[Stage Direction]
Second report of special committee on war expenditures.-Mr. Fournier (Hull).

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'BRIEN:
1.	How many depositors in all the chartered
banks of Canada have savings accounts amounting to, (a) under $1,000;	(b) between $1,000
and $2,000;	(c) between $2,000 and $3,000;
(d) between $3,000 and $4,000; (e) between $4,000 and $5,000;	(f) between $5,000 and
$10,000; (g) between $10,000 and $25,000; (h) over $25,000?
2.	How many depositors with trust companies or similar institutions authorized to accept deposits of money for accounts are there in each of the above mentioned categories?
3.	How many are there in each of the above mentioned categories in each province and, if the information is available, in each county in New Brunswick?
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1. Section 114 (11) of the Bank Act requires the chartered banks to make an annual return classifying their deposits in Canada according to certain classes. The last return was for October 31, 1941, and the details of the consolidated return are as follows:
Deposits payable
after notice	Number	Amount
Deposits of $1,000 or less 3,951,585	$496,309,650
Deposits over $1,000 to ($5 ooo	 264,641	522,313,498
Deposits over $5,000 to
$25,000	 31,267	272,538,827
Deposits over $25,000 to
$100,000	 2,270	99,623,904
Deposits in excess of
$100,000	  615	195,557,118
Adjustment representing certified cheques, interest accrued on interest-bearing accounts
items in transit, etc	 5,357,082
Total	 4,250,378	$1,591,700,079


Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Has the government established, or does it propose to establish a publicity branch to be known as "consumer information service ?
2.	If so, what, in detail, are the functions to be performed by such a service?
3.	Have the services of Mr. Leonard Knott been engaged by the government as coordinator of this service, or in any other capacity in connection with this service?
4.	If so, what are Mr. Knott's qualifications for the position to which he has been appointed?
5.	When was such appointment made?
6.	What salary and/or allowances does Mr. Knott receive?
7.	Have any other persons been appointed to the staff of this service?
8.	If so, (a) what are the names of persons so appointed; (b) what salary and/or allowance does each such person receive?
9.	Were such appointments made following competitive examinations duly advertised?
10.	What are the qualifications and former occupations of each person appointed to the staff of this service?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	Consumer Information Service has been part of Public Information activities since October 1941.
2.	To correlate consumer information prepared by various other departments of government interested in this work; to undertake distribution of this material for these departments when they so request, and to act as the correlating and distributing organization for those departments which request these facilities.
3.	Yes, as coordinator, on a month to month basis while organization is being completed.
4.	Canadian born; graduate of the university of Manitoba; extensive newspaper experience in Toronto, Hamilton and Montreal, both as a writer and editor, and further extensive experience in publicity.
5.	May 11, 1942.
6.	$400 per month salary.
7.	Yes.
8.	(a) Anna M. Speers, $2,040 per annum.
(b)	Maud Ferguson, $2,100 per annum.
(c)	Ann Donnelly, $1,620 per annum.
(d)	Mrs. Frances McArthur, $1,080 per annum.
9.	No, but all appointees certified as to qualifications and merit by the civil service commission.
Questions

10. (a) Former Occupation-Employed as supervisor of homemaking schools in the province of Manitoba by the Manitoba Department of Education.
Qualifications-Graduated in Home Economics from university of Manitoba 1930; M.A. university of Manitoba 1932, in Economics of Consumption (after work at London School of Economics, London, England); Postgraduate work in adult education methods and consumer education at university of Minnesota in summer of 1941.
(b)	Employed by the Calgary Herald for ten years as reporter and feature writer; for six years woman's page editor.
(c)	Army Public Relations, Department of National Defence. Woman's Editor, Edmonton Journal; Woman's page staff writer, Globe and Mail.
(d)	Editor of Women's Household problems column for London Free Press.


FARM LOAN BOARD-REPORTS OF BRANCH MANAGERS
Mr. REID:: Are any reports received weekly, monthly or periodically by the Canadian farm loan board from the various branch managers, dealing with applications, loans and collections?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Yes, daily information in respect of loans granted, loan disbursements, moneys received in bank, insurance renewals, appraisal expenses, individual collection reports, individual appraisal reports; et cetera; fortnightly reports on the number of applications dealt with; monthly reports on loans in process of disbursement, yearly reports on number of applications received, loans applied for and loans granted.


LEONARD A. KNOTT-ONTARIO PAPER COMPANY LIMITED
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Is one, Leonard A. Knott, employed in the Department of National War Services?
2.	Is he employed full time?
0.	Is he the active head of a publicity organization known as Editorial Associates, Limited?
4.	Does he continue in that capacity?
5.	Is the Ontario Paper Company, Limited, or its subsidiary, the Quebec North Shore Paper Co. Limited, a client of Leonard A. Knott or Lditorial Associates Limited, or has either com-1939? Gen c^en^s any time since September,
6.	Is the Ontario Paper Company, Limited, owned by the Chicago Tribune1!


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Month to month basis.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	Yes, since March, 1935.
6.	No information.


PRICE CEILING-DAIRY PRODUCTS, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. PURDY:: 1.	Have recommendations been received from the Nova Scotia provincial board of the wartime prices and trade board asking that the maximum prices in that province on any dairy product in any district be raised?
2.	If so, what products and what districts are concerned, and will the recommendations be acted upon?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes. The dairy arbitration commission has written letters suggesting price increases at Halifax and Sydney, but no orders have been issued, and no action has been taken.
2.	At the following points the dairy arbitration commission of Nova Scotia has issued orders increasing milk prices: Dartmouth, Bedford, New Glasgow, Stellarton, Westville, Trenton, Yarmouth, Pictou.
These order have been concurred in by the wartime prices and trade board.


WARTIME HOUSING LIMITED-PAYMENTS TO CERTAIN FIRMS AND INDIVIDUALS
Mr. NICHOLSON:: What is the total amount paid to date to each of the following individuals and firms, and what is the estimate of the future obligations to them by Wartime Housing Limited: Hutton and Souter; Prack and Prack; W. L. McFaul, of Hamilton, Ontario; W. L. Sommer-ville; James, Proctor and Tedfern, and B. R. Coon, of Toronto, Ontario?


Mr. HOWE:: Total amount paid by Wartime Housing Limited to individuals and firms as stated, as of May 31, 1942, is as follows: Hutton & Souter, $7,565.08; Prack & Prack, $6,324.76; W. L. McFaul, $1,125.50; W. L. Somerville, $463.11; (travelling expenses), James, Proctor & Redfem, $21,622.49; B. R. Coon, $7,000.


HANTS COUNTY, N.S., IR0N ORE PROPERTY
Mr. McGARRY:: 1.	Has the Minister of Munitions and Supply any information regarding the discovery and the anticipated development of an iron ore property at Economy, Five Islands, Colchester, Hants, Nova Scotia?
2.	If development of the property is to be undertaken, does the department intend to render assistance by way of supplying machinery or any financial assistance, or both?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No information regarding the discovery of an iron ore deposit at Economy, Five Islands, Colchester, Hants, Nova Scotia, has been brought to the attention of the department. Any information regarding the above will be welcomed and investigated.

Questions


MOTION PICTURE MRS. MINIVER
Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	Will any steps be taken to assist the motion picture "Mrs. Miniver" through government channels across Canada?
2.	Will any steps be taken to give this picture quick and wide distribution in Canada to strengthen our people's spirit at this critical time?


Mr. THORSON:: 1.	The question as to what steps may be taken to assist in the wide distribution of the motion picture "Mrs. Miniver" is under consideration by the proper authorities, collaborating with the private producers and distributors of this film.
2.	See answer to 1.
1942 VICTORY LOAN


Mr. SHAW:: 1.	What was the total commission paid to salesmen for services rendered during the 1942 victory loan campaign?
2.	What part of the commission thus earned was paid to the salesmen in cash and what part in bonds, war savings certificates and/or stamps?
3.	Has the government given consideration to the paying of all future commissions in bonds, stamps or certificates?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	$1,654,381.58.
2.	No earned commissions were paid to salesmen in bonds, stamps or certificates. However, most salesmen were purchasers of victory bonds and to the extent that their commissions provided available cash, in many cases bonds were purchased by them.
3.	The government has not given consideration to the paying of all future commissions in bonds, stamps or certificates. For the most part, salesmen earning commissions are forgoing remuneration from other sources. The national war finance committee feels that the voluntary purchase of bonds, certificates and stamps by salesmen active in victory loans is as appropriate to them as to the general public.


MOUNTED POLICE-SPECIAL CONSTABLES
Mr. SHAW:: 1.	How many special constables have been added to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force since the outbreak of the war ?
2.	What rates of pay and/or allowances are paid to such special constables?
3.	Are cost of living bonuses paid to these men?
4.	How many special constable guards have been added to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force since the outbreak of war?
5.	What rates of pay and/or allowances are paid to them?
6.	Are special constable guards paid cost of living bonuses?
7.	Are rates of pay and/or allowances paid to special constables and special constable guards uniform throughout Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	IJIinety-four were engaged and 115 discharged. Present strength is 111, compared with 132 at the outbreak of war.
2.	The rate of pay varies according to the nature of the duty to be performed and the location. Some receive allowances in the form of meals on patrol or in barracks, et cetera, and some do not. The R. C. M. Police regulations stipulate that the rates of pay shall be as authorized by the minister. Guides and interpreters receive from S40 to $75 per month according to the nature of the work. Ordinary cooks receive from $80 to $90 per month and meals. Two head cooks receive approximately $4 per day and meals. Waiters receive approximately $75 per month and janitors range from $80 to $105 per month, et cetera.
3.	No. Recently, however, an increase in pay, approximately equivalent to the bonus, was authorized for some of those receiving $2.66 per diem or less ($80 per month).
4.	5,074 have been engaged and 3,181 discharged. The present strength is 1,893.
5.	Supervisors (married) pay, $2.00 per diem; allowances, $1.60 per diem; total, $3.60 per diem. Guards (married), pay, $1.60 per diem; allowances, $1.60 per diem; total, $3.20 per diem. Guards (unmarried), pay, $1.60 per diem; allowances, $1.00 per diem; total, $2.60 per diem.
6.	No.
7.	As far as possible the same rates of pay and allowances are granted to special constables and special constable guards for the same kind of work, but sometimes local conditions and requirements make it necessary to depart from uniformity.


JAPANESE NATIONALS-BRITISH COLUMBIA- EXCHANGE FOR REPATRIATED CANADIANS
Mr. STIRLING:: 1. Are any Japanese residents _of British Columbia to be returned to Japan in exchange for Canadians who are to be repatriated?
' 2. If so, how many?
3.	What are their names and occupations?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1. I would refer the hon. member to my statement in the House of Commons on June 12, Hansard, page 3301, in which it was stated that arrangements were being made for the repatriation to Canada of Canadians in Japan and occupied China on the understanding that Japanese subjects in Canada who wished to do so may be permitted to return to Japan.

Questions as Orders for Returns
2.	No definite figure can be given at the present moment, although in general it may be said that the number of persons to be repatriated will depend upon the transportation and shipping facilities available.
3.	No answer can be given to question 3 since the persons to be repatriated to Japan must be approved by the Protecting Power for Japanese interests, acting on behalf of the Japanese government. It is also felt that it would be impracticable to prepare a complete list to cover future repatriations. A number of Japanese non-officials with their families have already left Canada, but their exchange has not yet been effected and it is not considered desirable, therefore, to make public at the present time the names and occupations of the persons included in this party.


EMPLOYMENT IN WAS INDUSTRIES
Mr. LECLERC:: How many men and women respectively are engaged in war industries in each province of Canada?


Mr. MITCHELL:: The number of persons, male and female, employed in the various provinces will not be known until the tabulation of the April returns of the unemployment insurance commission respecting those in insured industries is complete.
There is no definite classification as between war and other than war industries. The question in its present form is therefore unanswerable.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-STAFF
Mr. RAYMOND:: What are the names of the officials, permanent or otherwise, in the head office at Ottawa of the unemployment insurance commission whose annua] salaries each exceeds $3,000?


Humphrey Mitchell: L. J. Trottier, R. J. Tallon, Allan M. Mitchell, R. G. Barclay, R. Brown, E. C. Desormeaux, A. A. Heaps, H. C. Hudson, E. P. Laberge, Y. A. Minnes, A. J. Odam, A. Peebles, V. C. Phelan, H. S. Relph, W. K. Rutherford, E. Stangroom.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	Has the government considered the problem of the shortage of sugar in Canada?
2.	If so, what has been done by the government to, (a) increase sugar beet acreage and sugar beet production; (b) construct additional facilities for the refining of sugar?


ST. LAWRENCE RIVER DREDGING
Mr. ROY:: 1.	Has any dredging been done in the St. Lawrence river channel opposite Deschaillons (Cap a la Roche), Quebec, during the present year ?
2.	If so, was the work done by contract?
3.	Were tenders called?
4.	If so, what are the names of those who tendered and the amount of each tender?
5.	At what price per yard was the contract let, and for what amount or for how many yards ?
6.	How many yards were removed daily or weekly ?
7.	Was similar work done during the year 1941?
8.	If so, how many yards and at what cost?
9.	How many yards have been dredged since the beginning of 1942 and what amount has been paid to the contractor to date?
10.	What is the approximate length of time such works will be carried on at this point?
11.	Are such works part of our war effort?


WAR EXPENDITURES IN SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. GILLIS:: 1.	How much money, if any, has the government spent to date in rehabilitating the plate mill at Sydney, Nova Scotia?
2.	Has the government spent any money on the new marine railway building on land owned by the Sydney Foundry and Machine Company, Limited, in the said city?
3.	If so, how much?
4.	Has the federal government made any other expenditures in the city of Sydney on war projects? If so, on what projects and to what amount in each case?


PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	How many employees are there in each different department of the government and each different Loard?
2.	How many of these are permanent employees?
3.	How many of these are temporary employees?
4.	How many of the employees work in Ottawa?



MILITARY MEN IN CLERICAL POSITIONS

Mr. SENN:: How many men of military age occupying clerical positions are employed in, (a) army offices, (b) navv offices, (c) air force offices in the city of Ottawa?



FARM LOAN BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: With regard to a motion made by the hon.

Wheat Purchases
member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) for the production of certain information relating to the Canadian farm loan board, I am now tabling the answer to the question asked, but I should like to make a brief statement in regard to it.
On June 10 an order for return was tabled giving certain data in regard to applications received and loans granted by the British Columbia branch of the Canadian farm loan board, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for New Westminster. These data were given on a yearly basis, with a footnote stating that "the statistical records of the board are kept on a yearly basis." On June 11 the hon. member stated in the house that the answer to his question was an evasion of the question asked and requested me to bring the information down. At the time I promised to look into the matter and see whether the information was available on the basis asked for.
I have looked into the matter carefully and a statistical table has been prepared showing by months since January 1939 the number of applications for loans received, the number of loans granted, the amount of loans granted, and loan repayments, principal and interest. The original return was not an attempt to evade the question asked; it was merely an attempt to avoid what seemed to be unnecessary work on the part of the staff of the head office of the board, which has been depleted as a result of the war demands, and it was believed that any purpose which the hon. member might have had in mind would be served by the statistical information given. However, as the hon. member apparently regards it as fundamental to have the statistics on a monthly basis, they have been so compiled, and I am tabling herewith an amended return to the order that was tabled on June 10.



BRITISH PURCHASES IN CANADA-INQUIRY AS TO METHOD OF PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which I would have asked him last week but for the fact that he was out of the city. It is based on an item appearing in the Winnipeg Tribune of June 23, as follows: Minister Says British Wheat Price Not Set Ottawa, June 23.-Trade Minister MacKinnon said Monday night no formal settlements have yet been made for British purchases of wheat in Canada.
This was the only comment he had to make on a Winnipeg report of an interview with
Professor J. Scott Watson, agricultural attache to the British embassy in Washington.
Professor Scott Watson said he understood British wheat purchases in Canada were being paid for by Canada out of the $1,000,000,000 gift to Britain fund.
To what period did the minister have reference, and did it include the three sales that he has announced in this house? I should like to know also whether the assumption made by Professor Scott Watson was correct.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This matter already has been the subject of answer by the minister, and if he wishes to reply now I think he would be in order in doing so.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I noticed the statement made in Washington, to which the hon. member refers. I had no notice of this question; otherwise I might have been able to give more detailed information. My statement to a representative of the Canadian Press was to the effect that according to my understanding, no formal settlement had been made by Britain for the wheat purchased last year from the Canadian wheat board. My understanding is that our sales to Britain are balanced to a certain extent by payments made, services given and goods shipped by the United Kingdom, but that no formal balancing of those accounts has been made as yet.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: That is only one part of it. What about the third question? Have our sales of wheat been paid for out of the billion dollar grant and will they be so paid for in the future? Surely the government has decided that question.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Perhaps I should say a word about that. Under the act providing for United Kingdom financing, the Dominion of Canada makes available to the United Kingdom a billion dollars for the purpose of purchasing munitions of war, foodstuffs and raw materials in Canada, and for defraying other expenses incurred in Canada by the United Kingdom. It is a little difficult to say whether any part of that billion dollars is applied to any particular commodity. The United Kingdom requires large sums in Canadian dollars for the purpose of purchasing goods in Canada, and they get those dollars in two ways. The first way is by the export of goods and the supplying of services and so on to Canada, which gives them several hundred million dollars. The second way is through the billion dollar gift. I have left out of account the $700,000,000 loan, but for the
Wheat Purchases

present fiscal period those are the two ways in which the United Kingdom obtain the dollars they require, and they use those dollars for the purchase of everything for which they require Canadian dollars, including wheat. But to say that any particular part of the billion dollars is allocated to the purchase of wheat is to say something which is impossible of demonstration. All the dollars which the United Kingdom must have for purchases in Canada are used for the purchase of goods, the obtaining of services, the construction of projects and remittances of one kind and another to Canada, and that total sum is made up in the two ways I have mentioned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has skated all around the specific question. It is this: Has any part of the billion dollar gift been used to pay for wheat sent to Britain, or will it be so used?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It cannot be answered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
answer, then, is yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It cannot be answered.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not agree with that.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. R. MCDONALD (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege, arising out of an editorial appearing in this morning's Ottawa Journal, headed "Falsifying the Record". It goes on to state that I am a stout opponent of conscription-


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not falsifying the record.


Wallace Reginald McDonald: Has my hon. friend anything to say?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not falsification of the record, is it?


Wallace Reginald McDonald: I would ask the hon. member to wait patiently until I finish my remarks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have read the editorial. I thought it was veiy appropriate.


Wallace Reginald McDonald: It goes on to give an excerpt from the speech I delivered the other evening, as follows:
Conscription was imposed on the people of Canada and particularly the province of Quebec m 1917, for no other reason than to win an election for a party which had lost the last vestige of the confidence of the people.

That extract from my remarks is followed by this statement:
So far is that statement from being true that it includes several misrepresentations. So far from conscription in 1917 being "imposed" on the people, a huge majority of the people did it themselves. And it was under a Union government in which the best of the Liberals of the day cooperated, except Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I submit that the official records of this house show absolutely the reverse; that it was under the Conservative administration of Sir Robert Borden that the Military Service Act was carried in this house and put into force.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely this is not a matter of privilege.


Georges Parent: The hon. member is replying to a statement in which he was accused of lying. It seems to me he should have the right to reply.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a matter of interpretation, and now he is making a speech.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: He is entitled to correct a misrepresentation.


Wallace Reginald McDonald: In connection with the passage of the Military Service Act during the session of 1917 I find the following to be the official record, which I should like to place upon Hansard in order to justify my statement and to prove that I am not guilty of falsifying the record. The bill was introduced by Sir Robert Borden and read the first time on June 11, 1917. It was read the second time in this house on July 6, 1917;. read a third time on July 24, 1917; passed by the senate on August 18, 1917, and received the royal assent on August 29, 1917. The Union government, to which this article refers, was sworn in on November 14, 1917; consequently it had absolutely nothing to do with the passing of the Military Service Act. I am entirely within my rights, I submit, in saying [DOT] that my reference to that matter was absolutely correct, and that I did not falsify the record.



DEFENCE OF CANADA REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). In view of an editorial opinion expressed in the Toronto Daily Star on Friday last under the caption "Public Men Brought into Court," in which it deprecates the practice of interfering with

Mobilization Act-Mr. McLarty
the freedom of speech, even, in war time, and refers specifically to the cases of Mr. Chaloult and Colonel Drew, would the minister say whether it is the intention of the government to withdraw the charges in these cases?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. If my hon. friend will consult Beauchesne, paragraph 293(c), he will find that an hon. member may not refer to a matter on which a judicial decision is pending. That is one of the best known rules of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That rule does not apply in. this case at all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who says so?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I say so.


