HONG KONG


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table of the house copy of order in council P.C. 1160, February 12, 1942, passed under the authority of the Inquiries Act, chapter 99, revised statutes of Canada, 1927, appointing the Right Hon. Sir Lyman Poore Duff a commissioner to inquire into and report upon the organization, authorization and dispatch of a Canadian expeditionary force to the crown colony of Hong Kong.

Chemical Fertilizers



PLEBISCITE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the taking of the votes of the qualified voters on any question submitted by way of plebiscite and for such purposes to make provision for the printing and publication of a Plebiscite Act and instructions issued thereunder, the preparation of voters' lists and other plebiscite documents, including forms and ballot papers, to provide for the fees, allowances, expenses or other remuneration of certain officials and employees.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: This is just a pro forma motion, I take it?


Mr. McLARTY:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, on February 4, I forwarded notice of a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Cardin), who asked me to hold it in order that he might consult his colleague the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald). I wish to ask that question now. I may say that the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services spoke to me about it yesterday. Will the minister make a statement regarding the torpedoing of the Canadian National steamship Lady Hawkins, and particularly as to whether this ship was convoyed on any part of the journey, and if so, why no assistance was near at hand to safeguard the lives of passengers and crew, which included women, children and highly-qualified engineers and technicians? Will the minister cause a searching investigation of this disaster to be undertaken and a report presented to this parliament?
Hon. ANGUS L. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence for Naval Services): Is my hon. friend addressing the question to me?


Thomas Miller Bell: To the Minister of Transport.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kingston City):: I shall discuss it with the minister and see that an answer is brought down as soon as possible.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the Minister of Finance if any further agreements have been reached with the provinces, particularly Ontario, with respect to the vacation of the taxation field?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.



PLEBISCITE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question based on a letter I received to-day from Mr. James W. Somers, O.B.E., city clerk of the city of Toronto, containing a resolution passed by the city council on February 9th, requesting the government to reconsider the question of taking a plebiscite. May I ask the Prime Minister if this resolution has been received, and if so, has it been considered by the government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can assure my hon. friend that the resolution has been received, and I think I may say that it has received such consideration as was expected would be given to it. I can assure my hon. friend that the plebiscite will be proceeded with.



AGRICULTURAL SUPPLIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. DOUGLAS (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the announcement made some time ago to the effect that the government had under consideration the granting of fertilizer assistance to eastern farmers, has the minister anything further to announce with regard to the proposed assistance?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member informed me of his intention to ask the question, and I have prepared the following reply.
For the purpose of encouraging farmers in the five provinces of eastern Canada to
56S
Chemical Fertilizers

increase the yields of pastures-clover, alfalfa, and grass meadows; field corn; spring wheat, oats, barley, spring mixed grains for grain production; mangels and turnips for feeding live stock, an order in council has just been passed providing for $1,000,000 to be spent by the agricultural supplies board by July 1, 1942. to encourage the wider use of chemical fertilizers for the production of the crops mentioned. Greater production of pastures, hay, ensilage, grain and root crops in eastern Canada is necessary if the demand from Britain for more Canadian dairy products, poultry and live stock products is to be met and at the same time supply the domestic requirements for these products.
Payments to farmers are to be based on 40 cents per unit of nitrogen and 20 cents per unit each of phosphoric acid and potash in a ton of fertilizer. For example on a ton of chemical fertilizer containing two per cent of nitrogen, 12 per cent of phosphoric acid and 6 per cent of potash, the farmer would have $4.40 deducted from the net cash price of the fertilizer by the vendor, who will be reimbursed accordingly. Purchases are to be limited to a minimum of one-quarter of a ton of any one kind or analysis of fertilizer and a total of five tons to any one farmer, and a farmer must buy only for his own use and not for resale.
The policy will be administered by Grant
S.	Peart, fertilizer administrator, under the agricultural supplies board. By arrangement with the provincial governments supervision of the operation of the policy will be carried out by the provincial fertilizer boards and councils, which have been established for several years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why are
potatoes not included in that citegory? That is the most important thing of all.


James Garfield Gardiner: The reason is that this is provision for increasing the production of feed to be fed to live stock in order to increase the supply of meats and dairy products.


Mr. SENN:: With further reference to the question of the bonus on fertilizers, is there any price ceiling on fertilizer to prevent the price going up in the meantime and the farmer being robbed of that bonus?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; there is a price
ceiling on fertilizer.


Mr. WRIGHT:: In view of the statement
made by the minister with regard to the assistance to be given in the purchase of fertilizer for the purpose of producing more feed '

for live stock, why are the western provinces excluded from the grants for fertilizer for the production of more coarse grains for that purpose?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two reasons.
The first is that fertilizer is not generally used nor as much needed in the three western provinces as it is in the older provinces of the east, partly because of the nature of the soil itself and partly because of the length of time farming has been carried on in eastern Canada. The other reason is that we did last year encourage the production of coarse grains in the west and this year we are paying a very considerable amount in freight on the shipment of coarse grains from west to east. It is thought preferable to have as much coarse grain as possible produced on the farms where it will be fed.



DAIRY PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. LECLERC (Shefford):: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) whether the pegged prices of dairy products in 1941 will be continued during the present year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only peg there was to the prices of cheese and milk products last year, forming a floor for prices, was the agreement made with Great Britain. New agreements are being negotiated with Great Britain and will come into operation on the 1st of April. The terms of the agreements have not yet been determined. So far as butter is concerned, last year we had a minimum price beginning in May and extending until October. I am not in a position to make a definite statement as to how the matter will be handled this year, but it is under consideration at the moment and an announcement will be made later.



EXCLUSION OF &quot;GAZETTE&quot; AND &quot;GLOBE AND MAIL&quot; FROM SALE IN LOBBY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask your honour if it is a fact that the Montreal Gazette and the Globe and Mail have been excluded from sale in the

The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Lotbiniere)
lobby of the house? If so, on whose authority, and is there any reason why that should be so?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The question which the hon. member asks can hardly be discussed while I am in the chair. There are some matters under consideration now, and I should prefer to have the hon. member see me personally, when I will give him an explanation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I wish to ask a question of the acting Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). About a week ago, I understand, a delegation representing the miners of Kirkland Lake interviewed the minister to see if the government could use their good offices with the mine operators so that when the men went back to work there would be no discrimination and that their seniority rights would be respected. Did the government take this matter up with the operators, and was there any assurance on that point?


