There has been more or less criticism of this bill throughout the country. In Ontario the mobilization act is not equitably enforced. A gentleman named Elliott Little, a controller, acting over the head of parliament, said at a Rotary club luncheon in Ottawa, that he will call up 250,000 men in order to get 25,000 required by the department. What has he to do with the mobilizing of men? Is he a parliament in himself? A black-out is wanted on some of these controls. I submit that there should be a black-out on all these speeches which we are hearing daily all over Canada because they are doing real harm; they are injuring recruiting. They are preventing the Minister of National Defence from doing his duty. There is no equality of treatment. How long will it be before the facts come home to the people? We do not know how close we are to dictatorship here.
So far we have lost the war; we have not gained any victories. The situation is desperate. We have had a string of reverses-Norway, Dunkirk, Greece, Crete, Libya, France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Luxemburg, North Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Malay peninsula, Burma, the Dutch East Indies and Pearl Harbour. If that is not enough to make this country war-minded, I am afraid we shall have to wait until the enemy comes up the St. Lawrence river and begins to destroy us. We have no royal or divine right to victory. Ever since this war began Canada has been living in an atmosphere of romance which the government itself has created, because this government has been slow to do anything at all until it has been forced into action by public opinion. We are not war-minded yet, or aware of how close we are to defeat. We are told that plans are now being made in connection with Bill 80; but can anyone tell us, before we are called back to parliament, what the objectives are, and how many men will be obtained? No one can tell us that, because, in my opinion, the government does not govern. It has never governed from the very start of the war. Hon. gentlemen opposite are merely conducting a Liberal war and they will never succeed as long as they do that. They have no policy, no objectives, no strategy. This bill shows that there has been no policy in regard to the raising of men.
As I say, the government waits until it is driven by public opinion to move one step, and this mobilization act is merely a tactical manoeuvre that does nothing but embarrass the war effort. There is no such thing as home defence. The countries I have named
were looking for home defence, and what happened? They were invaded. What then? The loud-speaker, the gestapo, the whip, the trampling of feet, the concentration camp. If the enemy came up the St, Lawrence they would carry away hundreds of thousands of farmers and citizens of the province of Quebec into Germany as serfs and slaves. If this country is invaded, the people will face a slavery worse than death; yet we sit here day after day doing nothing about it, and seven months is wasted with no results. History will condemn us as facing the worst war of all history, with such a brutal, savage foe, and doing nothing about it.
It is clear from the speeches of the Prime Minister to which I have referred that the bill has been changed so that even the authors do not know it with the new features in speeches read into it. We have spent three months on it and got no result. Why has the army failed?

and in my opinion the army is the most important arm. I do not blame the present minister; he took charge of this department only comparatively recently. In the British House of Commons, soldiers and the finest airmen in the world, members of parliament, admirals of the navy, rise up and discuss in public what is to be done in the war. Everyone in warfare makes mistakes. Pitt made mistakes; Napoleon made mistakes. Is there any government that has not made mistakes in this war? They are making plenty in Washington. But in these countries you can criticize the government; you can disagree with the minister without indulging in any personalities, because he is only an individual. He did not cause the war any more than the leader of the opposition did. In our present leader of the opposition we have a gentleman who in the country at large will in my opinion occupy a very high place, because he has done his duty as he sees it, fearlessly, and is a believer in Britain and her empire.
We are the worst informed people in the world regarding this war, because the people have not been told the facts. That happened away back in 1915 also. I looked up a number of addresses made by a very great soldier, F. S. Oliver, who in 1915 wrote about the duty of any government to let the people know the truth and the facts before it was too late because it would be an aid to recruiting. Here is what he said:
Considering how little, before the war began, our people had been taken into the confidence of successive governments as to the relations of the British empire with the outside world; how little education of opinion there had been as to risks and dangers and means of defence; how little leading and clear guidance
Mobilization Act-Mr. Church

The rules and regulations that will be passed under Bill 80 will be far worse than the bill itself, if we are to judge by such rules and regulations as we have had in the past. Here the government proposes a lottery system, although the criminal code definitely declares that there shall be no lotteries in the country. They are illegal by the code, but the government is going to institute a haphazard method of calling up men. They are going to leave it to chance, like a poker game or horse racing. They are going to allow someone to draw from a hat the men who are to be called up, those who are to render service and to make the sacrifice, while right next door there may be someone else who is not called up and who may not serve at all in a lottery plan-such a farce!
I can tell the government that the people -the "yes" voters-are very much disappointed throughout the country. I voted "yes" on the plebiscite, but if I had known as much as I know now about this bill I would have voted "no", because I voted on principle. The people are greatly dissatisfied with the way in which the act has been enforced all along and they are dissatisfied with what is proposed in this bill and the if, as and when, and lack of finality. The bill before us was based on the plebiscite. In my opinion that plebiscite should never have been taken. It was simply an afterthought, something forced upon the country. We know what statements were made as far back as 1939.
On March 30, 1939, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) set out, in a debate in which I took part, what he declared was the position of the government in this matter. At that time I was called a Jeremiah because I predicted what would really happen and what in fact has happened. Well, I would much rather be called a Jeremiah than be called Ethelred the Unready. At that time the Prime Minister said that never again would Canada send an expeditionary force across the seas. He said that it was unthinkable that we should be sending a force overseas every twenty years if war broke out in Europe and that the danger to Canada was minor in degree and secondary in origin. In 1940, in the course of a debate in which I participated, the right hon. gentleman said that no conscription for overseas service was the policy of the government. On November 12, 1941, the cry was, "No conscription without consulting the people." On February 23, 1942, it was "No conscription for overseas until voluntary recruiting has failed." Well, voluntary recruiting did fail; it was at its lowest ebb at that time. The Prime Minister said that parliament would decide. Then on June 10 we were given
TMr. Church.]
to understand that conscription might not be necessary-after the plebiscite vote had been taken. Then we have the situation as stated to us on July 7, that it is not conscription but conscription if necessary; and "if, as and when" is read into the statute, although it is not in the statute. Now it is said that there may not be any conscription at all, that parliament will be called again before anything is done.
We have been here since last November and the government has made no real effort to raise men. You cannot fight a war in. that way. I said in 1937, 1938 and 1939 that the government was simply waiting until the enemy decided to attack us. I asked then, "Are we to wait until war begins and until the enemy sails up the St. Lawrence, or comes on land, sea and in the air, and seizes the citadel and proceeds to destroy us?" I can say to the people of Quebec, and I have been friendly to them for many years, that they have been the victims of politicians ever since the South African war, and indeed before that time. They have not been given the facts, I see many able members on the government benches and I think they will agree with me that it would have been far better if they, had disclosed all the facts to the people and simply told the truth. Truth seems to be the first casualty in this war, and self-respect is the first victim of neutrality. I am very much disappointed with Bill No. 80, and I doubt that much will be done by this government to get men under it. We have heard it said in this house in the past few days that we are not to criticize the government. We must not have any inquests, postmortems, or recriminations, and even constructive criticism is not wanted, because it is regarded as an attack on the government. But that is not so. Suppose the people in the old country took the same view of the constructive criticisms that have been given by nearly 137 members of the British House of Commons from the first of July on. Why, there would be no improvement whatever in the war effort. But it is not so, and constructive criticism is not intended to be an attack on the government. If we are to accept that principle, then this house, and the opposition especially, will cease to perform its parliamentary functions and parliamentary government will be at an end.
I do not want to see parliament lose the technique of an effective opposition, or of constructive criticism, but something is certainly wrong with the way in which the government is carrying on the war effort. There is something wrong when experienced ministers and members express alarm at the state of affairs and are told that criticism of this kind

Mobilization Act-Mr. Church
the hands of our government as rapidly as possible, but I wish it to be understood that I am not taking the power away from parliament and putting it in. the hands of the executive with any idea of delay. This action is being taken by those who agree with me, not for inaction but for action. I hope to see the government of Canada adopt a complete, genuine measure of compulsory selective service at a very early day, as soon as is reasonably possible.


Mr. McGARRY:: May I ask the hon.
gentleman whether conscription of wealth is included in the United States draft law?


