[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. According to press reports a corporation is to be set up which will purchase and handle beef supplies. Will the minister give the house some assurance that the producers will be represented on that corporation?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The corporation is being set up under the wartime prices and trade board, which is under the Minister of Finance. The corporation itself, I believe, is headed by Mr. Taggart, who is minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan.


Mark Cecil Senn: Then may I ask the Minister of Finance if the matter will be attended to? Even if the minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan is on the board, I doubt whether the producers would be represented by him in the way that a representative of the producers organization might represent them.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The food purchasing corporation is merely a group of government employees, like so many other crown corporations, and I do not think it is intended to give nublie representation on it at all. If we undertook to do that we should certainly have to give much wider representation than to agriculture. It is really a government agency.


Mark Cecil Senn: It has wide powers.



WASHINGTON WAR CONFERENCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to welcome the Prime Minister back from his recent journey to Washington and ask whether he has anything to tell the country as a result.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I thank my hon. friend for his welcome, and hon. members for the manner in which the house has received his words. I went to Washington, as I believe hon. members are -aware, on the personal invitation of the President and also of Mr. Churchill. While there I attended two con-

ferences in particular, one of which was presided over by the Prime Minister of Great Britain and which was composed of representatives of the different parts of the British commonwealth of nations. The other conference was the Pacific war council, which, was presided over by the President, and at which representatives of different powers surrounding the Pacific attended. At both conferences the war situation was very fully reviewed. There was opportunity for discussion of matters that were of concern to any of those who were present. Unfortunately, I cannot disclose the nature of the proceedings or indeed anything that took place at either conference. Hon. members will appreciate the fact that the conferences were wholly confidential. However, I might give to the house the impressions I gathered while at Washington, both at the conferences themselves and in personal conversation with Prime Minister Churchill and the President, and from other opportunities I had of discussing matters with the Hon. Mr. Hull, the Secretary of State, and Mr. Sumner Welles, the Under-Secretary of State.
The position is one which I imagine will be more or less present in the minds of all hon. members. There can be no doubt at all that the situation at the moment is one of the most critical with which the united nations have been faced, one of the most serious that has arisen in the course of the whole war. To get the true perspective one has, however, to recall the very critical situations which have arisen in the past, and to remind oneself that the forces of the united nations have been able to rise superior to any temporary reverse, and that to-day there can be no doubt that the united nations are stronger and better organized than they have been at any time since the war began. While it is true that the situation is much more serious in the near and middle east than it has been, it is equally true that it is not quite so critical in some other parts. My own view is that the present conflict will have more to do with the probable duration of the war than with any question of its ultimate outcome. It may be that as a result of the present conflict the struggle will be much longer than up to the present we have hoped and expected it might be. It will be a very bitter struggle indeed, and it is just possible that the war may, instead of ending in 1943 as all of us I think had hoped it might, may instead run on for two or three more years.
One thing is quite certain; it is that every country that is a member of the united nations will have to put forth its utmost effort in helping to overcome the enemy.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Power
At the conferences at which I was present I was accompanied by the Hon. Leighton McCarthy, our minister at Washington.
I think that is all I have to say at present.



MOBILIZATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Roy.
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Speaker, like many who have recently taken part in this debate I wish to disclaim any intention of adding any new light on this subject, which has already been debated for some considerable time. I assure you, sir, that I have no intention of entering into argument and discussion, apology, or even recrimination; but I propose, perhaps rather shamelessly, to use the facilities of this house as a sounding board to address myself to the electors of the constituency which I represent.
Before doing so I should like to make reference to matters of a personal nature which are bound to influence the decision I have to make in the matter which is now before the house.
Since 1901 the constituency of Quebec South has, with the exception of three years, been represented by two men, my father and myself. The electoral subdivisions in the legislative assembly and in the legislative council have during the same time been represented by other members of the family. During those forty years our relations with the French-Canadian population who comprise the majority of the electorate of the constituency have been of the most cordial and most friendly. Time after time they have given to us spontaneous and sometimes unanimous expressions of trust and confidence, in business, socially, and in politics. Up to very recently, within a few weeks, the relations which existed between us were such that in most matters, national and political, our views were identical or if not identical at least reasonably capable of accommodation.
If however I am to judge from the expression of opinion which was given in the plebiscite a few weeks ago, the time has come when, in appearance if not in substance, there is a sharp difference of opinion between us. My people-I think I can call them that, because so far there has been no appearance of rancour, of anger or even of distrust-if I am to judge by their vote on the plebiscite,
believe that the measure which is now before the house opens the door to conscription for overseas service. I believe they are right; I agree with them that, this legislation does that very thing. I know that the vast majority of them hold the very word "conscription" in utter abhorrence, and I must take their views into consideration. To a large extent I share them. I have strenuous objections to compulsion or coercion in any form. But I am also and have been for many years a member of this House of Commons of Canada. I am a Canadian, and by Canada I mean every part and every province of Canada. I mean Vancouver, Halifax, Winnipeg, just as much as I mean Quebec. The people of this country as a whole have pronounced themselves by an overwhelming vote clearly and unequivocally in favour of action of which this legislation is possibly the least expression. Following the ordinary democratic process, and being a Canadian before I am a Quebecker, I propose to vote for this bill.
Having said that with respect to my electors I anticipate that this house will expect me, as one of the service ministers, at least to express an opinion on one of the matters which have been frequently discussed in this debate, namely, where the defence line of Canada lies. In this may I say that I am in entire and hearty agreement with my colleagues the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) and the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald). This conviction of mine is brought about to a considerable extent by the job of work in which we are at present engaged; because those of us who have to do with the air force know that there is no factor which has come so close to annihilating time and space as the use of air power in modern war. The vast majority of the young men with whom I have to do are Canadians. They know no other homeland than Canada. They have been brought up in our cities and towns and on our farms; they have been educated in our schools and colleges and universities. Very many of them, I would say most of them, had never left the confines of this country until the call of duty took them to the four comers of the earth. They went there because they realized that the spirit of Canada could not and would not survive in a world dominated by racial tyranny and subjugated by racial slavery. And whether they watch the coast of Labrador, or patrol the shores of the Pacific, or fight the Jap in the Indian ocean, or fight the Italian in Libya, or bomb Berlin, they are firmly convinced that they are defending Canada.
Mobilization Act-Mr. Power