Norman Alexander McLarty: What the hon. member states about the delegation meeting in Ottawa is correct. At the time the matter, I believe, was taken up with the operators, who were asked to be magnanimous in taking back the men. No formal undertaking was given by the operators as to discrimination or seniority, but the men are returning to work and I have heard no complaint in connection with the matter up to this time.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister says he believes the matter of victimization and discrimination has been taken up. Does he know whether it was taken up or not?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It might probably be as well if this question were allowed to stand, so that I can confirm what I stated and possibly I may be able to give a little further information. The point is that so far as I am aware, no complaint has been received. I understand that the men are going back to work, but no discrimination has, I believe, so far been shown.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Alphonse Fournier for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. HUGUES LAPOINTE (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, it is not without emotion that I rise to-day, having in mind the tributes paid to the memory of my father by his friend and leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and by other members of this house. Their words of appreciation for the services rendered by him to his race and to his country have become part, of an inheritance most valuable to me, an inheritance composed of examples of his persistent work, of his loyalty to leader and party and of his ' devotion to public duty. I wish, Mr. Speaker, in the name of my family as well as in my own, to take this occasion to thank you, sir, and to thank the Prime Minister and the other hon. members who spoke, as well as all members of this house, for the sympathy extended to us in our sad bereavement.
When I last attended a session of this parliament prior to my departure for overseas, it did not enter my mind that an occasion would be given to me to participate in a debate of this kind. At that time the introduction of conscription of man-power for service overseas appeared to anyone with an unbiased mind as a totally unnecessary issue, in view of the success with which the voluntary system had been attended throughout the country. Of course there were, even then, small isolated groups in different parts of Canada who were clamouring for a measure of this sort, but, generally speaking, the people of Canada had to admit that enlistment in the Canadian forces had been plentiful, and that the appeal made to the young men of this country had received an adequate answer.
Unfortunately, since t-hat time the small isolated group of conseriptionists to whom I have just referred have acquired adherents and have succeeded in making some people believe that representations and requests, if made loudly enough, constituted public opinion. They have succeeded in convincing some well-meaning but ill-informed citizens that the war effort of Canada as prosecuted
570	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Lotbiniere)
by the present government is not satisfactory, and that conscription of man-power alone is the remedy for all the ills from which our effort is suffering.
Since circumstances with which hon. members are acquainted have provided me with an opportunity of being in the house during the present debate, I would feel that I was failing in my duty towards the constituency which I have the honour to represent if I allowed myself to keep silent while this controversy was going on. My contribution at this stage may, I fear, be a mere repetition of some of the views which have already been expressed. As, however, I doubt very much whether an opportunity will again be given to me to be present if ever this question is discussed again, I ask the indulgence of the house, and I will endeavour to be as brief as possible in my remarks.
A few days ago I heard someone state that during the last general election of 1940 he had . campaigned in his riding, repeating no less than sixty-four times the pledge made to the people by the leader of the present government and his ministers, and also by the leaders of other groups in this house, that there should or there would be no conscription of man-power for overseas service. I cannot claim to cope with this hon. gentleman's record; I can state, however, that I also pledged myself in the same way in over forty municipalities of the riding which I represent. I made that pledge not only because the leaders of my party had done so, but because I honestly and sincerely believed that the voluntary system was the only adequate and practical method of recruiting men for the services.
I must say that I still hold these views, and am still against conscription of man-power for overseas service. I am against it because I honestly believe that under present circumstances existing in Canada conscription would not increase, but would rather hinder Canada's war effort. I believe it would defeat its own purpose.
As was so eloquently said by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), conscription is not a fundamental; it is not a principle without which the war cannot be prosecuted efficiently; it is merely a method, a means, a device for getting men into the ranks of the different services. Some people may think it is the best method, and they are entitled to such views if they honestly and sincerely entertain them. But they have no right to attack as disloyal, defeatist, complacent or lacking in courage those who, on the other side, believe honestly that it is not the best 
method and that it could be, under our present national circumstances, disastrous to what has been up to now a united war effort.
May I pause to state immediately that to my mind conscriptionists in this country may be divided into two classes: first, those who honestly and sincerely believe that conscription is the only patriotic procedure in war time; and, second, those who exploit the patriotism of the first group and who use the word "conscription" merely to give voice to their political frustration. I wish to say that the remarks I intend to make, for the next few minutes anyway, are directed towards the second group. It has been said and repeated in many instances that this war should be run in the light of the experience of the last war, and that the many errors and blunders which took place between 1914 and 1919 should not be repeated. Up to now the government has been most careful in its handling of our war effort. In fact, had this government not been so -careful; had it permitted the speculation which took place during the last war; had it let the many hoarders and financial sharks who existed during the last war, run amok in this country, I doubt whether the Tory outcry against the government would be as loud as it is, and this well-financed, underhand campaign against the Prime Minister, which has grown in intensity every time big business has been brought to order, might have lost much of its vitality and died a natural death. The clamour for conscription of man-power which has originated from certain quarters might well have been quenched, had more leniency been shown by the different controlling organizations set up by the government.
As I have already said, there are some well-intentioned citizens -who sincerely believe conscription to be the only patriotic procedure in war time. But I honestly believe that the conscription issue has been and will again be used by the self-appointed powers of the Tory party to stir up agitation against the government in the hope of precipitating a crisis which might permit them to overthrow it. To put it in another way, it is hoped that the word "conscription" may be a pass-word which will let a certain group through the back door of power after the Canadian people have barred them from the front door. For these people I feel no sympathy whatever. In their view, the end justifies the means, and they will not hesitate to destroy the unity of this country; they will not hesitate to destroy forever the faith which the Canadian people may have in their public men; they will not hesitate to halt the advance of Canada at war, to obtain the

The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Lotbiniere)
control of this government against the will of the people. They demonstrate their patriotism by clamouring for a step which would tear this country to pieces. Ever since the outbreak of this conflict, they have been asking for compulsory service, at a time when there were more volunteers for the army, the navy and the air force than it was possible to train and equip.
In a certain element of the press over which they seem to have an almighty power, they have been damning the voluntary system, which had been endorsed by the Canadian people and to which this parliament is pledged. Instead of cooperating in the voluntary recruiting which was the war policy of the country, these self-styled leaders of the nation have been publishing cock-and-bull stories about the methods of recruiting officers. They want compulsion; they advocate coercion, but they are scandalized at the idea that young men should be asked to enlist voluntarily.
All this has been done, sir, on the pretext of an all-out war effort. An all-out war effort? Yes, but it was an "all-in" war effort during the recruiting campaign last summer, when they were denouncing the voluntary method and throwing ridicule on the men who were doing their duty. One newspaper published that after the demonstration on parliament hill after the last recruiting campaign, only one man came forward and offered to enlist. What an absurdity! What lack of good faith! Who comes forward and subscribes immediately after a speech on the victory loan? It would have been better for the editor of that paper to inquire from the recruiting office of this district whether many young men did not enlist as a result of that meeting and whether this district, which had been lagging in its quota, did not exceed it as a result of the meeting. But no, Mr. Speaker; this type of person and these newspapers refuse to give encouragement to the voluntary system, which nevertheless has succeeded in spite of them. They have preferred to accuse the government of being weak, cowardly, and complacent. Cowardice, weakness and complacency; these are the choice words of the critics; they are also the choice words of all our war demagogues.
Who is complacent in Canada to-day? Who does not feel the pinch of the war? Who has not been submitted to the increased taxation? Who has not felt the many restrictions imposed by the government? I have no complacency for these abusers of the Canadian war effort. I have no complacency for the calumniators of the men who have been
entrusted by the nation with the task of directing our war effort. I especially have no complacency for these highly financed agitators who, from the warmth of their aristocratic clubs and from the comfort of their editorial rooms, advocate conscription on the principle of equality of sacrifice.
An all-out war effort? Yes; everybody in Canada is for an all-out war effort. Everybody wants to finish the war; but an all-out war effort means a whole nation united in heart, soul and spirit, all friends and brothers in sacrifice in a great national union, having the same goal and willing to do their utmost to attain it, but not one group of the nation trying to coerce another group and sowing seeds of discord.
We have before us days of hardship and sorrow, when sacrifices of all sorts will have to be endured. We shall have to face the complex problems of after-war. This country needs, and will need even more, the spiritual unity of all its citizens. We must adopt policies which will keep us bound together, because any division now would be national suicide.
I believe that the national circumstances of each country should determine its method of dealing with war, as they should determine the limits of its effort. Our policies must be realistic, adjusted to the facts of our national life. So must the policies of Australia and south Africa; so they are, and so they should continue to be. Many hon. members have given us the example of our sister dominion, Australia. There is no one in this house who will not praise Australia's loyalty to the crown and the important part which her forces have been taking in the defence of the empire. But this splendid effort has not been accomplished through conscription; it has been accomplished through the voluntary system. In fact, hon. members know that during the last war an attempt was made to introduce conscription in Australia, and this measure was defeated by the people in a referendum. This did not slop the Australian people from earning more than their share of honours during the last war. In south Africa it has always been deemed that conscription, due to national circumstances, would defeat' its own purpose. Yet south Africans are defending the empire at this very moment, as they did nobly during the last war. It is strange, Mr. Speaker, how some of our public men, in their well-intended attempts to defend British institutions, British liberties and British ideals, fail completely when they try to imitate the good judgment, common sense and political wisdom of some British statesmen. When the advisability of
572	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Lotbiniere)
conscription for northern Ireland was discussed in the British House of Commons it was immediately dropped and Mr. Churchill, commenting on this measure, said:
We have made a number of inquiries in various directions with the result that we have come to the conclusion that at the present time, although there would he no dispute about our rights and merits, it would be more trouble than it is worth to enforce such a policy.
That statement was very highly praised in the British House of Commons, and the Manchester Guardian published the following editorial:
If we force conscription on the people of Northern Ireland we do so in defiance of the strongly expressed wishes of a third of the population and against the entreaties of Ulster Labour and of those Ulster Unionists who are not tied to the Unionist machine. We have to consider whether it is in accordance with our professed war aims to coerce a large minority and rouse bitter resistance in a neighbouring state. And for what? Sixty thousand men, many of whom will be disaffected, and an estranged Ireland more ripe for Hitler to attack.
If we destroy the hope of Irish unity, do we not, which is equally serious, bring disharmony into our own ranks? It is necessary to warn the Conservatives in the government that this step will be strongly resented by the Liberal and Labour parties that are now serving under and supporting a Conservative Prime Minister. They will make many sacrifices for the sake of national unity, but they should not be asked to make and they ought not to endure a sacrifice to unreasoning prejudices which stand condemned on every ground of political and strategic common sense.
Mr. Speaker, I had intended at this stage through figures to show how the Military Service Act of 1917 had been a complete failure. Be it sufficient to say that everybody admits the result should have been foreseen even before its enforcement, because no such legislation can meet with success without a thoroughly prepared public opinion.
It has been suggested that conditions have changed, and that public opinion would now be more prepared than in 1917 to accept similar legislation. I beg to differ. Conscription would again cause serious disunity. It would meet serious opposition not only in Quebec but in many other sections of the country.
Again I urge hon. members: let us be realistic and practical. The whole problem, it seems to me, can be summed up in three short questions:
(a)	Can conscription for service overseas be enforced without causing disunity in the country, thereby endangering our war effort?
(b)	How many men can it produce for the forces, after exemptions and discharges on medical grounds have been granted?