Mr. ROEBUCK:: The hon. member asks
me whether conscription of wealth has been included in the law of the United States in association with the draft system, and the answer is no.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish for a few moments only this afternoon to discuss certain features of Bill 80 as they apply to the conduct of the war and the objectives of the government during this, the most fateful year in the history of civilization.
Every day, every minute, every hour brings us in Canada closer to the war, not only on our back and side doors but on the Pacific and the Atlantic, and especially in the good province of Quebec, which is in a most dangerous position. Our session here has lasted nearly seven months, including last November, and the main part of the time has been taken up with only secondary matters, because the war is primary, nothing else matters unless we win. We of the house are supposed to be together for war. Everybody should forget the party system. We are not here to advance, during the war, any of those doctrines in domestic matters which might at another time be important.
Now what have we regarding this so-called mobilization act? The government is back to where it started. It has no system; it never had any system since the war started so far as the army is concerned. I do not like to hear some hon. gentlemen blaming those who are in control, because that is not the way they proceed in England. In England they can criticize policies without indulging in attacks upon individuals. I received this morning from a friend in the House of Commons, London, a copy of the British Hansard for the three days' public debate on the war, which contains as much in a day as all our Hansard in a week. You find there, rising in their places on the government benches, men who are home for a week's leave, members who have been on the ocean, commanders,
admirals, major-generals, all men serving in the war. What do they do? They tell the government in what respects they think the government is wrong, and ask it for a total war effort, and attack in public the conduct of the war without offence to anyone, or any objection.
This bill, before it can function, must overcome an antiquated circuitous mobilization system which we should never have had. We made our mistakes right at the beginning of the war, by starting to mobilize men in a circuitous fashion. In this bill there is no such thing as equality of service or equality of sacrifice. The people back home in the constituencies are very much disappointed with the stand which the government has taken on this question. It is all topsy-turvy, with changes every week-end; it is a case of here to-day and away to-morrow. We started off in connection with this bill by proposing a certain policy. If from the start the voluntary system had had a chance, with some of the money which is now being spent, $4,000,000 a day, and is expected to rise to $10,000,000 a day-I say that if one iota of this money had been spent properly the government would have had all the men it wanted. But they allowed volunteer recruiting to dry up as the first and second year's men were not wanted with the result that the people have got tired of the system.
The province from which I come is important to the dominion from a recruitment point of view. The old province of Ontario seems to have been singled out unfavourably by those who have administered this act, although I do not say it was done designedly, and our youth have been sent right across Canada from Vancouver to Halifax, when they could have taken all their training and received all their education at home. Take the case of my own constituency, which, by the way, has done better, proportionate to its population of 60,000, than any other riding I know of. When one goes up the street one finds that all its young people have gone to war under the voluntary system. Elsewhere we find others who can go before the boards which are operating all over the country and get off, and some get a commission in a day. I would never put a judge on one of these exemption boards; that is where a mistake was made to begin with. They should leave the judges to perform their proper functions. Some men are getting exemptions while others cannot get it so that the whole system is unfair, unjust and inequitable. There is no such thing as equality of service or of sacrifice. If there were no one would complain.
Mobilization Act-Mr. Roebuck

of selective service is better than the voluntary system. It is a fairer and more effective system, and I have come to think that perhaps in the end it is kinder than the voluntary system with which we have had so much experience.
There are special circumstances which have intervened to delay the recognition of these facts in some portions of the province of Quebec. I pause to say that this is not to be interpreted as meaning that the province of Quebec or any portion of it is inferior to the rest of Canada in its love for Canada, in its hatred of conquest and oppression and in its determination and courage to fight for the defence of Canada whenever Canada is attacked. I pay that tribute to the province of Quebec.
But this is a democratic country. We in this chamber may differ on many subjects, but I hope we do not differ on the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the majority in a democracy. When the people speak and their speech is carried into effect in accordance with our constitutional methods-for instance, a bill passed in this house-then the rights of the minority merge with the rights of the majority. It is true that the rights of the minority should be respected-but once a measure has passed into law in this country, the minority submits. We all obey the law. I suggest that this will be the attitude of the province of Quebec, of all sections of that province, on this as it has been on all other occasions. If the government, so soon as this power is placed in its hands, will proceed courageously to do the things which will benefit the war effort, the people of the province of Quebec will show what good Canadians they are. Many of us may be surprised at the way in which they will join with the rest of Canada, at how they will show themselves to be Canadians, ready to observe the law as it is, although they have opposed and criticized and denounced it in advance.
There has been comparatively little said during this debate from the English standpoint as compared with the oratory of the French Canadians. But I honour you gentlemen for that. You have been doing your duty in opposing this measure; you have done it vigorously; you have done it eloquently and you have done it well; but once the measure has been passed by this parliament of Canada then remember you are Canadians. The principle changes, and I take it that you will observe the law as it stands.
My submission is that if the government will take the nettle firmly in the hand there will be little trouble. It should take the action
that is demanded by the circumstances. If it will adopt a system which meets with the approval of the vast majority of the people, it will do a great service to the people of this country.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: There is very little that
I wish to add to what I have already said on this question, because it is not my intention to attempt to review the arguments pro and con with regard to conscription-they are age-old arguments now. But there is one point in connection with one of the newer aspects of the problem to which I would like to call attention.
Canada's relations with our great neighbour to the south are of vast importance, not only to Canada herself but to the world. Now the United States is democratically regimenting its people for war and it has adopted a complete system of compulsory selective service. It is most important, I submit, that Canada should line up with these people in appearance as well as in fact, and I submit that this can never be quite so while they have a compulsory draft system and we have not. It is true that the size of our army is greater than theirs on a percentage basis, and it is equally true that our production of armaments and of supplies to Great Britain and our other allies bears at least favourable comparison with that of any other nation on the allied side. We have been engaged in this war for very nearly three years, and the United States has been formally engaged for a period of only about seven months. There are arguments aplenty to justify our position, but, Mr. Speaker, arguments fall on deaf ears when there is some division of the common effort in which we appear to hold back. If we are to march in unison with our great neighbours to the south it is essential that we should- adopt the same measure of step. These good reasons-our relations with our neighbours to the south, our position in the allied camp, the credit which we may receive from other nations, our allies and others- justify the people of Canada and the government of Canada adopting without further delay a complete system somewhat similar to that in effect in these other countries- a complete, compulsory, systematic selective service as a method of recruitment.
I am going to vote on the third reading of this bill as I did on the second reading. I approve the bill. I hope to see power go into
l Mr. Roebuck.]