The isolationist combat school, which believes that Canada can best be defended by its armed forces remaining within its own boundaries, presents to them a very peculiar aspect which perhaps I may illustrate in this way. Only three to four weeks ago we sent to the Aleutian islands a number of Canadian squadrons, at least some of which were commanded by men who served their apprenticeship in the battle of Britain, battle-scarred heroes who returned from overseas and who are now commanding our men in American Alaska. These men believed when they were half-way round the world over Germany, just as much as they believe now when they are half-way round the world in the other direction that they were defending Canada. We have had no complaint because of the fact that these squadrons have been sent to Alaska; yet a glance at the map will indicate that to the end of the Aleutian islands is 4,500 miles from Ottawa; to the shores of Britain is only 3,000 miles. It is almost as far from Prince Rupert to the Aleutian islands as from Sydney to Liverpool; so our men find it very difficult to understand why there should be more reluctance to move' eastward than to move westward, and why we can better defend Canada on one front line than on the other. Our enemies are perhaps not geographical experts, but they seem to have little difficulty in crossing the boundaries of countries and continents. They have attacked in Africa; they have attacked in Asia; they have attacked in Australasia, and only recently they have been sinking ships on one side of our territory and shelling stations on ithe other side. Our enemies feel that the only way to win victory is to seek out those whom they wish to destroy, wherever they may be, and destroy them. We in the air force feel exactly the same way. We know that for every aircraft destroyed in an aircraft factory in Augsburg, where our men led a raid only a few weeks ago; for every bomb or shell destroyed in blasting the Krupp factory, in which raid Canadians took such a magnificent part, and for every bomber brought down over the English channel, there is one less bomb or shell, one less aircraft or one less bomber which might come to Canada and bomb us. We believe that the best and only way to defend Canada is to take the offensive outside Canada.
Now, sir, having said this, I should like to revert for a moment to my relations with my electors. My future course must depend upon circumstances; but I should like to say simply and plainly, and without fear of being misinterpreted by the people with whom I have been associated for so long, that one cannot believe in a democratic system or in a demo-
"Mr. Power.]
cratic government and continue indefinitely to represent a constituency the majority of whose people are in political opposition. Should it develop that, as a result of this legislation or of any consequential enactment, there should continue to be a wide divergence of view between the electors of Quebec South and their representative; should this severance be of more than a temporary character; should they, as is their right, desire to be represented by someone who more nearly interprets their views with prestige and conviction then all I have to say is that I have no quarrel with that, but I only hope that the parting will come with as much friendship on their side as it will come with deep gratitude on my side for favours of the past.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: This
debate is on the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the National Resources Mobilization Act, by removing from that act section 3, which restricts the government in raising men for service elsewhere than in Canada. The legislation we are discussing to-day is made necessary by, and this debate has resulted from, pledges made by many candidates at the last general election, pledges made to catch the votes of disloyal people, the votes of slackers, those who were afraid to assume the duties they owed their country. I am happy to be able to tell this house that I made no such pledges, that during that campaign I stated that in my epinion compulsory selective service was the only fair and proper w'ay to raise a fighting force, and that any other method was unfair. The voluntary method is unfair. Under that method the loyal, courageous men enlist, while those who are disloyal, those who have not sufficient courage, hang back and let their fellows go forward to perform the duty they should perform.
As the law stood when Canada declared war in the fall of 1939, men could have been called up by the government for service anywhere in the world; but in 1940 this mobilization act was passed by this parliament, containing this restricting clause, and since then the hands of the government have been tied. Since that time, by a plebiscite, a great majority of the people have freed the hands of the government, have removed that handicap, and this legislation is the result.
I must say that a few days ago I was shocked and disappointed to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) make the following statement in the house:
It may be great and glorious to fight and die for the world's salvation, for the salvation of the united nations, for the salvation of democracy and Christian civilization; but that is a privilege of each man, a privilege he has the

Mobilization Act-Mr. Black (Yukon)
right to choose for himself; it is not a duty which citizenship imposes as an obligation correlative to the rights which citizenship guarantees as a privilege.
I decidedly disagree with that sentiment. I say that it is not only a privilege but a duty of citizenship. As I understand the duties of citizenship, every citizen of the state owes his life to the state. It is his duty to offer his life and, if necessary, to give it in defence of the state. There should be equality of service. Every citizen should enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizenship, but should escape none of its obligations; nor should he wish to escape any of its obligations.
I was shocked and disappointed to hear the Minister of Justice pronounce those sentiments in the house, and I was puzzled when the same minister, the one who voiced the sentiments I have just quoted, authorized the prosecution of a man with a splendid record of loyalty and courage for criticizing the report of a commissioner on an investigation recently held with respect to a public matter. This was the criticism of a counsel who was present at the inquiry and who heard the evidence. True, the inquiry was in secret, but it should not have been in secret. The matter investigated was one of great public concern, and concerning which the public should know all the facts. I shall be surprised if that investigation is not the subject of discussion and criticism, and perhaps praise as well, in this House of Commons which, I say, has the duty to perform of discussing the matter. To say that criticism of the report is likely to prejudice recruiting is, to say the least, farfetched, and in my opinion is utter nonsense and an improper exercise of authority.
Addressing the house a few days ago, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said he prefers a volunteer army. So do I. I admire the volunteer. He shows his courage; he shows his interest in the state by offering his all in her defence. But when one cannot get enough men to compose and maintain the strength of an army, a navy or an air force one must go out and get them. At the time of the great war the mistake was made of putting compulsory selective service into force three years after the war began. The then government waited three years before doing what it should have done at the outbreak of war. During those three years the people who were not courageous enough to volunteer had been lulled into a sense of security. They thought they were going to get off without doing their duty to the state. When the state was forced to make them perform that duty they rebelled.
This government has made the same mistake in this war. It has put off compulsory selective service for nearly three years. If it attempts to enforce it now, there will be dissension, trouble and disunity. That law should have been enacted with the declaration of war; it should have been simultaneous.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) indicated in his remarks at the opening of the house to-day, we have to admit that the united nations, including Canada, are far from winning the war. The last disaster which overtook the allied nations was the fall of Tobruk. Why did it fall? The excuse given is that there was a surprise attack. How could it have been a surprise attack, when the place had been under attack for a year. Dunkirk was a surprise; Singapore was a surprise; Hong Kong was a surprise. The excuse is given that at Tobruk the enemy tanks were more powerful than those of the allied nations, and that their anti-tank guns were more powerful and more destructive. Why should that be? We hear about the wonderful productive capacity of Great Britain; we hear about the wonderful production of armaments in Canada and in the factories of our neighbour to the south. What is the use of production if the enemy is producing more powerful weapons? There is no sense in urging the undertaking of mass production or, indeed, any production of ineffective weapons of war. We were told that the guns defending the fortress of Singapore were mounted to meet an attack from the sea. Those who were in charge never thought of having to defend themselves from the land at the rear. They believed they were defended by the jungle. Surely they must have known that if monkeys, baboons and gorillas could penetrate the jungles, then their brothers the Japanese could penetrate the jungle, too. They did penetrate the jungle, and made their attack successfully-along with the rest of the gorillas and baboons.
Before Pearl Harbour the United States had been warned that the Japanese might attack. Even when the Japanese emissaries of peace were conferring with the President of the United States it was known that attack was imminent. Canada and the United States have a joint defence board. If the United States members on that board knew of the imminent Japanese attack, it is passing strange that Canada was not warned. What judgment does the joint defence board exercise? For one thing I say, if that board has not better judgment in other matters than it has shown in the selection of a route for the Alaska highway, then I have not very much admiration for the board. May I point out that they say they picked the route.

3726	COMMONS
Mobilization Act-Mr. Black (Yukon)


Mr. SLAGHT:: Would my hon. friend dissolve the board?


Richard Burpee Hanson: British
Columbia says the same thing.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Would my hon. friend dissolve and do away with the defence board?


George Black: No; I would wake it up. How many more disasters must the united nations experience to awaken the defence board to the perils of the present situation?
Canada's air force and Canada's navy are playing a splendid part in this fearful war. But we must remember that Canada's army has not yet fired a shot-with perhaps the exception of those poor men, part of them untrained, and without fighting equipment, who were sent on that ill-conceived, fruitless, fatal expedition to Hong Kong. They went to certain death or imprisonment. They saw some fighting; they did some shooting; but apart from that, Canada's army has not yet fired a shot. When the time comes I am sure that Canada's army will give as good an account of themselves as our air force and as our navy.
Canada declared war without a plebiscite; this government did not ask the people for leave to declare war. It is hard to understand why the government felt that before it could fight the war as it should be fought, a plebiscite would have to be held asking the people to allow the government to do so. I do not know whether we should have conscription or selective military service at once, but I do think we should have had it at the outset of the war. It would then be in effect now. But not having adopted it then, I think the ministers in charge of the army, the navy and the air force are best qualified to say whether the voluntary system is giving them enough men to win the war. If it is not, I feel sure that they will invoke compulsory selective service. When it becomes necessary to do that, I feel sure that they have sufficient courage to do it.
I should like to go on record as supporting the suggestion made yesterday by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) that the men in the active fighting forces should be paid not less than $50 a month. That is the rate paid to the fighting forces of the United States. Our men are as good as theirs and should receive the same pay. A civilian in Canada will not work for $50 a month; we would not want him to work for that. That is a Japanese rate. It is not a white man's rate. Civilians are paid much more than $50 a month; so why should not our fighting men who are doing the most dangerous and deadly work of any people receive the same rate?
rtir. G. Black.)
I should like to refer to another matter which has been brought to my attention many times in this city. I think only those in the army, in the navy or in the air force who are doing actual fighting should be allowed to wear uniforms. There are uniformed battalions of accountants and clerical workers in Ottawa and many other Canadian cities. These people have no intention of getting any closer to the war than behind a desk or an ink bottle, and they should be made to shed their uniforms. Uniforms should be only for the fighting men, the brave men who are doing their duty by their country, not for those who stay at home and try to have an easy time of it.
I have nothing more to say about the legislation now before the house except this: Let us pass the bill and get on with the war.