(c)	Can the same number or a sufficient number of men be obtained by the voluntary method which, it is admitted, would not destroy Canadian unity?
That is what the whole question amounts to, once it has been shorn of all emotionalism and sentimentalism. As to the answers to these questions enough has already been said in the house to make the answers obvious. I shall not repeat the figures already quoted, but they make clear the case for voluntary enlistment. Conscription was disastrous in 1917. From the point of view of national unity it was a complete failure and proved to be totally inefficient in bringing men into the army. Everything leads us to believe that similar legislation now would bring about a similar situation.
The Prime Minister, in his speech the other day, mentioned the changes to be made in the Canadian corps overseas. I imagine these changes are being made at the suggestion of our military authorities, who realize the need of efficiency in the army.
I believe it is generally admitted that the men drafted for overseas service would be for the army alone. Conscription would not apply to the navy or to the air force. Recruits for these two services are plentiful and furthermore, as 1 understand it, the very nature of the duties which the men in these services are called upon to perform makes it necessary that they should be volunteers. You cannot make a pilot through compulsion, and you cannot force a man into a submarine and obtain good results.
I submit that what is true of both the air force and the navy is also true of the army. I heard the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) state that, with his experience as a man who went through the ranks and was promoted to the rank of company commander during the last war, he would still prefer to have one volunteer rather than ten conscripts. Other members who have had the experience of the last war have made similar statements. In fact, I doubt whether there is one of the many members of this house who served during the last war, and had occasion to deal with conscripts, who would claim that these men were up to the standard of the volunteers. If this was true of the last war, it is even truer now. With modern methods of warfare, the soldier of the modern army must be a highly trained man, possessed of great initiative and a keen sense of duty. He must be a master at handling the different weapons which are put at his disposal and should be a specialist able to act alone. He is not just a cog in the wheel, but a perfect warrior by himself. For this, a man must have qualities of courage, skill and discipline. In

The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Lotbiniere)
this war quality coupled with high training and proper equipment is far more important than quantity. France had millions of men 'but fell before the well-trained, high-powered panzer divisions of Hitler. For these reasons I do not believe that through compulsion you will obtain the type of men needed for the modern army.
It has been to the glory of our Canadian forces overseas that they are serving there voluntarily. Every Canadian on British soil or elsewhere, whether he belongs to the air force, the army or the navy, is there because he chose to be there, not because he has been drafted or conscripted, not because an act of parliament has forced him into service, not because he has been sent there against his will or desire, but because he has elected of his own free will to fight Canada's war at the foremost outpost, on the foremost front line. He has acted as a free citizen in a free country, and he is justly proud of his status as a volunteer before the whole world. He is proud of belonging to a unit totally formed of free volunteers, like himself, and this pride in himself, in the formation to which he belongs, contributes to develop his keenness and to make him a better fighting man. It would be a gross mistake to deprive the men in the army of this justified pride. Surely hon. members will not lower the pride of the Canadian army; surely they will not give the army the occasion of having a feeling of inferiority before the other services by forcing them to take into their ranks men who have refused to come forward of their own free will. Surely the hon. members will not give Hitler's hordes occasion to rejoice in saying that Canada which had entered this war under the voluntary system has had to use compulsion to get men into the army.
It has been argued that it is our duty toward the men already serving overseas to impose conscription in order to supply them with necessary reinforcements. Everybody in this country agrees that the men overseas must receive the backing of the nation. But, Mr. Speaker, let us not be swayed by our emotions. If this support can be given voluntarily, as it has been given voluntarily-and there is no reason to believe that it should stop-why should we cease to continue with the present methods?
Since the opinion of the men already overseas is to be considered, it is only reasonable that we should ask ourselves what that opinion is. Canadian troops overseas have two different attitudes of mind as regards the sending of conscripts to join them. A great number of men, and I should say probably the majority, feel that, if they have volunteered for service overseas, the other fellow who has not followed
their example should be forced to serve whenever it may be deemed necessary. They resent very strongly his absence from the service. Another group, which is by no means small, has a totally different attitude of mind. These men have no use for conscripts. They feel, and rightly too, that their status as Canadian citizens, who have come freely to fight Canada's war in Britain, is highly enhanced by the fact that they are volunteers. I have no comment to make about either of these views, but I think the house will admit that neither of them is conducive to the right spirit of cooperation which must exist among men in the army. Our army, like our country, must have unity to be an efficient fighting machine, and I am convinced that this unity, this efficiency, cannot exist if you have on your right flank volunteers and on your left flank conscripts who have been sent there against their wishes. I do not believe that the results will be any better if you have them mixed up together.
I have tried to give a few of the reasons why I am against conscription for overseas service. As I said previously, there are to my mind two different groups of conscriptionists in this country. There are those who are patriotic and there are those who exploit the other fellow's patriotism. As regards this last group, no argument can be of any use against them. I think the results of the four byelections at the beginning of this week constitute the best answer that we could give. As regards the first group, I submit humbly to them the few arguments which I have just expoimded to this house. To that I can only add the words that Cromwell used in a letter to the members of the Church of Scotland, "I beseech you; think it possible that you may be wrong."
Translation): Mr. Speaker, having given some of the reasons for my opposition to compulsory recruiting for overseas service, I wish to explain my position as regards the plebiscite announced in the speech from the throne.
Canada entered into this war voluntarily and freely, because it believed that its most vital interests were seriously threatened. The conflict in which our country finds itself engaged has taken such a scope and assumed such proportions that victory cannot be expected save at the cost of the greatest sacrifices. The prosecution of the war requires an unremitting and ever-increasing effort on the part of everyone. For us in Canada such an effort should aim at building up and maintaining an army, an air force and a navy sufficient for the defence of our own territory. It should also aim in no less a degree at the production
574	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Lotbiniere)
of foodstuffs, munitions and war material of all kinds which our allies so urgently need, which they cannot produce themselves or which they are unable to buy.
If it be true that the defence of our own territory entails the necessity of sending troops overseas as advance guards, it seems to me that the number of such troops is of somewhat secondary importance, considering the many other fields where our efforts are required. To maintain that Canada cannot make an all-out war effort without resorting to coercive measures for overseas service is to show a lack of sense of proportion. Certainly it is important and necessary to maintain our front-line troops and to make sure that they will get the reinforcements they may eventually need; but if it is permitted to look at the past and the present in order to judge of the future, I am firmly convinced that voluntary enlistment, intelligently encouraged and pursued, will suffice to provide such reinforcements.
We all know the gigantic effort put forth by the people of Canada since the outbreak of the war. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and some of his colleagues have already set forth the magnificent results which this effort has produced and is expected to produce in the future. Well, Mr. Speaker, this achievement was made possible by the unity which has existed among Canadians and by a concentrated effort directed to a common end. This unity, this concentrated effort, have been made possible by the assurance, given to the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that there would be no conscription for overseas service, thereby removing all danger of national disunity. The disquiet stirred up by the noisy agitation of shortsighted politicians who would like to have the government break its plighted word gives reason to believe that recourse to conscription for overseas service would injure Canada's war effort.
Such a measure would destroy the confidence of the Canadian people in their government; it would sow the seeds of distrust and reopen recent wounds. No, Mr. Speaker, in this extremely grave crisis, there should be no disunion among Canadians. We must close our ranks and work together. Our efforts must not be spared and we must take care lest they should prove fruitless. Obviously, the Canadian people are masters of their fate. They alone can relieve the government from its pledges. To-day, in view of the attempts 
that are made to persuade the government that public opinion has changed to the point of being ready to accept a measure it has hitherto so forcibly rejected, the administration is justified in consulting the people themselves in order to find out whether such is the case. To my mind, that is the best way for the government to ascertain not whether conscription for overseas service must be applied, but solely whether the Canadian people would consent to relieve the government from its pledge not to resort to conscription, in case it should feel that such a measure has become necessary. So far as I am concerned, I praise the government for honouring their pledge and I commend their decision to consult the people rather than listen to those public agitators who would have them disregard the promises that were made to the electorate and in which they themselves were a party. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote for concurrence in the address in reply to the speech from the throne, so that the electors of the constituency which I represent may have an opportunity to express their views freely, according to the dictates of their conscience and in the light of facts which I am sure they will be able to appreciate properly.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate we have listened to a number of speakers emphasizing the seriousness of the foreign situation, and we have listened also to a number of Liberal members who have endeavoured to make us believe that the war effort is everything that it should be. I am sure that we will all agree that the statement made by Mr. Herbert Lash, director of the bureau of public information, last November that we are not winning the war, that our not having lost it is due to luck, that unless we mend our ways and mend them soon we are in dreadful danger of losing this war, should be driven home to every individual in this country, and more especially to the members of this government.
As I said, we have listened to a number of speeches by Liberal members praising the government's war effort, but the thing to remember is that we have been suffering reverse after reverse at the hands of the Germans and the Japanese. No matter how good our war effort has been in the past, it must be considerably better in the future. Otherwise time will not be on our side; time will be on the side that makes the best use of it. I think we can all agree that from September, 1939, to the middle of 1940 the