Mobilization Act-Mr. Roebuck
probably bring about unity rather than disunity. Therefore I urge upon the government, as soon as this bill has been passed, that it adopt, by such methods as are in its hands, a complete and full system of compulsory selective service. I think that it is approved by the people generally in Canada- not all of Canada, it is true, but by the great majority in Canada. I should like to see the government abolish the limitations upon the service to be obtained from those at present enrolled, by the means of conscription. Let us have one army, one cause, and let us proceed to one victory.
Recently in the house the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Durocher) quoted a statement I had made some time previously in which I had said that I conceived it the duty of a member of parliament to represent in the house the wishes of his constituency. And therefore, and for other reasons, I advocated at that time what I am expressing more fully now. The hon. member said I had inadvertently expressed a principle as useful to those who came from constituencies which voted "no" in the plebiscite as to those from constituencies which voted "yes". There was nothing at all inadvertent about my statement. The principle I then tried to make clear applies with equal force to you, my fellow members, who came from constituencies which voted "no" as to me, from a constituency which voted so overwhelmingly "yes".
I conceive it to be the duty of a member of parliament to obey the will of his electors. If we do that, we then hold parliament up as a mirror to the country. The will of the majority just naturally prevails. We shall all have done our duty, and, in this instance at least, progress will result.
Burke has been quoted as the authority that a member should do as he pleases, irrespective of the wishes of his constituency. Some hon. member says "hear, hear," but I for one am not prepared to follow Edmund Burke as an authority on democracy. Edmund Burke entered the British House of Commons in 1765 by grace of Lord Rockingham, who was at that time head of the whig landlord party in England. He entered parliament for the pocket constituency of Wendover, controlled- absolutely controlled-by Lord Verney. That is, he represented a rotten borough. While in the house-and I say this to his honour-he championed the rights of the American colonies, and in so doing won the approval of the commercial interests of the city of Bristol. At the following general election the people of that city did Edmund Burke the honour of electing him to the house from a real constituency. It was after his election, not
before, that Burke laid dawn the principle which has been quoted so frequently in succeeding years, the principle that the member is not a representative or a delegate from his constituency, but is there by some right to exercise his own good judgment. Then Burke proceeded to put his ideas into effect in practice as well as in precept.
Perhaps hon. members may be interested in knowing what happened to Burke. Well, he escaped defeat in the city of Bristol at the next general election by withdrawing from the contest. He proceeded to secure representation in another rotten borough. I am not likely to follow Burke as an authority on democracy. I look upon myself as a servant of my constituency; I am not its master.
While I am on this point let me say a word to my fellow-members who are French Canadians. I think I understand the attitude of the province of Quebec in connection with the question now before the house. I sympathize with hon. members in their difficulties, but they are not the only ones with difficulties. I think I can understand the attitude of a large section of the province of Quebec. In my judgment, that attitude is not vastly different from what was the attitude of all Canada only a few short years ago, say before the sending of a contingent to South Africa. There was a time when practically all, not all, but practically all Canadians were opposed to Canada becoming involved in non-Canadian wars. We disapproved in those days, and perhaps some of us do to-day, of the petty nationalism of Europe. We held in contempt the conscript armies of Europe. We admired the free armies of Great Britain.
At that time Canada was engaged in carrying on her own business. We were clearing the farms, we were building highways and railroads, we were building great cities, we were constructing a Canada. That was our destiny at that time. As a boy I remember the indignation with which a farmer neighbour of ours referred to the movement which he said was intended to "make soldiers of our boys." Much has happened since those days. There has been a development of public opinion in this country. We have all changed; We Canadians have been driven from that position by the irresistible logic of world events.
I think I have been a consistent Liberal; at all events I have been an enthusiastic and determined Liberal. But even I, in company with many another, the British of Great Britain and the Americans of the United States, have come to the conclusion that a well devised and reasonably enforced system

Mobilization Act-Mr. Roebuck


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to enter again upon a discussion of the problem that is before us on the third reading of this bill if I thought it would lead to a general debate and a repetition of the arguments we have heard already, pro and con. But I call Your Honour's attention to the fact that I did not complete my address on the second reading of the bill, not because of any discourtesy but perhaps, shall I say, a want of courtesy or lack of courtesy extended to me on that occasion. Therefore I feel there are things I wish to say, which it is my duty to say, and which I beg the indulgence of the house to permit me to say now.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has just said that the world situation demands action on our part. With that statement I agree. Then he added that in this bill we should not hand over to the government power to take the steps proposed, but rather that these matters should be brought to the floor of the house in detail so that every phase may be examined and passed upon by this house, and that, in addition, there should be joined to the conscription measure a further measure providing for the conscription of wealth. He seemed to object to the passing of conscription until he is satisfied upon all points of the financial programme of the present government. Well, it does seem to me that a procedure such as that suggested by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation would hardly be in keeping with his statement that world affairs demand action; because were we to follow out that programme I do not know when we would be through with this measure.
I sympathize with the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in his protest against extravagant attacks made as a result of the actions of himself and others in this house. The use of violence in language will not get us far in Canada; and the imputing of false motives to members of this house leads to confusion rather than to clear thinking. I join in his protest against the calling of names against those with whom we disagree. But perhaps I may comfort the leader of that party with just a word from Mother Goose. The old lady said that "sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you." We can therefore pass statements of that kind, and perhaps the least said the better.
The very purpose of this bill is to give into the hands of the government the power to bring in a conscriptive measure in this country. The principle has been laid down by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King): "not necessarily conscription, but conscription
fMr. Speaker.]
when necessary". With that principle I agree. I have always agreed to it. That is the stand I took in 1917, in the general election of that time, when I was a candidate supporting Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But the statement of principle still leaves open for consideration and decision the further question as to those conditions which will make necessary the passing of conscription. And I do not agree with the test that has been laid down. It is intimated that the one and only test of the necessity for the introduction of a selective service compulsory system is that the voluntary system has failed to produce either an arbitrary quota or sufficient men to provide reinforcements upon some formula that may be devised.
That is not the only test, and I submit to my fellow members in the house and to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the best test. Were we to wait until voluntary enlistment has failed we should be waiting on failure; we should be adopting a policy of defeat, a most inadvisable thing to do. Were we to wait until we could no longer secure men by voluntary enlistment for our forces, and then introduce a measure of conscription, we should make it assured that we would have from that time forward a full complement of unwilling men. And by doing so we should probably lay the foundation of failure, and we should certainly encourage the failure of the system which we might then adopt.
I submit it would be a terrible blow to Canadian morale and to the prestige of Canada were we publicly to admit that our young men will no longer voluntarily join our armed forces, and that it has been necessary for us to adopt some form of compulsion in order to induce our young men of soldier age and qualifications to maintain our army abroad. That would be a jar to the credit, morale and reputation of Canada.
In my opinion there is more in a compulsory selective draft system than the compulsion. There is the machinery provided for the selection of men who should go, and, almost as important as that, there is machinery for the selection of the men who should not go. I fancy that one is almost as important as the other. At the present time there are young men who are struggling with their consciences, wondering whether it is their duty to enlist, arguing about it and so on, young men who are perhaps being insulted by their neighbours for not enlisting, who, in the very nature of things, should not enlist. A general, complete system of selection would relieve those who should not go, as well as give a definite invitation to those who should go, and I think in that way would

Mobilization Act-Speaker's Ruling
prejudices-that I would rather go down to defeat than achieve victory in this province or elsewhere on the basis of race and religious prejudice. I say that again now.


Mr. GARDINER:: May I ask a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Will not the hon. gentleman admit that on one occasion I did go down to defeat in opposition to that kind of campaign?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, I will give the Minister of Agriculture credit for that.


Mr. McNIVEN:: And the Liberal party.


Major James William Coldwell: But I just want to point out that apparently among his followers in western Canada and the newspapers which support or have supported him, there is a fundamental change. And I will tell you why; because the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is a growing power in the west. They have tried during recent years to throw Russia at us. We have never had any association with the Communist party. Those who know me know that the Communist party had no use for me, because I have never tolerated their philosophy or their methods, and I do not intend to do so. To-day the Russian people are putting up a magnificent resistance. Russia is no longer a bogey, so that these people, some of whom have maintained power by various methods, by playing one end of the country against the other, now must find a new bogey. That new bogey, in the English-speaking part of Canada, is Quebec Catholic isolationism. That is what they are doing, and I say that so far as we are concerned we will have no part in it. I venture to suggest that those who are writing these stories know differently, that those who are writing these stories know perfectly well that I have sought no support from any member of this house representing the province of Quebec or any other province, and that members of this house have not sought my support, whether they come from the province of Quebec or any other province, on any understanding whatsoever. . I venture to say that those who are writing these stories know this statement to be true. I try and have tried to be honourable in this house and elsewhere in my dealings with the public. My sincerity has been questioned. Well, I will let my record throughout the long years stand as a test of sincerity.
So I say, Mr. Speaker, that we believe this war demands a total mobilization of all our resources, and until we have that total mobilization of all our resources we have no right to take the lives of our young men alone. But if we take all our resources, then we have .	44561-290
that right. I want to make that position plain, and for that reason I have made these few remarks on that score, and I would add a word to those newspapers with which I have disagreed but which I have always respected. I have respected the Manitoba Free Press. I get the Regina Leader-Post every day and enjoy reading it, and hitherto I have had nothing but fair treatment from the Saskatoon newspaper. But just let me say to them and those who write for them, that they are placing their feet upon a slippery road when they try to raise this question anew in Canada. We have seen this country bedevilled by a lack of national unity. We have seen this country bedevilled by religious and racial prejudices, and here we are in the middle of a war, with a group of newspapers that ought to know better and ought to have some sense of responsibility, deliberately stating that which is untrue in order to further the interests of those whom they believe they are supporting. With that, Mr. Speaker, I leave our record in this matter to the judgment of this house and the judgment of this country.