Mr. W. H. MOORE (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, when this motion was introduced I thought I knew precisely what it meant, and I approved it, but with explanation, misgiving set in. I felt as the master poet has said:
Ere a man hath power to say, "Behold!"
The jaws of darkness do devour it up:
So quick bright things come to confusion.
I agree with the measure, but I do not agree with the explanations that have been given as to its application. If I am right, and I know I am, at least on the first count, we have an assured compulsory service for home defence. It is "likely" we shall have compulsory service to help the United States. And then I find myself in flat opposition to the third statement that has been made in this house more than once, namely that it is "unlikely" we shall have compulsory service to send men to the British isles. I want to register my opposition to that view and will speak directly to the point.
I should like to speak about such matters as our balanced war effort, our farm service, and point to our bulging elevators, but I shall not. I should like to take up the matters discussed the other day by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) with reference to the need for turning out more tanks and tractors, and point out to them the crowded condition of our freight yards. Nor should we forget that when we entered this war we were an immaturely developed industrial nation. We had only about 3 per cent of the world's factory production, whereas the United States had 45 per cent.
But I must refer particularly to something that was said in this house a few days ago by the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) when he held this house in silent spell. I have always admired him, but never more

Mobilization Act-Mr. Moore
so than when he scorned the use of a smoke screen and led us directly to the fuel of the fire. I admired but I disagreed on more than one count. He said, as reported on page 3278 of Hansard:
I have to reason in my mind why I have to support the British flag and spend my energies for the defence of British rule in this conflict, or perhaps elsewhere. It is the result of thinking, the result of reasoning, if I come to that conclusion; with you it is the impulse of the heart. Your heart becomes inflamed as soon as the name of England, of the British empire, is mentioned. It is quite natural, it is in your blood; it is your blood that makes that impulse. It cannot be the same with me. It would be against nature.
I say to the minister, "Excuse me, my dear friend, but your blood and my blood are the same." You cannot change a family tree; it is written down. I do not accuse the minister, but many sins have been committed with the statement, "It is in my blood". Let us get the blood line straight. In 1680 a record was made of the birthplace of those immigrants who had come from France, and it was found that four out of five were Normans, either by birth or by marriage.


Mr. THORSON:: The same blood as mine.
Mr. MOORE; Icelandic, do you say?
Mr. THORSON; Norse.


William Henry Moore: Who were the Angles and who were the Scots? Kith and neighbours of the Normans. But as the former minister said, it is not our fault; it is good blood. The point I want to make is not that that blood is always going overseas but that we are of the same blood-crossbreeds, it is true, but good crosses. There is a myth, the myth of the pure-bred, the myth of the Aryan blood. Let us not in this house revive that myth, because a good cause never needs to depend on the racial hates of history.
There is another resentment I have against what the minister said. He spoke of the upsurging of blood. Well, there is no doubt about it that the men who came from Coventry upsurged when they heard about the bombing of that city. But that is not race. That is family, and familiar things-a father or mother killed, or the church to which you went bombed. That is not race.
I have still another objection, and I know my friends in the province of Quebec who speak French will pardon me for saying that I sometimes resent their saying that they are the only first families. There were less than five thousand emigres here before 1700, and many of us have ancestors who were in America before that time. They were here for nearly three hundred years, both south 44561-236J
and north. Remember the name Churchill has been inscribed on our map for a very, very long time. Race? Can you produce a race in two hundred and fifty years? No, but you can produce a national culture, and to that matter I shall turn in just a moment.
There are different races in Canada. In my riding there are thousands who belong to the great Slav race. And it is good blood. That blood upsurged at the atrocities of Europe, and when the plebiscite came the men and women of that blood in my riding rushed to the polls and voted "yes", "yes". I have taken the trouble to ask them why, and they said: "Let us drive Hitlerism out". Out of where? Not out of the British isles; Hitlerism is not there. Out of Europe, out of France, out of a home that has been Norman since the year 911. Hitlerism is there.
Does someone tell me that France is content? If they do, then I use the words that Professor Celestin Bougie used when Professor Amoroso, representing Italy at a world conference held under the auspices of the League of Nations, said Italy was content. Bougie said:
I do not wish to be ironical, but how am I to know? For in all countries where political repression reigns one never gets to know what those affected are really thinking. Why? Because silence reigns-a silence you call peace.
Now may I give the application of what I have said to this debate? The spectacle of one or two or three or four men ruling Europe to-day is almost an incredible one. How did it come about? Simply because absolutism is a cohesive power. Do we talk of freedom? No. We talk of the freedoms- we talk of the free nations-we talk of the democracies. That was the secret of Hitler's success-he talked of the decrepitude of democracy. And he was nght; he proved it. It was a devastating phrase that brought him where he is to-day, and that phrase was, "It is not our national duty." I take you back to the days when the freedom of Czechoslovakia was involved, when French and British statesmen met and said, "It is not our national duty". We are now, as I see it, learning how freedom may protect itself. That is a great lesson, but it is a costly one- remember Pearl Harbour. Yes, it is a costly lesson that one must learn if freedom is to survive.
Let me turn to a statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), to which the member for Yukon (Mr. Black) has already referred. The Minister of Justice said, as reported at page 3391 of Hansard:
Mobilization Act-Mr. Moore

Though some would volunteer to fight for the United Kingdom, people here would not feel that it is a national duty for Canadians as such to do so.
Perilous doctrine!

coming from a minister of the crown. Strange doctrine, in view of what has happened over Europe. Sometimes I thought I knew Quebec. I treasure as much my friendship with the French-speaking people as I do my friendship with the English-speaking people; I thought I knew Quebec, but now I have to call it a province of com-plenity. I heard the splendid statement of the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power) to-day and was moved as you were moved, and then I thought back to a statement that I hold in my hand. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) spoke the other night, and he said, as reported at page 3671 of Hansard:
If they-
Meaning the government.
-had talked of Canadian interests in the war, they might have been able to convince the French Canadians to accept a compulsory measure at this time; but not having contributed to bring that about, I do not think the government can expect its supporters from the province of Quebec to go back to our people now and attempt to convince them overnight that conscription for overseas service had become a matter of life or death for Canada. I would be willing to risk myself in such an effort if I had received any help before.
That statement constitutes a terrible indictment of the government. I dislike believing it is so.
The Minister of Justice might have spared us the word "inimical" when he was speaking of the two major nationalities or groups in this country. Inimical? Well, there was a conquest of Britain in 1066 when the Normans came over and left a line of rulers, and not the worst by any means; and there was a British conquest of Canada, though we call it by the softer word

cession. It seems to me that in these days the minister might have remembered that not so long ago French and English died together in a common cause in France. He might have remembered that to-day French and English are laying down their lives for the cause of a free France.
"I have to reason", said the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). Freedom begins there. Freedom begins with the right to reason, the right to voice discontents, the right to shape environment, the right to govern ourselves. The right of those who cannot by their own arms defend their possessions. That is what we are losing; that is what is going out of the world-the right of small nations to live and the right of minority cultures to exist within a single nation. That is what is at stake in this war. How can it be