The Address-Mr. Quelch
enemy were making considerably better use of time than we were, and therefore time was not on our side.	Speaking in the house
the other day in reference to our war effort, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) stated that our direct expenditures for war this year will be three billion dollars. Then he asked these three questions: "Will anyone in this house say that that programme is not worthy? Will anyone say that it will not tax our resources this very year? Will anyone say that the commitment is not enough?"
Now, Mr. Speaker, I say the only basis on which we can analyse these three questions is this. Are all the people of Canada to-day working? Are our industries to-day working to their full capacity? Are they working twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty-five days a year? Have we reduced non-essential services down to the very minimum? The minister knows very well that the answer to all these three questions must be in the negative. As to the question whether or not our effort to-day is a worthy one, the answer must also be in the negative. It is not a question whether we are spending three billion dollars a year. The question is whether or not that represents the maximum effort which we are capable of making.
I am satisfied that we will never make that maximum effort until we mobilize the total resources of the country-financial, industrial and man-power. It is not necessary for me to deal with it any further, except to say that it must be the total of all resources. We advocated that back in 1939, in September, upon the declaration of war, but unfortunately at that time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was too busily engaged in playing politics, too busy trying to make political capital out of the war. We knew very well that, with an election pending, our stand was politically speaking a dangerous one, but we also knew, and1 everyone familiar with foreign affairs knew or should have known, that that was the only sound stand to take at that period. Nevertheless, unfortunately for this country, all parties in the house were more interested in the political situation than they were in the foreign one, and during the election campaign attacked our stand for an all-out war effort and in its place advocated a modified one. The Prime Minister, having lulled the people into a false sense of security, won the election on that basis, and to-day we are still reaping the tragic consequences of that policy. It took Dunkirk, in 1940, to awaken the government from its state of lethargy; and to-day it is taking the tragic
reverses that we are suffering in the east to make the government realize the folly of its preelection promises.
And so now we are to have a plebiscite, in order that the government may be released from the promise which it made during the last election. It is strange that in spite of that fact one minister after another rises in his place in this house and says that we do not need conscription. I am receiving letters from many people across the country who are very much puzzled that we are to have a plebiscite in order to release the government from its promises regarding conscription, while at the same time it is telling people that we do not need conscription. Naturally the people are bewildered. The other day the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated in this chamber that he believed in the voluntary system; he was very much opposed to the idea of conscription. He said, "You cannot conscript men and put them on ships." Well, the minister must have a very short memory, because in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the British used to employ the press-gang in order to get men.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that. I said, "corvettes".


Victor Quelch: Well, corvettes are ships. I will accept the minister's explanation. He may think they are prairie schooners, but they are ships, and I am referring to ships.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Would you go back to the press-gang?


Victor Quelch: If the minister had not interrupted me I would have gone on to say that I am not advocating the press-gang. But will the minister say that the prestige of the British navy was not as high when they utilized that method as it has ever been since?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Certainly not.


Victor Quelch: When he says, "We can't use conscription, we can't force people on ships," I am merely pointing out that in the past we forced men to go on ships, and they were the finest sailors the world has ever seen.
Again, is the Minister of Agriculture right when he says that the present system is a voluntary system? I maintain that the present system is one of the most undesirable forms of compulsion you can possibly have; it is not voluntary at all.
When the four months' training plan was brought into operation, I happened to meet a recruiting officer one day, and I asked him this question: "Do you believe we can get enough men for overseas service?" He replied, "Well, under the one-month training
The Address-Mr. Quelch

plan we could not do it, but now we have those men for four months we shall be able to bring enough pressure to bear upon them to bring them into the active service." Of course, that "pressure" is compulsion. Let me give an example. A mechanized convoy comes to a .small village. In the evening a dance is put on, and while the boys and girls are dancing a spotlight is turned upon different couples, and a man fiom the stage calls out to the girls dancing with these men, "Are you not ashamed to be seen dancing with a man who is not in uniform?" I say that if the government cannot get the men they need on a straight voluntary system, without adopting despicable methods of that kind, it would be far better to have conscription. In the olden days we persuaded men to make statements by putting them in a torture chamber. To-day we are persuading men to go into the army by means of a form of mental torture.
Again, let us remember this-I know some hon. members may object to the statement, but they cannot deny it is perfectly true- that in the early days of the war many men were forced into the army not through a sense of patriotism but because of the economic condition in which they found themselves. Let us keep that well in mind. Where that happens it is not going to help to improve the morale or esprit de corps of the army.
I am not criticizing the government for holding a plebiscite. Definite commitments were made, and when they are made they should be honoured. But it is rather strange that suddenly, at this point, the conscience of the Prime Minister should prick him. It has not done so in the past. The promises which he made in 1935 never worried .him, although they were never kept; but to-day all of a sudden he has decided that promises should be kept. While I say that I am not over-critical of the government for taking a plebiscite, on the other hand I am very critical of the government for having placed itself in a position where it requires a plebis-' cite to extricate it. If the Prime Minister had shown during the last election a little more interest in the welfare of the people and a little less interest in the welfare of the Liberal party, that promise need never have been given.
Most people will agree that to-day our most urgent need is machines and more machines. Military men admit that frankly. We were told last year by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) that we were rapidly approaching peak production due to the fact that we had a shortage of skilled' labour.

Again I say that if we had instituted, upon the declaration of war, complete mobilization of the resources of this nation we would not have been faced with that critical situation.
I want now to refer to a statement which was made by a witness before the members of the special committee on pensions. When we sat last year we had Mr. A. W. Crawford, member of the interdepartmental committee on youth training, as a witness, and in his evidence he admitted quite frankly that there were a large number of men trying to get in the training schools for whom they had not the capacity. When he was asked why we could not increase the capacity of these schools in order to train men more rapidly, his answer was that even if they were trained we could not find jobs for them. When he was reminded of the statement made by the Minister of Munitions and Supply that we were reaching maximum production because we had not the skilled labour, he explained that the type of training given to these men does not sufficiently equip them to take their places in skilled industry. Then it was drawn to the attention of Mr. Crawford that in the United States there are a number of advanced training schools which make it possible for men, when they are through with their course, immediately to take their places in industry. Mr. Crawford admitted that we had no schools of that kind in this country, and that they were very costly to install. In view of the fact that we have been told by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Defence that no financial restrictions shall be allowed to impede our war effort, it is hard to understand why schools of that sort have not been put into operation long ago, if the main objection is the cost of installing them.
There is something else that is impeding our war effort, and it is this. A large number of men in Canada to-day are engaged in nonessential industries. Perhaps the most flagrant example is to be found in the gold mining industry. According to the bureau of statistics there are engaged in that industry in Canada at the present time between 32,000 and 33,000 men. These men are largely skilled mechanics and miners, but to-day they are not making any contribution whatsoever to the war effort of the British empire and the United States. They are not helping in one single degree. The point may be made that this gold is used for the purpose of bringing supplies from the United States to Canada; but of how much use is that gold to the United States when they get it? Here we have 32,000 men busily engaged in digging gold out of a hole in the ground and transporting it across the line where it is buried in a