Mr. CRERAR:: Would it not be better to
let Mr. Speaker decide it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not
accepting what the hon. member says the rules of the house should be. We are not expressing an opinion on the question of guilt or innocence; we are merely referring to the propriety of the government or the minister laying a charge. That is what is open to criticism. I hope the time will never come when we cannot do that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read the rule-"refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending."


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
not the rule in May.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the rule quoted in May, 12th edition, page 296, and 13th edition, page 323. If my hon. friend knew the rules better he would not make such an exhibition of himself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do not
lose your temper.


Georges Parent: I do not think there is
any doubt as to the rule. It has always been the practice in this house, and it is the rule, that a matter which is the subject of judicial inquiry is outside the purview of the house during the course of the proceedings. I do not see how it is possible for one to raise the question by asking the Minister of Justice whether he intends to withdraw the charges, because upon those grounds would probably rest the argument in court when the proceedngs were being held. The rule is clear that no such question should be asked. I do not believe it should be raised when the matter is now before the courts.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I ask a question?
Does that preclude a member rising in the house, as did the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) a few moments ago, and asking if it is the intention or the will of the government to withdraw a case now pending before the courts?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was the question.


Georges Parent: That is a distinction I
leave to the Minister of Justice. But the answer would go to the very roots of the action before the courts. If an expression of opinion were given by the Minister of Justice now with regard to the withdrawal of an action which is at present before the courts, he would be expressing an opinion as to a proceeding before the courts.


Major James William Coldwell: If the case is withdrawn there is no case; therefore it could not be prejudiced.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That question would arise if it were withdrawn; not before.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Roy.
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this debate has now lasted a considerable time. Much straw has been threshed out, and I trust I shall not impose on the house by speaking at too great length.


Major James William Coldwell: No chaff?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I may not be a thresher, but if desirable I could speak at some length on that operation. I do feel, however, that it is my duty to make my position clear on this very important issue.
I am wholeheartedly in support of the bill now before the house and about, I trust, to receive its second reading. If I were not otherwise convinced, the events of the last fortnight would undoubtedly have convinced me that everything this country can do should be done *in prosecuting the war in every possible way. It is not a matter of courage on my part to take that attitude. I do think, however, that it required some courage on the

Mobilization Act-Mr. McLarty
part of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) to take the attitude he took in this house on Friday last.
I believe this measure is the natural and inevitable result of the plebiscite which was taken in April. Having thereby obtained the moral right to repeal section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act, I do not think we could do otherwise than take such legal right as lay within our power.
It has been suggested in various quarters that the vote was contingent on some precedent condition, that it might be conditioned on some modification of our monetary system, or upon the conscription of finance and industry. I prefer to believe that the question asked was fair and definite. It was made clear during the course of the plebiscite debate. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made it amply clear, in his addresses on January 26 and February 25, and again in his radio addresses of April 7 and April 24, that the question meant exactly what it said, namely, that it was to give a moral right to take a course which at that time neither the government nor this house had the right to take.
My first reason for favouring the repeal of section 3 is that it constitutes a definite answer to and is the natural result of that plebiscite. That result is now well known. It might be well to put upon Hansard a few figures in connection with the vote taken on that occasion, a vote which by the way was the second largest ever taken in the history of Canada. The total vote was 4,638,847. The only other vote which was larger was that given in 1940, which surpassed this vote by approximately 43,000.
Rather than give the figures themselves I believe it might be more helpful if I gave the percentages by provinces and of the active service vote. The following figures refer to the "yes" vote:
Per cent
Prince Edward Island	 83-0
New Brunswick	 69-7
Nova Scotia	 78-5
Quebec	 27-5
Ontario	 83-8
Manitoba	 79'9
Saskatchewan	 71 -7
Alberta	 71-2
British Columbia	 80 T
Yukon territory	 73T
Yellowknife	 72-3
Canadian Service vote	 80-5
The total was an affirmative vote of 64-2 per cent.	[DOT]
There is one more reason why I approve definitely of the repeal of section 3. We have heard from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), from the various service ministers, from 
the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) of the work which Canada has been doing in connection with this war. Figures have been given to us which I believe indicate that this country is doing more per capita than any other of the united nations. But when we refer to the fact that we have expended $4,000,000,000, when we refer to the tremendous increase in the manufacture of aeroplanes, when we refer to the increase in our naval forces, when we refer to the production of all the mechanized units necessary for an army, the effect is lost in the opinion of the united nations because of the fact that section 3 still stands upon our statute book. The whole atmosphere is discoloured, the whole air is contaminated because that happens to be there. For that reason I believe it should be deleted, as is proposed in the bill now before this house.
There is another reason why I favour the deletion of this section. If we in Canada could elect where this war was to be fought we would have a tremendous advantage. But we cannot. Whether it will be fought in Alaska or in Newfoundland or in the British isles is not a matter for our decision; it is a matter for the decision of the enemy. Consequently I feel that we should be free to operate in every part of the world where operation seems to be necessary for the effective prosecution of the war. Suppose the congress of the United States had passed a measure in terms equivalent to section 3 of the act. All the splendid work they are doing in the production of the machines of war would be discounted. And would we not be critical? Would we not be suggesting that that was no effort on their part; that while the machines of war are necessary, while equipment for war is essential, these machines and equipment must necessarily be manned? If the congress of the United States passed such a measure as that what would be the reaction in this country?
I have already given the official returns, but may I suggest that there is perhaps an even stronger reason for adopting the measure we are now considering. It has been proved conclusively that the people of Canada are definitely in favour of the adoption of such a measure. That being so, and parliament being the servant of the people, can we do other than follow the verdict which has been given?
I remember being in Charlottetown about three years ago on the occasion of the celebration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Charlottetown convention of 1864. At that time I was impressed by the words on a

Mobilization Act-Mr. Rowe
bronze tablet, which words I imagine are familiar to most hon. members of this house. They were these:
Providence being their guide they builded better than they knew.
That was the foundation of our confederation. That was the union of the people of Canada. May I refer to my notes in order to state what I believe to be the significance of that union.
In our democratic system of government the evaluations include respect for special interests of groups and of minorities. This results in a balanced compromise which leads to the widest general agreement attainable. It was what John Stuart Mill called the greated good to the greatest number.
We are fighting for our existence-our very survival as a nation. What strategy of defence shall be adopted? The issue is whether the very conditions for the assertion of minority rights shall be lost or preserved. It is for the preservation of minority rights as essential constituents of our organization that we join issue with the enemy, and no group or individual has any social or political, to say nothing of constitutional, right to claim exemption from the duty inherently placed upon every citizen to give his all to preserve his own country's existence.
No minority, in any situation, in any place or at any time can claim the right to refuse to accept the legally ascertained judgment of the state as to the measures to be taken for its own salvation. It would be equivalent to a claim to a right to make that determination of strategy itself. Could any province claim to confine its own forces to its own boundaries? Or to Canada? And if not to Canada, what limitation can be placed on the decision constitutionally made? What is there in any conception of constitutionalism to give countenance to such a claim? Are we to stand on the shore till the enemy lands? Or meet him one mile, two miles, a thousand or two thousand miles, on land or sea? It is either that the strategy of preserving our state shall be confided absolutely to the majority, or that the minority shall have the right to pronounce upon all of us our own sentence of death.
My reference to the tablet in Charlottetown reminds me that perhaps we have been born in a somewhat unfortunate time. We have had to fight two wars, one to make the world safe for democracy and the other to preserve democracy in this world. But if we can pass on to our posterity the heritage which our forefathers have passed on to us, then I believe that in our day and generation we shall have done something of which we can long be proud.


Hon. W. EARL ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up the time of this house at any great length.
I have listened with interest to the brief and somewhat emphatic but still uncertain utterances of the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty).
I agree with him to one extent, that there is not an hon. member within sound of my voice who has any doubt as to the issue that is at stake and who does not appreciate the seriousness of it during the recent weeks. When one realizes what has happened in Libya, when one remembers what happened in the mouth of the St. Lawrence river, when one realizes that the enemy has landed on the north American continent, when one realizes that only a few minutes ago we were told that the British forces had been driven back another sixty miles in Egypt, then he should have no doubt as to the seriousness of the situation and should pause and consider what is really happening.	_
Never has there been an issue so clear in the minds of the people, but never has there been an issue so confused in the halls of parliament. I doubt if at this late date in the debate I can do much in the way of clarification of it, but I assure you, sir, that I shall not add to the confusion already caused by the differences of opinion that exist in the minds of some sixty-seven supporters of the government who have spoken. I am glad to find myself in full accord and unison with the eleven speakers who have spoken on this debate from His Majesty's opposition. But as one listens to the speeches coming from the other side one cannot help but think that there are almost as many different policies in the government on this important issue as there were speakers. Together the government stand before the people, but divided they speak in parliament. We have heard a great deal about the importance of cabinet solidarity and unity in the government on important issues, but in the nineteen years in which it has been my privilege to attend this house, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen, and I doubt whether you have in the many years you have been in this house, such a muddled spectacle of disunity in the government party, the very party that has kept national unity on a political parade for the last twenty-five years.
I must not let this my first opportunity pass without complimenting and congratulating those in the government ranks who have submerged, as they believe, their political fortunes, or at least what are called their political interests, in order to respond to what they believed to be the challenge of duty at this time. I cannot help but refer to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore), who made such a brilliant speech on Friday last, a man

Mobilization Act-Mr. Rowe
who has followed his party for so many years but who clearly and emphatically told this house and the country that in his mature judgment his party were not taking the stand on this issue which the people of the country believed they should.
Among the ministers we see disunity. But it is most fortunate indeed that we have the three ministers of defence standing four-square and independent of the attitude of the government, and I compliment them for their stand on this important issue. I admit that in normal times such a spectacle of disunity might call for further resignations from the government, but in time of war and grave crisis, when the enemy is hammering at both our doors, there is no one in this house who would suggest or even think of it at this time.
I believe in all sincerity that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), and the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) are struggling their very best at the present time to do a job, and I was further convinced of that when I heard them speak in this debate. I should like to compliment especially the Minister of National Defence for Air, the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). He was elected on far different slogans from those he proclaimed the other day, but with his eyes open to the effect his attitude might have on his political future he nevertheless chose to stand four-square behind our fighting men, including his own gallant son. His speech in this house last Thursday was a credit to his name, and I trust it will be an inspiration to his great old province of Quebec.
Despite the fact that the three ministers of defence have shown the way and taken their political lives in their hands, we find the remainder of the cabinet floundering and squirming, preferring to follow their leader's wait-and-see policy, refusing to look ahead. They prefer to blink at the war with one eye and wink at the ballot box with the other.
I hope they will look where they are going, instead of going where they are looking.
The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) claims that the emphasis on conscription has distorted our whole war effort, while the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) makes the brilliant suggestion that the merits of conscription are outweighed by its demerits. No one but himself knows what he means by that, but knowing his former opinion and remembering that he was one of the out-and-out isolationists, I have little confidence in his outlook on an all-out war effort.
The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) has a heavy burden to carry. He perhaps does not know the past history of 
his party as well as some of those who are playing politics more viciously, and I therefore hesitate to mention him, especially when he is not in his seat. Quite innocently, I think, he said that the voluntary method was Canada's traditional method of raising men and the method best suited to the character of the people of this country. I do not agree with him. In the midst of his toil, and with that political innocence which he has so often demonstrated, he failed, I think, to realize the implications of his statement.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) of course tells us that conscription for overseas may never be necessary. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) says that the present policy should be continued, and that conscription should not be brought into effect unless it was by a party that had no political past and no political future.


Mr. GARDINER:: He did not say that.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, he did, because I heard him. One need not be surprised at this amazing utterance by a responsible minister, because while the government has been following the middle-of-the-road policy, that was the policy the Minister of Agriculture advocated before the last election.
But it was the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) who made the most amazing statements on this issue. I realize that it was his first speech in this house; and I have a great respect for the hon. gentleman, who has built up for himself a very creditable record at the bar of his native province. But despite all the advantages with which he came here, no minister of justice in the nineteen years I have been in the house has ever left an important issue in more eloquent confusion than the present minister did when he concluded his speech on conscription. Indeed, had the debate concluded at that point, this indecisive government would have had to hold another plebiscite to ascertain whether we were to march forward as a British dominion or to halt as a French colony. I listened to the minister's statement that-
-our loyalty cannot be expected to be one of traditional affection and sentiment, but it is one based almost solely on a utilitarian viewpoint.
He was repeating a statement he had made in 1939 and he quoted it in this debate at page 3391 of Hansard. What a utilitarian viewpoint may mean to a lawyer I do not know.
I am a farmer. It might mean cost plus ten per cent, or it might mean freedom and privileges paid for by somebody else. That might not be the meaning given to it in a court of law, but it is the meaning given to it by the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Rowe
farmers of my constituency. The minister went on to say:
It may be great and glorious to fight and die for the world's salvation, for the salvation of the united nations-
What are we, Mr. Speaker, but one of the united nations? Does he wish us to cease to be a member of the united nations? He went on:
-but that is a privilege of each man, a privilege he has the right to choose for himself-
That is a privilege-for the boys to fly with their loads of bombs over Libya and over Egypt, or to stand and fight with their backs to the wall at Singapore and Hong Kong- that is a pleasant privilege!
-a privilege he has the right to choose for himself; it is not a duty which citizenship imposes as an obligation correlative to the rights which citizenship guarantees as a privilege.
I have always felt that I was a Canadian citizen and also a British subject, and that as a British subject I had some duty to my king and my empire, to the British commonwealth of nations, and, to-day, to the united nations to which the minister referred, which are engaged in a fight to the death against the most terrible enemy that civilization has ever faced. How, then, can we adopt the position taken by the minister?
The Globe and Mail, whose accuracy I have no reason to doubt, though at times they have not agreed with me, also report on the same day the Minister of Justice as having said this, speaking in the house:
French-speaking Canadians have no sentimental attachment for the government of the British isles.
I do not know whether the fact that that passage does not appear in Hansard indicates that the minister does not feel that way about it. But it has been my privilege during my experience in public life to have known some of the finest French Canadians in this country, both in Ontario and in Quebec: I have talked in Montreal and Quebec to leading French Canadians, and I doubt very much the correctness of the minister's statement, despite his long residence in Quebec, that French Canadians have no sentimental attachment to the government of the British isles, or even to British imperialism, in view of the privileges which they have enjoyed and which were conferred upon them under the British flag. Thousands of French Canadians died in the last great war. Many are fighting and dying valiantly in the present war along with their Anglo-Saxon fellow-citizens. I talked not long ago in Montreal to a French Canadian who was appalled at the representation which 44561-237
his province had received on the floor of this house. He said, "I fought throughout the last war, and my three brothers are fighting in this war; one failed to return from Dunkirk, and another was unable to get away from Greece. I feel," he said, "that if we do not stand together now, we shall fall apart." I realize, as one of the majority race in this country, the necessity of having tolerance at all times towards one another. But I say to my fellow-Canadians from Quebec: You have gone a long way in your efforts to dictate the policy of this dominion. We have every desire to recognize your rights, specifically with regard to your religion and your schools, guaranteed under the British North America Act; but there is nothing in that act or in *the constitution of Canada since confederation which gives any minority the right to dictate the policy of the majority of the people of this dominion. I say that in all kindness, because I do not propose to say anything here or anywhere else in Canada that will hurt the feelings of that other great race of people in this dominion, the French Canadian. But I do say that it is unfair to the great French-Canadian race to have them represented as having no interest in the world conflict outside the shores of Canada, when we know, and they know, that on the result of it depends the liberty of their religion-which is no dearer to them than my religion is to me- the right of free worship, the right of free assembly. We shall not continue to enjoy these rights until we meet the realities which press so urgently for attention. But here we flounder along, trying to find a solution of a matter which the people in the country have already decided for us. It is unfortunate that, evidently for political reasons, one province should be misled and placed in an unfavourable light by those who represent her here. French-speaking Canadians have, I believe, a sentiment of sympathy with the British empire. These ministers, Mr. Speaker, fail to realize, in their pursuit of a policy which puts one province in opposition to the wishes of the rest, that minority rights are secure only so long as the minority enjoys the tolerant good will of the majority. That is a long-existent rule in this country; indeed it is a rule in any country. The majority of the people of Canada expressed themselves in favour of an all-out war effort, and the majority expect an all-out war effort. Because two-thirds of the voters in one province oppose that policy, is their will to prevail against the expressed wishes of an affirmative majority, no less emphatic, in the eight other provinces?
I have been a member of this house for some years. I believe my record shows that

Mobilization Act-Mr. Rowe

I have been motivated by no feelings of intolerance, and that I have endeavoured to show good will to my friends in Quebec of another race. But I realize what we have gone through and what lies ahead of us, and I believe that we shall not meet the future successfully unless all of us stand together in the present crisis. What is the use of blowing trumpets and talking about national unity on election campaign platforms? "National unity" has been paraded up and down this country; it is the most hackneyed political phrase I know of; it has been the stock-in-trade of the Liberal party in this dominion for a quarter of a century. What is unity? What is its worth if we cannot stand together now, when almost the whole world is against us? We had better know now whether we are to be divided or not. In times of peace, when everything is going well, unity is easy. Now is the time when national unity means something more than filling ballot boxes. Now is the time when we must decide whether we shall have in future decisions by ballots or decisions by bullets. Now is the time to capitalize and utilize the "national unity" which we have been parading for the past twenty-five years, and to see whether it is to be expressed in action by every man who loves the freedom of his own faith- that freedom which my friends of Quebec have so long enjoyed-and the privileges enjoyed by his race, given to that race, after the conquest of years gone by, by the most tolerant power in the world-the British empire-and enjoyed under that flag; for under no other could they have been enjoyed so long and so securely.
Now that we are facing this crisis, I want to ask whether we are to work our own defeat by following policies of disunity. President Lincoln said during the civil war in the United States that a nation divided against itself cannot stand. Those words should echo and reecho in this building and throughout this country at the present time. As Canadians we must face the realities of war, and in such an attitude there is no place for disunity. It must be recognized that the present condition is far removed from that all-out war effort which is needed.
The only hope I can see is that those who prefer to blink at the war with one eye and wink at the ballot box with the other may eventually look where they are going rather than go where they are looking. At any rate I know that no less responsible men than the Prime Minister and his cabinet are worried about what is happening in other countries. I realize that an emissary of the government has been sent to the United States in order to
EMr. Rowe.]
improve the reports that are given out about the Canadian war effort. I know from visiting the United States occasionally that there is reason to be alarmed at the present state of Canada's one-time prestige in the great republic to the south. No doubt the Prime Minister has been concerned, as he has mentioned at different times in this house. One has only to read an editorial such as that reprinted the other day in the Toronto Globe and. Mail from a United States paper, which stated:
If the Canadian government expects to enjoy the respect of the American people it will have to impose conscription on a par with America. The Canadian government has a record of so scrupulously respecting minority rights, of coddling a pampered child so long, that failure to impose equal conscription will appear more and more as an effort on its part to place its own personal political welfare ahead of that of victory and have American people assume burdens which it should assume without further fear.
That, Mr. Speaker, is why the American people are concerned; that is why the British people are concerned-not because of the attitude of a province of this dominion, not because of the attitude of a gallant race in this dominion-I hope my friends in the province of Quebec, including the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), do not misunderstand me. The reason is that we have this everlasting search for political expediency, even in a time of crisis, which destroyed our plans for an air training scheme in 1938, which has already cost the lives of thousands of boys overseas, which has left us so that the empire does not know where we are going and the United States do not know whence we are coming. I urge that we should stop, look and listen, and awaken to the parade before the world marches by. I have heard no less a man that the late minister of justice, an honoured representative of the province of Quebec-who was, I am proud to say, a very close friend of mine for many years; I always felt at home in his office or wherever I met him-I have heard him speak in days past, and while I never heard him go quite so far as some speakers have in this debate, I recall that on one occasion he went so far as to say that this country had won a new status through a visit of the Prime Minister of Canada and himself overseas. He said: "We have all the status and sovereign right of a state in the British empire." He said: "I see in the distance only a fine silken thread binding us to the empire." He added that the silken thread was still strong, and he was reminded of how that status was secured. It was not secured by the present Prime Minister in those days when he was fol-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Rowe
lowing his economic appeasement policies throughout the world. It was not achieved by that right hon. gentleman, the great compromiser and reconciler, whether in his own party or in international affairs. It was achieved by the blood of the boys who fought in the last war. As the late Sir Robert Borden said in 1918, "When I signed that treaty I felt the tears roll down my cheeks because I knew that I was writing the new status of Canada with the blood of the boys who sleep in Flanders' fields." "Lest we forget". How will the future prestige of this empire and the future security of this dominion be written? Will it be by the men of my riding who work behind the plough, sixteen hours a day for the fixed prices that the government has imposed on them? Will it be by the man who works in a war industry, or by the army of men carrying on a bureaucratic administration?-necessarily, I admit, in some measure. No; it will be written with the blood of the men behind the guns, and the sooner we realize that the better.
When we roll off the lines thousands and thousands of tanks and aeroplanes and turn out great numbers of machine guns and trench mortars, let us not forget that we shall need that many more men to use them if we are going to win this war. We shall probably meet with certain reverses. We shall probably have to endure some shelling of Halifax, or bombing of Vancouver island, or sinkings in the gulf of St. Lawrence, or other sporadic attacks by the enemy, but to win the war we shall have to start an offensive over where my hon. friend would not admit was any part of our defence, namely, on the western front. That is why there are more-my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) might think I was going to say something I should not; but I will say this, that the American people realize to-day that if we are going to win this war it must be won overseas in Europe, and that is why they are conscripting their men to put them in the British Isles. Is it to watch their isles in the Pacific that have been taken one by one, to watch the Aleutian islands or the Oregon coast, which was fired on the other day? No; because they realize that, as in any other fight, if we are to win we must meet the enemy oi. common ground.