preserved without alliances? How can a minority preserve, either as a nation or as a people, a special culture within a state? How can it survive without alliances, and how can there be alliance without reciprocal obligation?
Let us reverse the statement made by the Minister of Justice: "If we do not feel it a national duty to fight for the United Kingdom, we cannot expect the people of the United Kingdom to feel it a national duty to fight for us." What is our alternative? Alliance with the United States? Then, in the strangeness of time, we would have conscription for overseas service-yes, to the British isles. In the 1770's the people who spoke French in this country could have declared themselves out. They preferred to stay in. The Minister of Justice said it was for the preservation of their national culture, their special culture. I agree with that statement.
In the course of time the empire became a commonwealth of nations. We might have objected then if we had wanted to, because the trade pacts that were made then went much further than trade pacts; they cut the life-line of the British isles from the European continent. Members of this house may remember that I voted against those pacts. On one occasion Henri Bourassa and I were the only two to vote on our side of the house against the Ottawa pacts, and not for quite the same reason. I think Bourassa held that Canada should not protect its trade routes; I feared it would not do so, and I said so. What happened? After London closed its doors to agricultural Europe, the agrarian people-and there are a hundred millions of them in Europe-were beggared, and went hat-in-hand to Berlin, where they fell into the German sluice. Now we have a war to establish a new order in Europe.
Were they right, those people who said only the product of a melting-pot could stand the strain of a crisis? Were they right who said minorities can no longer be left to enjoy their distinctive culture within any state, to be given measures of autonomy, to be given schools, allowed their own language? If they were right, then I have misspent years of my life pleading for that very cause.
Let my friends who claim they are of a different race and of a different nationality, and who speak French, not only in Quebec but in the province of Ontario, ask themselves that question and remember this: you cannot have rights without reciprocal obligations. Let them study the map of the Balkans. The objective of this war is made in defence of the people who cannot defend themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I have almost concluded. I want to say just one word more. We have said

Mobilization Act-Mr. Leduc
we are a nation, and we sang "O Canada" in French and in English. But nations do not exist simply by proclamation, or by the singing of national hymns, or by protestations of loyalty. That is not the test. The test of a nation is not even the will of the people to be a nation. The test is the capacity for common action. That is the test; and that test, under the democratic system, must be given by the will of the majority. Seldom is opinion unanimous. The plebiscite was not unanimous in Quebec, but no one contends the minority spoke for Quebec, and no one should contend Quebec spoke for the other eight provinces.
We of this house shall not have the final word; the people will have the final word. But let us never forget that if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.


Mr. RODOLPHE LEDUC (Wright):: The bill we are now considering is the most important submitted to us at this session. The government has requested that we amend the National Resources Mobilzation Act by repealing section 3, which reads:
The powers conferred by the next preceding section may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the military, naval or air forces outside of Canada and the territorial waters thereof.
I intend to support this bill, not because I favour conscription for overseas service at the moment, since the voluntary system has proven adequate for our needs and I have reason to believe it will continue to do so, but because I share the opinion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), which incidentally is the opinion of the majority in this house and in the country, that the government must at this stage of the war be granted all the powers required to ensure victory.
On plebiscite day, April 27 last, the Canadian people voted, not for or against conscription, but on the following question inscribed on each ballot paper:
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?
The majority of the Canadian people chose to release the government from the pledges it had given them at the last election. To-day the government is acting quite logically in introducing this bill, which is the direct result of the plebiscite vote. I understand that many of my colleagues feel obliged to oppose this bill because their electors voted negatively on the plebiscite. For my part, despite the fact that in my constituency the "nays" had it by a majority of two thousand votes, I shall have to support this bill to amend the mobilization act in order to be logical and to obey the dictates of my conscience.
During the plebiscite campaign I asked that the government be released from its past commitments, for I was convinced that if the administration were to guide our war effort successfully, it would have to be empowered to take whatever measures it deemed necessary and expedient, in the light of all the circumstances and future events, to ensure final victory.
I am well aware that such a stand will prejudice my chances of re-election to this house; but, faced with the choice of serving my country or being re-elected, I do not hesitate in choosing to serve my country. Moreover, this is not the first time I have voted against the wishes of a large number of my supporters. I remember the session of 1937 when I cast my first important vote in this house in favour of the increased military appropriation for national defence. I am sure that if a plebiscite had been held in my province and in my constituency on this subject, the majority of the voters would have opposed such an increase, as did a group of my colleagues from Quebec who followed what they judged to be the opinion of the majority and voted against the proposed increase. In 1939, when we declared war on Germany, I am equally sure that if the issue had been submitted to the province of Quebec in a plebiscite, the majority would have opposed participation. When the National Resources Mobilization Act was passed in 1940 I am convinced that a plebiscite held in Quebec and in my constituency on that issue would have shown widespread opposition to the measure. Yet I always trusted and supported the government on these important issues. I have the utmost faith in the Prime Minister, whom I consider to be the greatest statesman our country has ever produced, and in his cabinet ministers, who have demonstrated their efficiency, their unselfish devotion and their wisdom in the administration of the country and its war effort.
I must confess that, like a certain number of my constituents and fellow citizens of Quebec and other provinces, I am opposed to conscription at this time of men for overseas service, because this step appears useless, and dangerous to national unity. But I also know that if the fate of Canada and all we hold dear depended on it, the Canadian people would readily agree to the heaviest sacrifices. As citizens of this country, whether of English or French descent, let us remember that we all have an equal loyalty to and love for our land of Canada, even though our two racial groups may not fully agree in the means of discharging our duty toward it. I ask nothing more than to have my supporters and fellow citizens of the province of Quebec under-
Mobilization Act-Mr. Leduc

stand that our soldiers overseas are defending both England and Canada; that our airmen, striking formidable blows at the enemy in Europe, are defending Canada; that our sailors who seek out the enemy on our coasts and on the high seas are also defending Canada. I trust that, once and for all, my fellow citizens of Quebec and elsewhere in Canada will realize that this is not England's war, but a war being waged by Great Britain, Canada and all the united nations in the defence of our liberties and our Christian civilization. I want everyone to consider and realize that the defence of Canada does not mean exclusively defence in Canada.
I wish to protest against unfair attacks launched from certain sections of the country against the war effort of the province of Quebec. History has amply proven that the people of my province and my race have always been loyal and devoted to their country, their king and the British empire. At present I am proud of the war effort made by my country, my province and the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this house. I am in a position to show that my constituents have willingly and generously responded to their country's call. I wish to say how proud and grateful I am in respect of the sacrifices made by a number of them so far, as well as the sacrifices they will willingly accept in the future for the defence of our country whenever further sacrifices may become necessary.
Although my constituency is located in an agricultural section, it has responded marvellously in voluntary enlistment. Here are a few figures illustrating that statement. In the town of Aylmer, located only a few miles from this capital city of Ottawa, out of a population of 3,200 there have enlisted in the active forces 428. Of this number, 25 per cent are of English extraction and 75 per cent are French Canadians. Of the number enlisted, 145 are serving overseas; 253 are serving in Canada, thirty are trainees. In addition, thirty-three persons have enlisted in the reserve army. I have reason to be proud of this splendid contribution, for very few towns of equal population have given so many men to the army.
I also wish to mention my home town of Maniwaki, situated some eighty-five miles north of the capital. Out of a population of 2,200 over 200 men have enlisted in the active force, and most of them are now serving overseas. Some have already given their lives for their country, and I wish particularly to direct attention to one of my neighbours, who gave two of his sons to the air force. One was killed last fall during an air raid, while