hole on the other side. How much is the war effort either of the United States or of the British empire advanced by that process? How much greater would the war effort be, both of the United States and of this country, if these men were engaged in war industries? If the United States desired this gold, we could come to an agreement with them to turn over to them, to hypothecate to the United States the total production of the gold of Canada after the war for so many years. Surely gold is just as safe in the ground on this side of the line as it is in the ground on the other side.
It is unfortunate perhaps that we have in this country at the head of affairs a number of men who still worship at the shrine of gold. Let me quote what Lord Sempill said in the House of Lords on November 18, 1941:
Ten years ago we regarded it as axiomatic that gold gave value to money, and that money would immediately become worthless if it had not got an adequate gold backing. Yet within the space of these ten years the roles have been reversed, and if anyone is suspected of cherishing a theory now, which has been so comprehensively and thoroughly disproved by fact, he is labelled a "museum piece" or a "gold bug."
Commenting on that statement, I suggest it is unfortunate that we have had in the past and still have a number of these museum pieces on the treasury benches-a number of people with the gold-bug mentality, who are willing to sacrifice the work of thousands of men in the production of gold when these men are needed in our war effort. I would again point out to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) that so long as such things are going on in this country it is useless for him tp get up and try to persuade us that we have an all-out war effort.
I might refer to the question of agriculture and the chaotic condition of the industry in western Canada as it relates to the grain grower. There are many boys enlisting who are needed on the farms. In my opinion if we had proper mobilization of man-power we would keep these boys on the farms; they would not go into the army. There are men in non-essential industries that should not be working at their present jobs but somewhere else; they should be doing work which is necessary in our war effort. That would be a form of selective service. I know of many boys who were supposed to be able to get a postponement but were not granted it and were called up. Now they are in the service and cannot obtain leave of absence. Their parents are too old to carry on the work themselves and the result is that they have to sell their stock, which is valuable and is needed in the country. They have to sell valuable breeding
The Address-Mr. Quelch
stock and that is a loss to the country. This stock is being sold to the packing plants.
Another aspect of the war effort which I have not heard mentioned very much up to the present time is the question of morale. I have heard a number of people in Canada criticizing Canadians in different parts of the country for not being enthusiastically behind the war effort-at any rate, not as enthusiastically as they should be. I think we can all agree that, unfortunately, in many parts of Canada there is not a very great amount of enthusiasm behind the war effort to-day. But where these people generally make their mistake is in criticizing the wrong people, instead of placing the blame where it rightfully belongs, on the shoulders of the government. Let me explain what I mean.
In the period from 1935 to 1939 we continually urged upon the government the fact that people throughout the country deserved and should be given a better and a higher standard of living. We emphasized the fact that the people were not able to find work because there was not enough money being put into circulation. We urged time and again that everything possible should be done to make the people throughout Canada happy and contented, because when you have a happy, contented people, they are willing to fight for the maintenance of the conditions that make for that happiness and contentment. We know, however, that during that period the government refused to spend the amount of money necessary to put Canadians to work, and therefore conditions from 1935 to 1939 were very unsatisfactory. We allowed the productive resources of the country to be systematically sabotaged. There were half a million people unemployed, a million people on relief, and many industries running at only a part of their capacity. What a contrast, one may say, between that condition and the conditions in Russia to-day. There you have a united nation fighting for what they believe to be a real democracy. They do not have to depend upon promises with regard to the future. They can look back on the past twenty years and go forward reassured that everything possible will be done to improve the conditions of the masses. If the people in charge of our policies had been paid servants of Germany during the period from 1935 to 1939 they could not very well have put into operation a policy that would have been of greater advantage to the German nation.
What has been the consequence? To what extent has the health of the soldiers and of the people of Canada been undermined? Let me quote from The Soldier magazine of



The Address-Mr. Quelch
November, on page 10. There is an article headed, "Fat in war, thin in peace." It reads in part:
A prominent Canadian, General Leo Lafleche, tells how thousands of young Canadians are unfit to fight. They cannot pass the army doctors. Medical authorities point to depression years and the hordes of these transients herded from province to province in the ten years before 1929. Enforced bumming and near starvation was rampant in this great new land of peace, promise and plenty, xouth took to rod-riding and it is to their everlasting credit that they behaved themselves. Mr. Bennett built concentration camps for Canadas young manhood. Mr. King said, "Re-elect me and 111 abolish Bennett's camps." It was an election promise kept by Mr. King, but it took another *world war to absorb the population of the now empty camps. Nazi forces of evil and destruction loomed up. Another world war. Canada s youthful transients were fattened for the fight.
Fat in war: thin in peace.
1 ask, will that type of policy build1 up the morale of the Canadian people?
Last year I read in a Canadian magazine an account of how a young man had evaded a draft. He was called up before the judge and asked if he had anything to say, and he replied that he did not think Canada was worth fighting for. Then the writer of the article went on to say what a wonderful and wealthy country Canada was-surely a country well worth fighting for. The point that writer entirely missed was that that boy was probably one of those who came out of college in 1930 and for nine or ten years was not able to find a place in the industrial life of this country. Probably his parents were on relief, his brothers and sisters unable to get proper medical attention or nourishment. Could you expect that boy to be enthusiastic about fighting for the continuation of such a condition? I have spoken to men of the armed forces on the train and I find a similar strain running through the conversation of these men. Invariably the comment was this: We have a dirty job to do and we are going to do it, but when the war is over we are going to demand something better than we have had in the past. I believe that if these men do not get a chance of something better in the future than they have had in the past, there will be serious trouble in this country.
I remember when I was in France during the last war listening to a speech by a prime minister of this country. He told us Canada was grateful for what her rtten were doing, and he promised that nothing would be too good for us; our dependents would be looked after and every man guaranteed a job. Was that promise kept?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Victor Quelch: Reference was made to that question by the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) the other day. Let me read what he said, as reported at page 4143 of Hansard of November 6, 1941:
Therefore it behooves us, or any government that takes its duties seriously, to see to it that these men do not return from overseas with the same sense of disappointment, disillusionment and discontent as did the men who returned from the last war.
Well, we are now hearing statements by the Prime Minister to the effect that after this war there will be a new heaven and a new earth. I am satisfied that if in the future we continue the same type of policies that we have had in this country in the past, instead of there being a new heaven and a new earth for these men there will be a new hell. If the Prime Minister is really sincere in his talk about a new heaven and a new earth, why does he not take steps now to let the people have a glimpse of this new heaven? I think it was the Prime Minister himself who stated that unless this new order is well on its way before the end of the war we may look for it in vain. Now is the time to try to set up this new order, instead of waiting until the end of the war.
Let me give a few examples of what could be done in order to help regain the confidence of the people of this country. For instance, old age pensions have been mentioned in this debate. The amount of the old age pension could be increased from $20 to $30 a month so that any province wishing to increase their contribution could take advantage of it. Also, the age should be reduced from seventy to sixty-five.	_
Then we have the question of pensions for widows of disability pensioners. The parliamentary special committee on the ^ Pension Act last year spent a great deal of time considering that question, and in our fourth report we made this recommendation:	that
after further and more complete exploration of the problems involved, consideration be given to the advisability of extending the provisions of the War Veterans' Act to (a) widows of disability pensioners not now provided for; (b) widows of deceased recipients of war veterans' allowance.
The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie) has stated that no legislation will be introduced this session to take care of these people. But surely we realize that these people are a direct responsibility of the department of pensions. The minister has tried to say that these people should be dealt with under social legislation. But let us remember that when a soldier

The Address-Mr. Quelch
marries, the amount of his pension is increased; by increasing the amount of the pension we recognize a very direct responsibility for that woman. Again when a soldier marries and later is given a war veterans' allowance, the amount of the allowance is increased from $20 to $40 a month. Thereby we recognize responsibility for that woman. Yet strangely enough, if that man dies we automatically cut off the allowance to the woman.
Another point is regarding the dependents' allowance regulations. In March, 1941, order in council 138/1936 was passed which destroyed one of the principles of the regulations regarding dependents' allowances. A department of government, the soldier settlement board, is allowed to attach or seize a certain portion of the dependents' allowance to pay off a soldier settler's debt. This action has been criticized by various soldier organizations. This order in council should be rescinded.
Another thing I want to refer to is the question of the subamendment. If it were possible to move an amendment to the subamendment I would do so, owing to the fact that it is open to misinterpretation. But under the rules of the house this may not be done; therefore the subamendment will have to be either accepted in its present form or rejected. The subamendment requests that- the forthcoming plebiscite should seek the support of the people of Canada for the complete and effective conscription of war industries, accumulated -wealth and financial institutions, at the same time and on the same basis of sacrifice as the suggested extension of the conscription of man-power.
Various interpretations, or perhaps I should say misinterpretations, have been offered in this house regarding that subamendment. But on page 55 of Hansard of January 26 last the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group explained exactly what the group means by that subamendment. On behalf of this group I will say that we will support the subamendment on the basis of the explanation given by the acting leader of the C.C.F., with the exception of paragraph 1 and paragraph 6 of his explanation, in respect to which we will take the alternatives presented by the C.C.F. group.
Before commenting upon this explanation I have one or two observations to make. First I should like to compliment the C.C.F. upon their present stand. I might point out that it is very similar to the stand we took in September, 1939, and have maintained consistently ever since. On the other hand it is quite a broadening out of the stand they took at that time. To show the consistency of this group as between 1939 and the present day I want 44561-374
to quote what I said on the appropriation bill on behalf of the group as reported on page 99 of Hansard:
When a country engages in war it becomes engaged in a life and death struggle, and it therefore becomes essential that it organize on as effective a basis as possible. Otherwise unnecessary loss of life and great hardship are bound to result. That is why the group to which I belong has taken a stand in favour of the conscription of finance, industry and manpower. By such means we believe we can avoid the injustices and inequalities which existed during the last war. By such means we believe we may develop the resources of this nation to their full capacities, so that we may be enabled to make a maximum contribution, without increasing the debt of the nation by a single dollar. In other words we advocate a policy of pay-as-you-go. . . .
We believe in utilizing the Bank of Canada so that we may create the necessary financial credits and currency, combined with definite price regulation so as to obviate any serious rise in prices. We would advocate, further, steeply graded income and profits taxes. We maintain, further, that the only possible justification for borrowing is when our need for goods is greater than our ability to produce them. That condition of course requires external borrowing. We see absolutely no justification for internal borrowing.