Mr. McNIVEN:: There are Canadians in both places.


William Earl Rowe: Why would you want conscription to compel a man to fight at home? Who would not fight to protect his own home? I am not speaking of the principle of conscription; it was the government of the day that brought conscription into this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why does the hon. member not speak on it?


William Earl Rowe: If I were as clever at dodging issues as my hon. friend, that would be the reason. I will speak on it in this way, that even you who stood in the middle of the road before the election-


James Garfield Gardiner: I never stand in the middle of the road.


William Earl Rowe: You have never left the middle of the road when there is any political issue at stake. But even you at this time come into this house and support conscription for home defence, while the three ministers of national defence told you plainly the other day that the only defence for Canada is where the enemy is. Let us not pussyfoot on this. Let us not camouflage the issue. Let us not follow the line of least resistance, of political expediency, the whims of someone back home that you may never have the opportunity to represent again unless you look wise and face the issue as it is.
Do the other ministers not agree with the three ministers of national defence, each of whom says the same thing-that Canada's defence is overseas? We are standing at the crossroads of our fate. We must realize that the enemy is ready to strike us if our boys over there let them pass. Those boys stand and say, "They shall not pass", but if they did pass I would like to see what sized army would stop them on the banks of the St. Lawrence. I do not think my hon. friend would prefer to fight them in Saskatchewan rather than overseas. The hour has struck; the time is long past when we should fool away the time of this house as has been done. And it is not the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) or other groups on this side that have held up this debate. We have had sixty-seven speeches from the other side of the house, and the more they talk the less one understands where the government is going. The more speeches they make the more pages they add to another chapter of the story of confusion at which Canada is becoming more and more amazed.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Wait till you hear mine.


William Earl Rowe: I should not be surprised if it were better than most, but it would be even less confusing if the hon. member would come and sit over here where he should sit, with the ideas he has on this war issue.
I say in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that we have reached a critical point in the history of this country. I warn the government that there is a difference between rigid control of those who hinder the war effort and the persecution by a gestapo of those who criticize the government for its lack of war effort. I
Mobilization Act-Mr. Rowe

am not mentioning any names, but when I see my deskmate hit over the head and knocked down, and another hon. member liable to the same treatment if he is not careful, I wonder how long this situation is going to continue. I do not know as much about law as the Minister of Justice knows, but I wonder how much I could say before he would intern me. I suggest that there is a tendency in this country that might well be feared by more than the individual, because history has told us, in shocking stories of the past, that when the rights of the individual have been "ges-tapoed" the freedom of the press is restricted very shortly thereafter. I warn my friends of the press gallery to watch their fast pens these days, because several newspapers are vigorously condemning the government because of its war effort, or lack of it; they are wondering why the government is floundering in this way, what it is waiting for, and so on. They wonder why some of the cabinet say the enemy is overseas and our only defence is over there, while others say we must stay here and fight, while still others say they are not sure we should be in the war at all.
Is it any wonder that the people are rapidly losing confidence in our government? They are losing confidence because they expect courageous leadership in time of crisis. They are losing confidence because they expect determined action against a vicious enemy. They are losing confidence because they expect definite, clear and united purpose in a responsible government. They are losing confidence because the government required a plebiscite to tell them what to do, and more confidence because the government will not do it after being told to do it. We have never seen such a spectacle of uncertainty, confusion, distress, disunity and turmoil in a government; and this government has more members behind it than any other government since confederation. We were twitted when we asked for a national government, no doubt because the administration figured they had behind them people of every stripe of politics, as a result of the disunity which they have brought about, and which they probably felt constituted the only form of national government they could have.
In conclusion I want to say only that we are going to win this w-ar in spite of the government. The prestige of this dominion will be upheld by our boys who have enlisted in the armed forces, God bless them; and the future status of this country will be determined by those boys, not by some glib lawyers who will tell us about it in the years to come. It will not be determined by a floundering,

fearful sort of attitude, such as the government has adopted. It will not be determined by an attitude such as that of the Minister of National War Services, or that of the Minister of Agriculture. It will be determined by attitudes such as those of the hon. member for Ontario, the Minister of National Defence for Air, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services and the Minister of National Defence. This war will not be won by any single political party.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought you were not looking at the ballot boxes.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend has been watching them so long and so carefully that he cannot imagine anyone seeing anything else. I listened to the minister's speech, and I must say that it was the most political address I have heard from a minister, in time of crisis, during the last fifteen years.


James Garfield Gardiner: Better go back and read it; you do not seem to know what it is all about.


William Earl Rowe: I have read it carefully, but I hardly needed to read it. I knew what it would be about before the minister delivered it. Anyone who has ever heard the minister during a campaign would know what his speech would be like. It was simply cheap, political campaign stuff, in a time of crisis.


James Garfield Gardiner: But my speeches get better results than yours did in Ontario.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, and the minister has mentioned that before. I do not have to hide behind any of my past glories, and I am sorry to say that is what the minister is now doing. I say this war will not be won by the Liberal party, nor will it be won by the Conservative party, or by the English-speaking people of this dominion, or by the French Canadians. It will be won by every race and creed and class in this dominion standing firmly together, not only to save Canada so that in future we may sing "O Canada", but that we may sing:
God save our king and heaven bless The maple leaf forever.
My hon. friend laughs. This war will be won by those who appreciate and understand that the privileges and rights they have enjoyed in the past have been given them by that veiy power, now threatened, the British commonwealth of nations, which forms part of the united nations, standing with that half of our civilization that believes in defending freedom instead of surrendering it as other countries did who thought it was not their duty to go beyond their shores until the enemy invaded them.

Mobilization Act-Mr. McKinnon


Mr. H. B. McKINNON (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard many excellent speeches during this debate, covering practically all the important points, and with few exceptions those who have spoken have been very considerate and tolerant of the viewpoints of others. We often look back and think how outstanding were the fathers of confederation, how tolerant and understanding they were, with vision that has brought Canada to the position she occupies to-day. But when, everything is considered I believe the speech of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) last Friday shows that we still have giants among us, and the future of Canada is well assured as long as we have men of that calibre in the public life of this country.
As I see it, this bill is simply the legal completion of the recent plebiscite. Ordinarily it would be more or less a routine matter, but in view of certain developments it has been given a position of importance that few of us could have imagined a short time ago. The bill has been thoroughly discussed; all points in connection with it have been well brought out, and I see no reason to discuss it further. There are a few remarks I should like to make, however, which might be of material benefit to the welfare of the country and to the war effort as a whole.
Between Fort William and Winnipeg there is a territory covering some 430 miles in which as yet this government has not seen fit to establish any war industries. The government would be well advised to take a leaf out of the book of Russia and establish industries in that territory, which is practically the geographical centre of Canada, because they would be as far away from any possible military action as they could be placed in Canada.
I should like to commend the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) upon his approval of employer-employee council. That is an excellent idea, and it was only recently that Mr. E. M. Little strongly endorsed the minister's stand. Mr. Little on that occasion said he did not believe all the brains of the country were in the front office. With that I thoroughly agree. Not only should we make use of all the physical abilities of our citizens, but we should use their mental abilities also. With the establishment of these councils we will go a long way toward assisting to put our war effort on an all-out basis. The government should go further and insist that the councils be established in at least the war industries of the country.
There are many matters affecting my constituency I should like to discuss, but I do not believe such discussion would be proper
in this debate. There will be other appropriate occasions on which matters of vital importance to my constituency may be brought up. I would point out, however, that the people of Kenora-Rainy River voted thirteen to one in favour of the plebiscite. There never was any question in my mind as to what they would do, if given an opportunity. They have given every possible assistance in the war effort.
Voluntary enlistments from my constituency in this war, as in the last one, are exceptionally high and compare favourably with those of any other part of Canada. The people of Kenora-Rainy River have subscribed heavily to recent loans. When they voted thirteen to one in the affirmative there could be no doubt in my mind as to the meaning they meant to convey. I am definitely in favour of national selective service, and I propose to vote in support of the bill. I should prefer to vote on the details in connection with conscription, but I well realize it may be impossible to give the house an opportunity to do so. Therefore I concede that the government should have the right by order in council to bring in conscription at such time as they deem it necessary. No man, no body of men, no newspaper, in my opinion has the necessary information upon which to base an opinion as to when the conscription of man-power should take place. That would be a duty for the government to perform.
As has been pointed out by various ministers, there are many activities, including agricultural development and the production of munitions, which go to make up our total contribution to the war effort. Only the government know the extent of what has been done, and because of that they are the only body in a position to know when a policy of conscription should be made effective.
Speaking a few days ago, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out that a shortage of man-power was definitely possible. In that he is no doubt correct. I believe, however, that there is plenty of man-power employed in non-essential work which could and should be used in our war effort. Let none of us have any illusions about what we are up against. As I see it, this is a war of extermination. Either we win or we go down where there will be no future for the people of this country. It takes very little thought on my part to decide the proper course, because we have no choice. The issue is as clear as it can be. We either go all-out in fighting our enemies wherever they may be found, or we wait until it is too late.
My family have not waited. All who could go have gone, and I am like-minded. The

Mobilization Act

Mr. Edwards
people generally in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River feel that no price is too great to pay for what has to be done.
May I make one suggestion? If and when the government decides that conscription is necessary, I suggest it should set a date, by proclamation or otherwise after which no more volunteers will be accepted. All enlistments from then on should be on a selective service basis. In my opinion that would be fair both to the individual and to the country generally.


Mr. M. J. EDWARDS (Calgary West):: Let me say at the outset that I am wholeheartedly in favour of the bill, and will vote for it. My interest in the subject matter of the bill goes back to the evening of September 3, 1939, when I, in common with my fellow Canadians, heard the fateful news over the radio at four o'clock in the morning, mountain time, that Germany had invaded Poland.
How well do I remember the emotions I experienced, which completely changed my thinking processes! For be it known that at that hour on that morni' g I was laboriously preparing a speech I had expected to deliver in a by-election to be held in September in the constituency of Calgary West. My reaction to the news was such that every partisan or political thought I had entertained was completely obliterated. Matters which seemed of paramount consideration in connection with the winning of the by-election paled into insignificance before the awful thought that our empire was at war. I for one never doubted that my country, my Canada, would take up the sword in defence of liberty and freedom, and against dictatorship and oppression.
A by-election was held in September and I felt so keenly about what had taken place that on the morning of September 3 I wired the government and gave it as my considered opinion that I should withdraw from the byelection to make way for the Conservative candidate in a seat which with one exception had been Conservative from its inception. This was the seat of none other than the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. It was somewhat of a disappointment, a blow to personal aspirations, but I felt that under the existing circumstances it was the right thing to do, despite the fact that my supporters might misunderstand and my political enemies misconstrue the reasoning behind my decision. A Conservative was returned again from Calgary West. But I was justified in the sacrifice, if you will, which I made at that time, by subsequently being honoured by the same people in the spring of 1940 with their endorsation and elec-

tion to this house. One of the things uppermost in my mind at that time was the realization that the people of Canada, and particularly the political leaders of Canada, would not wish to be confronted, when they were making up their minds as to what stand they should take in this world conflict, by the lesser consideration as to whether or not there should be the conscription of man-power for overseas service.
I could not help but recall the feelings by which I was actuated when at the time of the last war I did eveiything I could to gain admission to the fighting services. For the life of me I cannot understand any red-blooded Canadian of military age not having the promptings which I experienced at that time and the desire to go out and fight for his king and country. I have little sympathy with the individual who justifies his refusal to serve as is commonly done these days, on the ground that some other fellow will get his job, that some other young man has not done his part or has not offered to do his part, or that some other section or class, or creed if you will, is not doing its fair share. This is the greatest crisis that has ever confronted mankind, and there can be no such thing as equality of service or sacrifice. Nothing that I can do or give can weigh against the sacrifice of that friend of mine and yours who lays down his life for Canada and the cause for which we fight? There has been a lot of false reasoning and false logic spread abroad in our land to the effect that this is a war for the defence of Canada or the defence of the British empire. I do not believe that the gallant lads whom I knew and whom I taught at school, the men with whom I grew up and have been associated in later years, are in this fight solely for the defence of any particular part of the terrestrial globe, let alone any of that part of the globe which is generally shown in pink and labelled in black letters "Canada."
Surely there is something finer and grander than the defence of a piece of ground. I believe the Canadian people, and certainly the brave lads who wear uniforms, whether they are serving in the air, on land or on the sea, feel that there is something greater at stake. What is it? The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated what I trust we all believe to be true-that the real issue in this struggle is our way of life and living; it is democracy versus dictatorship; it is freedom and liberty versus slavery. To put this struggle on any other plane is to belittle the objectives and the issues for which we are fighting. Surely we are not in this war merely to defend Canada. Surely the members of this house and the people of Canada realize that if you

Mobilization Act-Mr. Edwards
took all the man-power and all the production of which this country is capable in the way of munitions, food and everything else, there would not be sufficient to defend Canada successfully against the aggressor nations, any more than it would be possible for one prairie farmer to protect his farm against the onslaught of a prairie fire. This is a world on fire, and we are committed to something greater, to something finer, and I trust to something grander, than merely the defence of our own country.
People fight against things. We are fighting against dictatorship, world domination and slavery. We are not fighting for any thing, place or possession; we work for a better world; we fight against that which would destroy it. Men and women the world over will put forth their best efforts when it is realized that they are fighting against something, not fighting for something.
I should say at the outset that as a theory and as a principle of war policy, I have favoured compulsory selective service not only with respect to man-power but with respect to every resource this country possesses. I realize, however, that not until the national resources mobilization bill was introduced was there a decided opposition to that principle in certain sections of the country. Theoretically I do not see how a democracy can wage total war without recourse to that principle, but in practice I recognize the difficulties of applying it in Canada, by reason of views and opinions held with regard to it by many others.
Be it said that conscription- was not an election issue in 1940 in my constituency. There was, however, later, a group in Calgary, to which the Prime Minister has adverted on other occasions in favour of compulsory military service, and it was in that city that he first encountered an organized demand for conscription for overseas service. At that time I felt, and I believe the people of Calgary still feel, that the meetings which were then organized were largely called together by a political pressure group which was endeavouring at that time to sow political discord and disharmony and bring the government of the day into disrepute. There were others, however, and of this I am certain, who were greatly concerned and agitated lest their loved ones overseas should be unsupported.
I for one welcomed the introduction of the .plebiscite. I worked during that campaign and was not a little pleased that my constituency, despite handicaps imposed by war restrictions with respect to transportation facilities, and the fact that nobody's political "hide" was at stake, turned out and voted to the number of 19,715 persons as compared
with 19,798 persons at the general election. In other words the number of voters was only eighty-three short of the number of voters there had been at the general election in the spring of 1940. Of those who voted, 17,612 voted affirmative, 1,976 negative, and there were 127 spoiled ballots. During that campaign I stated what I then and theretofore believed and still believe to be the democratic, the fair, the just, the ideal and perfect way of mobilizing our resources, including our manpower, namely, by compulsory selective service. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read a few paragraphs from the statement I gave to the press just before the plebiscite was taken:
As a government policy, I believe in compulsory selective service or conscription. As an individual citizen neither you nor I are called upon by this plebiscite to declare whether or not we believe in conscription for overseas service NOW. The best opinion, that is the opinion of those who are charged with the responsibility of conducting this phase of our war effort, say that conscription is not necessary AT THIS TIME but that emergencies may arise at any time when it may be necessary to resort to compulsion,' and it is in anticipation of such an emergency that parliament, and by that I mean the representatives of every political party, is asking that it be released from this promise.
And I gave three reasons why they should vote:
1.	You are not called on by this plebiscite to declare whether or not you believe in conscription for overseas service.
2.	You are not called on to vote for or against the government.
3.	You are not called on to decide any question other than whether the government should be free to adopt any policy that may become necessary to ensure victory.
Then I concluded my statement with these two paragraphs:
To refuse to vote or to vote "no" is to declare in effect that no matter what emergency may face the country no one should be compelled under any circumstances to defend Canada in any field of action beyond the limits of this dominion, that no one should be called on to strike a blow for his country until the enemy has landed or is about to land on its shores.
I urge all thoughtful Canadians that they should by an overwhelming affirmative vote put their representatives in a position to be free to act and urge the adoption of whatever methods or measures may be required to attain victory in the uncertain and perilous days which lie ahead.
I am grateful and pleased that my electors, my friends, the people of Calgary West, have released me from any pledge, though indeed I needed no release from any pledge except that which was impliedly given by me as a supporter of this government in regard to that one phase of Canada's war effort.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Edwards
The plebiscite having passed, may I say that there will be nothing but resentment, if this government gives my constituents cause for believing that it entertains any idea of retreating from the position which it took at the outset, that this war is more than a war for the defence of Canada, that it is in very truth a war for an ideal, a war for the defence of democracy and freedom, a war for our way of life and of living. I was proud as a Canadian to learn that not only the people of my constituency but the people of Canada generally voted overwhelmingly to release the government from its commitment as embodied in clause 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act, to delete which the present bill has been introduced. This bill will, as I believe the people of Canada wish it to do, remove the last and only legislative restriction upon our all-out war effort.
I for one cherish the thought and the hope that never again in the political history of this fair dominion will any statesman feel called upon or obliged to make a promise such as, unquestionably, the leaders of the three major political parties made at the outset of this war. From now on the government has a clear mandate to take any and every action which in its considered opinion is calculated to increase in strength and effectiveness the power of this nation, working in the closest cooperation possible with every other nation having the same objectives.
To my hon. friends from Quebec may I say that the people of western Canada, at least in that part of it in which I have lived for the last thirty years, and especially the men of my age and generation find it extremely difficult to appreciate or understand, or even to view with tolerance, the attitude and ideas to which we have listened in this house. I have been much agitated and, indeed, nonplussed for months to try to discover the causes which lie behind the feeling and views to which we have listened during the last month or six weeks in the debate on this bill. Surely, my French-Canadian friends, you do not appreciate or understand the significance of what is going on in the world about you. Why should you be so alert and so anxious to defend our own country when perforce, by modern means of transportation, London and Liverpool, France and even Germany are closer to you than British Columbia or even parts of my province? And it is there the enemy should and, please God, will be destroyed.
I want to pay tribute to one man in this house from Quebec who, to my way of thinking, has given us an outstanding example of *<Mr, Edwards.]
singleness of purpose and devotion to the call of conscience and duty in the speech which he delivered here on Friday last. I refer to the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr, Power). I am sure that the people throughout the length and breadth of Canada will applaud his actions and his words, which can be likened only to those of another great leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who came from his province and wrho was willing, at a time of national peril, to take his political future in his hands, vote according to the dictates of his conscience, and govern his actions accordingly.
By any standard, whether of men, money or munitions, Canada's war effort has been adjudged good. The sole question which should concern this house and the Canadian people is, can it be made better, more efficiently effective? Mere size, bulk or numbers, whether of persons, munitions, money or other things, means little in this day and generation when pitted against skill, science and knowledge.
The government has asked to be relieved of its promise. The people of Canada have answered most emphatically that it should be so relieved. I believe that the future conduct of this war can safely be entrusted to the members of the cabinet, headed by our worthy Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). We have, and I believe the world has, confidence in the Prime Minister; confidence, not only in his judgment, but in his singleness of purpose and his anxious desire that this country shall take its proper place among the nations of the world and do its utmost in the struggle. We have confidence in our Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley); in our Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe); in our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner); and in our three national defence ministers. Is there any doubt or misgiving, on the part of anyone who has followed the careers of these hon. gentlemen in the house and before the public, as to their determination that this nation shall put forth the maximum of which it is capable? Theirs will be the decision. They have asked to be empowered; and I for one, not only reflecting the views of my constituents but giving expression to my personal convictions, am satisfied that they will never shrink from their clear duty, nor pause in their efforts until this country is making its maximum war effort.
As a school boy I learned this verse which has stuck with me throughout the years. I* believe they are the words of a great Nova Scotian statesman and patriot, and I commend them to the consideration of this house as an ideal which should animate and inspire every loyal Canadian. I think it goes like this:

Mobilization Act-Mr. d'Anjou
Inheritors of glory! 0 countrymen we swear To guard the flag that o'er thee Shall onward Victory bear.
Where e'er through earth's far regions Its triple crosses fly,
For God, for home, our kinsmen Shall win, or fighting die.
With that as our objective, with that as our motto, this country cannot fail.
Mr. J. E. S. EMMANUEL d'ANJOU (Rimouski) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I opposed the plebiscite bill because I believed that such a measure would lead to conscription for overseas service, as later events have borne out. During a memorable meeting held in my constituency on April 16 last, I declared that perhaps within two weeks of the plebiscite vote, provided it were affirmative, a measure would be introduced in the House of Commons calling for conscription for overseas service. And I was right. As a matter of fact on May 10, Bill No. SO appeared on the order paper and the house was thereby requested to strike out section 3 of the 1940 mobilization act, thus extending compulsory service to overseas. That is the measure we are now discussing, Mr. Speaker.
When I had the honour of being elected as member for Rimouski in 1917, I gave the undertaking that I would oppose any conscription measure submitted to parliament, whatever government were in power. In 1940, the voters of Rimouski again did me the honour of choosing me as their representative. I gave them my solemn pledge that I would even break with my party if that party undertook to enforce conscription for overseas service. Indeed, and I wish to repeat this, I vigorously opposed the plebiscite bill when it was introduced in the house. I voted against it because I believed that it merely served to mask the evil face of conscription. As I have said, events bore me out.
Mr. Speaker, I must adhere to the stand I had previously taken and declare from the very outset that I shall vote against Bill No. 80 because this measure is synonymous with conscription for overseas service. In my humble opinion, the present government is acting even more dangerously than that of 1917 because it desires to introduce conscription not only with the concurrence of the people's representatives but at its own discretion by order in council. In 1917, the union government introduced a conscription bill for overseas service and the measure was discussed for three weeks. Well do I recall the titanic struggle then waged by two regretted leaders of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Ernest 44o61-238
Lapointe. We sat night and day to try to prevent the passing of that bill. That is why I wonder at the moment why the Liberal party which has endeavoured for the last twenty-five years, particularly in my province, to show that it was irrevocably opposed to conscription, now wishes to introduce a conscription measure, and1 that by order in council. As I stated a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I opposed conscription in 1917 and I do so again to-day. I deeply regret that it should be the Liberal party that wishes to saddle us with this coercive legislation in 1942. You may be sure that the people of my province, the people of Quebec, are surprised, to say the least, at the Liberal government's present stand.
I followed attentively the speeches delivered by hon. members who spoke before me this afternoon. They seemed mainly to assail the attitude of the province of Quebec. Even if Quebec did cast a negative vote on the plebiscite, a close study of the figures for the other provinces shows that some six to seven hundred thousand negative votes were cast. The province of Quebec seems to be the bugbear of certain hon. members of this house. Yet I think that since the outbreak of the war, Quebec has contributed her full share and continues to do so. During the last war two Victoria Crosses were awarded to soldiers from my constituency. Which goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that the constituency of Rimouski is not peopled by cowards and poltroons. Jean Brillant and Joseph Keable were volunteers who fought overseas. They must have proved outstandingly brave since the Victoria Cross is the highest decoration awarded by His Majesty the King. At the present time, Rimouski has a training camp where even farmers' sons report for military service and also an air force training centre at Mont Joli. I therefore feel our citizens are doing their duty and that the criticisms levelled at the province of Quebec are no more warranted in the case of Rimouski than in the case of other constituencies.
Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said about national unity. It seems that Quebec is always expected to sacrifice everything for the sake of national unity. In our Canadian confederation Quebec secured some rights which she intends to uphold. We insist that they be recognized. We are being asked continuously to ensure national unity and to that end it is we who must always yield, who must forego the rights guaranteed us by confederation. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, my province has done her full share in the Canadian confederacy and we of Quebec

Mobilization Act-Mr. d'Anjou

should not be alone in forsaking our privileges. We must all do our part if we wish to remain united.
In the interest of Canada's defence, I would agree to every sacrifice. We are told that this country will be better defended overseas. The assertion has never been proved. Our country is open to attacks by Germany or Japan on both our coasts and I fear that the government has not devoted sufficient time to the organization of our defences. Yet we have before us Australia's sad experience. Her shock troops fought in Greece and elsewhere and when Australia was attacked, she had to beg for help from the United States. I consider that Canada's war effort has been adequate so far and, as I was saying, I have always opposed coercive methods of dispatching troops overseas. My electors have given me a mandate which I will fulfil by voting against Bill No. 80.
In my opinion, the government has introduced this bill as a sop to the extremist faction in this country. Speeches are delivered in this house by members who will never have to go to war, who have no children, and who, like certain Toronto people, only see in conscription an avenue leading to larger profits. The province of Quebec will be the most affected by conscription for overseas service, because of her larger families. I myself come from a family of fifteen children, which included twelve sons. Families of eight, nine or ten sons are by no means scarce in my constituency. If this conscription bill passes, it will affect us more than the rest of Canada. Moreover, Canada has a population of only 11,000,000. Has not Canada's war effort been adequate so far as compared with that of more populous countries?
This bill is not justified and the government has not, to my mind, been released from its commitments or pledges of 1940. The late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe declared in this house: "Never will the province of Quebec submit to conscription". That was the agreement entered into at the time of the declaration of war. With Mr. Lapointe, the ministers who represented the province of Quebec stated: "We will participate in the war on condition that conscription for overseas service is never enforced". The province of Quebec voted for the upholding of the pledges given, and moreover a large number of people in other sections did the same, as I said a moment ago. For twenty-five years, the Liberal party has conducted all its election campaigns, not only in the dominion but in the provincial field, on a 
"no conscription" platform. As I have said, it sought to give, especially to the province of Quebec, the impression that the Liberal party was the only one opposed to conscription. After placing our confidence in the present Prime Minister who, with the help of Mr. Lapointe and all the members from Quebec, was chosen in 1919 to succeed Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I wonder whether it cannot be considered a betrayal of our province to seek to introduce a measure involving conscription for overseas service, in spite of the verdict given on April 27 last.
In politics as in anything else, Mr. Speaker, one must abide by one's pledges. In 1940, every political party was against conscription. The people returned this government with the largest majority ever obtained in our history. It is not enough to claim that conditions have changed. Conditions may have changed but the pledges remain. I for one cannot see any reason for supporting the bill now before the house. It is all well and good for certain hon. members of this house, as I said before, to urge conscription when they will not themselves take part in the war and when they have no sons of military age. As regards our war effort, the province of Quebec has answered the call voluntarily and perhaps much better than certain other provinces of the dominion, and I cannot understand why some hon. members of this house find it impossible to speak without criticizing the province of Quebec.
There is no cause to defend the province of Quebec. She is doing her duty just as she has done in the past. She acquitted herself well in 1917. She has discharged her obligations from 1939 to this date, and this incessant carping on her war effort should cease. I for one criticize no other province. However, as a citizen of Quebec, I have a perfect right to protest strongly against the insinuations of cowardice and ill-will directed against my province by some hon. members.
The province of Quebec is as loyal to her king as she is to the country and I claim for my part that my fellow citizens' first loyalty is to Canada. My motto is that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier: "Canada first, Canada always and Canada only." It sounds fine to say that we should meet the enemy wherever he may be. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, in a struggle such as this, where millions of men are locked in battle, where mechanized forces, tanks and planes are of supreme importance, why run the risk of disturbing the peace of this country by sacrificing through a conscription measure for overseas service between two and three hundred thousand men to the enemy's land and aerial onslaught. Infantry

Mobilization Act-Mr. d'Anjou
will not be the deciding factor in this war. It has been shown to date that victory will be won through tanks and aeroplanes. I therefore repeat that it would be a national crime to enact this law of conscription at the risk of destroying national unity, in order to raise perhaps two or three thousand men to be sent overseas as cannon fodder. This war will not be won by masses of men. While millions and millions of men are now taking part in the conflict, the present war is chiefly a mechanized one where tanks and aeroplanes will finally decide the issue.
I believe that the government has been ill-advised. Moreover it has no mandate to impose conscription for overseas service. It has not been released from its commitments. Not only did the province of Quebec refuse to release the government from its pledges against conscription, but there were at least six or seven hundred thousand Canadian citizens in other provinces who voted likewise. 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. I said that if he remained at the helm, I would continue to place my confidence in him, but that I would give no blank cheque to any member of the cabinet.
Unfortunately, he is and has been in bad company ever since the demise of that great Canadian, the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe who was his mainstay and counsellor. Since then I have seen a change come over our Prime Minister. He is surrounded by conseriptionists and imperialists and is subjected to their influence. This accounts for the fact that less than a fortnight after the plebiscite vote, he unhesitatingly introduced bill 80 which is synonymous with conscription for overseas service.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not dwell further on the matter. I merely wished to express my feelings frankly as is my custom. I was elected on the strength of a certain programme and I have never deceived my electors. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, I saw in the plebiscite a mask behind which lurked the hideous features of conscription. I was right. At a meeting held prior to the 27th, I stated correctly that two weeks after the plebiscite vote we would have a bill introducing conscription. And that is just what happened.
I cannot close my remarks Mr. Speaker, without congratulating the former Minister of Public Works and of Transport (Mr. Cardin). I am going to speak frankly; I like to be frank. I did not like his speeches on the plebiscite. He is a wonderful speaker, but those of his speeches I heard did not please me; however, he was just as sincere as when he spoke in this house after he had decided to resign from the cabinet. He has devoted his life to politics and represented his race and his province with honour in the commons. There are some who say: "He should have spoken that way before the plebiscite." Perhaps he should have, but it is never too late to mend. There is forgiveness for every sin, and this is even truer in his case because although he was at the head of two government departments he had the courage to resign and to express himself forthrightly in this house. I wish to congratulate him. He is worthy of Ernest Lapointe, he is worthy of all those great French-Canadian Liberals of my province who have sat in this house. He is worthy of Laurier.
His was the crowning gesture of a splendid career. As I was saying a little while ago, I wish those speeches had been made before the plebiscite, but in any event he was sincere. He too had faith in the government. Having been deceived, he had enough courage to resign.
Mr. Speaker, I will not labour the point. Again, I do not beat about the bush; when I want to say something, I come out and say it. I was a member of this house from 1917 to 1925, and have been from 1940 to this day, and each time I have spoken in this parliament I have said what I thought and have said it in French. I have always honoured the French language.
Mr. Speaker, the little calendar that you see' on the table of the house was unilingual when I rose in this house for the first time. If you will look at it now, you will find that it is bilingual. The Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux was then speaker of the house and in the course of a speech I chanced to glance at that calendar. I then asked Mr. Lemieux, who was a patriot, why that little calendar was not bilingual. I told him: "Why don't you have it made bilingual?" Two days later, it was done. Mere details perhaps, yet very important ones from the French Canadian point of view.
When Americans or Englishmen visit the House of Commons and notice this small calendar printed in two languages, they naturally conclude that Canada is a bilingual country. I do not think there is any doubt of it. As I said before, we must uphold the rights granted to us by the constitution, I sat in this house from 1917 to 1925 and I was returned again in 1940. I could speak in English, but as I have the right to speak French I shall continue to do so.
44561-238^

Mobilization Act-Mr. d'Anjou
I remember that in 1924 Mr. Justice Joseph Archambault, then member for Chambly-Vercheres moved a resolution asking that French speeches be translated into English on the day following their utterance in the house. Before then the view was held that French speeches were of very little importance. Practically no one could understand them and they were translated into English some twelve months later. I do not blame my colleagues in this house for speaking English, especially the French Canadian members of the cabinet who must make themselves understood without delay, but if we are to follow the policy of never speaking French in the house solely because some members might not understand us immediately, I wonder what will become of the French tongue in this country. For my part, as long as I enjoy the high honour of representing my constituency, I shall always speak French. Once again, I do not blame my French-Canadian colleagues, and friends, who occasionally speak in English, especially our cabinet ministers. But I have followed a different policy ever since entering the house and I intend to stick to it.
Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak at such length. Before concluding I wish to state that I shall never allow any hon. member of this house, irrespective of party, to attack, unchallenged, the province of Quebec. I shall always rise to answer, for I am proud of my constituency and of my province. I conclude by restating my opposition to Bill No. 80. I shall vote against this measure purporting to strike out section 3 of the mobilization act of 1940, which would mean conscription for overseas service.
Mr. DOUGLAS G. ROSS (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, this debate has been a long one and there has been a great deal of repetition, but I feel it my duty to say a few words. The house and the country know exactly where I stand on this issue because I made it abundantly clear when I spoke on the plebiscite. One thing that is certain is that when the House of Commons passes this bill it will mean that the government can enforce conscription. There was never any doubt in my mind about the issue at stake in the plebiscite. The plebiscite was introduced for a definite reason, and that reason was whether men should be conscripted for overseas service.
I was opposed to the plebiscite because I felt that the government should have obtained their freedom from parliament. I thought it was putting the cart before the horse, and at that time I said, as reported on page 196 of Hansard:
What do the government hope to gain by a plebiscite? At best the government get a respite
[Mr. d'Anjou.l
of two or three months. Meantime there is all kinds of turmoil. When the three months are up there will be the same pressure for action. This proposal of a plebiscite is an affront to the rights of parliament and an undeserved reflection on the people of this country, of wh itever race or creed, if the proposal carries, it will not get rid of the controversy, and it will leave uncertainty as to future action; if it fails to carry, our troops will be abandoned to the uncertainties of voluntary enlistment. In either case the country is humiliated and disgraced.
How right I was. Before the plebiscite bill passed, there was turmoil in this House of Commons, and since then the country has been disrupted by controversy and recriminations. I said at that time that there was no necessity to split the country in two because parliament could have given the government its freedom. The vote in my riding was a great credit to the sincerity of the people as far as the war effort was concerned. There was no doubt in their minds as to what they were voting on. There was an overwhelming majority in my riding in favour of compulsory service anywhere in the world. The vote was 92-6 per cent "yes", and I think a good many voters voted "no" in the belief that they were going to put the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government on the spot. Otherwise I think the affirmative vote would have been much greater. I should like to pay a tribute to those people who worked so hard in the plebiscite campaign. One thing they had to overcome was what I have just mentioned, the fact that there were so many people, including soldiers, who thought that by voting "no" they could put the Prime Minister and the government on the spot.
I do not like the method we are using to impose conscription. I think we should adopt the method being used in the United States; that is, call men up by lot and give them plenty of time to get ready. The people of the United States are quite proud of their draft army, and no slurs are cast upon the men as is done in this country. I wonder why such slurs are cast on men who are called up? I do not think the selectees in the United States are particularly better fellows; I do not think they are any worse than the members of our volunteer army. I am proud of our volunteer army. I should like to refer briefly to the remarks of the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), and I quote from page 3278 of Hansard as follows:
Who can raise his voice in this house and say that the province of Quebec has been lacking in cooperation with the rest of Canada in every activity, in war as well as in any other line of endeavour? We have been doing our share every moment, in every crisis, in

Mobilization Act-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
every difficult time that confronted Canada. We have measured up to the standard. But we have never been able, even to this moment, to know definitely how many French Canadians have enlisted in English-speaking regiments.
The other day a return was brought down which partly answers the hon. member's question as to how many French Canadians from Quebec have enlisted voluntarily in the army, the navy and the air force. According to this return, 36,235 French Canadians from Quebec have enlisted in the army, the navy and the air force; a total of 29,651 enlisted in the army; 1,474 in the navy, and 5,110 in the air force. That answered his question. Those figures speak for themselves.


Wallace Reginald McDonald: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I am sorry; I have not much time.


Wallace Reginald McDonald: My question was-


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The hon. member can make his speech some other time. I am speaking now.
Again, as reported at page 3277 of Hansard, the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres said:
There is no necessity at the present time to impose such a measure.
Plow does he know that there is no necessity? How does any hon. member know? Why did we take the plebiscite? Why did the three defence ministers rise in their places the other day and speak as they did? Are we to suppose that they did not know what they were talking about? Further on he said:
There is no haste to proceed with such an important measure, which is likely, in the words of the Prime Minister, and in the words of the leader of the opposition as well, to destroy the good understanding which has been established between the two races in Canada for the last forty or fifty years, through troubled hours and difficult days, by the leaders of all parties and those who have taken part in the public life of Canada.
Who has been responsible, I would ask, for the lack of good understanding? Then he went on to say:
Wait for the necessity to arise.
Wait, I suppose, until Hitler is on your doorstep. Let us wait, he says, for the need to present itself. Wait, I suppose, until Hitler comes up the St. Lawrence. The hon. member continued:
Then we shall be in a position to judge according to circumstances what course Canada should follow, what policy Canada should adopt.
I have already pointed to the controversy which has already taken place over conscription, and the hon. member would have us go
through all that again, bring in another bill like this and have hundreds of speeches all over again. That is not reasonable, Mr. Speaker. There is no logic in it.
Wait until the enemy comes up the St. Lawrence river, and then what will happen? If the enemy ever gets up the St. Lawrence river, there will be an uprooting of those roots deeply embedded in the soil of the province of Quebec for 300 years. And not only that; there are other citizens of this country who have roots deeply embedded in the soil, just as much as French Canadians have. We have been in Ontario for a long time, and we do not want our roots uprooted. We think the front line is over there in Britain, and that is where it is.
I wish to quote a few words from the speech of the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson), who, as reported at page 3413 of Hansard, said:
To come to the armed forces themselves, how could conscription for service overseas help the air force?
It certainly would not hurt it. Some of the draftees could be picked out for the air force. Some of the draftees would apply to go into the air force. That would be all right; it would not hurt the air force. The minister went on:
We could not conscript young men to fly and expect them to be the flyers that we have, fighting in the skies over every battlefront in the world, with no superiors anywhere in the world. No airman can be compelled to fly; he must have the will to do so. It could not be otherwise. The whole of the Royal Air Force is composed of volunteers.
But the air force in the United States is not entirely built up on a voluntary basis. Some of their men have been chosen from the selective service draft, and they do not make such bad flyers. The minister went on to say:
The situation is quite similar with regard to the navy. I am quite certain that the work of the Canadian navy, with its great devotion to duty, with the wonderful record of troop ships convoyed without the loss of a single man, could not have been carried out in the same efficient manner if it had not been done by volunteers.
I think it is marvellous to have a volunteer navy, but there is no reason in the world why a man who was called up under a selective service system could not apply to go into the navy and be accepted. The minister went on:
The only place, therefore, for conscription, if it is of any value at all, is in connection with our army. There, too, I am convinced that it would not make for as effective an army as the Canadian overseas army is at the present time.
3762	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
If these men called up for service anywhere in the world would be no good for the air force, no good for the- navy, and no good for the army overseas, why are they called up for home defence? Is the Minister of National War Services satisfied to have the' men that he is calling up now serving on home defence, to defend our women and children in the case of necessity? I think the minister's remark is a slur on these men who are called up, and I would like to see that slur erased.
The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) says that we must keep our factories going; that we must keep on producing; that we must have a balanced programme. Certainly we must do that. But does he realize that Great Britain has just called up another 100,000 men from industry, to be drafted into the army, and that these men are to be replaced in industry by women? We still have in this country a great reservoir of potential women workers. And not only that, but if we get down to a proper system of rationing for most of our non-essentials, there will be many more people, men and women, available for work in essential industries. Further -and I draw this to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley)-it might make the bitter pill of increased taxation a little easier to swallow if we had such rationing. If the people could not buy these nonessentials, they would not spend the money and would have it available to pay in taxes.
I was interested in hearing the address given in this house by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght). As reported at page 3632 of Hansard, he said:
We budgeted to increase our forces-the members are all familiar with the details- from 27,000 men now in the navy to 40,000 by March of next year.
Then he went on to say, and I do not quote him fully:
So that the total budget of our man-power by March next is 615,000 men for all the armed forces.
If you are going to budget, you have to find the men to fill your budget, and how are you going to get these men unless you go about it in a proper, businesslike way? These men should be called up two, three, four, five, six, seven or eight months ahead of the time they are required to report. Choose them by lot, and let them know ahead of time when they will be required to report so that they can make their preparations accordingly.
The hon. member for Parry Sound, in criticizing the Military Service Act in force 
in the last war, said, as reported at page 3695 of Hansard:
We were to have 70,000 men by the end of December, 1917, but at the end of March, 1918, we had only 26,000. While the figures show that
61.000	were obtained as a result of that compulsion during the whole period up to armistice day, November 11, during the same period
101.000	men enlisted voluntarily.
But, Mr. Speaker, those 101,000 men who voluntarily enlisted did so under the shadow of conscription. That is what happened.
There is no doubt about it that the front line is overseas, in the fortress of Britain. I should like to quote these words from the Prime Minister's speech, as reported in Hansard, at page 3243:
It is perfectly clear that the enemy will have to be destroyed overseas if this continent is not to be the field of the final conflict, or possibly even an immediate field of conflict, with Canada the scene of the first invasion.
These are potent words. They are the pith picked out of the two-hour pussy-footing speech made by the Prime Minister. Do you believe those words? Let us go to the ministers of national defence for corroboration. The Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) minced no words in his speech. He said that the result of the plebiscite was an overwhelming mandate for conscription. And then he remarked as reported at page 3509 of Hansard:
A wayfarer plans to journey along a road, and on his map he sees a point where that road branches or forks in two directions. Across one of these branches is an insurmountable barrier, and he says, "When I reach that fork I wish to have freedom to take either branch. Therefore remove the barrier, so that I may have freedom to travel as I think best. I cannot say at this moment which road I shall take. That decision will be made when I reach the junction, and will depend on several factors, some of which are entirely beyond my control."
The minister knows we have reached the barrier, or we shall reach it very shortly, and he is far-sighted enough to see that we cannot afford to wait. We must do our utmost.. We must now take the step.
If you read carefully the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), you will find that he sees the barrier as well. He says that the people of Canada have turned on the green light to go ahead with this bill, under the mandate they have given the government for conscription for overseas.
I come now to the magnificent speech made by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). All one has to do is to read it to know he has seen the barrier ahead and wishes to take the step at the present time. Opposed, as he has always been, to conscription, would he have taken the step which he took in the house last week, after his family