on duty as a radio operator at an aerodrome somewhere in England. The other was reported missing two weeks ago following a raid over Germany, in which he piloted a bomber. Here is another illustration of the patriotism and loyalty of my constituents. Three men from my town, close friends of mine, are prisoners in Hong Kong. Two are brothers belonging to a family of five sons; the other three, together with a sister, a graduate nurse, are on active service in England.
Had I sufficient time at my disposal I could show that in every municipality of my constituency the people thoroughly understand their duty in this war and have generously answered the call of their country. Moreover, in each municipality there is to be found a very active Red Cross organization. Subscriptions to the victory loan exceeded the objective set for the constituency. On the strength of such an effort I am entitled to believe and to state that, if needs be, we are willing to make still greater sacrifices for victory.
I will admit that active force enlistments in my province are not quite as numerous as in other provinces. However, I believe four factors must be considered if one wishes to be fair in passing judgment on the adequacy of the man-power contribution of French Canadians in the province of Quebec. First, according to official statistics one-third of the population of Quebec is devoted to agriculture, and those of military age in this class reasonably consider that they are making a fair contribution to the country's war effort by producing the food essential to our own people, our army and our allies. Second, according to official statistics the adult male population of Quebec is proportionately less than that of any other province, because of the large number of children in the average French-Canadian family. Furthermore, the government is paying dependents' allowances to only four children; that is, $12 a month each for the first two children, $9 a month for the third and $6 a month for the fourth, which I consider a serious injustice to the men serving their country as well as to the large families they leave behind them. Third, a great majority of the people of my province neither speak nor understand the English language. Those of military age realize that if they enlist in the active army without any knowledge of English, they can expect no promotions to higher ranks. Moreover, they realize that if they are sent outside Quebec, either elsewhere in Canada or to England, they will meet almost none but English-speaking people, who will be unable to understand them; that their stay among such people, even though they may be sympathetic, will be tedious, and

Mobilization Act-Mr. McGarry
that they will become homesick, like so manj French Canadians now on active service in England. Fourth, a false education about conscription has been carried on in my province by certain members of the two older parties; by nationalists, whose origin dates back to 1911; by blindly anti-British people, and by supporters of the league for the defence of Canada.
To my mind, these considerations should be pondered by anyone inclined to condemn the stand taken by my fellow citizens of Quebec. Let no one forget that we all want to attain final victory, and that we are all confident that a new social order will prevail after the war, not only in this country but throughout the world. In order to express my views on this matter of a new social order, I cannot do better than quote excerpts from the splendid joint pastoral letter of his eminence the cardinal archbishop of Quebec, their excellencies the archbishops, bishops and other prelates of Canada on the stand taken by Canadian Catholics in this war:
We should indeed appreciate the advantages we have, at least if we save our inherent human rights from the ravages of totalitarism, and we should do all in our power to improve our civil institutions. Later on, guided by sound social principles, we should erect in our country a society founded on a new order of justice and charity, in which religion, law and equity will ensure true peace. Then, even the most severe and bloody sacrifices of the present time will bear fruit in the eyes of God and men.
Mr. M. E. McGARRY (Inverness-Rich-mond) Mr. Speaker, probably only those who understand my weak resistance will pardon me for showing the symptoms of infection after the epidemic of speech-making that has prevailed in this chamber for the last two weeks. I have only a very few symptoms of that contagion, however, because my remarks to-day will be very brief, and I shall not enter into any endurance contest. Even at that I am rather loath to take up the time of this house, because I am afraid if I undertook to add to or place any particular emphasis upon what has been said already, my attempt would be rather unsuccessful. However, representing a constituency whose answer to the plebiscite question was perhaps not as markedly affirmative as that of many other constituencies, I feel that it is timely and fitting that I should explain my attitude with regard to the bill now before the house.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I wish at once to affirm, without any qualifications, that I will support the bill. During the plebiscite campaign I urged my people to give an affirmative vote. I did so conscientiously, believing firmly, as I did, that the government had taken the honourable
and democratic course to secure its release from commitments made to the electorate in 1,940. I could not conceive of anything at that time which would do more to belittle Canada's war effort or to create an adverse sentiment in the minds of our allies than the knowledge that the government of Canada, responsible as it is for our share of the prosecution of the war, did not have the moral and legal authority to call into action any facilities they found necessary to cope with exigencies which might arise in connection with the carrying on of the war.
I freely confess that during the campaign I pointed out to my people that a vote in favour of the plebiscite did not mean the immediate enactment of conscription. I felt then, as did my electors, that conscription was not at that time a necessary factor in the attainment of a greater or more extensive war effort. Had I represented that an affirmative vote on the plebiscite would automatically invoke conscription I doubt very much whether the response of my electors would have been in the affirmative, as in fact it was by a considerable margin.
From these observations I do not wish it to be implied that the people of Inverness-Rich-mond are in any degree reluctant to contribute their all to the war effort; but they did feel during the plebiscite that up to that time conscription was but a symbol rather than a real or emergent necessity to meet our war requirements. If there are any who entertain doubts respecting the loyalty of my electors, or as to concerted action on their part in making contributions to the war effort, I would draw their attention to the contributions we have made in every phase of our war activities. I would point to the voluntary recruiting of men for the armed forces; I would point to our donations to the Red Cross fund, and our oversubscription of victory loans. All this has been done in my constituency, despite the fact that not one military industrial unit has been established there. This is not because of any lack of effort on my part; the fact is that I have sought something of the kind for the benefit of my people, and I have no doubt the files of government departments connected with the war will show that I have been rather troublesome in that regard.
However, my people are tolerant, and they are reconciled to the fact that this war cannot be carried on on a basis of sentiment. They realize that a business element is involved, and that unless that fact is recognized we cannot carry on successfully. Careful investigations by experts having the knowledge required for the selection of proper sites, have disclosed that the strategic and economic

Mobilization Act-Mr. McGarry
factors in respect of sites in my section of the country do not merit undertakings at that point. On behalf of my constituents, and because of their tolerance and response to the war effort in general, I express the hope that if the war is to continue for some time our war experts may decide that some military projects shall be established in Inverness-Richmond.
Last week the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), speaking in the debate, expressed my attitude with respect to the mobilization of forces. With regard to the immediate necessity of conscripting manpower for overseas, he said this: "Man-power applied to war production is just as vital as an army overseas, and really far more helpful in supplying the needs of the united nations". He asked if our reverses in any amphitheatre of war had resulted from lack of man-power, or a lack of weapons, aeroplanes and ships. He inquired if our successes had not been the result of having adequate arms in the hands of those willing and able to use them. It was pointed out by the minister that Russia needed our ammunition, but did not need our army, and that the same was true of China and India. These are almost identically my sentiments with regard to the mobilization of man-power. The conscription of man-power is not an innovation which will achieve greater expedition or enlarge or enhance our war effort in any degree.
On the other hand I believe I reflect the views of my people when I say that if and when the ministers charged with the responsibility of prosecuting the war, and having the benefit of the studied opinions of their advisers, say that it is absolutely necessary to have conscription to engage in an all-out war effort, I can guarantee that the electors of Inverness-Richmond who voted "no" on the plebiscite will cooperate heartily with those who voted "yes". Perhaps those who voted "no" might be said to come from Missouri, to use a common expression; they want to be shown. They want to get their knowledge from the men who know the facts and who are shouldering the responsibility of conducting our war effort. They refuse to take them from any other source. I believe when the position is made clear to them I can depend as much on the electors in my constituency who voted "no" as on those who voted "yes".
This bogey of conscription probably had its nativity at a caucus of money barons in Toronto, and it has been cherished, fostered and nourished by some elements of the press and others who were not aware of the true record of our war effort. I hope that this 
bogey will be confined to some chamber of silence and not removed until it is authoritatively stated that we need) conscription.
I commend the government for their action in attempting to obtain a release of the commitments made in the election of 1940, but when the answer was given and the government undertook to carry out the mandate of the people I was disappointed with the procedure followed. This may be due to my ignorance of parliamentary propriety or parliamentary usage, or perhaps it is a lack of technical knowledge. When the government attempted to carry out this mandate we immediately heard from men on both sides of the house who had gone out and urged the electors to vote in the affirmative. My idea of what would happen was that when the mandate was given, the necessary legislation would pass the house without debate, except possibly a protest from those who had advocated a "no" vote. The government was released, and I think hon. members should have waited to speak until conscription was indicated. That would be a more appropriate time to have the debate.	[DOT]
However, I have great faith in. our leader. I trust him, and I have always trusted him. The electors of Canada have always trusted him. I have great faith in the ministers who preside over the departments having directly to do with Canada's part in this war. None of them is a radical. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is possibly the one man in the whole outfit who would urge absolute conscription before anyone else, and I was glad to hear him say that it was conscription not necessarily, but conscription if necessary. If he follows that principle, he will make himself very popular throughout Canada. There is one essential which is necessary if we hope to have a successful prosecution of this war. That essential is cooperation. There must be coordination, not only of individual thought but of action. We may have enough men at the front, we may have enough ships, we may have enough tanks and we may have enough of other equipment, but if we lack the proper spirit of coordination we can never have an all-out war effort.
I am sorry there are not many of them in the house at the moment but I should like to say a few words to my hon. friends from Quebec. These men do not need a champion as to their loyalty to Canada. They gave evidence of it in the last war, and they are giving abundant evidence of it in this one. If their effort is to be of the strongest they must emulate their forbears, those whom we call the founders of Canada. You may ask who were the founders of Canada. They were