An hon. MEMBER:: What date was that?


Victor Quelch: That was on September 11, 1939, during the discussion of the war appropriation bill.
Now I come to the C.C.F. subamendment, and the explanation of that amendment as given by the leader of that group, appearing at pages 56 and 57 of Hansard for this session:
1.	The national ownership or, at least, control of all our war industries to produce everything we require to maintain civilian health and morale and to provide our fighting forces with adequate equipment.
We are completely in accord with those last words, referring to control. With regard to the question of national ownership, I would say that wherever the government puts up the money to build an industry, we believe that industry should be owned and operated by the government. On the other hand, where you have industries already set up using only a small portion of their plants for the purpose of manufacturing war supplies, we do not think it would be advisable to have nationalization and in such cases would advocate control.
2.	An integrated production plan which utilizes every plant and facility in its proper place without regard to the demands of big corporations and trusts.
We agree with that.
3.	A complete reversal of the present dollar-a-year-men control policy and the substitution of proportionate representatives of organized
The Address-Mr. Quelch

farmer and labour bodies on all control agencies, so that the pressure of big business could be effectively curbed and democratic direction of the war effort achieved.
We agree to that.
4.	Direct national control of all our financial institutions so that without inflation and without unnecessary future burdens of debt, we can finance our national effort.
We are altogether in accord with that. I like the way it is worded, but perhaps I might add a word of explanation. We realize that you cannot tax the total income away from an individual, that you must leave him enough in the first place to maintain a fair standard of living and at the same time put aside a little for a rainy day. This has been emphasized time and again by the Minister of Finance. So we say that to the extent that taxation and the sale of interest-free war savings certificates fail to meet government expenditures, the services of the Bank of Canada should be utilized.
5.	There must be, at least, a one hundred per cent excess profits tax and, indeed, on all profits a low maximum rate should be set and the excess taken by the government for our war effort.
We agree to that.
6.	The present loan policy should be replaced by one of compulsory, interest free loans imposed on the accumulated wealth of rich individuals and corporations, and based on ability to contribute. Indeed, the fairest method would be to establish a fair maximum income for all and to tax back to the country every dollar above that maximum.
So far as this paragraph is concerned, we are heartily in accord with the portion commencing with the words, "Indeed, the fairest method." Perhaps I might quote from what I said on the appropriation bill of 1939, to show the similarity of our stand then, as it appears at page 99 of Hansard for September 11, 1939:
In time of war it becomes necessary to call upon certain people to make that supreme sacrifice. It is necessary for others to suffer mutilation of the body. Is it asking too much to ask people remaining in Canada, in comparative safety, to be willing to sacrifice the major portions of their incomes? Is that asking too much, at a time when we are asking other people to sacrifice their lives? I say we have every right to demand that those who remain in safety be prepared to sacrifice the major portion of their incomes, that they be permitted to retain only that portion which is necessary for the maintenance of a moderate standard of living.
That is why I say we are heartily in accord with the latter part of this paragraph. No doubt some people will say that our policy to-day shows a considerable change from our policy before the war. Of course it does, because in war time we do not advocate

*business as usual. We have always held that in peace time the production of the country should be maintained at a level sufficiently high to satisfy the requirements of the Canadian people and to make that production available to the people throughout the country. But in war time, on the other hand, we maintain that the production of the country must be kept at its maximum level in order to make the greatest possible contribution to our war effort. Therefore the people should be satisfied with a moderate standard of living, a standard that will ensure their health and efficiency. And in order that the people shall not have a higher standard of living than that, we have consistently advocated increased taxation during time of war.
Coming back to agriculture, we feel that the government should give every consideration to the just demands of agriculture. We feel it is high time for the government to introduce an agricultural policy based upon the recommendations of the various farm organizations, instead of showing, as they have in the past, a contemptuous disregard for those bodies. When we compare the treatment of the farmers in the United States under the AAA with the treatment which has been accorded the farmers of this country, we must agree that any such comparison is odious so far as this country is concerned.
There will be plenty of time later on to discuss agricultural policies, so I can leave this question, only mentioning that we in this group have urged, as to-day we are urging by resolutions on the* order paper, that SI per bushel should be paid the farmer at point of shipment, on a quota designated by the wheat *board, and that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act should be amended so that it might constitute a sound crop insurance scheme.
By their actions now the government should do everything in their power to convince the people that when victory has been won there will be no danger of a return to the deplorable conditions that existed prior to the declaration of war. Only in this way can we inspire in the people the will to win. Only by such means can we hope to build up the morale of the people, so that they will be glad to endure any and every sacrifice required of them, whether it be in Canada or beyond the seas.


Mr. W. C. MACDONALD (Halifax):: 5S6
The Address-Mr. Leader

Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la
Prairie): My first word will be one of congratulation to you, Mr. Speaker, upon the magnificent fortitude you have exhibited in sitting in the chair with so much dignity for so many weeks listening to the different orations and observing this house of democracy in action. It has occurred to me in recent days that the thought must have been running through your head, "0 Lord, how long"? Nevertheless I am sure that you would expect me to have something to say in a debate of this nature. I feel that it is my duty as representative of my constituency to offer my contribution. I know that my constituents will expect it, and therefore I am going to express my viewpoint as I see it.
Now, the vital question, stripped of all the fancy words and phrases and camouflage, is simply conscription. Do you want conscription in Canada, and for overseas service? So I am using the word conscription, the old-fashioned word which to me is plain English. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) tells us, and many others in the house, that a solemn pledge was given, before, during and subsequent to the last election, that this government would never impose conscription for overseas service without submitting the question to the electorate. They regard that as a solemn promise, and I respect it.
Speaking for myself, I want to say that conscription was not an issue in my constituency. I believe I was asked once during the campaign what I thought of conscription, and my answer was that it was not an issue in the campaign but that personally I believed it was the only fair way to conduct a total war. I believe that conscription should mean equality of sacrifice and that each of us must be put in his proper place for the work which he is best fitted to do. I believe there are in Canada men in industry, key men, if you will, who could render far better service here in Canada than they ever could on the battlefield; and speaking of my own occupation or profession, I know there are many good farmers leaving Canada who could serve their country better if they remained on the farm and produced the food that will be required before the war is over.
I too must be careful of my promises. I spoke in this house in 1937-and I wonder how many hon. members had mentioned conscription as far back as that. The occasion was when the defence estimates were going through the house, and I took the opportunity then, in supporting the increase in the defence estimates, to submit to the house a resolution that had been passed by the United Farmers of Manitoba about a month before the house convened. I attended the convention and
fMr. W. C. Macdonald.]
the resolution was passed unanimously, calling attention to the fact that a war was in the offing and that if this country was going to war it should conscript man-power, wealth and all resources we have in Canada, for the successful prosecution of the war and for victory. I submitted to the house that resolution, which I supported. I wish to quote the words I used on that occasion. I do this for the simple reason that I made a statement in this house and I have not changed my viewpoint. I said, at page 994 of Hansard of February IS, 1937:
The Canadian people expect that if wre must go to war all the resources of the country will be employed in the prosecution of that war. I believe that in the nation's interest we should conscript . . . the resources of the fields, of the forests,	and of the mines and	all	the
accumulated wealth.
I had hoped that this question would be settled differently. We do not take conscription so seriously out on the plains in western Canada as	they do	for instance	in	theprovince of	Quebec,	and I respect	theiropinions. I	felt that	if we were	to	have
conscription-I believed it was coming and I think we should have had it immediately after Hong Kong-the Prime Minister should have asked the house, if he wished to be released from his promise. He should have asked the representatives of the people to release him. I for my part am willing to take my medicine and I would have spoken for my constituency of Portage la Prairie. Instead of that we have what we call a political football. I had hoped that the question of conscription would escape the turmoil of party politics. I believed that the Prime Minister, with his knowledge of the situation, and the need for vigorous and aggressive action, would have accepted the responsibility or else allowed the house to decide the issue. Now the initiative has been taken by the politicians, with results, I fear,, detrimental to Canada.
The word "appeasement" has been used in this house. Mr. Speaker, it is a horrible word when applied to our dealings with the axis powers; but appeasement for the sake of harmony at home is a beautiful word. Nothing should concern us more than to have unity in this country of ours, and I say that a prime necessity of our war effort is to maintain unity at home. That should not be a difficult task, when all that is best in our national life is threatened from without. Let me testify, in the name of my French-Cana-dian constituents, that I regard them as among my very best friends, loyal to the core. I have found the French-Canadians in my riding just as kind, just as industrious,