Mobilization Act-^Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
had represented Quebec South for forty years, with all the sentiment which was attached to it between himself and his constituents, unless he had thought such a step was necessary? No, Mr. Speaker. I compliment the hon. gentleman upon the course he took in this house the other day. When it comes to the time of the next election his electors will probably think pretty well of him. He says he is first a Canadian and then a Quebecker. I am first a Canadian, and after that I am an Ontarian. We must all be Canadians in that sense, in these days, if we are to lick the Hun.
I come to the speech of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard). He said that he would have voted for the bill had it not been for past history. He complained bitterly about the lack of political education with an eye to overcoming the prejudices between the various provinces of Canada. He said he could not educate his constituents in a week. Certainly he could not. And whose fault was that? That of the political leaders of the province of Quebec who in the past have raised these issues at every election which has been held. Why have they done this? The political leaders in Quebec have for years been making political capital out of these issues in order to hold the balance of power in Canadian politics. This has been on many occasions their avowed intention. Is there any wonder that the policy pursued by them is resented in the other provinces? Until that situation is cleared up, we shall never have national unity.
With respect to the measure before us, I submit that the time has come when opposition must cease. Canada's future is at stake. The future of the British commonwealth of nations is imperilled. The eyes of the world are on us at the present time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Before the six o'clock recess I had said that Canada's needs at the present time were greater than those of any province. I might point out what tremendous significance there is in the words of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) when he said in effect that he is for national unity, but unity cannot stand in the way of Canada's safety, and Canada is in peril.
The other day the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) quoted some speeches from the British House of Commons of January, 1916, with reference to the debate on the military service bill. He quoted statements in
support of one side of the picture; he quoted the then Prime Minister (Mr. Asquith). That Prime Minister, as we all know, was a great prime minister, but he was a peace-time prime minister and his great forte was compromise. He did not quote anyone on the other side. I wish to take this opportunity of quoting a few words spoken by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Bonar Law, which express my own opinion better than I could do myself. He said, as reported in British Hansard for 1915-16, January 5, 1916, page 1010:
When this war broke out I felt as strongly as those who had taken the most active part in what is called the national service movement, that our method of raising recruits by the voluntary system was not a good method for such a war as this. I thought it was not a good method, first of all, because it seemed to me utterly unfair that in the same town, or perhaps in the same street, three or four sons of one family should go, and another family on whom the state had precisely the same claim should not send a single man to the army.
I agree with that. I also think that the privilege of citizenship carries with it the duty of defence of one's country.
Mr. Bonar Law said further:
I thought it a bad system for another reason, the very reason on which many of those who are opposed to this bill oppose it now-that it was a wasteful system, and that if we were to make any attempt to have a proper correlation between the men employed in the necessary civil services and those who go to fight our battles, that could not be arrived at by a system of haphazard enlistment and recruiting which depended on the voluntary will of individual people.
What about that situation? Why did it become acute? As I said this afternoon, the barrier which the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) spoke about was in sight. What actually had been happening at that time was that recruiting had fallen off; they said that it was going to be worse and that they had to take wounded men who had come back to England for convalescence and send them to the front two and three times and the public became incensed.
What is wrong with compulsory selective service? Why is it not right? I cannot see any reason why it is not. Drawing your selectees by lot is a pretty fair way of doing it. Let us take a look across the border; how does it work there? They are proud of their selectees; they cannot do enough for them. They are called up in the regular way, given plenty of time so that they can make their arrangements before they join the army. That is the method we should adopt in this country.
What is the position of a young man in Canada to-day? He has a very difficult decision to make. Many of them do not know
3764	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
whether they are doing their duty or not. Should they finish their university course; should they still be working in the factories; is it fair that they should have to make this choice themselves? How can they make the choice, when there seems to be such a divided opinion in the cabinet itself? Surely the ministers know the situation; there should not be any division in the cabinet in that respect. What a conglomeration of ideas we have had from the ministry, with the exception of the three ministers of national defence!
Are the other ministers real, honest-to-goodness Canadians, or are they politicians? Why have this division in the cabinet when the facts are known to the minister? Why not let us have some real, fearless leadership, as shown by the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services, and the Minister of National Defence for Air? I cannot pay too high tribute to the latter minister for the way he handled the situation with which he is faced in this house. Let us get rid of the slurs cast at our conscripts; let us call them up by lot. Life is a gamble anyway. Most people are good gamblers; when they are called up by lot they will take their chances like everyone else; they will be tickled to death, in fact, if they know what they have to do.
This debate started some weeks ago, and it seems likely to continue for some time yet. Let me make a suggestion. We have had a tremendous amount of repetition of ideas of one kind and another, and no doubt there are many more hon. members who want to speak in the debate. I suggest they be allowed to prepare a speech, write it and have it placed on Hansard, and they will thus get themselves on record. I think it is a good suggestion, for the same things are being repeated over and over. I am probably doing the same thing; I doubt very much whether 1 have contributed anything new to the debate.
What are our obligations? We are obligated not only to the defence of our own country, but to the defence of Great Britain, the united nations, the Chinese, the Russians. If there was ever any time when Canada should show herself in the best light and come to the help of the gallant Russian people who have held the foe back all this time, it is now. Where should we be but for them? We know we must open a second front; we must get the men for that, and we must keep our factories going. We cannot let our armies overseas and our navy and our air force down when that second front is opened.
I have just one last word to offer. I hope I have not offended anyone in what I have said to-day. I have spoken from the bottom of 
my heart; I have said what I thought. I appeal for unity to carry out the will of the people as expressed during the plebiscite recently held. Let us all fight together, Mr. Speaker, or they will kill us one by one.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am indeed fortunate to-might, Mr. Speaker. The first time I had the privilege of speaking in this house I followed my good friend the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross), who has again preceded me in this debate. With one thing that he said I must agree, and I am not being personal at all. He said he wondered what some of the preceding speakers had contributed to the debate. I also wonder. Some of my political opponents took what I consider to be an unfair advantage of me, though they may consider it fair political strategy. Last Friday I was invited to be the ninth member of a baseball team made up by my good friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and Social Credit parties to play a team of House of Commons pages. I do not know why I was asked to be the ninth member of that team, unless it was because they could not muster nine players from the two groups, and so I, the most radical member of the other parties, was asked to complete the team. I had the privilege of playing in the outfield, along with my good friend the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). He and I, coming from the Pacific coast, talk a good game of baseball ; that is, our chatter is good though our playing is not. We both talked our heads off, and as a result I am hoarse to-night. The hon. member for Vancouver East need not care, because he does not have to speak. Then they placed me in centre field, where I had to back up a member of the Social Credit party at second base. He neither caught nor stopped one ball, and of course I had to chase the ball until I was stiff, but in spite of it all the umpire saw to it that we won the game. Then my good friends the Conservatives, perhaps trying to put me at a disadvantage, taking advantage of the preparations being made outside for some coming ceremony, told me that I was not to speak to-night but that the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) and I were to have a joint debate on the platform being erected outside the building, and I waited there for twenty minutes. Incidentally, I had better watch the clock, because I believe the time is being checked very closely.
I would not be addressing the house to-night, Mr. Speaker, but for the fact that I consider it the duty of every member of this house who is a returned soldier to express his views in connection with this bill; his duty not only

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cruickshank
to the veterans of the last war but also to the veterans of this war. Before I have concluded my remarks I hope to make quite clear how I stand in connection with the vote that is to be taken shortly. I might mention that we in this corner of the house, commonly known as the "Rump", are very proud of the fact that seven of our members are serving in the active forces; that six of our members are veterans of the last war, and that many of those in our corner have sons serving in this war.
In passing, I might mention that I intend placing on the order paper a question asking what members of this house are veterans of the last war, what members are serving in this war, and what members have sons serving.
I am asking that question for a reason which was particularly emphasized by the speech of one hon. member this afternoon. I want to bring to the attention of the people of Canada the fact that many members of this house either are serving to-day or have sons serving.
I wish to do that for this reason. Who would have more sympathy, more respect, and a greater desire to help our soldiers overseas in every way possible, than those who are serving themselves or who have sons serving? To-day one hon. member was asked whether he was entirely in sympathy with this bill or any other bill having to do with the welfare of Canada and of our soldiers. That hon. member has a son who is perhaps flying over Germany to-night, and I think I am entitled to bring that fact to the attention of the people of Canada, as I intend to do.
Just here I should like to pay my respects to what I consider the most courageous speech ever made in this House of Commons, or at least since I have been a member of it. I refer to the speech made by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power). No one questions the great value of the work he did as the organizing genius behind our greatest contribution to the allied cause, the commonwealth air training scheme. The minister suggested that because of the stand he is taking at the present time it may be necessary for him to sacrifice his seat.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am only repeating what the minister said. I want to state, on behalf of British Columbia, that should that time ever come my seat will be available to the minister, and I think I am safe in saying that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and Conservative members of this house will help me to see that the minister is elected unanimously. In this connection I would also mention the hon. member for
Wright (Mr. Leduc), a private member, it is quite true, but one whose courage should be recognized. I should like to quote one or two paragraphs from his remarks, and I am only sorry that the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) is not present. I am not a wealthy man, but I hope the hon. member for Parkdale will see to it that his famous committee of 200, which includes the wealthiest men in Canada, will have the speech of the hon. member for Wright printed and distributed to every elector in the province of Quebec. As reported at page 3729 of Hansard for June 26 the hon. member for Wright said:
I am well aware that such a stand will prejudice my chances of reelection to this house; but, faced with the choice of serving my country or being reelected, I do not hesitate in choosing to serve my country.
And again:
I ask nothing more than to have my supporters and fellow citizens of the province of Quebec understand that our soldiers overseas are defending both England and Canada; that our airmen, striking formidable blows at the enemy in Europe, are defending Canada; that our sailors who seek out the enemy on our coasts and on the high seas are also defending Canada. I trust that, once and for all, my fellow citizens of Quebec and elsewhere-[DOT]
I should like to emphasize the words "and elsewhere."
-in Canada will realize that this is not England's war, but a war being waged by Great Britain, Canada and all the united nations in the defence of our liberties and our Christian civilization.
I could go on quoting from that great speech, but time does not permit.
In my own riding all three parties combined and worked with all the other organizations, and particularly the Canadian Legion, in an endeavour to secure a most emphatic "yes" vote. We were successful to the approximate extent of 80 per cent. I am not in a position to say that an 80 per cent vote was a vote for conscription immediately, in the near future, or at any time. But I am in a position to say most emphatically on behalf of my riding that the people there believe in total war. In our minds total war means exactly what it says; it means conscription of every kind, be it wealth, man-power or industry.
I must admit frankly that I prepared certain notes for this speech. Perhaps I made a mistake in doing this. A speech I could have made, one which would have been most effective, would have been a presentation of newspaper headlines collected throughout the world in the last two years. To-night's headline points out that the fall of Matruh is officially confirmed. I do not believe it is necessary for me to turn to my notes in that
3766	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Cruickshank
connection to say what people in British Columbia, and most certainly those in Fraser Valley, feel at this time. We believe there is nothing any member of the house or any individual in Canada can do that is enough under the present trying and serious conditions.
I am proud that since the beginning of the war and, in fact, before the war, speaking as a returned soldier, I have preached or advocated what I believed was a proper policy for Canada. I believe, and always will believe in a policy of compulsory selective service, and it is in that policy that my constituency believes. I do not know if they believe in immediate conscription of man-power, but I do know they are behind the policy of compulsory selective service. As I understand it, they realize the seriousness of the situation, and it is possible that we of the Fraser Valley are in a better position than many in that respect. In common with a few-a very few- other members, some from British Columbia, I was scoffed at when I pointed out the seriousness of the Japanese situation. I was scoffed at when I said that every battle which has been lost in this war to date has been lost, not through lack of man-power but through lack of mechanical equipment and through organized fifth column activity. What would have happened to British Columbia if we had been complacent, and, through our silence, had permitted 20,000 fifth-columnist Japanese to remain in our province?
I am pointing that out for this reason: while I may disagree with government policy in some instances, would I be a true Canadian or a true Britisher if, because of that disagreement with past or present policy, I voted against the bill? I do not think so, and I do not believe my hon. friends from Quebec think so. We believe in total war-war with no restrictions. No pledges can prevent us from carrying out our duties as we see them as Canadians and members of the British empire. We believe the war must be fought to every extreme; we must meet the enemy at every angle, and, if possible, be on the initiative in meeting him.
In that connection may I refer to one of the greatest patriots of our sister nation, Joe Louis. He happens to be a coloured man, but he is serving willingly in the army of his country. He is serving voluntarily under a proper selective system. Furthermore, on many occasions he has given voluntarily, in a financial way, through benefits on behalf of the services, more than any other individual of whom I know serving in any allied army. Would Joe Louis ever have become the great victor he is in his own line of endeavour if he 
had waited for the enemy to attack? Of course not. No other great fighter ever became a victor in that way. The secret of his reputation and his victorious career has been that he has carried the battle to his opponents.
If your neighbour's roof is on fire, would you wait until that fire spread through your own woodshed before attempting to put it out? Would you not attempt to assist in putting it out while it is still on your neighbour's roof? The answer is obvious.
The proper way to meet modern warfare methods is to combat them with the antidotes of those methods. Methods of warfare must be met with an absolute understanding of what those methods mean. In my view- and I state this frankly-in so far as it concerns man-power for overseas I believe the importance of conscription has been overexaggerated. I do not know if conscription is needed to-day, or if it will be needed to-morrow or the next day to keep our army up to full strength. There are only three men who know that, namely, the three ministers of the defence services.
I have always been in favour of national selective service; but whether it is necessary to-day or to-morrow, I do not know. Certainly I cannot understand some of my friends in the Conservative party and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I want to be fair to them by stating that both those parties worked, and worked hard, to secure a "yes" vote in my riding. In its programme fhe Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has said, "No conscription of manpower unless we have conscription of wealth". The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) recently before a convention of the greatest organization in Canada-the Canadian Legion-said that he believed in the conscription of wealth before the enforcement of any other kind of conscription. That, at least, is my understanding of what he said.
I agree entirely with that, and have so stated on many occasions. I believe manpower should be conscripted, and, speaking as a veteran of the last war, I believe in the conscription of wealth. But I would say to my hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation:	If this new budget
does not carry with it conscription of wealth, then all I can say is that I have a railway ticket which will take me back home, but I will need some Social Credit money to pay for my meals on the train. I appeal to them on the ground that we now have conscription of wealth to vote for Bill No. 80 when it comes to a vote on the second reading. If

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cruickshank
they sincerely believe in the conscription of wealth, then I say they have received almost all they asked for.
At this time I should like to read a short paragraph from a United States newspaper. Of course this does not apply to the member for Fraser Valley, but would apply to some other hon. members. This quotation from the San Francisco Argonaut, bearing the heading "Candid Opinion", states:
If somebody were to establish an endowment fund to award prizes for stupidity we strongly suspect that the greater number of awards would go to members of our congress. It almost makes a man lose his faith in democracy when he sees the kind of human jackasses that get elected to our halls of legislation to make laws for us.
That is from a United States paper. Why do not many members of the House of Commons and Canadians in general, instead of criticizing our war effort at all times, instead of trying to change our great national outdoor game of lacrosse to a mutual indoor game of knocking our Prime Minister and knocking our war effort, adopt the policy of one of the greatest leaders ever developed, particularly in war time, Mr. Wendell Willkie? They should paraphrase his statement and say, "He is my prime minister; Canada is at war; I am a Canadian." Mistakes and errors have been made, but is there any government at war to-day that has not made errors? Why should not the members of this house and the people of Canada tell with pride of our production of tanks, ships, munitions of war and food? As a member of parliament I have had the privilege of seeing that production, as have all members. Is there any greater assistance that we can give to the skunk of all skunks, Hitler; to the runt of all runts, Mussolini, to the scab of all scabs, Hirohito, than to criticize Canada's war effort?
Mistakes have been made in the past, and we are going to make them again. I do not want the house to think I am condoning all the mistakes the government has made. In my opinion the greatest mistake the government has made in the face of our need for conscription has been what I referred to a year ago, the utter stupidity of our recruiting campaign. I happen to be a supporter of the government, but I blame them for our recruiting campaign. One thing that I hold against the government is that they have endeavoured too often to pass on the mistakes we have made. I should like to quote briefly from some of the statements I made to my electors when I was requesting a "yes" vote in the plebiscite. I quote these for the simple reason that I want there to be no mistake about where I stand. I am a member of the
Liberal party, a supporter of the Liberal party. I am a British Columbian and I am a Canadian, but above all I am a Britisher. Being a Britisher is above being a Canadian, being a British Columbian or being a member of any political party. The'statements I intend to quote appeared in the press of my riding. This may be a small country press, but I do not think it needs to apologize to the press of any province or of any riding in Canada. I quote:
It is to be hoped every one will make the forthcoming plebiscite their own personal problem, will consider the future conduct of our war effort as their own responsibility and say to the government by an overwhelming affirmative vote, "you now have a free hand, no obstacles of any kind in the prosecution of the war to the very extent of Canada's ability to produce the materials of war, either in wealth, industry or man-power; we, the people, demand an entire and all-out war effort and will support all and any action necessary to bring victory."
I am quoting this to show where I stood, and I think I speak with authority for my riding. I quote again:
In particular I urge and every individual and organization who have called for total war now put that just call in practice in a practical way open to all, by seeing that an overwhelming "yes" vote is recorded in the valley on the 27th of April.
One more paragraph in that connection:
It can happen here, it most likely will happen here;
That was said in April and since then there have been two attacks on the Pacific coast and a ship has been sunk off Vancouver island. I quote:
We have no time for complacency by governments, we most certainly have no time for complacency by individuals. One it may be hard to control, can it be said it is hard to control our own actions? Let us all ask ourselves not what the other fellow' is doing to defend us from bombs, hit and run attacks, or vrar in any of its horrible forms, but instead ask ourselves the simple question, w'hat am I doing to protect my very own home and family and the families of those away offering their lives to protect us, we all have a duty.
That is what I wrote in connection with the plebiscite.
I should like to say a word or two about Quebec. I think most of the Quebec members are personal friends of mine. Most of them endeavoured to secure an affirmative vote in the plebiscite. I appreciate their problem because in many cases an affirmative vote was not secured. I realize that their political future may be at stake should they vote "yes" on this amending bill. There was an 80 per cent affirmative vote in my riding. I want to ask my hon. friends from Quebec: What will

Mobilization Act-Mr. Cruickshank
happen to your conscience if the time should come-and it will come sooner or later-I am very much afraid it will come very soon- when our troops will cry for trained reinforcements? If you advocated a "yes" vote in the plebiscite in order to relieve the government of every obligation, why not be consistent and vote "yes" now? Why not trust your government ; why not trust your leader that conscription will be put in force when and if necessary? Why not realize that if you can advocate a "yes" vote when times are not so serious, you should maintain that stand by voting "yes" now?
What are you going to say to the rest of the provinces if the British isles are invaded? If the British isles are invaded, Canada's Pacific and Atlantic coasts will be invaded. What are you going to say to the people who said in 1885, "Our hearts belong to France but our arms belong to England?" My friends, your hearts may belong to France, but the mother country of France is a conquered country today, and she will remain conquered unless your arms are given to the empire to relieve her. Make no mistake about that. I should like to repeat a statement I heard over the radio on Sunday in connection with the United States war effort. I think it is extremely apropos to the present position. I am speaking particularly to my hon. friends from Quebec, and I want to assure them that I would have been in just as difficult a position had my riding voted "no." Let me say to them: You may have a temporary gain, but the empire means more than you or I as political individuals. This -was a programme in connection with the war effort of the United States and the theme was, "Eternity is a long time for a man to be ashamed."
I have every confidence in and every admiration for members from the province of Quebec. They have a difficult problem. I, too, might have a difficult problem to explain to my riding. Frankly, many people in my riding might consider it my duty as a Canadian from British Columbia to condemn the attitude of the province of Quebec, but I do not believe that is what the people of Canada want. Of course, we all become more tolerant as we grow older, but I do not think it should necessarily be compulsory to put any young man into a uniform. I do not claim particularly to be a young man, but still I am rather ashamed of the fact that I am not in uniform to-day. I do not have a son, but if I happened to have a son he would not have to be forced by law to get into uniform. If he did not join the army of his own accord, I would shoot him myself. That is what I think of the British empire.