Georges Parent: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) reads as follows:
That the said bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instruction that they have power to amend it by allowing a full exemption to farmers' and fishermen's sons as well as persons employed in agriculture and the fishing industry.
I find that on February 19, as reported on
page 722 of Hansard, an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), which reads as follows:
That all the words after "this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers" in the amendment, be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(a) did not deem it proper to advise Your Excellency that the government should adhere to its commitments and the terms of its mandate against conscription for overseas service which it received from the people of Canada at the general elections held on March 26, 1940;
(b) that the farmers, farm employees, fishermen, fisheries employees and all persons engaged in industries connected with agriculture or with war industries, should be exempt from military service."
In other words the amendment then voted upon and negatived by a division of the house was exactly the same amendment as the one now moved. I refer to citation 403 of Beauchesne, which reads:
An amendment once negatived by the house cannot be proposed a second time.
As a result, I rule the amendment out of order.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Coldwell

We voted against the second reading of the government's bill on the ground I have stated. We supported the budget, it is true, in spite of our dislike of some of its features. We supported that budget because in this war we have never denied at any time the funds that the government needed to carry on the war.
May I say that I resent the kind of campaign that is being carried on by Liberal papers in western Canada, not only against this group but against all those who for various reasons sought to oppose this measure. I have here a copy of the Edmonton Bulletin of July 8. I am advised by legal men that if we wished we could bring suit against this paper for libel. It is a distinct libel on parliament. The heading of a front page editorial is, "Fifty-four were traitors." Then it goes on to say:
When second reading of the bill to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act-an amendment to permit the conscription of Canadian man-power for conscription overseas-was passed in the House of Commons last night, forty-six Quebec Liberals, two Quebec Independents and six C.C.F. members voted against it.
It is hard to believe that there are that many traitors in the country.
And the editorial ends up with these words:
All this constitutes treason. And they are traitors.
The Edmonton Bulletin is a Liberal paper, and that is the kind of editorial that the Liberal papers are putting across western Canada to-day.
When we turn to some of the other Liberal papers, we find for example the Regina Leader-Post, which describes our vote with the Quebec members by using the expression, "the C.C.F. and pea-soup,"-employing any term which they thought would raise prejudice against people who come from another province and with whom we happened to vote on this occasion. The Prime Minister, who has led the Liberal party through these years, has always professed to be anxious to promote national unity. The men who have followed the Prime Minister in western Canada, the papers that have supported him faithfully all through these years, are to-d'ay endeavouring to destroy national unity. They realize, as I realize-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask the hon.
member a question? Is he suggesting that Charlie Campbell's papers have always supported the leaders of the Liberal party in the west?


Major James William Coldwell: No; I am not, because Mr. Campbell has operated papers in two provinces, papers with different political affiliations. He loops the loop too, when it suits

him. But the papers to which I have referred, the Regina Leader-Post, and the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, which I am just about to quote, have been the most consistent supporters of the Minister of Agriculture, of the Prime Minister and of the Liberal party that we have in Canada.
What does the Star-Phoenix say? In its issue of Saturday last, July 18, it discusses the secret session. Hon. members know that on many occasions I urged the holding of a secret session before the hon. member for Gaspe asked for it in connection with the St. Lawrence situation. I had already asked that before the house adjourned we have a secret session to discuss the war situation generally. I am not going to divulge anything which took place in the secret session, but I can say that the discussion was not confined to the St. Lawrence basin or to the defence of our eastern shores. Yet because I joined in asking for that secret session, following the request of the hon. member for Gaspe, a request joined in also by the leader of the opposition, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix said:
A second interesting point is that Mr. Coldwell, C.C.F. leader, while admitting he did not know much about the St. Lawrence, nevertheless lined himself up with Mr. Roy. It may be remembered that Mr. Coldwell and his C.C.F. members, a few weeks ago, voted with the Quebec anti-conscriptionists and antiwar members against conscription of men. Here quite evidently is another turn in C.C.F. policy, a turn which lines them up with the Quebec anti-conscriptionists, isolationists, and antiBritish group.
In the neighbouring column of the same edition we have another statement. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) had made a speech on this matter in Saskatoon, and this is the comment of the Liberal Saskatoon Star-Phoenix:
Unfortunately Mr. Douglas did not clarify this contradiction in policy or explain the new brotherhood of C.C.F. and Quebec Catholic isolationism.
So we see that the Liberal party in western Canada is not only going to try to arouse antipathies on the basis of the war, but is going to do again what has been done before to the bedevilment of this country-raise the religious issue as well in opposition to us. And I say this-the Minister of Agriculture must know it-that nine years ago, to this very day, I believe, shortly after the manifesto of our Cooperative Commonwealth Federation had been adopted by the national convention in Regina, I addressed a public meeting there. I was then the provincial leader of the movement. Among other things I said-because we had had a terrible experience in our province in the raising of racial and religious

Mobilization Act-Mr. Coldwell
because they lacked food and munitions. Would we be foolish enough to organize the defeat of our armies by ruining agriculture?
Let us not forget that our agricultural production received a severe blow last year. It was reduced by approximately 38 per cent. In all the provinces many old or sick farmers had to abandon farming because compulsory military training deprived them of the neces-saiy labour to operate their farms. How many dairy herds were led to the abattoir because of the want of foresight and of the disastrous policy of the government with regard to agriculture, which I have so often condemned in this house? The beef situation, the rationing of butter, and all similar restrictions, could be easily avoided if the government would for one moment have regard to the misfortunes of agriculture and give back to the land the farm hands who are so necessary to its operation.
I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy):
That the said bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole -with instruction that they have power to amend it by allowing a full exemption to farmers' and fishermen's sons as well as persons employed in agriculture and the fishing industry.