The Address-Mr. Leader
just as intelligent and law-abiding as my English-speaking friends. But there is prejudice on both sides, that we all must admit; and it is founded upon suspicion and imaginary grievances exploited to the full by unscrupulous politicians and their backers. It is my opinion that these barriers that have separated the French- and the English-speaking people in Canada could all be removed by tolerance and cooperation founded upon mutual trust. I wonder when we are going to learn that lesson.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As soon as we drop politics.


Mr. LEADER:: I believe that is true. When our leading public men in all parts of the dominion, when our religious bodies, both Protestant and Catholic, learn this fundamental truth, these leaders of public opinion will earn a nation's respect and gratitude.
Now I want to say something about our Prime Minister. I have often quoted him in this house, and am always glad to pay him a tribute of the respect in which I believe he is held by the people of this dominion. I do not believe there is a man in Canada, perhaps never has been in the public life of this country, who has striven more for unity than our present Prime Minister. In 1936, when I supported the trade treaty which he had made with the United States, I stated that it was more than a commercial treaty, that it was the extending of the hand of fellowship to a neighbour who is our kin. In 1939, when that treaty was renewed and we brought Great Britain into the picture, I said that when the history of our time was written no one would stand higher than our own Prime Minister. I appreciated those trade treaties, and let me say from my own experience that when I deal with my customers I hope to make them my friends; if you make a friend of your customer you are going to have a better deal every time.
During the last election I did not base my campaign very much on the government's policy and what they had done, but I told the people this, that in Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. Lapointe we had two of Canada's greatest statesmen, two men who had done more to bring unity to Canada than any others that I could think of; I am satisfied that that statement is true. In unity there is strength. Great Britain and the United States are working in cooperation-by the way, they have conscription in both countries-and Canada cannot fail them.
It is my opinion that if we must have conscription-and I think it is coming if this war continues-we should have conscription wherever our interests are threatened. Are 44561-38}
they not threatened in the motherland, that has nurtured this nation and is guarding its future? Are our interests not threatened in Africa, where a sister nation battles for her freedom; in Australia, where a sister nation battles for the livelihood-yes, the very life- of the white race? Are they not threatened in Hong Kong? Did not 2,000 gallant Canadians go to Hong Kong and offer the sacrifice of their lives, troops from the east and troops from the west, English-speaking and Frenchspeaking? We should never forget Hong Kong, and I believe we are bound to go and avenge the sacrifice that these grand soldiers made for us.
And what about the United States, the most powerful ally of all, whose president declared that if Canada was attacked they would not stand idly by? That promise was made two or three years ago at Ivy Lea. Are we going to fall down in any particular in standing beside the mother country and the United States of America? We should not, and I do not think we shall. What an inspiration it should be to us when we think of that great British statesman Winston Churchill in his challenge to the nazis when he said: "If this country is invaded we shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the ocean, we shall fight on the beaches and in the streets and in the fields, and if we must we will fight from the dominions overseas." Are we worthy of that glorious ancestry? I say, let us unite with the forces of freedom everywhere and let us forget domestic discord. If we lose this war we lose everything.
I have heard it said in this house that this war is a result of broken promises. I presume there is truth in that statement, but I think that the cause of this war is commercial and industrial rivalry, greed for power and search for the almighty dollar. When you have men in high places imbued with that spirit, and when they are running this country or any other country, what can you expect?
I have a clipping here which I found in my desk the other day. It refers to ex-prime minister Baldwin of Great Britain, and I should like to quote it. It is from a speech by Stanley Baldwin on November 12, 1936. The heading is "A Famous Confession." It says:
My position as leader of a great party was not altogether a comfortable one. I asked myself what chance was there that in the next year or two the country would give a mandate for rearmament? Supposing I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and we must rearm, does anyone think this pacific democracy wrnuld have rallied to that at the moment? I cannot think of anything that would have made the loss of the election from my point of view more certain.
The Address-Mr. Leader


Mr. HANSELL:: Where did he make that speech?


Harry Leader: I am not sure.


Ernest George Hansell: I think it was in the
British House of Commons.


Harry Leader: Now, without casting any
aspersions on ex-prime minister Baldwin-


An hon. MEMBER:: Lord Baldwin.


Harry Leader: Whatever his title, I want to say he was the head of one of the greatest munition factories in Great Britain at the time, the Baldwin locomotive works-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Baldwin Steel
company.


Harry Leader: Well, he was engaged at
the time in supplying munitions to Germany and any other country that would buy them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What
authority has the hon. member for that statement?


Harry Leader: This statement right here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I cannot
believe it. It is not true.


Harry Leader: Therefore can you expect
from men in high places, wealthy men, rich men, running a country, that they will give equality to all and special privilege to none? You cannot.
I want to quote something said by Ernest Bevin, a man from the ranks, who knows what it is to toil and who has a feeling in his heart for his fellow workmen. When he was taken into the Churchill cabinet he made this statement:
Ernest Bevin declares system based on monopoly and big business failed to deliver the goods in hour of trial and that social effort must take place of chaos that followed last war.
This report is dated from London, June 6, 1940.
Labour Minister Bevin told a building trades workers' meeting to-day that "in whatever I am doing I am keeping an eye on its possible value when the war is over," and added, "I know that a new country has got to b' planned."
"One thing we are producing-order out of chaos, and chaos it was when we went in," said Mr. Bevin, who before entering the government under Winston Churchill last month was secretary general of the transport and general workers' union.
"The system based on monopoly and big business failed to deliver the goods in our hour of trial," the labour minister said.
He added that there would be no boom at the end of the war.
"The only way of absorbing these millions (of fighting men) back into industry and the national life is by way of public works and

enterprise," Mr. Bevin said. "Social effort is bound to take the place of the kind of thing that occurred at the end of the last war. There is no alternative.
"We cannot afford at the end of this struggle -when we have won-to leave men standing in queues at the labour exchanges without direction as to where to go or what to do."
I agree with what Mr. Bevin has said. I want to say here, Mr. Speaker, that I would take the responsibility of advising every soldier who is wearing a uniform that when this war is over he should not surrender that uniform until he is secure in some permanent job, with a chance to build a home and raise his family. That is how I feel about it.
I see my time is slipping by, so that I should like to come to the question of how I am going to vote. I have tried to look at this question from every angle. I have no particular fault to find with the government's war effort. Everything that has been done has been done in close cooperation with Britain and the United States, and in the words of Churchill, "Canada's war effort has been magnificent." However, the job is not completed; the victory is not won. There remains one step to take in order to convince our enemies that we mean business and to assure the closest cooperation with our allies. That final step is total conscription for overseas service, or wherever Canada's interests are threatened.
I said I was not so much concerned about the word "conscription" or the actual fact of conscription, as some people seem to be; but I realize that there is a disunity in this country and that some people, particularly my French speaking friends, do object very strenuously to conscription and its effects. I have urged tolerance, and I wish to practise what I preach. I intend to vote for the address in reply to the speech from the throne, for the government's policy of a plebiscite, if you will. The question being asked is:
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?
As a final word I want to add that my action will be justified as a gesture of tolerance, in order to preserve unity in our beloved land. The plebiscite is a delaying action, I admit. Perhaps it is the appropriate action at this time. Future events will test its wisdom. At any rate I am giving the government the benefit of the doubt. If the government, or the opposition, or any individual member of this house has served any interests other than the welfare of his country, may God forgive him; the nation dare not, and in my opinion never will.