We are sitting here dawdling around in complacency, both individuals and the government, and we do not know there is a war on. We are stalling. Read the headlines in to-day's papers and the headlines of yesterday and the day before. Are we ever going to wake up-not as members of parliament or as a government but as citizens of Canada? There is a war on. We are not fighting to protect the British empire or to protect Canada; we are fighting to protect our very existence-make no mistake about that.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have offended no one, particularly anyone from the province of Quebec, by my remarks, but I thought it my duty as a returned soldier member to speak on this question. I am somewhat surprised that other than returned soldier members have spoken in this debate. It is not necessary to have any bitterness, but I do think it is necessary that we as Canadians should remember that we would not be Canadians sitting here to-night if it were not for the great traditions and the actions of the British navy.
I am an infantry man and an army man myself, but before I sit down I should like to quote two stanzas of a poem by one of our gallant airmen, Squadron Leader G. L. Creed, entitled "Somebody's Son"; but just before doing so, let me say to my good friends from Quebec and from every other province, in every district and every riding, let us have no illusions that we would have the privilege of sitting here and speaking to-night if it were not for Britain and the British navy:
Somebody's son has volunteered To risk his life for you,
Somebody's son is far from home And the things that homefolk do.
Somebody's son for your freedom's sake Is preparing himself for war,
Somebody's son deserves your help For it's You he is fighting for!
Somebody's mother is giving her boy In a cause that is yours as well.
Somebody's wife knows a loneliness That only her heart can tell.
Somebody's mother and somebody's wife Are doing all they can do.
Somebody prays that some other may care. And the answer is up to You!
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops):	Mr. Speaker, I feel very much honoured in following the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), but I hope he will pardon me if I do not follow along exactly the same lines that he took. I do not take up very much of the time of the house and probably would not be speaking to-night if it were not for the fact that some speeches have been made in this debate which make it almost impossible for a man to continue to sit

Mobilization Act-Mr. O'Neill
silent. I do not think I can add anything new to what has already been said. I doubt, indeed, whether very much more can be said, but I think we should give some consideration to the reason for this legislation. The reason for this legislation is quite a long story, but there are some events of quite recent occurrence to which we might well give consideration at this time.
Some of the members on the opposite side of the house, and particularly of the Conservative party, seem to have the idea that politics, and particularly Liberal party politics, is a crime, at least at this time, although Conservative party politics has certainly been intensified both in this house and through the press under the guise of National government.
I think we are all fairly well agreed that we must have some sort of party government and political parties if democratic government is to function. There must be a party in power, and a party in opposition. As long as I have known anything about politics, I have been taught that the best form of government is one with a strong working majority, faced by a strong opposition. The advocates of National government are advocating exactly the reverse. They would take all the able men out of the opposition and put them in the government. The result would be that we would have a much more powerful government and a much weaker opposition. If the theory is sound that we should have a government with a strong working majority, and a strong opposition, then surely in a time of crisis we should not attempt to make a government weaker by putting more strength into it at the expense of a strong opposition.
As far back as July, 1939, when I returned to this country from Geneva, I found that the Conservative party had started on a campaign to elect a National government. The then leader of the Conservative party was making a tour of the Gaspe peninsula in the interests of the Conservative party, under the guise of a National government, which at that time they were advocating. Later on, in 1940, the election was fought on two distinct issues: one of them was national government versus party government, the other was, as was most emphatically affirmed by all three major parties, no conscription for overseas service. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), was elected in that year with the greatest majority received by any man at any time in the history of this country. Ever since that election the Conservative party and the Conservative press have done everything humanly possible to destroy Mr. King politically, and his government, and to set up in their stead a National government. As as example
of how far things have gone along that line, let me quote what a professor named C. W. Topping, of the university of British Columbia, said before the League of Nations Society of Canada convention recently held in Ottawa:
His students do not find much sense in fighting for the status quo. The Conservatives have made too good a job in tearing down Mackenzie King.
That was said at a League of Nations Society meeting on May 30, 1942. It is not a party matter. Toronto Saturday Night, which I submit is not a Liberal newspaper, had this to say:
Conscriptionists killing conscription.
Further on:
Mr. King is clever.
And still further:
Our regret at Mr. King's course has a different basis. The political insiders may view these things in the manner that we have surmised; but the public does not. The public of the eight provinces has been worked up into the belief that conscription is "necessary," though With no very definite idea for what reasons or by what standards; into a belief that it voted for the enactment and enforcement of conscription; and into a consequent feeling that conscription ought to be enacted and enforced. The present parliamentary debates and press editorials do not fully represent its reaction. It is disillusioned and disappointed. It has come to regard conscription as the "just" way of raising a large military force, and any other way as unjust to certain classes and detrimental to the future character of the nation.
That is something which has been raised up in the minds of the people through the debates in this house and by editorials throughout this country for the past five months. We have been here since last January, and I submit that this house has done nothing but talk conscription pro and con, either on the plebiscite or during the debate which is now proceeding.
The question before parliament to-day is the repeal of section 3 of the National Resources Mobilization Act. As the natural consequence of the plebiscite, and the plebiscite, in my opinion, was the only fair, logical and democratic thing to do under the circumstances. The people of the constituency of Kamloops, which I have the honour to represent, did not vote "yes" on the plebiscite in the belief that it was a vote for conscription at once. I believe they had enough intelligence, knowing that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell), and the leader of the Liberal party (Mr. Mackenzie King), on the public platform, over the air and through the newspapers told them most emphatically that an
Mobilization Act-Mr. O'Neill

affirmative vote was not a vote for conscription, to understand that they were not voting for conscription, but they certainly did know that if they voted "no" the hands of the government of this country would remain tied. They wanted to release the hands of the government so that they would be prepared at any time to take the action which in their best judgment seemed to be the right action to take at the time. It was not intended, as some people suggest, that we should blindly drive into conscription even though it were not necessary in order to win the war. That may appeal to the ideas of some people, but it was not what actuated the people of my constituency in voting "yes" -which they did, in unmistakable terms.
As I understand it, there are sufficient powers in the mobilization act to mobilize and conscript everything in this country, including man-power, except that the government must not conscript men for service overseas. This bill is the natural and logical result of the plebiscite, its intention being to remove that restriction. Not that we must put conscription into effect to-morrow, but conscription is to be introduced if and when in the opinion of the governing body of this country it is necessary. The government, I submit, are the only people who have the necessary information to decide that matter.
What is the record and what are the policies of those who are opposed to the government? I will begin with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. May I at the outset pay tribute to the leader of that party in respect of the exceedingly able and well-delivered proposals of his party. May I also tell him that with some of his submissions, especially those having reference to the three guiding rules of the New Zealand labour government as laid down by the Hon. Walter Nash, I am in complete agreement. But I am somewhat at a loss to reconcile the present attitude of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation with some of its past utterances and performances. On June 11, when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was making his presentation to the house, he is credited in Hansard, at page 3262, with the following language:
We of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have always contended that the financial system should be publicly owned and operated for the common good.
May I say at once that I am in complete agreement with that expression. But that has not always been the position of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. In 1934, before I had the honour and privilege 
of being a member of this house there was instituted in this country the Bank of Canada. The bill constituting this bank was brought in by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, who at that time was Prime Minister, and the majority of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party of that day voted with the government for private ownership of that bank. I point that out merely to call attention to the fact that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation of that time were not of the same opinion as that now expressed by the leader of that group, who himself was not a member at that time; he came in, as I did, at the election of 1935.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Would the hon. member
allow me to say-
Mr. O'NEILL: I have sat here for months and months and listened to many speeches from the hon. member. I have only a little time at my disposal.


Angus MacInnis: I want to correct
the hon. member's statement. His assertions are wrong. There was no Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in this house in 1934.
Mr. O'NEILL: No; the party came into being in 1932; none of you were elected as Cooperative Commonwealth Federation representatives, but you held the same sort of views as you hold now; you have adapted them to the times.


Angus MacInnis: We will tell you later about the screwball amendment against which we voted.
Mr. O'NEILL: I have not interrupted the hon. member since 1935. I assure him there were plenty of times that I should like to have interrupted him with an ink bottle, but I let him go on, and I think he might do the same with me now. I might call attention to the fact that the hon. member who has seen fit to interrupt me voted with the Conservative government for private ownership of the Bank of Canada.


Angus MacInnis: That is not true.
Mr. O'NEILL: Look at the record.


Angus MacInnis: I say it is not true.
Mr. O'NEILL: Look at the record and you will see it is true.


Angus MacInnis: That is not true.
Mr. O'NEILL: The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party went on to say, as reported at page 3262 of Hansard:
Hon. members will have noticed that one of the first controls which the government found it necessary to impose in this war was the control of foreign exchange. Banks are instru

Mobilization Act-Mr. O'Neill
ments of financial and investment policy. _ It is absurd to leave any portion of the policy in private hands during a crisis such as the present.
With that last remark I am in accord. However, I might point out that in the election of 1940 the only man who advocated from a public platform that there should be conscription of wealth, industry and manpower was the Hon. W. D. Herridge, who was defeated in the constituency' of Kindersley. But now we have many followers of that doctrine.
Let me now discuss the stand of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation on former occasions. There was quite a little argument the other night in respect of socialism. As I understand it-I am open to correction if I am wrong-I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) put forth the aims and objects of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation on that occasion, and I believe he was contending that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are not socialists. I might call the attention of hon. members to the fact that in the Regina Leader-Post of June 18 there was this notice:
The C.C.F. will hold a leadership school at Crystal Lake in the Canora district from July 6 to 11, at which members of parliament, members of the legislative assembly, candidates, members of the provincial council and campaign managers and organizers will be present. Guest speaker will be J. W. Bunee, Professor of Economics, at Iowa State College, who will instruct in the economics of socialism.
Mind you, I have no quarrel with the principles of socialism. What I have quarrelled with is the methods that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation seek to apply. We go back to 1936 and find this. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had this to say on May 28, as reported at page 3203 of Hansard of that year:
.	.	. in my opinion a country the size of
Canada, with its divers peoples and small population, is best defended if we rely upon our weakness physically and our goodwill as a good world neighbour rather than attempt to ape the military powers of the European countries.
I contend that is not a very laudable sentiment to be expressed by a man who seeks to be a leader of a great party. Then on November 15, 1937, he said, as reported at page 888 of Hansard of that year:
Are we in Canada going to join in this mad race without knowing precisely the policy that underlies the increased estimates upon which we shall shortly have to vote? Our answer in this little group is, of course, no, because we believe that such defence preparations only breed fear and that hate, which, in turn, is the child of fear.
Then on February 22, 1937, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said, as reported at page 1102 of Hansard of that year:
We have to bear in mind that in any war we should be involved largely on account of our association with some other country. It might be because of proximity to the United States, or because of our connection with Great Britain, even if we declared neutrality. We must remember that either of those nations has a navy powerful enough to prevent the passage of aircraft carriers across the Atlantic, and would be prepared to stop them for their own protection and the protection of their trade routes.
That is the party which to-day tells us that the Liberal party is not going far enough.
Again on February 22, 1937, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said, as reported at page 1105 of Hansard of that year:
If we once put our feet along this path of providing gun emplacements, coastal defences and so on, we must realize that we may be led much farther than we are given to understand to-day we will be. I am thoroughly convinced of that, and that is one reason why I am opposing this estimate. I believe that with a coast line such as we have, to do as the government intends will mean embarking upon a course which will be more or less provocative and interfere with any neutrality we may desire to observe in the future.
About the same time, May 8, 1936, the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) said, as reported at page 2632 of Hansard of that year:
When it comes to voting money for these purposes I desire to register a protest, not because I think these things are unnecessary, but because I think there are other things that are more necessary.
On February 19, 1937, the hon. member for Weyburn said, as reported at page 1063 of Hansard of that year:
Against whom are we arming? Wliat potential aggressor, is more agressive to-day? Oh I know that bogeymen have been trotted out in this chamber. It has been suggested that it might be Italy, it might be Germany, it might be Japan.
I suggest that if the hon. member had been a prophet instead of a critic in that day he would have been a world-beater.
Speaking on the plebiscite, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar had this to say:
I welcomed the opportunity to speak to you to-night-not only to urge you to vote "yes" next Monday, which I do, but also fo outline to you my views, and those of the movement for which I speak, on the whole picture of our war effort and Canada's hopes for the future.
I might remark that this is the only time I ever knew any government to pay for spreading political propaganda of their opponents.
With respect to our friends of the Conservative party, we have heard a good deal from

Mobilization Act-Mr. O'Neill
our friends with respect to leadership. Most of those remarks I believe emanated from the leaderless league in Toronto. They have indicated that they have no leadership, but they constantly advocated that the Prime Minister should get out and that someone else should get in; they asked for total war and so on. To my mind, remarks and tactics of that kind cannot have any other effect than to undermine the confidence of the people of this country in democratic government. I care not who is in power, whether Liberals or Conservatives, tactics of that kind by the opposition can have no other effect. It is my opinion that that very thing was more responsible for the fall of France than anything else. That went on in France until the country fell.
We heard this afternoon the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) and the other night the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) talking about the ballot box. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard any members of the Liberal party talk about the ballot box. Those remarks came from the opposition; and it was the wrong construction they placed on the utterances of those who preceded them in this debate that led them to accuse men of placing the ballot box before the good of their country. We could all go on doing these things, calling each other names, but it would not help the situation one iota. Hon. members who make remarks of that kind, however, would be surprised at what some uncharitable people might say about them as a consequence.
I submit that our war effort has been admirable in the eyes of all throughout the world with the exception of those in this country who are opposed to this government. They are the people who are doing everything humanly possible to belittle and discredit Canada's effort in this struggle for freedom. Hon. Walter Nash, who is now New Zealand's representative in the United States and who was formerly Minister of Finance of New Zealand, in addressing a special committee of this house had this to say:
We have sent . . . men overseas and . . . of these are airmen who have a lot of skill and knowledge as a rtsult of the training they have received under the magnificent empire air training scheme which you are carrying out here in Canada. If that alone was Canada's contribution with respect to this war it is something to be particularly proud of.
That is only one of the many things Canada is doing in this war; but this gentleman, who leans very far to the left as far as politics are concerned, considers that if it were the only thing, still our effort would be magnificent.
I am sure we all listened with a great deal of interest when the Minister of Munitions
[Mr. O'Neill.!
and Supply (Mr. Howe) told us what the government was doing in the. way of furnishing supplies to the allied nations. If my memory serves me correctly without referring to Hansard, we were told by the minister that munitions and war equipment manufactured in Canada were seeing service on every fighting front in the world to-day. We wrere also told that the tanks we are sending to Russia are among the finest in the world.
At this time I should like to congratulate the government upon what they have done in the way of putting representatives of labour on various boards, and upon having chosen a real labour man to head that department. When I say he is a real labour man, I expect the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation will, of course, not agree. I say these things, Mr. Speaker, because we are constantly told that we must conscript men for overseas service.
This is a news item which I clipped from the Ottawa Citizen of June 17. It comes from Vancouver, one of the finest cities in north America, and states:
C. S. Henley, special representative here for the national selective service board, announced to-day that labour shortages in British Columbia s vital spruce camps had been filled by soldier-loggers given six months leave from the torces, and that a similar plan to fill labour gaps in war industries was in the tentative stage.
Mr. Henley said that the soldiers were sent to spruce camps, chiefly in the Queen Charlotte islands, about three weeks ago.
I mention that in passing because we are told that we must have conscription for overseas service at once, whether or not men are required for other war work. I might read one other clipping along the same line, from the Monetary Times of June 20:
Faced with an acute labour shortage . farmers of the Fraser vallev in British Columbia have appealed to Colonel A. W. Sparling, D.S.O., local army commander, to release soldiers for work on the farms.
The head of one of the associations making the appeal said:
The men could be released to work on the farms on an eight-hour day basis at wages arranged by the military authorities.
I was pleased to note the appointment of Mr. E. M. Little to the selective service board. In speaking to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Mr. Little had this to say:
Employer-employee relations can and must be improved. Without them, maximum efficiency cannot exist. With good relations, miracles can be performed. There are men in this room who have been leaders in establishing sound relations with their employees. There are some who would like to have good relations and don't know how to go about it. And there are some employees who don't seem to want good relations.

Mobilization Act-Mr. O'Neill
To those who are willing, but don't know how, will you find out how from those who do? To those who don't want good relations or don't appreciate their value, I say the country cannot afford to have you as an employer at any time, particularly in war time. You must change your ways.
I suggest that if we had more of that sentiment we might be able to increase our war effort quite considerably. A Hamilton labour leader, Mr. John Mitchell, had this to say along the same line:
Employers who refuse to cooperate with their workers are a menace. They are breeders of discontent, hatred .and spite, and kill the initiative of the workers.
I think on the whole it can be said without fear of successful contradiction that while the government of this country has made many mistakes, when the history of these times is written, the record of this country will be among the most glorious of all of those who have taken part in this struggle for freedom. The present relations existing between Great Britain, our splendid neighbour the United States, and Canada, can in all fairness I think, be attributed to the statesmanship of our present Prime Minister. No one in this country, even those newspapers which are most strongly against the Prime Minister and his government, ever says anything against the ministers in charge of our war effort: the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), ;he Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), and the Minister of Agriculture _ (Mr. Gardiner). I never see any violent criticism of these hon. gentlemen. If a union or national government were formed, whom would my hon. friends put in their places? Would they take these hon. members out?
I am a labour man, Mr. Speaker, and I confess quite frankly that I have always been opposed to compulsion. I am still opposed to it, but there comes a time when one must bury some of the things he has always cherished, and I believe this is that time. It is my intention to vote for this bill; and if tomorrow I am advised by the ministers who are charged with responsibility and who are in possession of all the information, that conscription is necessary, then I am prepared to vote for that also.
I should like to make a few remarks with regard to the Japanese situation in British Columbia, but I shall not detain the house long. When the regulations were set up in British Columbia every person of the Japanese race within the protected area was supposed to be in his place of residence between sun-down and sun-up. That, of course, applied to the protected area. Then there were regulations with respect to arms, ammunition, motor vehicles, radios, cameras and the like. I understand that those regulations are not being carried out in British Columbia.
I am not blaming the government for that;
I believe that is the fault of the commission, and I shall not say much more on that subject.
However, I hold in my hand a copy of a train order issued to the engineers and conductors on the Canadian National railway running north from Kamloops, through the Blue river district, where the Japanese camps are situated. This order states:
Account Japanese out of hand and liable to do damage to railway; run carefully and keep sharp lookout in vicinity of Gosnell.
I also have a letter from a man who says that when the Japs were out of hand they went toward a house in that neighbourhood. There was only one woman in the house, and she promptly unlimbered a 30.30 and said that if they came another step farther there *would be some dead Japanese. This man makes a comment, "That is the first Jap retreat recorded in British Columbia". I have other letters of a similar nature, but since my time is short, I shall not refer to them in detail. In conclusion, I appeal to members of the house for unity. If there ever was a time in the history of Canada when unity was required, that time is now. To my English-speaking friends I would say this: I would urge that you have more tolerance, and that you consider the conditions existing in Switzerland, a nation of four million people and four recognized languages. In that country one hears German, French, Italian and other Romance languages. Yet, despite the difference in language there is a wonderful spirit of unity in that country. I can see no reason why we in Canada cannot have the same spirit.
To my French-speaking friends, in the most kindly spirit I would advocate the teaching of English in their schools. At the same time I would advocate the teaching of French in English schools, in order that we may get to know each other better. In my opinion, the maintenance of unity will be one of the greatest contributing factors to our share of winning the war and establishing an enduring peace.
I am sorry I have taken up so much of the time of the house. Like the speaker who preceded me, I have not in any way attempted to offend anyone. If inadvertently I have