Major James William Coldwell: I regret very much that at this stage of the session it is necessary for one to be in several places at once, as it were, so that it has been impossible for me to follow the debates in the house during the past few days. Even now there are members, including myself, who should be attending a meeting of an important committee which is reaching the report stage. However, I wish to say a few words before the bill is voted upon.
I believe we made our position abundantly clear on the second reading of the bill on July 7. I stated then, and I repeat now, that the grave war situation which faces the United Nations requires action and not further delay; that this house has the responsibility, to the country and to the people who sent members here to take all the decisions that may be necessary to safeguard the nation and to promote the common cause in which we are engaged, and that the house ought not to evade its responsibilities by allowing the government to adopt any measures without its approval, scrutiny and consent. To act otherwise and by order in council is in my opinion against all the democratic procedure which a democratic parliament should follow.
We have said too, ever since the war began, that if and when we had conscription it should involve not only the conscription of manpower for service in this war, but the conscription of industry and wealth on the same
terms, on the same basis, and at the same time as it was proposed to conscript manpower for any of our war purposes. The amendment proposed by the bill provides only that the government now shall have the power to conscript men for service overseas. Had the government in the months that have gone by used the mobilization act, which is on the statute book, to conscript industry and wealth on the same basis as men have already been conscripted in this war, the situation from our point of view would have been entirely different from what it is at the present time. This bill merely delays decision on the important question now before the country and before us. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), following the address of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) immediately before the vote on the second reading was taken, said that the government had looped the loop three times. I think that statement was correct. But the thing that surprised me was that the official opposition had looped the loop with the government an equal number of times by voting with it.
Every phase of the regulations made under this bill ought to be placed before the house. Instead of a bill of this description, amending the mobilization act, we should have before us a measure which we could discuss and consider and criticize. We know perfectly well that there has been no uniformity in the enforcement of the National Resources Mobilization Act across the country. We know that in Saskatchewan, for example, as I have said before, certain interpretations have been given by the board in that province which differ radically from interpretations given in other provinces. If we are to have equality of sacrifice, then we ought to have uniformity of enforcement in order to achieve some measure of equality. Therefore I say also that industry and wealth ought to be treated in exactly the same manner as we are treating man-power.
It has been said, of course, that the budget is conscription of industry and wealth. Is it? Look into the budget. We tried to amend it recently so that the excess profits tax would be 100 per cent. To-day 20 per cent is refundable; 20 per cent may be used by industry when this war is over as deferred dividends. There is no conscription of profits, even in the budget. Although in some respects it moves in the right direction, as I said in the budget debate its incidence is particularly heavy at the bottom; it is heavy in the middle brackets, but as you move upward the percentage of incidence of taxation grows less. By no stretch of the imagination can that be called conscription of either industry or wealth.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lacombe
refrain from sacrificing uselessly any of our national resources. The future will prove that we are justified, at this very grave moment, in requesting an exclusively Canadian policy. Before all, we must endeavour to live through this tremendous disaster which has fallen upon the world. We shall not attain this end if we weaken our own defence .with conscription for overseas service.
Speaking in this house on July 24, 1917, Sir Wilfrid Laurier made the following statements-Hansard, pages 3727 and 3729:
I have my views upon conscription. They have not changed. It is not a pleasure for me to find myself at variance with so many of the friends I have around me; but I thought and still believe that a measure of conscription, under the circumstances, was an apple of discord, and I could not accept it. That is all I have to say upon that point.
But I may be asked: what is your policy; it is not sufficient for the opposition to say "nay" to any proposition, what is your policy? Sir, I laid my policy before parliament upon the second reading of the bill. I asked that a referendum should be had and the judgment of the people taken upon this question. . . . But when the conscription measure was proposed I had to oppose it, and why? Because, presented as it had been presented, before the country, it had been made an instrument of coercion.
It is a denial of those principles of democracy which we hold dear and sacred. I oppose this bill because it has in it the seeds of discord and disunion; because it is an obstacle and a bar to that union of heart and soul without which it is impossible to hope that this confederation will attain the aims and ends that were had in view when confederation was effected. Sir, all my life I have fought coercion; all my life I have promoted union; and the inspiration which led me to that course shall be my guide at all times, so long as there is a breath left in my body.
The inspiration, sir, which led Sir Wilfrid Laurier to that course should be the guide of his successor, the present Prime Minister.
The results of the plebiscite held on April 27 last are not at all conclusive. The government must have a very clear and precise mandate to propose such an exceedingly serious measure. It lacks the mandate to do so. The question, "Are you in favour of or against conscription?" has never been asked of the people of Canada. Sir, we want no more hypocrisy. We are fighting to preserve whatever good and praiseworthy elements are still left in democracy. According to the very words of Laurier, we are fighting to maintain government of the people, for the people and by the people.
Why not be loyal, honest and frank with the people? Why not frankly tell the electorate what we intend to do? The tremendous sacrifices of the population of Canada in the war effort deserve something more noble than electoral pledges, corruption and lies.

Why repeal section 3 of the mobilization act? Is it because Canada has not fulfilled its duty, all its duty, in this war? Absolutely not. Canada's population is only 11,500,000. In spite of its small population our country has organized eight divisions. Over 130,000 men are in the Canadian air force, and more than 33,000 men in the Canadian navy. The Canadian navy has convoyed more than 9,000 ships, and Canada has overseas a well-trained and fully equipped Canadian army. Who believes that Canada has failed in its duty in this war, when the Canadian air force and the Canadian navy are fighting on all fronts in the world? Who will assert that Canada is doing nothing for the prosecution of the war, when the Canadian people pay a tremendous income tax and are sending gifts of munitions, foodstuffs and billions to England?
It is a tragic joke to hear these extremists asserting, in order to serve better their con-scriptionist feelings, that Canada has not fulfilled its duty. I protest as firmly as I can against such cynical statements from those who believe that Canada must ruin its own defence, all its natural resources, all its income, all its farming community, in these extremely serious times. All the sacrifices made by the people of Canada in this war constitute a solemn assertion that our population does not require conscription to fulfil its duty and all its duty. Conscription will ruin not only the defence of Canada but also the magnificent war effort of our country. Conscription will be a disgrace, a downfall, considering the most generous help which this country is giving to the united nations.
We are still asking, Mr. Speaker, that farmers, farmers' sons and fishermen be exempted from military training. I need not recall to this house all the arguments I have advanced to this effect. Food production in Canada has decreased to such an extent that all kinds of restrictions are imminent. In a country like ours it would be absurd to ration farm produce. The food required by our armed forces and our civilian population should and will remain plentiful in Canada. Our immense natural wealth is hardly developed. Cultivated lands represent but a very small part of our national domain. How can we explain, then, that the government will not adopt the strong measures which alone will enable our farmers, farmers' sons and farm hands to return to the land? By all means we must keep our army and civilian population from starvation. We must prevent rationing, which necessarily engenders anaemia and apathy, the diseases which are the source of all weakness and which defeated the nations that are now dominated by the axis powers. They were subdued

Mobilization Act-Mr. Lacombe
The idea that every twenty years this country should automatically and as a matter of course take part in a war overseas for democracy or self-determination of other small nations, that a country which has all it can do to run itself should feel called upon to save, periodically, a continent that cannot run itself, and to these ends risk the lives of its people, risk bankruptcy and political disunion, seems to many a nightmare and sheer madness.
I never used such language. Although I have never boasted of it, I should like to refer to an honour which was paid me, one that I prize very highly. It is a letter which I received from the Imperial Veterans' Corps in Ontario precisely at the time the Prime Minister complained that we were obstructing to an extent injurious to the defence of Canada. This letter is written on the letterhead of the Imperial Veterans' Corps in Ontario. It is dated Toronto, March 10, 1937, and reads:
J. F. Pouliot, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
Referring to an article in the press recently reporting your comments regarding honorary colonels in the Canadian army, I am glad to convey to you the approval of the members of this organization, who at a general meeting went on record as being opposed to honorary colonels in the armies, as it was unjust to men who gave their all to the empire during the years 1914-18. The meeting commended you for your action.
I am, sir,
Yours respectfully,
Arthur F. Wright,
Secretary.
This incident was reported in the Toronto Telegram as follows:
Corps Opposed Honorary Rank for Canadians.
Forty new Members Join Imperial Veterans' Corps at Fourth Battalion Club.
Imperial Veterans' Corps, meeting at the fourth battalion club, Yonge and Queen streets, went on record as being opposed to honorary colonels in the armies in Canada.
Presided over by the president, J. Oibson, 40 new members were initiated into the corps, with past president Eric McLellan officiating. The new members were welcomed into the association by the president.
J. Lees, representing the federation of ex-service men, gave an interesting address after which a vote was taken and carried that the imperial veterans affiliate with the federation.
Robert Pendock, attacked Canada's "tin soldiers", * referring to the quotations of Hon. Mr. Pouliot, Liberal member from Quebec, in regard to honorary colonels in the armies. Mr. Pendock was of the opinion that "honorary colonels not only did have a demoralizing and degrading effect on Canadian armies, but are unjust to the men who gave their all to the empire in 1914 and 1918."
When a motion was passed that a letter be sent to Mr. Pouliot commending him for his attitude, the crowd roared approval.
To conclude, I regret very much that those who are in favour of conscription for overseas appear to be suffering from a disease which is described medically as follows:
Presbyopia-an imperfection of vision in which near objects are seen less distinctly than those at a distance.
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two
Mountains): The bill for conscription has reached its final stage. It is now up for third reading. At this decisive moment we are still standing up to fight it. Many times in this house and at public meetings I have asserted that as long as I lived I would oppose this disastrous bill for conscription. I shall not fail in my task. I do not care about the attacks and treachery of those who should be the first ones to support us. Before history and the country they must bear the responsibility of their hesitation.
On July 7 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) asserted that he did not intend to allow another debate on conscription should he decide to call the members together to ask for a vote of confidence. I protest against these, tactics. They are worthy of a dictator. I protest with the same energy as that with which Laurier protested when he opposed prorogation and the gag applied by Borden in this house in 1917.
The Prime Minister and this government can no longer be called Liberal, because every day they are getting farther away from Laurier's doctrines and are trampling upon the principles which he defended during his whole life. On several occasions I have warned the government against its negligence in protecting Canada and its eagerness to adopt an external policy which would prove disastrous for the defence of our own country. Instead of establishing conscription, could the government not fulfil its first duty towards Canada, that is, to protect our shores and our territory? Otherwise it will be responsible for abandoning Canada to the enemy. The government is now in possession, since the secret session, of precious information concerning the defence of Canada. When the enemy is really at our door, we must organize, before all, the defence of our country. We must not sacrifice elsewhere anything which may be necessary for the protection of Canadian territory. .Why was defeat brought down upon the conquered countries? If we study the misfortunes of most of our allies we shall find that the main cause of their defeat was a lack of well-organized resistance against the enemy. The fate of every country subdued by the enemy will exemplify this statement. That is why it is the first duty of the government to organize the defence of Canada and to

Mobilization Act-Mr. Pouliot
Mr! POULIOT: I will send the clipping to the minister.