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fleming
the men who came across the waters, the men who hewed down our forests and cleared our land, the men who drained our swamps and created colonies where none existed before. At the price of hardship, privation and bloodshed they founded a country which is designed to have no end. Let me say to these men that the Canada that their forbears founded is in danger to-day. The institutions which they built, and from which has flowed a stream of democracy down through the generations, are threatened. I say, not only to the French Canadians in Quebec but to anybody else who may be inclined to be an isolationist, in this crusade-I would call it a crusade rather than a war-you must ponder the best means and the best method of applying this principle. It would be well for all loyal Canadians to ponder this vital matter. I say, God help Canada, God help her institutions, if we cannot show our brothers who are allied with us in this great war that our cooperation has been such as to merit their succour when we attempt to drive back the hordes from our shores.
In my opinion the proper course for Canada to follow is so to conduct herself in this crusade-imperialism should not be considered at all, because, after all, England is just a unit in the crusade as Canada is-that after it is over our allies will say, ''Well done, Canada I You have been a faithful ally; you have never been found wanting; you came to our assistance when we were hard pressed by the enemy." If we will look upon ourselves and our allies as one joint military body fighting for our very existence-and if we lose our liberty and freedom we had better be dead- we shall write a bright page on the dark history of this war that will make the coming generations proud of us. When those who come after us see what we achieved in our day and what we were prepared to sacrifice for democracy they will attach the same value to the heritage of democracy that we hand down to them, and should the occasion arise again they will be prepared to pay the price and make the sacrifices that their forefathers did before them.


Mr. H. R. FLEMING (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate which is now growing fairly old we have heard a great many speeches for and against Bill No. 80. I listened to; I have read and re-read the speech on this bill which was made by the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mackenize King), and I deeply regret that my right hon. leader has been misunderstood and that certain groups consider that he has diverged from his time-honoured principles. During his long public career serious situations have continually
arisen, but through diplomacy and good judgment he has successfully surmounted them all. It would seem that ever since the Prime Minister's entry into public life he was confronted at every turn with one difficult situation after another; yet each found him equal to the occasion. When appeals were made to prejudice or to racial or religious passions for the purpose of embroiling him in political controversies, his broad statesmanship, his high-mindedness and his profound humani-tarianism always enabled him to reach the solution. I would therefore appeal this afternoon to the critics of the Prime Minister to remember the words of Lord Durham who, in his famous report to his gracious sovereign, said:
I expected to find a contest between a government and a people. I found two nations warring in the bosom of a single state. I found a struggle, not of principles, but of races, and I perceived that it would be idle to attempt any amelioration of laws or institutions until we could first succeed in terminating the dreadful animosity that now separates the inhabitants of Lower Canada.
That was the situation many years ago; but through compromise, by good understanding between the two great races in this country, and by wise leadership on the part of our public men, many of these old animosities have passed away. Let the critics remember that confederation itself, as the former minister of public works (Mr. Cardin) said in the able address he made to this house the other day, was a compromise. We all know that confederation would never have come into being if it had not been for compromise.
Throughout all these years French Canada has always stood out upon one particular issue, conscription for service outside Canada. That was made perfectly clear as recently as March 31, 1939, when the authoritative voice of the late minister of justice, Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, uttered these words in this House of Commons:
Now I am going to touch a subject which is a delicate one. The French Canadians will never agree that any government has the right to force them to military service on the other side of the ocean. In 1917 that was my view, and I have never altered it. I believe that conscription in 1917 was a blunder of frightful magnitude, and that we are still reaping the sad and sorry results of that ill-conceived policy. I was pleased that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) said yesterday, what I have myself learned, that the results did not in any way justify the taking of the risk; because in the end very few conscripts ever saw the front lines during the war. All should be reconciled to the doctrine which I have just expounded. The best way, the most effective way of helping is not the way that would divide our country and tear it asunder.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fleming
We are not alone in that view. Australia has always been against conscription, South Africa will never have conscription, Ireland would never have conscription. I think I am true to my concept of Canadian unity when I say that I shall always fight against this policy; I would not be a member of a government that would enact it; and not only that, but I say with all my responsibility to the people of Canada that I would oppose any government that would enforce it.
That was the view of a man who did a great deal for the unity of Canada.
At the time of the plebiscite I returned to my constituency, as did many other hon. members, and day in and day out, on the radio, in the columns of the newspapers, on the public platform and by personal contact I explained to my electors that a "yes" vote in the plebiscite was not a vote for conscription. I believe that I was perfectly clear on that point, and I am glad that my right hon. leader had no intention of interpreting the plebiscite as a vote on conscription. The electors of Humboldt constituency, which is composed of many racial groups-out of 46,000 people there are something like 22,000 of German racial origin, and we have also Austrians, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians and nationalities from almost every country of Europe-turned out and gave an affirmative majority of one thousand in the plebiscite. But I am quite certain that if they had believed they were voting for conscription, they would have given an entirely different vote, and that would have been the situation not only in that constituency but in many others across Canada. Everyone, even our judges and civil servants, went out and assisted in bringing out a "yes" vote. There was no opposition there. The only place where there was any opposition to getting out a "yes" vote was in the province of Quebec.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his speech said that the principle involved in this amendment is not immediate conscription. If that is so, then why was there such a great rush to bring in this measure just as soon as the house met? Was it that the opposition thought there was a chance to gain some political advantage and urged this matter upon the Prime Minister, and that he believed that this agitation might go on in the newspapers and throughout the country and have a damaging effect upon our war effort? That may be one reason. Despite the manner in which the problem of overseas conscription has been introduced to the people of Canada and to this house, I maintain that my right hon. leader is entitled to every confidence by the Canadian people.
During the plebiscite I spoke over the radio to the electors of my constituency, and I said on that occasion:

Mr. King is not a militarist; on the contrary, by heredity, by instinct, by temperament, he is a man of peace. It was his grandfather who espoused the cause of the common people when they were being trampled under foot by an arrogant oligarchy who sought to impose the caste system upon this country, and it was from his example that my right hon. leader drew the political philosophy which has dominated the whole of his political career.
Even in early life, and before his entry into politics, he had developed a sympathy for the cause of the common people. As a student at college, his mind was directed along these channels and his book entitled "Humanity and Industry" epitomizes this sympathy. It is a work in which humanitarianism is linked with industry. In it he assigns to the worker a high place in the social and economic life of the nation.
With his unusual grasp of world problems, with his genius for government, with his sympathy for those in humble walks of life, the Prime Minister, if anyone, can lead us out of this valley of carnage and catastrophe. If I reject, and if a sufficient number of others reject, the leadership of the leader of this government, where will it lead us? We all know where it will lead. It will lead to union government, and we know where union government led us in 1917, and what a mess everything got into. At that time a party with no political past and no political future, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated in this debate, produced chaos.
The situation would be no better this time. In fact, it might even be worse, because they would have the experience of their forefathers. Factions would be worked for certain interests that would be seeking to control the destinies of this nation. We know what happened when we were saddled with the Canadian Northern railway, and this time all the old elements would be there lined up behind the various cabals. We can hear the rumbling for the amalgamation of the railroads; we might even be faced with the stealing of the Trans-Canada Air Lines. We would have to fight off the grabbing of water rights, and we would have another pitched battle to defend our natural resources from spoliation. These are all matters which must be given due consideration when one surveys the basic issues at stake.
After all, if we drove the present Prime Minister out of office, who would replace him? Who would have the confidence of the Canadian people? Whom could he advise the governor general to call upon to form a new administration? The only member in the cabinet so far that I know of with views sufficiently different from those of the majority of his associates and who might conceivably form a government is the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Macdonald). He was