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gauthier
done so, I hope hon. members will bear in mind that I have sat here for five months listening to speeches, and there have been occasions when I thought some of the observations were directed against me. Possibly some hon. members may think my words have been directed against them; I can assure them that is not so.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, so many things have been said during the course of this debate, the most unusual I have witnessed in the sixteen consecutive sessions in which I have taken part since 1927, that one cannot speak without repeating what [DOT]has been said before by the goodly number of orators who have taken part in the discussion.
The debate on Bill No. 80 has drawn attention to the house, and seems to have caused the formation of so many groups and the expression of so many points of view that one would think we were in the Palais Bourbon when there existed from ten to fifteen different groups or parties. I doubt that this house is as noisy as the Palais Bourbon was in those days, but when one sees such a mixture of opinion, and notes the different shades of expression of those opinions on one subject he realizes it would have been very difficult at the beginning to pick a winner.
Now that we have heard from the three defence ministers, one can say with confidence that Bill No. 80, when adopted, means conscription in the near future. After three years of controversy on that question, one is now permitted to say that those who from the beginning feared that parliament was heading toward conscription for overseas service were quite right in their deduction. Conscription has long been looked upon by a minority in the house and contrary as the quintessence of total war. The fact that Australia has not adopted a measure of compulsory service for overseas service and that Northern Ireland is on the same footing does not mean anything to that minority. However, who will say that Australia is dragging behind the others? Someone has said that our allies have conscription. True-China, to defend her territory; Russia to repel the Hun; the United States to defend its colonies and its own territory. We have conscription to defend our own territory; why must we have conscription for overseas service? Hundreds of thousands of soldiers are overseas following voluntary enlistment. More are training to prepare themselves. If there had not been so much talk on the part of that troublesome minority which, with a strong press campaign and the help of its two hundred gilded friends 
in Toronto, has put the heat on the government, there would be more volunteers training for overseas. All this proves that my hon. friends have made an enormous mistake, and that their blindness when considering the subject of total war has led them to miscalculate the results they were so keen to obtain. I will not go as far as to say that this was done purposely to stop voluntary enlistments. When I speak of minorities, I do so intentionally because I am positive that the majority of our population of any descent is against conscription. They have demonstrated clearly their intention of giving a total effort on a voluntary basis, and they have demonstrated that they understand the situation in which the nations of the world are at present.
I am one of the eleven Liberal members who went to their electors in Quebec during the plebiscite campaign and urged a negative answer to the question placed before them for their consideration. We said that an affirmative vote would open the door widely to compulsion for overseas service, and I believe that we were right. The people of Quebec cast their vote against conscription; my constituency voted against it by an overwhelming majority. I do not need any further expression of their opinion in order to vote against this bill.
We have been called extremists, fifth columnists, quislings, and many other names, all of which we do not mind. The result in Quebec was conclusive. Quebec did not want to relieve the government from its commitments. While the majority of Canada answered "yes," only those to whom the commitments were made could release the government. That was our stand on the plebiscite, and it still is. That is also the stand of the province of Quebec. If we were isolationists before, we were forced to abandon that. If we were opposed to participation in any external war, we had to concede, and that is not the first time we have made concessions. But on this occasion we had the solemn promise of our leaders, and of the Conservative candidates as well, that conscription would never be imposed. We kept our promise, and we accepted the adoption of conscription after participation had been decided upon, but we are now asked to go further and accept compulsory conscription for overseas service. I do not think that is fair.
The deletion of section 3 of this aot will constitute an acceptance of the principle, and then the democratic procedure of an order in council can consummate the tragedy. I think I am right in saying thait two-thirds of the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gauthier
members admit that conscription is not necessary, that the volunteer makes a better soldier. Nevertheless day by day we come closer to the adoption of that measure. It is no good; but the government, yielding to the pressure of the conscriptionist minority at any cost, has brought forward this bill for the deletion of section 3. I think we must admit that this is dangerous politico-mental gymnastics.
It has been said that the people of Quebec oppose conscription because they have not been properly educated on the question of war; that they do not realize that the situation is so serious; that they have not been spoken to boldly enough and so forth. Prior to 1917 we had not been told for the past twenty-five years that we would have conscription. I am not overlooking the campaign of the Nationalists. It is a positive fact that that campaign was subsidized by Tory money. But even though we had not been told for twenty-five years that we would have conscription, Quebec was still strongly opposed to conscription for overseas service, and the fact that France was then our ally did not lessen our opposition to conscription.
We have always been ready to help, to fight voluntarily. I do not need to recall the various occasions when French Canadians have fought to keep this country for England. They did it voluntarily and with enthusiasm, but they do not like broken promises. That is one good feature of their education.
One sad aspect of this change of policy is the fact that recruits have been called up and are now training for Canada's defence. From the beginning they have been under the impression that there would be no conscription for overseas service, but they are now facing the fact that with the passing of just one order in council they will be liable to be sent anywhere in the world. What will they think then of the word of honour of their representatives? What will they think then of their democratic parliament? Will there be left in them any confidence in this parliament?
The Conservative party is stamped with conscription, and this country is soon to enjoy the sight of a Liberal party with the same black spot upon its soul. Then the Tories will have the Liberal party where they have always wanted it. As their leader said before the plebiscite, they put on the heat. I understand that this go-between measure was to appease the ire of the imperialists, those within the Liberal party as well as those without. To those who believe that imperialism is dead, I ask, "Why are we denied a national flag and a national anthem?" Just because imperialists are afraid that the Canadian people will take
too much interest in the flag, a flag which would mean our whole history, a flag which would speak to the soul of our people and make them feel proud of their land. They would believe that at last they are heading toward a real national status.
Someone might answer that it would not mean much. I think that shows a lack of psychology, a lack of national pride. What is behind all this is imperialism which stands aloof behind words such as these: "Canada a nation," "autonomy," "free association of countries in the commonwealth," "freedom to declare war on anyone," "the Westminster statute," and so forth. But when it comes to the consecration of all these statutes, the red light is on and we remain a colony; a country within another country, separated by a few thousand miles of water, from which mainland we have to borrow a flag and a national anthem. They say imperialism is dead. Imperialism will never die as long as trade and commerce interests exist in the world. It will never die because England must have an empire in order to live. I know that those who stress the adoption of a national flag and a national anthem, those who do not look upon the union jack as their national flag or who do not consider "God Save the King" as their national anthem will be considered as being anti-British or even traitors. These are labelled arguments, always in stock.
The development of patriotism does not go with coercion or the denial of autonomous moves and privileges. Minorities in the world, even majorities with a mental inferiority complex, have been kept under the ferrule; and the results attained were often opposite. Sooner or later they woke up to reality. Sooner or later they realized that they were grown-up nations and were entitled to the stature of a nation. Nobody can overlook that law of centuries. Canada has over three centuries of existence. A country like ours, with unlimited wealth, has the right to its own economic and political life, and to make its own decisions. It has a right to salute its own flag and sing its national anthem, and those who would deny these priviliges have a great deal to add to their Canadianism.
I have said before in this house that the lords of the British Admiralty have never favoured a local defence progamme. At the very beginning of this war Hore-Belisha clearly expressed the same policy. If we had not been a part of the British empire, would we have declared war on European nations at the very beginning, when we were not attacked, and when nobody could foresee that this war would develop into a world war? If we had

Mobilization Act-Mr. Gauthier
just been a nation of America without any imperial bonds, we would not have acted so quickly. But when England declares war, all the free nations of the commonwealth declare war, because of their empire bonds. This fact was clearly demonstrated when Canada sent a contingent to south Africa to fight the Boers.
Since the outbreak of this war we have witnessed empires against empires. On one side, Germany, Italy and Japan wish to build up their empire at the expense of Russia, whose dream of ruling the world through communist theories is a kind of imperialism; on the other, the United States and England wish to save their empires. Everyone will admit that the united nations had to put into effect methods that were already in favour amongst totalitarian states, such as defence regulations, press censorship, compulsory loans and so forth, but with a difference in their philosophy.
I do not believe it would be a criticism of the Canadian defence regulations to say that the newspapers and people of England enjoy a larger freedom to djscuss the events of the war than we do in Canada. The defence of democracy and of Christian civilization was later on engrafted, however queer may be the fact that the seat of Catholicism is in Italy and that the armies of an atheist state are fighting on our side.
In the democratic states the parliament is elected and empowered by the people and should, normally speaking, bear the responsibilities attached to their mandate. I admit that a plebiscite is a very handy way of lessening to a certain extent responsibility toward the people. "Yes" or "no" would have been more explicit.
There wras no plebiscite when through its delegate this country signed a pact giving its word of honour that every economic and military resource would be put at the disposal of every one of the united nations whose signature appeared on that very important document called the Atlantic charter. Every economic and military resource meant all the money, munitions, foodstuffs and soldiers that Canada could provide. This parliament was not consulted on that question; nor were the Canadian people consulted, yet Canada was bound even to conscription if such a measure should be considered absolutely necessary. Even if conscription would provide but a few thousand men, we were bound by our signature to impose the conscription of men as well as the conscription of wealth. That agreement was siped on January 1, 1942, before the plebiscite. If the plebiscite was held to rectify
TMr. Gauthier.)
this act of our government, everyone will admit that, even if it was a handy way, it was not the gesture of what we would call responsible government to ask for ratification after the country had pledged itself.
Have we ever heard a member of this house urging upon this government the imposition of conscription for overseas service because we had been bound by our signature to the Atlantic charter? No. Then I am right in saying that conscription is looked upon by some, not to honour a pledge to the united nations, not as an inevitable step in providing the united nations with all the men we could get through conscription, but as part of a policy which has been strongly put forward since right after the election of 1940 by a group of men whose imperialism is as vivid as ever and for whom no conscription in Canada for overseas service would bring dishonour to this country. Canada for them is one with the empire. The boundaries of our country are the boundaries of the empire. In a word, it is the same country. Yet some will say that imperialism is dead!
With some people talk of the war effort and of conscription develops into what medical men call a neurosis, and when controversy awakens they are scandalized to hear someone advocating the defence of Canada as our primary goal. If Canada is attacked directly on its own territory it is because, in their view, we have not conscription for overseas service. The sight of Australia bringing back her soldiers to defend Australian soil does not lessen _ their "mother knows all" attitude. Conscription for overseas service has become a fixed idea with them, and since French Canadians are strongly opposed to it, queer words are uttered. But we let them go by, ready to forgive, but never ready to surrender.
Our patience has surmounted many obstacles. Our faith in our country has long made us believe that some day the minorities will see their privileges equitably considered. In war time the French Canadians are urged to contribute their share in the conscription of blood. But do you not think, sir, that their good-will would be more apparent if in peace time they were not so often deprived of their share of the advantages to which they are entitled? And this is the real situation in peace time.
"Why don't you speak English in Quebec?" someone said in this house last week. In Quebec we learn and speak both languages because both are official. We would not learn or speak English if we wanted to dominate other parts of the country. A wonderful example of tolerance is given to the "one language, one school" apostle by Switzerland.

Mobilization Act

Mr. Macmillan
They have three official languages in that country, and since none of the three try to absorb the others they are enjoying perfect unity. Why not follow the example of Quebec where the two languages are spoken freely, where religions are taught to children, and school commissions are equally subsidized by the government. That French Catholic legislature of Quebec! The example is on the threshold of the door: "open it wide and broad-mindedness will come in". That is what we find in that "depressed minority of Quebec". If our social laws are not adequate to the needs of our people, which is far from being the truth, Christian charity comes to the rescue.
We have the best laws of hygiene that one can wish. I admit that our farming has not developed into an industry and that we do not receive the millions inherent to the wheat policy. But the permanency of our farm owners is certainly better established. We do not mind buying for millions of dollars even from Toronto firms. One of them, whose president was among the two hundred, showers the province with its catalogues every year. We are patient. Our past illustrates the degree it can attain. It kept us fighting for our share in this Canada of ours. We received it from our mothers, the symbol of patience and selfsacrifice. From them we have inherited the belief in the sanctity of pledges.
We are not opposing conscription because our men are afraid to fight. It is because there is a principle at stake. For this principle we will go on and fight. But there is a limit to everything.
To those who are afraid that French Canada wants to dominate, to rule, to dictate to other parts of the country, I will read these few lines from an article in the publication "Food for Thought". It is entitled, "What French Canadians Want-Survival, not Domination", and is written by the Abbe Arthur Maheux! He says:
How English-speaking Canadians could feai domination by French Canadians has often beer a source of wonder to me. Such people shoulc read French-Canadian writers, poets, journalists and scholars. They should listen to French Canadian speeches, sermons and radio talks. ] would dare say that not a single French Cana dian has ever expressed the aim or desire oi domination in Canada or North America. St far as I know from conversations with peoph from all social groups in French Canada, tht idea of domination is quite absent from tht mind of the French Canadian. His ambition it not to dominate Canada. Even if he shoulc outnumber the other racial groups put togetkei he would not use his numerical strength tc dominate.
Those who are afraid of us should meet us more frequently and know us.
I must repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I shall vote against this bill, and do so with pleasure, because I know now that I was not mistaken about the plebiscite campaign. I know that I was right when I urged my people to vote "no", that this plebiscite meant conscription, and that the deletion of section 3, as has been said in this house, is the logical consequence of the vote. We were right when we said that. We were called Quislings and other nice names. We do not mind. AVe knew it was conscription coming, conscription in the making, and I was pleased to see that my people voted 95 per cent "no". I shall vote against the measure, and nothing will make me vote in favour of anything heading toward conscription.


Hon. CYRUS MACMILLAN (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong this debate, which has already, perhaps, proceeded too long. I do not wish to delay the passing of this bill, but on some of the issues involved I want to make a few comments, which will be very brief.
During the course of this discussion many extraneous topics have been introduced. I am not going to pose to-night as an evangelist of harmony, because I do not believe disharmony exists to a great extent in this country. I am not going to hold an inquest on unity, because I do not believe that unity is dead or is in danger of death. I am not going to turn back very far in the pages of history. I believe that in this debate far too much emphasis has been placed on alleged disunity, and strange pictures have been painted. With all respect, may I say I think there has been far too much beating of dead political horses.
I am going to vote for this legislation. The bill before us is the result of a people's decision, a popular vote, a popular voice. That decision was made on April 27 last. While overwhelmingly in the affirmative, it was not unanimous. There was difference of opinion in every city, in every town, in every district. That difference does not mean revolt or disunity, it does not mean hatred. In these troubled days that are upon us, when half the world has been forced into silence, when an effort is being made to make us all think in terms of nazism or not to think at all, surely it is a privilege-or perhaps I should say it is a luxury-to differ with those for whom I have a deep affection, and a high regard, like those who sit around me. One of the things we are fighting for to-day is the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Macmillan
liberty of difference, and that liberty of difference does not mean the severance of friendship.
There are certain sections of the press that, with a peculiar presumption, arrogate to themselves the sole anxiety for an all-out war effort. They even become armchair strategists and field marshals. I have no objection to their assuming that role if, in doing so, they do not paint an inaccurate picture of my country. We are all, inside this house and outside this house in Canada, whatever our differences may be, one in hope and in heart, and that hope is for the speedy winning of this war. The young men, young women and children with whom I come in contact in this country are each and all sentinels on duty willing to do their best for the safety and the defence of this country. Therefore let us be done with this cry of disunity and these recriminations; let us guard our tongues and our pens when we speak or write about this bill.
In my province of Prince Edward Island the plebiscite was interpreted, as I think its language intended it to be, as a request for release from a pledge which, rightly or wrongly, was given two years ago with regard to the method of raising men for overseas service. The answer to that in my province, as it was throughout Canada on the whole, was an overwhelming "yes." That did not mean necessarily, in my judgment or in the judgment of my constituents, immediate conscription. It meant this, that when the time comes that the system now in vogue fails to be an adequate defence of this dominion, then the government is given freedom and power to act in any way necessary to save this country. When that crisis comes and those obligations arise I, as a former soldier, believe that the decision will depend on the experienced advice, the expert knowledge and the considered judgment of military leaders and of the allied command. When that time comes this government must be free to act in any way necessary, and in accordance with their action or their failure to act the people will hold them responsible.
With many of my hon. friends in this house who served in the last war I believe in the voluntary system as long as it works. I believed in it in the last war. But there may come a time when the stream of men under the voluntary system will dry up. We cannot win this war without aggressiveness; aggressiveness means, casualties; casualties mean reinforcements, and reinforcements mean that troops have to be raised and sent in one way or another. I think one of the proudest things to any Canadian is the success of our

voluntary system. In my little province, small in size but great in heart, nearly 9 per cent of the entire population have enlisted for active service. If that proportion were extended throughout all Canada, we would have over a million men in the field to-day. That is true also of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. A great percentage of those men have gone into the navy. That is natural, because those boys are born and bred to the sea; each boy is drawn to the docks as boys in other provinces are drawn to the baseball parks or the movies. The young men of the martime provinces see themselves in imagination holding a flapping top-sail in the breeze or standing by a kicking wheel on some far distant ocean. So we find them going into the merchant marine or the navy. Conscription would not mean anything in my province, because there is no one left to conscript. That, I think, should be the situation throughout Canada.
I wonder if we have considered the difficulties and obstacles with which the voluntary system was faced. There must be the will for enlistment. Let me go back, from ten years before the war to the very eve of the war, to recall those days right up to 1939 when we were living in a sleep-walker's world. In that world, into the schools and colleges and universities and on the platform and, indeed, into some of our pulpits, went hawkers of utopian propaganda. These so-called leaders exploited our youth, told them to love other countries better than their own, taught them that every war was inglorious, that every hero was a fraud; they had them sign declarations that they would fight on their own terms; even the students of Oxford signed a declaration that they would not fight for king or country. We who came back from the last war tolerated that paradise of dreams; we sat silent while they sang utopian lullabies to youth. When we consider that the boys of that time, from fifteen to twenty years of age even five years ago, now from twenty to twenty-five, have-notwithstanding that attempt at innoculation given to them by so-called leaders-gone from the schools and colleges and universities in a steady stream and enlisted, with that background I sometimes wonder that they enlisted at all without compulsion. It gives me renewed faith in youth when I regard them and their sterling character. The youth of this country have been weighed in the balance many a time and have never been found wanting.
A second thing that has interfered with the will to enlist is the stream of criticism that has flowed out. I have no objection to criticism if it is fair. But ever since this war