Mr. A. D. LEGER (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to the various speeches that have been delivered in this house, in regard to the plebiscite mentioned in the speech from the throne, by hon. members belonging to different political groups. The most surprising thing to me was the attitude taken by those who now call themselves Conservatives, but who during the election campaign chose to call themselves the National party. Their leader, then Doctor Manion, and his colleagues, preached high and low that if they were returned to power they would not enforce conscription. Shortly after the election, however, those of the National party, or Conservatives, who were elected began to attack the government because conscription was not put into force. They had behind them a certain section of the press, controlled by a certain financial group in Ontario, which said that Canada could not have an all-out war effort without conscription; that it was absurd for the government to ask the people of Canada to be released from the promises made during the campaign of 1940. Imagine what they would have done if they had been returned to power! According to them, election promises mean nothing. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not of that calibre. He regards his promises as sacred, and now is asking the people who elected him to relieve him of those promises. Could there be a better gesture, coming from a leader? He is a man who remains true to his promise; he is a man on whom the electorate depend; he is the man whom the people of Canada need as a leader.
In passing, I believe it my duty to mention that the Prime Minister has shown his leadership in bringing about the good entente that now exists between Great Britain and our great neighbour to the south, the United States, and also in the defence agreement he made with the United States, in case of any attack. These incidents show his great foresight. I am asking myself whether it would not have been better for the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) to follow the example of Mr. Wendell Willkie who, after, his party was defeated, campaigned the country in support of the president's war effort. To my mind this is the way an opposition leader should act, but what a contrast we have in this parliament!
The census returns tell us that we have a population of only about eleven and a half million people, so in our war effort we must not be compared with nations such as the United States, with a population of 130,000,000 people or more; but if a comparison is made, it must be on a per capita basis. Perhaps I
The Address-Mr. Leger
may be permitted to review the war effort of this government and compare it with that of other nations. We have over 110,000 voluntary enlistments in the air force. We have over 27,000 voluntary enlistments in the navy. We have over 260,000 enlisted in the army to serve anywhere, on any front, overseas or elsewhere. I have not included those called up for training for home defence. We must realize that we have well over 500,000 men in the armed forces, to defend Canada on our shores or elsewhere. In order to compare with us, the United States should have over five million men under arms. It is admitted by military authorities everywhere that from twelve to fourteen men are required at home to maintain one man in the front line. At that rate we would require six million men and women to produce in our factories, if we are to provide for our men in uniform. If that were so, we would be left with about five million people. In this group would be included all the children up to the age of sixteen, all invalids and old people past working age, and married women who have to stay at home.
to all fairness to the nation, could we ask the Canadian people to furnish much more? 1 he air force and the navy have a reserve list and the army is recruiting all it can
nnn *	we furnish any more than
150,000	to 200,000 men, if we want to back them up with ammunition, and instruments of war such as aeroplanes, trucks, tanks, guns of all kinds, bombs and so on, all manufactured in Canada? Our industry had to be trans-tormed from a peace-time to a war-time basis, and I say that our war effort compares favourably with that of any allied nation in' the world. We are giving out contracts at the rate of $4,000,000 a day. Still we hear the complaint that our war effort is not a total one.. Admitting that we have not reached our limit, I say that to get the men it will not be necessary to resort to conscription. Each Canadian knows where his duty lies. He will answer the call. After the war it will be more honourable to say, "All our men fought in the war without having to be conscripted."
Present reports indicate that we have all the recruits that can be handled. That being so, why do we hear this cry for conscription if' indeed, it is not for a certain motive, namely, that of disuniting the two major races in Canada? These people know that Frenchspeaking people in general are, and always have been, and always will be against conscription. Why is tha, so? It is not because they do not wan* to share the responsibility; no, it is because they believe it is more honourable to do their part freely. The French in Quebec and the French Acadian
The Address-Mr. Leger

in the maritimes have volunteered freely in this war, despite the fact that men with the degree of Bachelor of Arts could obtain ranking no higher than that of private, in some units.
My answer will be that French-speaking Canadians have contributed as much as any others toward Canada's war effort. Let us turn to the facts. We learn that the maritime provinces rank first in enlistments. In the army they have furnished one man in every twenty-eight recruited. New Brunswick has furnished one man in every twenty-six. I am proud to say that the French in New Brunswick have thus far contributed more than their quota. They represent about a third of the population in that province, and have contributed forty to forty-five per cent of total enlistments.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the hon. member oblige me by giving me the source of that information?-because I have been trying to get it and have not succeeded. I am not questioning his statement, but I should like to know the basis for it.


Aurel D. Léger: It was given to me by- an official in the army.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They will not give it to me; I am rather surprised at that.


Aurel D. Léger: I am told that Quebec has furnished its share, as well as Ontario. It must be understood that these two provinces have shouldered most of the war effort, the large industries being centred in those two metropolitan provinces. I believe 'better distribution should be made among the other provinces, and particularly in New Brunswick, where very few contracts have been let. This matter should be attended to by the ministers.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in my native tongue.
(Translation) Mr. Speaker, I have just pointed out to our friends who speak the other official language that the French Canadians, like the French Acadians, are doing their part in our war effort as fully as any other race in Canada. No reference is made to conscription in the speech from the throne. Why then all the excitement? The government ask to be released from their pledges. I feel that we, as the representatives of our constituents, are in duty bound to support that request. I believe- that we must do so if we want to keep our country united.
I represent the constituency of Kent, New Brunswick, whose population is very largely -about four-fifths-of French extraction, and

they do not want conscription. I am proud to say that my constituency has given its large share of New Brunswick recruits and I hope it will continue to do so. No heed should be paid to the capitalist-controlled press which is endeavouring to cause disunion within the ranks of this government, in order to defeat them and permit the financial interests to assume power. That is their fondest hope; they have no other ambition. Their actions are not prompted by patriotism but by their ambition to control war contracts in order to make money as they did during the last war.
Our leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is asking us for a vote of confidence. We shall give it to him, shall we not? Or had we better place our confidence in Mr. Meighen and his crowd? To the same Mr. Meighen who, during the last war, drafted the conscription act, one of the darkest pages in our history? His views have certainly not changed.
I mentioned Mr. Meighen. I should not have done so, because he is dead. Whom will the Conservatives choose as his successor? Mr. Hanson is filling the post quite creditably. Why should they not keep him?
Mr. King's record shows him to be worthy of our confidence. Whom do we want? Mr. King? If so, let us support him: he will not betray us. If not, let us vote against him and support our friends of the opposition who, should they get into power, will most certainly bring in the same measure as during the war of 1914-1918-conscription.
(Text) I have been trying to show why we, supporting the government party, and every fair-minded hon. member should vote in favour of the speech from the throne. In reference to the plebiscite, let me point out that hon. members on both government and opposition sides of the house have pledged themselves against conscription for overseas service.
I am proud to announce that in my district there is one French family with seven brothers, another with six brothers, and several others with two or three who are now serving overseas. All Canadian people are anxious to see this war won because it is a war of faith, Christianity against paganism. None of us want to go back that far. We have come a long way from Christian concepts, and that is why the world is involved in such a war. We have failed to live true Christian lives. There is no more brotherly love, there is no more true Christianity, there is no more true charity. We must come back to it. There is no equality.
I have listened to western members asking for better prices for their wheat. I believe

Censorship oj Members' Mail
that their problems are the same as that facing the farmers and fishermen of the maritimes. It is not so much dollar wheat or potatoes at SI a bushel. What do they care if we have 25 cent wheat? What is important is to ensure to the farmer that no matter Where he is, after he has paid the cost of his production, he will have enough left to provide himself and family with the living he deserves. The same thing applies to the fisherman. We have heard many times that these two classes are the backbone of the country. They are in reality, but our governments have not treated them as such.
If the farmer of the west gets a dollar for his wheat, or the fisherman gets more for his fish, tihen the 'prices of the necessities they have to buy will go up, and they will remain at the same level. That is where the trouble is. The farmers throughout the length and breadth of this country are discontented, and they are not to be blamed. This is one reason why so many farmers' sons have enlisted. I would strongly suggest that a committee be appointed to study seriously these problems in their true light. Each province has its own problem. Committees should be appointed also to study the reestablishment of our soldiers and1 excess factory hands after the war. That must be done if we do not want to go back to the bread-lines and relief we had from 1930 to 1935.


Angus MacInnis: Why stop at 1935?


Aurel D. Léger: We do not want that. If we are not to have it, we must prepare now. I can remember seeing children crying for bread when people in the west were burning their wheat. What terrible distribution! Let us plan for what is ahead of us. Let us all set our minds to winning this war. Let us all help as much as we can with the war loan, the Red Cross, the salvage campaign, and even recruiting. If we all set our minds to do our best, our war effort will be complete.
On motion of Mr. Graham the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 5.58 p.m.
Monday, February 16, 1942