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fleming
twice premier of his native province. He has a reputation for political skill. He came here heralded as a great leader; but for the life of me I cannot imagine seeing the hon. member for Kingston City sitting over there beside the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce), though I can see the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) reading the flag-waving speech that the hon. member for Kingston City delivered here the other day on conscription. I can see the hon. member for Davenport reading that speech at Cataraqui cemetery at the grave or Sir John Macdonald on the anniversary of his death. Being a dour and canny Scotsman, the hon. member for Kingston City arranges to ride two horses; but he carefully protects himself against all emergencies, and he needs to, because the horses are going in different directions. The hon. member seemed to say in. his speech the other day:	"Let there be conscription
or no conscription for overseas; let there be such conscription now or later; let there be good or bad results from conscription; no matter when it is undertaken,
I am secure". Mind you, the hon. member does not say so in so many words; he is too canny for that. But he implies, he suggests and he creates an atmosphere and a mood, and he has succeeded in confusing his listeners and has obtained wonderful headlines from the loyal press of Ontario. Of course, I would quite agree that a great deal of this was for home consumption in the loyal city of Kingston, a city that was my home for many a long year. But listen to some of the words of his associates. What does the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) say? He is a prominent member of this government, and he says that this matter of conscription is overemphasized; that it is the Colonel Blimp attitude; that they are magnifying out of all proportion the need for conscription for our army overseas. Then take what the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Thorson) says, as reported at page 3413 of Hansard:
Is it necessary to change .the present system of voluntary enlistments ? It is _ clear that it would not help the air force; it is likewise clear that it is not necessary in connection with the navy. Is there any necessity for its adoption in connection with the army ? Thus far there have been no visible signs of any such necessity.
He goes on to explain the reason why there is no necessity for it. The Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock), speaking on this question, expressed similar ideas. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), speaking the other day on the question, said that we had taken on too much without attempting to take on
any more. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) was a little more careful than the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services. He said he would go so far as to do anything in the world to try ta maintain national unity. These are statements that have been made in conflict with statements of other members, in conflict with the Prime Minister's statement; and when contrasted with the speech of the member for Kingston City they reflect the true meaning. If anyone thinks that any single individual can quote in this house the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier in a speech in which he is trying to make out that it is necessary' for us to adopt a conscription policy right away, there is something wrong with that particular individual and he has very little respect for that great Liberal leader.
When the mobilization act was first introduced in this house, I, like many more, said nothing about it. It was rushed through in a very short time. I recall that at that time I discussed the matter with the late Minister of Justice, Mr. Ernest Lapointe, and I remember that the day I was speaking to him about it he took the Hansard of 1917 and pointed this out to me. He said, as reported at page 2517 of Hansard of June 29, 1917:
Conscription should not, and cannot, be enforced in this country, as in every other British country, without something like general consent.
That was indicated pretty well by the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) who also said that this was a political issue. Conscription was a political issue in 1917; the history of it I am sure proves that very fully. To-day it is as much a political issue as it was then, as one who reads the debates will see, although I admit that we have improved to some extent, in that, with the exception of a few speakers, the debates are not as bitter as they were in 1917. But I find what the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier had to say upon this question of conscription. On July 24, 1917, he said, as reported at page 3729 of Hansard of that date:
It is a denial of those principles of democracy which we hold < oar and sacred. I oppose this bill because it has in it the seeds of discord and disunion; because it is an obstacle and a bar to that union of heart and soul without which it is impossible to hope that this confederation will attain the aims and ends that were had in view when confederation was effected. Sir, all my life I have fought coercion; all my life I have promoted union; and the inspiration which led me to that course shall be my guide at all times, so long as there is a breath left in my body.
We all know what happened in 1917, after the twenty-seven odd Liberals left Sir Wilfrid on this very conscription issue. Hardly had

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fleming
the ink dried on that conscription bill when the War-time Elections Act was brought in, a measure which disfranchised thousands upon thousands of Canadian citizens, and thousands upon thousands of my constituents, loyal citizens of this country. I remember one of the members who represented Humboldt constituency at that time rose in his place after he had supported the conscription bill and left Sir Wilfrid; he said it was with shame and sorrow in his heart that he had to return to his constituency of Humboldt. This measure of disfranchisement took citizenship away from men and women who had come to Canada, made their homes, sworn allegiance to the king. It was a blot upon the history of this country that it will take many a generation to wipe out. Their naturalization certificates were torn up as mere scraps of paper. Many of them had sons serving in the war at that time and many of them volunteered afterwards. Many of them were of German or Austrian nationality. Whenever to-day you mention the word "conscription" in that constituency, it is not so much conscription as that terrible disgrace of disfranchising people who were loyal subjects of His Majesty the King.
The people of the constituency I represent are loyal and law-abiding citizens of this country. To-day a great many of them are serving in the various armed services. The first major casualty we had in Humboldt constituency was a young man who was in the retreat at Dunkirk, in the air force, who later came back to Canada and was killed in an accident here. He was of German origin.
I could go through a long list of these men, young men who are voluntarily enlisting in every branch of the armed services, although at times, many times, when they have gone to their recruiting stations they have been insulted because they have names that are not of Anglo-Saxon origin. But now, since Russia has come into the war, the name of Timoshenko is one that nobody would say you should change. I know many of my constituents, young men who went to the recruiting stations who said, on their return, that the recruiting officer laughed at them and said, "Why don't you go home and change your name?"
I have not decided whether I shall vote for or against this bill. But I will tell my friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) that before I do decide-and I have reason for saying this-I want an absolute undertaking from the Prime Minister and leader of this government that when this bill goes through, the next thing is not going to be a disfranchisement of the people of my constituency,

because when this plebiscite bill was before the committee there were certain rumblings in this house and the corridors that these people should be disfranchised and deprived of their citizenship.
We who represent constituencies where there are minority problems know full well that if it were not for the old province of Quebec, heaven knows what would happen; we should be at the mercy of the whims of every politician who ever got into power in this country. I hope that no Liberal Prime Minister on whom the mantle of Laurier falls will ever forsake the minority races of this country. Let no one ever forget that Laurier saved confederation, this confederation that Macdonald brought into being. I am sure that the speech of the hon. member for Kingston City the other day did no good. It plunged a dagger into the bleeding heart of the former Minister of Public Works who, I believe history will say, by his resignation from this government helped to save confederation in this country.
There is another thing of which so many people are apparently not aware, for they seem to think that everyone in this dominion is of Anglo-Saxon origin. More than half the population of Canada is not Anglo-Saxon in origin. Why create division, as the hon. member for Parkdale is doing, for political purposes under the cloak of patriotism.
I am glad to see that the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) is in his place. A few days ago he delivered a speech in this house pleading for Canadian unity. Last night the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) referred to his pleading. I think it is rather late for the hon. member for Lake Centre to come pleading for Canadian unity or for a good understanding with the old province of Quebec. He was very closely associated with the late Anderson government in Saskatchewan which defeated the government formerly led by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). They obtained power on an appeal to race and religion. That party slandered French-Cana-dian priests and sisters and placed on the statute books of Saskatchewan a law that prescribed what form of dress the nuns should wear when teaching in the schools of Saskatchewan.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


Harry Raymond Fleming: This same party that passed legislation-


John George Diefenbaker: I do not wish to interfere with the reading of the hon. member's speech, but I do ask for a withdrawal of the statement that I was associated with the Anderson government.