Mr. RALSTON:: I said Pearl Harbour.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is the extract:
Defence Minister Ralston gave the House of Commons word late yesterday that the Japanese have made only one actual attack on the United States naval base at Dutch harbour, Alaska, correcting information he gave the chamber earlier that there apparently had been three.
I do not need to quote more. I shall give this to the Minister of National Defence. He may be kept busy reading it, and it will be good for him.
Then, there is another argument-Oh, he will not read it. I am not surprised. He will not learn anything. There is another reason given by the government to persuade the Canadian people that we must have enlistment for overseas service. They say they have private information. What is the use of having diplomatic envoys in all the countries of the world when they are not better informed?
During the special session of 1939 I asked a question of the Prime Minister, which is reported at page 117 of Hansard. At that time I asked if the high commissioner in England had the same opportunity as ambassadors to discuss matters of state with the official representatives of other countries. What was the answer given? It was said that he does not have official relations with the ambassadors of other countries, but that he was getting his information through the dominions office, drop by drop. That was not information. It was propaganda which was conveyed through the dominions office to Mr. Vincent Massey and then to Ottawa.
I admit that Mr. and Mrs. Massey have done a great deal for the soldiers overseas by way of the establishment of hospitals, and so on. But they are the most imperialistic crowd in the world. Besides that, what is said about the British war office? We have heard how it has been described by Lord Fisher, by Sir Roger Keyes, by Somerset Maugham and by others who have seen the operation of it. They have shown what brains there are in the British war office.
According to a dispatch of July 30, 1940, and according to a news item of the same date from Mr. Cummings, which is published in the Ottawa Citizen, the British war office was denounced because of red tape-and that is not surprising. What is the real reason for conscription in this country? Why is the defence of Canada forgotten? Why is the future of this country put aside and destroyed? I have the answer in a recent news item from

the Canadian Press. I believe the date is June 27. The translation is as follows:
Captain Harold Balfour, under secretary of state for air, has declared to the house in London that the raid made by more than 1,000 air units would not have been possible without the help of men who had graduated in Canada.
I interrupt my remarks to refer to the official report of the standing committee on railways and shipping. I shall not send a copy of this to the Minister of National Defence because he would not read it. What I said has been denied by the minister; therefore I shall read to the house the question put to the minister and his reply. I am sorry I cannot read all the questions and answers. I quote from page 141:
Mr. Pouliot:	I understand that such jobs
cannot be filled by the patients of the Lady Grey hospital or the Lake Edward sanatorium -they cannot become brakemen or firemen- and you cannot expect men who are unfit for military service to be brakemen and firemen on a train, can you?
Hon. Mr. Ralston: I would have to leave that with the railways; it is a railway question.
It is impossible to get any information from his department. If the minister does not know what is going on there, I am not going to instruct him. .


James Layton Ralston: That is not what my hon. friend said.


Jean-François Pouliot: I object. This is my
time.


James Layton Ralston: 


Jean-François Pouliot: 


James Layton Ralston: 


Jean-François Pouliot: I know you do not care;
you do not care about the Canadian people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
My hon. friend-
I object. Sit down. I do not care-


Jean-François Pouliot: I am addressing the Chair and I do not want to be interrupted. What makes me doubly sorry are the remarks of the Prime Minister not long ago in connection with objections raised by some members of parliament in 1936, 1937 and 1938 when the estimates of the Department of National Defence were before the house. He said, as reported at page 4009 of Hansard:
In 1937, in 1938 and in 1939, some of these hon. members opposed the preparations for the defence of Canada because they maintained that Canada was in no danger. If I interpret their words aright, they are still prepared to overlook the designs of the enemy, and to discount his strength, despite the fact that his design of world conquest is increasingly clear, and despite the continued success of his arms.
I never used language as strong as that of the Prime Minister. Here is what he said in 1939, as reported on page 2419 of Hansard:

Mobilization Act-Mr. Pouliot


James Layton Ralston: I should like to say-


Jean-François Pouliot: I want the minister not
to interrupt me.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is making a statement with regard to procedure. I want him to produce the proceedings and the minutes of the railway committee in which I made any such statement, that the railways decided who should be called for military service and who should not. Then I should like anything the hon. member has to substantiate the procedure -which he now alleges takes place, in which the Department of National Defence itself decides on the matter of deferment. I say both those statements are incorrect.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I will ask the Clerk of the House if he will kindly call for the reports of the railway committee, which are downstairs, and particularly volume 3. I have little time at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, and I am always surprised when the minister jumps up like a jack-in-the-box when I am speaking.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend will
stick to the facts,


Jean-François Pouliot: There he is again, like a
jack-in-the-box. It is impossible to develop an argument when one is interrupted all the time either by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) or by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who seem to be Siamese twins. I will not stand for it any longer, sir; I hope and trust you will apply the rule very strictly to everyone, because here we are all the same. No hon. member is more important than another, and a private member has the same rights in this house as the Prime Minister or the leader of the opposition, under the guidance of Mr. Speaker.
I was very sorry when I was called to withdraw the word "pompous" as applied to brass hats. But I was not surprised when the Minister of National Defence described as "futile" the very important question which stands on to-day's order paper as No. 3, and which has not been answered since June 12. To describe brass hats as they should be described I will use the language of a great Englishman, no less a man than Admiral Fisher. I take this description from the Montreal Gazette of November 26, 1941: Brass Hats in Black Uniforms
Toward the end of the third act of The Devil's Disciple, George Bernard Shaw makes General Burgoyne say to his stuffed-shirt major: "Take it quietly. Major Swindon; your friend the British soldier can stand up to anything except the British war office."
That was some thirty-five years ago. About ten years later, the late great Admiral "Jackie" Fisher delivered a broadside which Judith Robinson dug up and quoted in last week's News; when the generals rebuked him for encroaching on their territory by preparing anti-zeppelin defences. Admiral Fisher replied: "Gentlemen, I have the responsibility of protecting the admiralty from German bombs. You at the war office are safe-the Germans will never bomb that establishment."
And what does Sir Roger Keyes, D.S.O., C.M.G., hero of Zeebrugge, say? These are his words:
Brass hats at Whitehall have frustrated every worth-while offensive action I have ever tried to make. They have succeeded in thwarting or delaying execution until we either have been forestalled or actions have been taken too late for success. Until the staff system is thoroughly overhauled we will always be too late for everything we undertake.
I regret not to have the time to read the article in the Gazette in full. However I hold in my hand another editorial, this time from a Tory imperialist paper in Ottawa, the Ottawa Journal, which quotes no less an Englishman than Somerset Maugham:
I can sum up the cause of the collapse of France in very few words. The general staff was incompetent; the officers were vain, ill-instructed in modern warfare and insufficiently determined; the men were dissatisfied and half-hearted. The people at large were kept ignorant of everything that they should have been informed of; they were profoundly suspicious of the government and were never convinced that the war was a matter that urgently concerned them; the propertied classes were more afraid of bolshevism than of German domination; their first thought was how to keep their money safely in their pockets; the government was inept, corrupt and in part disloyal. Is it a miracle that France was defeated? It would have been a miracle if she hadn't been.
Mr. Maugham concludes:
The scum will be swept away. There are men in France who have integrity, patriotism and courage, thousands upon thousands of them.
Another argument is that the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940 will have to be changed so as to permit our men to go outside of Canada for the defence of this country. Is it necessary? My answer is no, because the Prime Minister stated in the house on February 27 that trainees could be sent to the United States, and that the pledge of no conscription for overseas was not a barrier to that.
Then on June 5 the Minister of National Defence declared that the Dutch Harbour action brought the joint scheme of defence into effect. * That is another reason used by the government.