Mobilization Act-Mr. Macmillan
broke out, a certain section of the press in this country has spread misinterpretation to deceive the Canadian people, with greater energy than any dictatorship. One man has been pursued relentlessly and maliciously in a manner before which I think future historians of Canada will stand appalled. That man is the Prime Minister of this dominion. I am not going to indulge in excessive compliment, because it always breeds suspicion, but I will say it is not for his contemporaries to judge him, and I believe that as long as this nation survives he will be remembered in the hearts of the Canadian people because of his conduct of affairs during these last few years.
One other thing I would mention is the lack of news. I do not know who is responsible for that. We hear a great deal about the desirability of more news being spread in the United States, but where we want the news is right here; the news of how the war is going, the news that a squadron of Canadian fighters was over Cologne, that a Canadian corvette limped back to port after ramming a submarine. That is of more value than all the good-will lectures and tours and visits of all the actresses in Hollywood. We are not getting that news. Our young people are asking for it. I just give that as a hint to whoever may be responsible.
Let us make no mistake about it; the crisis is coming. It may come more quickly than we think. When it does come and it may be necessary to send men overseas, let no man think we are fighting for Britain. Does anyone suggest that the Canadian boys who may be dying to-night in Alaska or the Aleutian islands are fighting for the United States? Does anyone suggest that General MacArthur's men in Australia are fighting for Britain, or that the United States troops who were reviewed by their majesties the other day are fighting for Britain? This is what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, in France, during this June month in 1897:
I am told that here in France there are people surprised at the attachment which I feel for the crown of England, and which I do not conceal. ... That double fidelity to ideas and aspirations, quite distinct, is our glory in Canada. \ve (French Canadians) are faithful to the great nation that gave us life; we are faithful to the great nation that gave us liberty.
_ That liberty is in jeopardy to-night. It is in greater danger than ever before in the history of our world. Are we going to let it die? Do we want a repetition of Lidice in Canada, where every man was shot to death, every woman raped and sent to a concentration camp, and every child sent to a propaganda school to learn how to murder his neighbours and his kinsmen? Do we want in this country a repetition of the atrocities of Hong Kong? In my part of the country when there is a forest fire we do not wait until it comes round our homestead. We go out to meet it and keep it from our precious possessions, and I believe that is true also on the prairies. There is a line in the United States national anthem which I think fits this case:
0! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and wild war's desolation!
Our men are out fighting to defend their homes from "war's desolation."
When this crisis comes and it is necessary to act, I hope that action will not be the calling of parliament to debate this question again. Democracy is always at a disadvantage in war time. The dictator and the tyrant act on the instant. Democracy acts by consultation, debate and discussion. Dictatorial powers in war time are necessary, if they are not usurped and if they are given to leaders by the people. That is what we have done. The people have given the government power. Why should the government call us back here to discuss this matter at great length again? Hitler will not wait. Do not blame the method; blame Hitler, because he is responsible. The other day I read an address delivered by Admiral King, commander of the United States fleet, to the cadets at Annapolis who were just leaving to go into service. That great leader told those boys three things which I wish I could spread all over Canada: "First, do your best with what you have, and remember that there is no perfection in war either in men or in equipment. Second, do not mourn or weep over the water that has gone over the dam in the past, but let your cry be, 'Where do we go from here?' Third, there are difficulties, but 'difficulties' is the name given to things we have to overcome."
One other thought. As a Canadian I deplore the aspersions cast on Quebec. I know Quebec; it has been kind to me. I know its people. Like many others in this house, my ancestors came to this country nearly 150 years ago from the highlands of Scotland. They did useful work in this country; probably the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) will say they did the most useful work of any race, and I might agree with him. They came here in search of liberty, looking for freedom to worship God, but they did not forget that the country to which they came was born of French vision, pioneered by French enterprise, colonized by French courage and blessed by French religion. We have lived in peace. The rocks from which
3780	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Macmillan
we Canadians have been hewn were of divers countries and divers races. We are not bound together, as someone has said, by reverence for a common past or a common ancestry. We are bound together by a common hope, a hope for a peaceful world, where each man will eat in safety under his own vine what he has planted, and sing the merry song of peace to all his neighbours. We in this country are not enemies; we are friends. We must not be permitted to become enemies. We must not let anything drive us apart, not even this bill, because, as I said before, I believe we are one in hope and in heart.
We are passing through dark days. They will be darker. We shall have to give up many things. We shall have to give up our leisure and devote it to the service of our country in some capacity. There will be less gasoline, less sugar, fewer tires, fewer silk stockings, and other things, but I believe we can take it as a nation. One night, 170 years ago, by a flickering camp fire, a great soldier and writer wrote these lines on a drum head, and I think they might be our lines to-day:
These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.
We have this for our consolation: the more difficult the conflict, the greater will be the triumph. We are not pessimistic. I close with one further memory, which is somewhat sacred to many people in this house. It was a spring day in France in 1918; a day of yellow' sunshine, with birds singing above the mutter of the guns, with flowers creeping out among the broken walls. The road hog of Europe was on the move; his grey troops were trying to crush the British and French armies, and there came to every commander of a Canadian unit this message. Does it not sound as though it were written yesterday?
In an endeavour to reach an immediate decision the enemy has gathered all his forces and struck a mighty blow at the British army. . . .
Measures have been taken successfully to meet this German onslaught. The French have gathered a powerful army, commanded by a most able and trusted leader and this army is now moving sw'iftly to our help. Fresh British divisions are being thrown in. The Canadians are soon to be engaged. Our motor machine gun brigade has already played a most gallant part and once again covered itself with glory.
' Looking back with pride on the unbroken record of your glorious achievements, asking you to realize that today the fate of the British empire hangs in the balance, I place my trust in the Canadian corps, knowing that where Canadians are engaged there can be no giving way.

Under the orders of your devoted officers in the coming battle you will advance or fall where you stand facing the enemy. . . .
Canadians, in this fateful hour, I command you and I trust you to fight as you have ever fought w'ith all your strength, with all your determination, with all your tranquil courage. On many a hard fought field of battle you have overcome this enemy. With God's help you shall achieve victory once more.
That was a message from Sir Arthur Currie, commander of the Canadian corps. My point is this: That message was sent to us a little more than three months after the conscription election, with all its turbulent activities. Do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the men who listened to that and went over the top to crack the Hindenburg line were worried about conscription? The Frenchman from Three Rivers was in the centre of his platoon; on his right was a Scotsman from Cape Breton; on his left an Irishman from the Fraser Valley or Toronto, an Englishman from Victoria. One word only described them; it was the word "Canada" on their shoulders.
I believe the spirit with which those men obeyed that order is still ours in Canada. And I believe this, that if we will only banish intolerance from our minds and prejudice from our hearts, and go forward together, with God's help we, too, will achieve victory.


Mr. ROBERT RYAN (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in this debate. First I would congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the well-prepared, ably delivered and explicit statement he made to the house at the opening of the debate. I would congratulate, .too, the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) upon the courageous and vigorous statement he made, and the clear manner in which he placed his position, and that of Quebec, before the house. I would congratulate, too, the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) upon his clear exposition of the position of Quebec.
I congratulate the government upon the nomination of the Minister of Justice to his portfolio, because I believe the Prime Minister selected for that post one of the most capable men in Canada. May I congratulate, too, all other ministers and hon. members who have taken part in the debate. Each has expressed his views. One cannot be in favour of all he hears from the orators, but we can believe at least that these men have spoken in good faith.
I have believed since the first session of this parliament that the Conservative party, those who have supported that party and certain organizations throughout Canada, have waged an organized campaign to create preju-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Ryan
dice in the public mind against the Prime Minister. There is no doubt whatsoever as to the truth of that suggestion, and I could prove it from clippings I have taken from editorials in newspapers.
Six months after the beginning of the war there was a general election, and the leaders of both the major parties stated there was to be no conscription for overseas service. I understand some hon. members opposite did not accept the statement of their leader. That does not matter, however, because the statement was made by both leaders. At the first session of parliament the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) stated in the house that he had been chosen temporary leader, and that when he was chosen it was understood he would oppose the government. He also stated, "As long as I remain in the house I intend to oppose the government." I give him credit that that is what he has done since the first session.
There has been an organized campaign to create prejudice against the Prime Minister- not so much against the government, because it has been suggested at certain times, particularly during the first and second sessions of this parliament, that certain ministers might replace the Prime Minister, if he would kindly get out. 1 believe it was the Montreal Gazette which stated, "Now is the time for the Prime Minister to resign. He could resign in all his glory. He could be one of the best Prime Ministers Canada ever had, if he would get out now." They are of the same opinion to-day.
I recall that on January 26 one of the Ottawa daily papers published a special number in three sections. There was the regular news section, and two others in addition. One of those sections was headed "Canada's War Effort for Victory", and pointed out that the war effort of the dominion was rapidly expanding to a peak. In those special sections I found photographs of nine ministers, and five other gentlemen connected with war departments. The texts under these pictures were most appropriate, giving due credit for the urork done by each. So far as it went this was all right. But something was missing, in none of the sections was there a photograph of the Prime Minister of Canada. Why was it missing? It was missing for the reason I mentioned earlier, namely, prejudice against the Prime Minister.
If ministers of the crown have done their duty, they should receive credit. But if, for instance, the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) have done their duty, then surely some of the credit must go
to the Prime Minister who had the good judgment to select those men-because we know it is the Prime Minister who made the selection. Let us give him credit. .
During the last session I said this, "We may not agree with everything that is being done by the government; but we should agree that on the whole the Prime Minister and the government are carrying on a gigantic undertaking very satisfactorily and under strict control." I repeat that to-night, because it is just as true now as it was then.
In that connection may I read an extract from Liberty of June 20, appearing under the hand of the publisher:
An executive of one of Canada's greatest industrial concerns has stated, "I wonder if people realize that they have seen a miracle. They possibly do not know it, but they have seen in Canada in the last two years the greatest per capita industrial expansion that has ever occurred to any people anywhere."
Following that statement, I should like at this time to congratulate the Minister of Munitions and Supply upon the clear statement of facts which he gave us the other day. I think he has always been held in high esteem, but he will be held in still higher esteem after making that statement. I think it was John Ruskin who wrote:
That the greatest thing a human soul ever does in this world is to see something, and tell what he saw in a plain way. Hundreds of people can talk for one who can think, but thousands can think for one who can see.
There is no argument as to where the defence line of Canada lies; the difference of opinion is in connection with the method to be used to select men to reinforce that line. In connection with conscription for overseas, I should like to read a letter which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of June 23 signed by a gentleman named Arnold Stuart. The heading on this letter, which I suppose is put there by the Gazette, is "Crerar's Convictions", and it reads:
Sir,-This morning's leading editorial asks some pertinent questions concerning Hon. T. A. Crerar, federal Minister of Mines and Resources. "Where are the convictions of 1917," you ask, "and where is his courage of that war?" (concerning conscription).
Well, I should say it is quite possible that Mr. Crerar has looked up the record. Perhaps you should do so too, Mr. Editor. It would show the following:
404.000	enrolments under the Military Service Act (conscription).
380.000	exemptions asked (118,000 in Ontario;
115.000	in Quebec, etc.).
104.000	exemption claims approved in Ontario;
108.000	in Quebec, and so on in other provinces.
31.000	ordered to report for duty. 5,000 of these defaulted, leaving 26,000 net yield out of
405.000	enrolled.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Ryan

It is quite possible, Mr. Editor, indeed highly probable, that Hon. Mr. Crerar and his leader the Prime Minister, have these figures of the results of conscription in mind. Is it any wonder that they want to defer conscription until every other expedient has failed?
The Gazette said in 1918 concerning the Union government's course in applying the Military Service Act (conscription):
The government appears to have established a system which, if it gets the men at all, will get them so slowly that whatever military advantage depends on expeditious reinforcement will be lost.
If, as is alleged, recruits are coming in satisfactorily under the voluntary system there would appear to be little reason to turn again to the sad expedient of 1917. The fact is that politicians on both sides have for decades made such a bete noir of conscription that now it rises up to bedevil the whole domain of our war psychology. But nothing is to be gained by ignoring the real situation.
The leader of the opposition made the following statement, as reported on page 2768 of Hansard:
Because this government in the first nine months of the war did absolutely nothing to meet the situation. They were going to have a moderate war. A moderate war! Ask any hon. member from the province of Quebec if they were not promised that Canada's contribution would be a moderate contribution.
As far as I am concerned I have no recollection, and I do not believe anyone else has, that Quebec was promised a moderate war. The promise was made to Quebec that men would not be conscripted for overseas service. Quebec has never objected to a total war effort; Quebec has never objected to men enrolling voluntarily to go any place in the world. Quebec has not criticized the all-out war effort, and it did not criticize the billion dollar gift to England for food, materials and so on. Quebec has not criticized the budget or anything else. There has been no criticism of the government or of any action that has been taken in furthering our total war effort. But the people of Quebec were promised, and they want the government to keep the promise that there will be no conscription for service overseas.
There is one thing I have had in mind for a long time, but hon. members who have spoken before me have brought this up. I am in favour of increased pay for the men in the armed forces. I am also in favour of widowed mothers whose only sons have enlisted being given the same allowance as that received by a wife, namely, $35 a month. To-day such a widowed mother receives only $20. The men who are fighting for our liberty must be assured that after the war there will be a better world in which to live, a world in which every man will be guaranteed work and security.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) upon some of the public statements he has made during the last couple of years. I do not know if the government was aware of all these statements, but I am very much in favour of certain of the things which the Minister of Pensions and National Health thinks should be done after this war is over. In this connection I should like to quote from "The Road We are Travelling 1914-1942" by Stuart Chase. No doubt most hon. members know who Mr. Chase is. He is a writer on economic questions, and in this book which has just been published, he said:
I believe, moreover, that we are more likely to win the war if we have a clear idea of goals for the peace. Men fight better when they know for what they are fighting. Any peace we make must be superior to that which our enemies can offer. They make alluring promises about new orders and new spheres of prosperity. These promises are widely heard in the lands most affected, and we shall have to do more than sneer at them. We shall have to-and can-offer something better, more just and more convincing.
Defeatism about the peace is almost as dangerous as defeatism about the war. The victory need not and must not lead to economic depression and disaster at home. Actually, when peace does come, it will be an opportunity and a challenge; an opportunity to use our vastly increased plant and human resources to raise the standard of living for us all; a challenge to make a greater civilization.
If our young men were assured that there would be a new and better world after this war, they might feel like joining up.
There are a number of things I should like to say with regard to the plebiscite, and I should like to give my understanding of the plebiscite vote. First, I understand it as a vote to release the government from the promise they had given to the people of Canada that men would not be conscripted for service overseas. Second, the plebiscite was the only democratic method by which the government could secure an expression of opinion from the people in regard to their promise. Third, the "yes" vote in eight provinces did release the government from their promise. However, this vote cannot be interpreted as a definite and emphatic vote for conscription but should be interpreted as a vote for freedom of action for the government. Fourth, the "no" vote refused to release the government from their promise. This vote must be understood as a definite and emphatic vote against conscription of men for service overseas. Fifth, if Bill No. 80 is adopted by parliament, it is my opinion that should the government find it necessary to impose con-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bonnier
scription of men for overseas service, the matter should be submitted to parliament for final decision.
It has not been proven up to the present that the voluntary method of enrolling men has not been satisfactory and that, if there had been conscription of men for overseas service, a greater number of men could have been trained and equipped. I never heard that any of the three defence ministers were not satisfied with enrolments under the voluntary system. I understood that some time ago the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) stated that he believed that with the voluntary system the country could carry on until March, 1943. I think some hon. members misunderstood the three speeches made by the ministers of defence and were under the impression that they were in favour of immediate conscription. But these three ministers did not say one word against the voluntary system. They did not say that the voluntary system had failed; they did not say or suggest that conscription should be imposed at once. They did say -that they would vote for the bill. Undoubtedly the ministers of defence will vote for the bill or, like the hon. member for Riehelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin), they would have to resign from the government. There is no doubt in my mind that when these ministers find it necessary to impose conscription for overseas service they will be in favour of imposing it, but in their speeches they did not say anything about that. The public also are under the impression that the voluntary system has been satisfactory, and nothing has been said up to this time by the ministers of defence against that system.
The "no" vote in Quebec was not a vote intended to disrupt the bonne entente that has existed between the two races that have built up Canada. It was a vote to uphold a principle which is deeply rooted in the minds of the great majority of the electors of Quebec.
The vote on the plebiscite or on Bill No. 80 should not affect the good work that has been done up to the present to cement Canadian unity, and this good work should be continued.
Let me recall to this house the words which the Prime Minister uttered in Winnipeg on July 10, 1941. He said:
My duty as I see it is to seek above all else to preserve national unity, for on the maintenance of national unity all else depends.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say as a Quebecker to the English-speaking members of this house that I do not think we shall find men who have more consideration for the English-speaking members than the members from Quebec, and I say to all the English-speaking members of all the other 44561-239J
provinces that I do not believe the people of their constituencies have any better friends than the people of Quebec. I am persuaded that I can also say with equal assurance to the members from Quebec that they could not find any better friends than the Englishspeaking members from the other provinces, whose constituents also, I am sure, have the same friendly feeling toward the people of Quebec as the people of Quebec have towards them.


Mr. J. A. BONNIER (Saint-Henri) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we really need conscription in this country more than in any other British colony. Many voters have asked me this question: Why should Canada adopt a conscription measure which every other English colony has rejected? I would like to have a reply to that question which I have been asked repeatedly, in order to satisfy my electors and state the government's views to them. Australia, Northern Ireland, New Zealand and India have not introduced conscription. Neither has Egypt. Why then do Great Britain and Canada wish to force conscription upon us every time war is declared? Why is this? I would like to know once for all in order to be able to enlighten my constituents.
Mr. Speaker, Sir Wilfrid Laurier always endorsed voluntary service in this country. For my part, I have done the same thing ever since I cast my first ballot. We have been brought up with that in mind. It was in 1903, I think, that we had the Boer war. We dispatched a contingent of volunteers overseas but there was no conscription. Then in 1911 the Conservatives attained power largely through a platform which denounced Laurier's reciprocal trade agreement with the United States and naval programme to the province of Quebec. They tricked the Quebec population and the English element of Canada into defeating Laurier. When he appealed to the people, the English population claimed that Canada was being sold to the United States, that the intention was to annex our country to the United States. In Quebec, the mothers were told: Laurier wants to send your sons on foreign seas immediately. He wants to send your children to war as cannon fodder. He intends sending them to the China sea and to all European waters. Was that not the cry heard all through the campaign organized by the Tories of Quebec and those of Ontario and the other English-speaking provinces in order to defeat Laurier? He was defeated and on the very next day what steps were taken by the Borden government which

Mobilization Act-Mr. Bonnier
had just come into power? Instead of building a navy, we were asked to send 835 million to England.
In 1914, war was declared. Once more we contributed volunteers until 1917; but in 1916 a census was ordered. At first, the people of the French-Canadian province refused to
register. In this difficulty, the clergy were asked to undertake a campaign in the various parishes to urge the people to register, stating that it was not a matter of conscription but simply a means of ascertaining the exact population of the country. In 1917, after the census, a conscription bill was introduced. It was opposed by all French Canadians and many Britishers. Our efforts failed to convince the people of Canada that the voluntary system of enlistment was adequate. At that time, many supporters of Laurier, even many of his former ministers, forsook him. But he remained in the struggle. Ever since his attaining the office of Prime Minister, he had held to the principle of avoiding conscription and maintaining the voluntary system. To-day, after so many years during which we have been taught that the voluntary system is the better method, how can we change our views on this subject and support conscription? Our minds have been steeped in the doctrine of voluntary enlistment. In 1938, during the partial election which brought me to this house, conscription was mentioned. I carried the vote of the Liberal convention against seven candidates. Then came the election. You all know my opponent, the former mayor of Montreal, who had been elected to his post by a majority of more than 50,000 and who has always been a dangerous opponent. My election was due to the former minister of public works (Mr. Cardin) and the late Hon. Mr. Rinfret. Conscription was brought up even then, with the promise that it would never be introduced. Again in 1940, it was generally opposed. Moreover, even the English-speaking members of the other provinces were elected on the strength of anti-conscription pledges. Why have they altered their views? Their election campaign, as that of all the others, was waged on the conscription issue. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) did not come to the province of Quebec only; he visited all provinces, and so did the other ministers. Was there a speech specially prepared for the province of Quebec and another for Ontario and the maritime provinces? No; he gave everywhere the same pledge, to wit, there would be no conscription.
If I remember well, one of the previous speakers who is from Prince Edward Island and represents, I think, the constituency of Queens, (Mr. Macmillan), quoted what
{Mr. Bonnier.]
Laurier said in France when he thanked that country for having given us birth and England for having given us freedom. Supposing France were one day to be at war not with England but with any other country. Could we then advocate conscription in order to assist our former mother country? Would such a course be accepted? Yet that is a perfectly legitimate stand: one country gave us birth and the other gave us freedom. We would certainly be willing to help our former mother country on a voluntary basis, but we would never advocate compulsory military service for that purpose.
It is said that we are cowardly and that we are afraid to participate in the war. Mr. Speaker, those who say that do not remember that in 1812 our neighbours, who are now on friendly terms with us, invaded Canada. What did the French Canadians do at that time? Did they look around in order to see if the British were there? Did they wait for conscription before rising and saying: We are going to defend our country? They did not. General de Salaberry and his army set out to meet the enemy. The battle was won near Chateauguay at the spot now called Bryson, on the Chateauguay river, in my native county. A monument erected there bears the names of French Canadians who did not wait for the English to defend Canada. They took up her defence themselves. They held their ground right up to the present border on the 45th degree of latitude.
The answer to the plebiscite in the province of Quebec and the intelligent and clear sighted vote cast by her people should have been enough to open the eyes of the Prime Minister and even of the most obtuse among his colleagues. Such also should have been the effect of the resignation of the Prime Minister's faithful colleague, who has been the senior member of this house since the death of the late Mr. Lapointe and whose tact and eloquence held the Montreal district under the Prime Minister's banner as Mr. Lapointe had done in the Quebec district. The resignation of the former Minister of Public Works has therefore come as a most conclusive confirmation of our stand.
We have always believed in Mr. Cardin's sincerity and we now have more reason than ever to do so. Just as Mr. Lapointe, our lamented leader, and we ourselves did, Mr. Cardin hoped that a government led by one whose very faithfulness to Laurier in his struggle against conscription had led to his being chosen as leader of the Liberal party, would never enforce such a measure. It seems that he was in such earnest about it

Privilege-Mr. O'Neill
that he retained his hope longer than we did. However, confronted by the facts, as soon as he realized that the Prime Minister put his cards on the table-


The DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. It is eleven o'clock. Does the hon. member intend
to proceed with his speech at an early date?


Joseph-Arsène Bonnier: It will take ten minutes at the very most.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member may continue with the unanimous consent of the house.
Is it with unanimous consent of the house?


Major James William Coldwell: How long is the hon. gentleman going to be?


Joseph-Arsène Bonnier: Eight or ten minutes.


Mr. STIRLING:: I do not think we can consent to that.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman has not unanimous consent. Therefore he must move the adjournment of the debate since it is eleven o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Bonnier the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, June 30, 1942