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fleming


Harry Raymond Fleming: I said you were associated with it. You ran for the legislature in the city of Prince Albert; you were a candidate on behalf of that particular political party, that is all. Not only that, but they passed legislation-and I think the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) had quite a bit to do with it-making it an indictable offence to have the cross of the crucified Christ in the schools of Saskatchewan. It is rather late for the hon. member now to plead for a better understanding.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask for a withdrawal of that statement. It is true that I was a candidate for the Conservative party, but I had nothing to do with the drafting of any legislation of any kind.


Harry Raymond Fleming: I never said the hon. member had anything to do with it; I said he was a candidate. He was very closely associated with them, and he became the leader of the party after that government went out of office. He has just returned from giving up that leadership, which he has held for several years now.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask that the statement be withdrawn.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has taken exception to the statement that he was associated with certain legislation brought in by a particular government. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his statement.


Harry Raymond Fleming: Well, I withdraw it, but I still have my own opinion on the matter. I am sure the hon. gentleman cannot deny this, that he was associated with the Ku Klux Klan. He will not deny that J. J. Maloney, who insulted millions of those who belong to one branch of the Christian church-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want an unequivocal withdrawal of that statement. It is false in every particular, and-well, I should like to say something, but I am only rising to a point of order.


Harry Raymond Fleming: I will withdraw the statement, but I know that this man was very closely associated with the Ku Klux Klan, because they had meetings all around Prince Albert.


Georges Parent: The hon. gentleman must withdraw the statement which has been denied by the hon. member for Lake Centre, that he was associated in any way with the Ku Klux Klan. There must be an unequivocal withdrawal.


Harry Raymond Fleming: I never said the hon. member was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.


Georges Parent: The hon. member must withdraw the statement that the hon. member was associated in any way with the Ku Klux Klan.


Harry Raymond Fleming: I will withdraw the statement. This same hon. gentleman, speaking on the plebiscite, remarked, "While the empire fights, Canada plebiscites." I will quote from the editorial page of the Winnipeg Free Press-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is it permissible to quote a statement that was made during the present session, in a previous debate?


Georges Parent: References are made to former debates, but the subject matter of discussion to-day is really a continuation of what has been already discussed in the house, and for that reason I think it would be in order.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: According to the rule, reference may be made to any debate in the same session on any question not at the time under discussion.


Harry Raymond Fleming: The editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 7, 1942, goes on to say:
This is a smart phrase in which Mr. Diefenbaker, we imagine, has been taking less and less pride as his temperature has cooled; and it is even possible that he is by now heartily ashamed of it. The inference to which this assertion lends itself is that Canada and the Canadian forces are out of the fighting until the result of the plebiscite is known. If Mr. Diefenbaker should protest that no one would draw any such inference from his facetious jingle, the answer is that if it has not been pumped over the whole world through the air, this will be due to its having been missed by Doctor Goebbel's sleuths. This is just the sort of thing that for them is ready-made for mischief. No intelligent Canadian, of course, would put any interpretation upon Mr. Diefen-baker's deliverance other than the one which it merits.
The hon. member for Lake Centre also talked a great deal about hyphenated Canadians, and appealed to them to become Americanized. Imagine that, coming from the same party who a few years ago rode into power on the slogan "No truck or trade with the Yankees; nothing to do with the United States.'1 Now the hon. gentleman wants to have our Canadians fight unhyphenated.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, is there not a rule of relevancy on the second reading of a bill? What has all this to do with the bill before the house?


Harry Raymond Fleming: It has just as much to
do with it as when the hon. member for Lake Centre was asking that these people-

Mobilization Act-Mr. Fleming


Richard Burpee Hanson: I ask for a ruling, and if I am right I want the hon. member to stop this sort of thing.


Georges Parent: A point of order has
been raised by the leader of the opposition, that what the hon. gentleman is now saying is not relevant to the question under discussion. Does the hon. member wish to speak to the point of order? There must be some limit, of course, to discussion that may take place on a bill, and I rather think that what the hon. gentleman is now saying is somewhat irrelevant.


Harry Raymond Fleming: Hon. gentlemen opposite cannot disagree with this, that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has tried his best to maintain friendly relations with the United States. For this he has been condemned and called unpatriotic, and we are now, in this very bill, reaping the results of some of the things that have been said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You have been deflated enough; better sit down.


Harry Raymond Fleming: It is not very often that the leader of the opposition gets blustery and sore. He is a very good-hearted fellow, I know, and I never interrupt him when he is speaking. I think in place of criticizing our war effort and saying we need conscription right away, we should be going through the country doing everything we can to encourage voluntary enlistment, and we should be bringing to the attention of the people the great things we have already accomplished. Surely that is not out of order. Any time we say anything about our war effort or about the number of troops we have overseas, of course we are told that has nothing to do with the government; that is due to the people of Canada. That is the attitude of our friends across the way, and that is so even in the Tory newspapers. The other day a prominent English newspaper man told me this: "You in Canada have done a most magnificent job. Your war effort has been wonderful, beyond anything we in England ever thought of, yet I am told here that we must not say anything about it. Praise the British effort all you wish, or the United States effort all you wish, or anybody else's effort in the united nations; but don't say anything about Canada's war effort, because it might injure the susceptibilities of a certain crowd in Toronto." The time at my disposal is getting short, and I shall not discuss the question of the number of men we have in our fighting forces in Canada, and the number overseas. The figures have already been put on Hansard.
In an able speech delivered yesterday the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) 
showed exactly what conscription would mean to this country. I am convinced that indiscriminate conscription would be no answer to Canada's war contribution, because it all must dovetail into the ultimate strategy of the allied nations. Of course I cannot pretend to any knowledge of strategy, but I can say that I have confidence in those who are directing the affairs of this country.
If the protagonists of immediate conscription had their way, and we sent all available man-power to the aid of Russia, for instance, how would we produce the ships, the guns and the tanks which must be sent to Russia? How would we produce the necessary food, or get the ships to send the supplies overseas? I believe the day will come when we will need all the food supplies we can possibly get. There will come a time when the countries which are now under the heel of Hitler will have an opportunity to arise, and at that time we will have to put into their hands the guns, tanks and ammunition they will need.
I should like to have said something with respect to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who said that the Prime Minister was guilty of procrastination. I was trying to find a word which would be equally applicable to the hon. member, and I have thought that I might describe him as an academist. He moved an amendment to this bill, and in that amendment he included the principles of socialism. The hon. member denies that they are socialistic principles, but it is clear that it is the same old pair of pants with a new pair of suspenders.


Georges Parent: The hon. member's time has expired.
On motion of Mr. Henderson the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) moved the adjournment of the house.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The suggestion has come from one or two quarters that possibly the house should not sit on Wednesday, Dominion day, in view of the fact that it is only a half day's sitting. I have not ascertained the views of other hon. members, but my own personal view is that we should sit, and endeavour to conclude the business of the session as soon as possible. I would ask the minister to explore the possibilities and make a statement on Monday.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to follow the suggestion of the leader of the opposition. At the moment the

Questions
intention of the government is to sit on July 1. If there were a general desire to the contrary, the decision might be altered, but I am not aware that any such opinion has been expressed.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 5.35 p.m.
2.	Not available. Trust and loan companies are not required by law to report details of deposits by size categories.
3.	Not available. The chartered banks are not required by law to provide the information given in answer to question No. 1, by provinces.



CONSUMER INFORMATION SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 29, 1942