James Layton Ralston: Pearl Harbour, not Dutch Harbour.
Mobilization Act-Mr. Pouliot

According to the Ottawa Journal of February 24, a young Belgian artillery officer declared that nazi four-motor bombers now stationed in Norway could make the trip easily from Norway to Canada, and that Canada was within range of bombers from Norway, and that Canadians should not feel that they are safe from the horrors of war.
Now, sir, you know very well that it is important to protect this country, not only for the safety of the Canadian people but also to safeguard and protect all ways of communication by preventing the landing of supplies. Our ways of communication by water and by rail are vital to the help that we are giving and that we may give in the future to the allied countries. Therefore this country needs adequate protection.
Is it believable that although the mobilization act of 1940 was designed for the protection of this land, nothing of importance yet has been done in that regard? What about the suggestion that we should improve the military roads that are so vital to our communications? What about the suggestion with regard to mobile units? These suggestions have joined the one I made, in regard to the picture of his majesty in the recruiting booths; they are in the waste-paper basket of the Minister of National Defence.
Then, sir, there is another reason for which it is important that we change the present policy of the Department of National Defence. I take this from the words of the Prime Minister himself, in reply to my suggestion, a suggestion which I was the only member of parliament to make, with regard to recruiting a regiment in my own constituency for the defence of this land. Here are the words of the Prime Minister as they may be found at page 922 of Hansard for June 19, 1940:
I pointed out to him that in doing that he might be making the greatest mistake possible with respect to the national interest; that, to win this war, we might wish to keep at work in the forests the men who are now working in the forests, to provide the timber which will be required for docks and wharves and required immediately; that the men who are working in the factories may be a thousand times more useful to the government of this country in giving their skilled labour to the manufacture of aircraft, munitions, or other weapons of war than they could possibly be in lining up and presenting themselves for military service; equally that on the farms, if we are to perform what will be expected of us, rve shall need all the production that can be effectively and rapidly carried out on the farms of our country.
It was. precisely on account of that very statement by the Prime Minister that I wrote the Minister of National Defence on May 16, 1941:

Eleven months ago, the Prime Minister pointed out to me that in doing voluntary recruiting for the defence of Canada, I might be making the greatest mistake possible with respect to the national interest.
Would there be no mistake possible with respect to the national interest in doing it for overseas service? In other words, how can I do, at your request and for another country, what I have been precluded to do by the Prime Minister for our native country?
Several arguments have been used with regard to the establishment of conscription in this country, as though it were to be a new move. It is not a new move. Conscription was commenced precisely two weeks after I wrote that letter to the Minister of National Defence. It was established by and in virtue of order in council P.C. 4759, dated Friday, June 27, 1941, when all avenues of employment were closed to men of military age who were not already called for training. In the advertisements for positions, published by the civil service commission, one paragraph reads as follows:
Order in council P.C. 4759 of June 27, 1941, provided that no male person of military age shall be appointed to the public service unless he is ineligible for service in the forces. Military age has been set as from 18 to 45 years inclusive. Among successful male candidates within these ages, except veterans of the great war of 1914-18 or the present war, only those will receive appointment who, after examination by an army medical board, have been declared unfit for military service.
Since then that order has been made much tighter. Now the only men who can secure employment in war industry of any description, including the railways, must be unfit for service, or either under or over the military age. So that we see boys of sixteen and and seventeen who have to go far from home in order to get work to help their families, and no man who is fit for military service and of military age can secure employment even in a war industry. I did put a question to the Minister of National Defence when he appeared as a witness before the committee on railways and shipping. He told me that it was up to the railway to decide whether or not a man who was called for training was indispensable to the railway. I know what happens. A notice is sent to the trainee by the registrar, and the trainee has to pass on that notice to the foreman of the shop. The foreman of the shop sends it to the head office of the region. The head office of the region sends it to the Department of National Defence, where a postponement is either granted or denied. Then it is returned by the military attache to the registrar with the black ball of the Department of National Defence; and how is it that the minister-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Pouliot
whether there are any new regulations in regard to sending parcels to England in view of the shortage of boats? If so, what are those regulations?	.
Hon. W. P. MULOCIv (Postmaster General): The hon. member sent me notice of the question a moment ago. I shall be glad to give a statement to-morrow.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IV. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCO IS POULIOT (Temis-couata): My only hope to-day is, Mr. Speaker, that although you were born in that great country, Scotland, you are a Canadian at heart; and my deep regret is, sir, that some of those who were bom in this country are not as good Canadians as you are.
I shall not insist on bringing to your attention some facts that would have been qualified by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) as an outrage on parliamentary practice; I mean the railroading of this bill in committee of the whole last night. But, sir, under the shadow and protection of the Chair when you sit in it I feel more secure to express freely my views about this bill, which is of the utmost importance for this country right now and also for the future.
The fact that some of us are opposing this legislation does not mean that we are disloyal Canadian citizens. It means that we have the right, inasmuch as we are members of this house, even more than the conscientious objectors, the Jehovah's Witnesses and all the cranks whose views are to be expressed freely if the report of the committee on the defence of Canada regulations that was tabled this morning is adopted. It means that members of parliament have the right to express their views in this house freely, without fear or favour, and thinking only <of the public interest of the Canadian people.
We French Canadians are not disloyal. We have the utmost respect and the greatest admiration for Their Majesties the King and Queen. This is the reason why as a private member of parliament I have suggested that a good likeness of His Majesty the King, who is the commander-in-chief of the Canadian Army, should be in all recruiting offices. But when I offered that suggestion I realized once more that the Minister of National Defence had not understood what I had said in plain
English. I was referring to recruiting booths or offices, and he in his reply mentioned messes. He said on May 6-Hansard, page 2202:
The hon. member for Temiscouata asked about having a picture of the king and queen in the various messes. He spoke of His Majesty as commander-in-chief. That is an error.
The minister added that he would take the suggestion into consideration. My suggestion of having a picture of His Majesty the King, the commander-in-chief of our army, in all recruiting offices has joined all other representations that have been made to the Minister of National Defence by any private member; they can be found in his old waste-paper basket.
Well, sir, taking into account what has been said by the leader of the three branches of the army, I want to mention in the first place . that early in April General Brown said:
The reserve force may have to fight and it must be ready to fight as soon as possible.
After all, there is no more war overseas than there is here now, and we may have some here sooner than they have, in view of the threats to our coast.
That was the view of the army, the militia. What was the view of the navy? Here it is in an interview published in the Evening Telegram, Toronto, of March 25 last:
U-boats may try raiding St. Lawrence in summer, Canadian admiral warns.
Three services defending maritimes ready for visits by Hun craft, is assurance.
The word "ready" is used.
By J. H. Fisher, Telegram staff writer.
Ottawa, March 24.-German submarines may attempt sinking merchantmen in the gulf of St. Lawrence, this summer, Vice-Admiral P. W. Nelles, chief of the naval staff, and Rear-Admiral G. C. Jones, in command at Halifax, said to-day in an interview relating to east coast naval operations.
These top-ranking officers in the Canadian naval service declared that it would be quite feasible for enemy U-boats to venture into the gulf in the hope that they may be able to pick off a cargo vessel, but they indicated that the three services defending the Canadian maritimes are ready for any visit of this nature.
And you know, sir, as all hon. members do, that there have been sinkings by enemy submarines on several occasions. The interview continues:
"It is a practical proposition," Vice-Admiral Nelles declared, and Rear-Admiral Jones explained that with the coming of the longer days the opportunities for the U-boats will increase. He added, however, that the longer days will also make it easier for the air force to detect and attack these rattlesnakes of the sea.
What was done for the protection of our waterways and of our shores by the navy no one knows.
[Stage Direction]
Hong Kong Commission
[Stage Direction]
6.	Are they married or single?
7.	What medical category are they under for military purposes?
8.	Were their appointments approved by the Canadian Legion or any other military organization?
9.	Have they been called up for military service and received postponement?
10.	If not, when will they be called up?
11.	Is this a class of work that could not be done by men over military age, or veterans?
12.	Have any veterans' organizations been asked if they have any men with the necessary qualifications available for these positions?
13.	Were applicati ns called in the usual way for these positions?
14.	Why was order in council No. 4759 ignored in these appointments?

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	How many persons now in the employ of the civil service commission, examination branch, are between the ages of 17 and 45?
2.	Have any been granted military exemption
or postponement from order in council P.C. 4759?	,
3.	Have any of the following been called, and granted exemption or postponement, and if so, when were they called, why were they exempted or postponed, and for what length of time was the postponement granted: J. C. Rutledge. Leslie Smith. Rex Boyd, Carson Jones, Gordon Doherty, Richard Moore, Harold Irwin, C. E. Rice?
4.	What are the ages of the above mentioned, and on what dates did they enter the civil service commission as examiners?
5.	Were they married or single prior to July
15.	1940?



QUESTION OF FINANCLM, ASSISTANCE-SHORTAGE OF REGISTERED NURSES THROUGH ENLISTMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. CORA T. CASSELMAN (Edmonton East) :	I wish to direct a question to the
Minister of Pensions and National Health. In view of the very serious shortage of registered nurses owing to the number of nurses going on active service with the military forces, will the government consider giving financial assistance to young women who wish to enter training for professional work and to graduate nurses who might do administrative work on the teaching staff?
Georges Parent: That question should be
placed on the order paper.

Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Pensions and National Health):	I wish to
table order in council P.C. 72/6073, which provides for a grant of $115,000 for the training of nurses.



HONG KONG COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice by reason of the discussion which will take place on the question of the Hong Kong inquiry. Is it the opinion of the Department of Justice that, or has an opinion been secured, whether or not,' any reference to the letters written to the Prime Minister and to the leaders of the various parties, in so far as those letters contain references to the evidence taken by the commission, would render the persons making such references liable to contempt of court before the commissioner on the inquiry, or whether or not the extraordinary powers conferred upon the commissioner terminated with the bringing down of the report by the commission?


Georges Parent: That is a question which really should be placed on the order paper, but in view of the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister I will leave it to the minister in charge to answer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This question is important and
pressing in view of the fact that we are to proceed to-day with the discussion of the Hong Kong report.


Georges Parent: I will leave it to the
minister to reply.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): The hon. member sent me a notice of the second part of the question beginning, "Has the government secured a legal opinion from the Department of Justice or elsewhere, . . . " and as the hon. member read that part of the question and as I received it from him, the answer would be in the negative: no opinion has been secured. The hon. gentleman inserted, before that portion of which he gave me notice, the words-if I got them correctly-"Is it the opinion of the Department of Justice or has the government secured legal opinion from the Department of Justice or elsewhere?" The answer to that is that the matter has not been considered by the Department of Justice.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Would the Postmaster General tell the house

Questions
906 and 802 of the cadastre of the parish of Pointe Claire, and if so, what was the price paid?
2.	Has the same A. G. Houghton sold this property to the C.N.R. for one dollar and other considerations, and if so, what are the other considerations?
3.	Has the C.N.R. rented the same property to the air force for the erection of a manning depot at Lachine, and if so, for what period and at what price?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Mr. C. G. Houghton, a Canadian National Railway property department official, acting for the Canadian National Railways, purchased the property in question in consideration of $6,000.
2.	$6,000.
3. Part of the said property and some adjoining land, previously owned by the railway company, has been leased to the Department of National Defence for the duration of the war and one year thereafter, at annual rental of $1,500.



CANADIAN NAVY-COOPERATION WITH FREE FRENCH FLEET ON ATLANTIC COAST

Thomas Langton Church: Is the Canadian navy cooperating with or giving any assistance to the Free French fleet of General de Gaulle, on behalf of our allies, and aiding the good work of the Free French fleet in protecting Canada and the United States in the Atlantic, St. Lawrence gulf and islands in the neighbourhood?


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: Stand.


Thomas Langton Church: Can the minister not answer these questions?


Angus Lewis Macdonald: can give an oral answer now. The Canadian navy is endeavouring to cooperate with any navy or any unit of any navy of the allied nations.


Thomas Langton Church: That is not an answer; it is only an excuse.


Angus Lewis Macdonald: The answer is yes.



DUNDURN, SASK., MILITARY CAMP

Mr. BENCE:: 1.	Is the military camp at Dundurn, Saskatchewan, being used to the fullest extent of its facilities for the training of troops?
2.	If it is not being so used give the reasons therefor?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	The military camp at Dundurn, Saskatchewan, is at present being converted from its former use as the site of an engineer training centre and a machine gun training centre, to that of an armoured corps training
centre which will train reinforcements for reconnaissance units. When this conversion is completed the present facilities for the training of troops at the latter camp will be used to their fullest extent.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



MUNITIONS AND SUPPLY-BITS AND PIECES WORK IN MANITOBA

Mr. MACKENZIE (Neepawa):: Under the bits and pieces programme, what value in work has been given out or sublet, (a) in the province of Manitoba, (b) to country shops outside Winnipeg?


Mr. HOWE:: The bits and pieces programme was instituted by the industry and subcontract coordination branch of the department. This branch does not give out work or negotiate subcontracts. It assists government purchasing branches and prime contractors in finding production capacity where contracts or subcontracts may be placed. Statistics are not available in the Department of Munitions and Supply to permit an accurate reply to this question.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Thomas Langton Church: Why is not more recognition given in naval announcements to the good work done by Canada's merchant marine on the seven seas and on inland lakes and waters of Canada?


Mr. McLARTY:: Return tabled.


MAJOR J. S. YUILL
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Is Major J. S. Yuill employed by the government in censor work?
2.	If so, for what period has he been employed?
3.	What salary is he paid monthly?
4.	What were his total monthly expenses in (a) 1941, (b) 1942?
5.	What have 1 een the additional expenses in connection with his duties?
6.	What have been the total salary and expenses paid to date, stating date of employment?


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-R. JONES AND C. MOORE
Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: 1.	Are Mr. R. Jones and Mr. C. Moore employed by the civil service commission as examiners in British Columbia or elsewhere?
2.	If so, what salaries do they receive and when were they appointed?
3.	What qualifications have they for this class of work ?
4.	Are they under 30 years of age?
5.	What are their respective ages?
External Affairs

ambassador in a day. We have seen the mistakes which have been made in this war. The lack of a good diplomat practically caused the war.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will this resolution have
a retroactive effect for the benefit of some men who have been in the diplomatic service, but who are not now in it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The estate of
one person will be affected. As my hon. friend is aware, Mr. Loring Christie, who was for some years in the Department of External Affairs, died while at his post as minister in Washington. He was, while in the service, contributing to a superannuation fund. But all the benefits his estate would have derived, had he continued on in the civil service, are lost unless the provisions of this act can be made applicable to his estate. He left the civil service at the .instance of the government to take the post in Washington which, in the large sense of the word, is a civil service post, certainly a public service post. The committee will, I think, agree it would be unfair to his widow if the estate were to be deprived of the benefits which otherwise would have accrued to it, had he been permitted to continue his contributions to the superannuation fund.
Of course the contributions which would have been made will have to be made to be refunded to the treasury before any benefits can accrue later. Mr. Jean Desy's is another case in point. These are the only cases which would be retroactive.
To-day Mr. Desy is minister in Brazil. During the years he was in the Department of External Affairs he was contributing to the superannuation fund, but when appointed first to Belgium and later moved to Brazil he ceased to contribute to the fund and ceases to get any benefits from it unless opportunity is given to him to restore the amount to the fund which he should have been contributing right along, and to continue to contribute in order to secure the benefits accruing at the end.
, Unless we are to be deprived of drawing from our permanent civil service for men for these diplomatic posts, something of this kind is absolutely necessary. Moreover, it is wholly right.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would it not benefit
another ex-minister, also?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; those are the only ones I know of.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about Brigadier
Vanier.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Brigadier
Vanier's position is covered, I believe, by the fact that he is entitled to draw a pension under the provisions of some act of the Department of National Defence. He is not affected by this bill, so far as I know.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mackenzie King moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 120, to amend the Department of External Affairs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, July 23, 1942